Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Your level of Granularity
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="delericho" data-source="post: 5717544" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>It really depends on what I'm doing. Also, my tastes vary with time - what I want now may not be what I want in five years.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For player characters, I want my players to be able to make a large range of characters, with a decent range of customisation. I don't want them to have to micro-manage lots of fiddly little details - give them a few, big questions to answer at character creation, and then one or two big questions to answer each time they level up. And allow plenty of scope for re-fluffing.</p><p></p><p>For NPCs and monsters, I don't need anywhere near the same level of detail, since these are essentially black boxes to the players. It really doesn't matter all that much if a bandit does 1d6, 1d6+1 or 1d8 damage with his sword - all the player knows is that he loses "5 hit points". I initially opposed the move in 4e away from monsters using the same rules as PCs, but I was wrong to do so - 4e is better in this regard.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This will depend on the player, so support must be given for all styles. Over time, I hope players will gradually move from "I use diplomacy!" to something a bit more detailed, but starting players may well not be comfortable with that.</p><p></p><p>I certainly <em>don't</em> want RP elements to ever be completely divorced from rules elements - if the game supports the charismatic bard as a valid archetype, then there must be some support for social skills.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the big one. Broadly, the closer things get to the PCs, the more detail I require. The larger the canvas, the lower the required detail.</p><p></p><p>More specifically:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The game should be playable without a battlemat, and should not lose much in the translation. 3.0e is about right in this regard, 3.5e is a bit worse, and 4e is unacceptably tied to the mat. There should be some scope for specific powers and maneuvers, but this is probably best handled with some sort of freeform system, rather than 4e-style fixed powers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The encumbrance rules are a really good example of too much detail. By calculating weight down to 0.1 of a pound, the game almost forces groups to ignore the rules (or at least play <em>really</em> fast and loose with them) - very few groups are going to recalculate encumbrance every time the archer fires an arrow!</p><p></p><p>A much better encumbrance system must be possible - just count major items, and let a PC carry 10+Str mod, or something!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like the idea of characters have unique, modified and custom gear, but subtle differences are just too much. Basically, give them the opportunity to apply some fairly big modifications to their items (like masterwork, but with rather more flavour!).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In general, monsters are a black box to the players. Very often, the DM is rolling a hidden die, adding an unknown modifier, and thus getting the result. Therefore, they can really be aware of small differences in modifier - the difference between a +5 to hit and a +6 is marginal (especially if the monster only ever makes a few attacks). Likewise, small differences in damage calculation are meaningless. Therefore, I would argue for less granularity even than is seen in 4e monsters - instead of modifiers going up by +1 every few levels, instead put them up by +5 less often (and differentiate monsters more by powers). For damage, don't worry about minor differences, but instead give a roughly-correct range - in a mixed group of bandits some will have swords, some maces, and some axes... but they might as well all do 1d8+Str damage!</p><p></p><p>In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that the only dice a DM should ever need to run that game are the d20 (for attack rolls and the like), d6 (for damage rolls), and d% (for treasure generation and similar)!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5717544, member: 22424"] It really depends on what I'm doing. Also, my tastes vary with time - what I want now may not be what I want in five years. For player characters, I want my players to be able to make a large range of characters, with a decent range of customisation. I don't want them to have to micro-manage lots of fiddly little details - give them a few, big questions to answer at character creation, and then one or two big questions to answer each time they level up. And allow plenty of scope for re-fluffing. For NPCs and monsters, I don't need anywhere near the same level of detail, since these are essentially black boxes to the players. It really doesn't matter all that much if a bandit does 1d6, 1d6+1 or 1d8 damage with his sword - all the player knows is that he loses "5 hit points". I initially opposed the move in 4e away from monsters using the same rules as PCs, but I was wrong to do so - 4e is better in this regard. This will depend on the player, so support must be given for all styles. Over time, I hope players will gradually move from "I use diplomacy!" to something a bit more detailed, but starting players may well not be comfortable with that. I certainly [i]don't[/i] want RP elements to ever be completely divorced from rules elements - if the game supports the charismatic bard as a valid archetype, then there must be some support for social skills. This is the big one. Broadly, the closer things get to the PCs, the more detail I require. The larger the canvas, the lower the required detail. More specifically: The game should be playable without a battlemat, and should not lose much in the translation. 3.0e is about right in this regard, 3.5e is a bit worse, and 4e is unacceptably tied to the mat. There should be some scope for specific powers and maneuvers, but this is probably best handled with some sort of freeform system, rather than 4e-style fixed powers. The encumbrance rules are a really good example of too much detail. By calculating weight down to 0.1 of a pound, the game almost forces groups to ignore the rules (or at least play [i]really[/i] fast and loose with them) - very few groups are going to recalculate encumbrance every time the archer fires an arrow! A much better encumbrance system must be possible - just count major items, and let a PC carry 10+Str mod, or something! I like the idea of characters have unique, modified and custom gear, but subtle differences are just too much. Basically, give them the opportunity to apply some fairly big modifications to their items (like masterwork, but with rather more flavour!). In general, monsters are a black box to the players. Very often, the DM is rolling a hidden die, adding an unknown modifier, and thus getting the result. Therefore, they can really be aware of small differences in modifier - the difference between a +5 to hit and a +6 is marginal (especially if the monster only ever makes a few attacks). Likewise, small differences in damage calculation are meaningless. Therefore, I would argue for less granularity even than is seen in 4e monsters - instead of modifiers going up by +1 every few levels, instead put them up by +5 less often (and differentiate monsters more by powers). For damage, don't worry about minor differences, but instead give a roughly-correct range - in a mixed group of bandits some will have swords, some maces, and some axes... but they might as well all do 1d8+Str damage! In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that the only dice a DM should ever need to run that game are the d20 (for attack rolls and the like), d6 (for damage rolls), and d% (for treasure generation and similar)! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Your level of Granularity
Top