Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5992915" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>But, your assumption of a unified group would mean that it need only support one style /at a time/, which, as far as I understand the 'support only one style' position, is pretty close. The 'game can support only one style' crew are OK with a game, in effect, supporting a variety of styles, one at a time, through modules or whatnot, again, AFAICT...</p><p></p><p>A matter of tollerance, I suppose. As I've said before, I can't abide psionics. But, when I finally played in the odd 4e game that included psionics, I found them tollerable, not because they weren't still fish-out-of-water sci-fi rejects that had no place in a fantasy world, <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> but simply because they didn't jump out and dominate the game the way they sometimes could in 1e. They weren't good or fun or adding to the game, for me, but they weren't destroying it, either.</p><p></p><p>Is 'complex wizard' really a concept, or is it a mechanic? The 4e wizard is a bookish fellow who's always adding to his spellbook (it contains his rituals), and memorizes different spells on different days. In concept, he's no different or less complex than the 3e wizard - indeed, conceptually, he's more complex, since he has both quick-recharge, and always-vailable spells, in addition to the traditional fire-and-forget. The mechanics, and thus complexity of the two classes aren't vastly different, but the wizard is certainly the more complex of the two. Similarly, while the fighter has some added mechanical complexity, the range of concepts the fighter covers is actually a bit more focused, ceding archers to the Ranger and a whole host of concepts it could never quite handle to the Warlord. </p><p></p><p>I certainly don't recall 1-3e as being 'too simulationist,' not by a long piece - imbalanced, sure, especially at high levels, though that's not the same thing. But, I'm not so sure I see the GNS theory as really working well when each is considered an individual and exclusive style, with games necessarily catering to one of the three (or one of the three at a time). Rather, GNS makes some sense when each is considered as an aspect - perhaps even a necessary one - of the RPG experience. RPG /are/ games, for instance, and no game could be totally un-gamist. And, they include Role-playing, which, quite irrespective of the gamist (mechanical) element, will include both some immersive role-assumption and some actor/director-like 'storytelling.' </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know, that's a much more extreme view that I can get behind. When I read the various articulations of GNS, I see in each 'style' an emphasis, at most, not something exclusive. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to pick one and say I play exclusively in that style. I'll make gamist decisions to 'win' a combat, I'll make narrativist ones to move things along or keep from 'de-railing' a plot, I'll make immersed first-person ones when I'm feeling it. Similarly, a game's mechanics are the (gamist) rules of the game, /and/ the (simulationist) 'laws of physics' of the imagined world, /and/ the tools (narrativist) used to build a collective storytelling experience. Some games try very hard in their design to come down as firmly simulationist or narrativist, but they always end up being the other two, as well. </p><p></p><p>Why can't you manage the same open-mindedness about someone using a fighter with dailies or healing surges as you can using a simple vs complex wizard?</p><p></p><p> I agree, but I think that excluding a fairly small set of more extreme "my way or the highway" styles could result in the vast majority being able to sit at one table. In theory. My concern is that said small set of more extreme styles might well constitute a fairly large plurality - if not an outrigh, if un-unifiable majority - of WotC's player base.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5992915, member: 996"] But, your assumption of a unified group would mean that it need only support one style /at a time/, which, as far as I understand the 'support only one style' position, is pretty close. The 'game can support only one style' crew are OK with a game, in effect, supporting a variety of styles, one at a time, through modules or whatnot, again, AFAICT... A matter of tollerance, I suppose. As I've said before, I can't abide psionics. But, when I finally played in the odd 4e game that included psionics, I found them tollerable, not because they weren't still fish-out-of-water sci-fi rejects that had no place in a fantasy world, ;) but simply because they didn't jump out and dominate the game the way they sometimes could in 1e. They weren't good or fun or adding to the game, for me, but they weren't destroying it, either. Is 'complex wizard' really a concept, or is it a mechanic? The 4e wizard is a bookish fellow who's always adding to his spellbook (it contains his rituals), and memorizes different spells on different days. In concept, he's no different or less complex than the 3e wizard - indeed, conceptually, he's more complex, since he has both quick-recharge, and always-vailable spells, in addition to the traditional fire-and-forget. The mechanics, and thus complexity of the two classes aren't vastly different, but the wizard is certainly the more complex of the two. Similarly, while the fighter has some added mechanical complexity, the range of concepts the fighter covers is actually a bit more focused, ceding archers to the Ranger and a whole host of concepts it could never quite handle to the Warlord. I certainly don't recall 1-3e as being 'too simulationist,' not by a long piece - imbalanced, sure, especially at high levels, though that's not the same thing. But, I'm not so sure I see the GNS theory as really working well when each is considered an individual and exclusive style, with games necessarily catering to one of the three (or one of the three at a time). Rather, GNS makes some sense when each is considered as an aspect - perhaps even a necessary one - of the RPG experience. RPG /are/ games, for instance, and no game could be totally un-gamist. And, they include Role-playing, which, quite irrespective of the gamist (mechanical) element, will include both some immersive role-assumption and some actor/director-like 'storytelling.' I don't know, that's a much more extreme view that I can get behind. When I read the various articulations of GNS, I see in each 'style' an emphasis, at most, not something exclusive. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to pick one and say I play exclusively in that style. I'll make gamist decisions to 'win' a combat, I'll make narrativist ones to move things along or keep from 'de-railing' a plot, I'll make immersed first-person ones when I'm feeling it. Similarly, a game's mechanics are the (gamist) rules of the game, /and/ the (simulationist) 'laws of physics' of the imagined world, /and/ the tools (narrativist) used to build a collective storytelling experience. Some games try very hard in their design to come down as firmly simulationist or narrativist, but they always end up being the other two, as well. Why can't you manage the same open-mindedness about someone using a fighter with dailies or healing surges as you can using a simple vs complex wizard? I agree, but I think that excluding a fairly small set of more extreme "my way or the highway" styles could result in the vast majority being able to sit at one table. In theory. My concern is that said small set of more extreme styles might well constitute a fairly large plurality - if not an outrigh, if un-unifiable majority - of WotC's player base. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top