-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I think they understood "this fighter is looking pretty decent as a starting point compared to earlier fighters" to mean "this fighter is the best thing ever nobody will ever want to play a wizard if you keep making this fighter better so you'd better stop now".
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jacob.Tyr
How what why? Lets make the fighter even simpler, great...
I think they mean (based off of their earlier remarks) that they're currently focusing on the more simplistic Fighter maneuvers so if someone wants to make a simple fighter they can. That's been their goal since the beginning that the Fighter can be made complicated but the option to be simplistic is still present.
Still, we'll see how it turns out. If anything I think the current fighter they have waits too long between gaining new maneuvers.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Menteith
Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, D&D Next is attempting to get away from +X/-X modifiers, and instead tries to use Advantage for every situation - meaning that it's unlikely the stealth system, whatever it turns out to be, will use bonuses/penalties. While I think that some of the different systems that have been proposed in this thread are promising, it's worth keeping in mind that kind of design constraint when making a suggestion. If they've reneged on this design, feel free to ignore me.
They seem to have moved beyond this. Advantage/Disadvantage are much rarer than they were in playtest 1. Now (for example) Kobolds and Rats get +1's.
-O
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jacob.Tyr
How what why? Lets make the fighter even simpler, great...
You forgot to turn your sarcasm blinkers on.
One thing that cannot be overstated is how absolutely important it is to have simple play options available for players who want them. Everybody's core engagement with D&D is different. Some people want to use a suite of abilities in unique ways to solve difficult problems, some people want an epic story, some people want to slaughter hoards of foes, and some people really just want to hang out with their friends who happen to be playing D&D. D&D needs to have options for all of those players and more.
See, the problem with 4e was there was no really choice. Every class had about the same level of complexity. People who liked playing complex characters felt stifled, while characters who just wanted to hit people with a sharp stick were intimidated by they deck full of powers. It was a bad game design decision.
There are people out there who just want to attack things, or just want to heal. They don't want the spotlight, they don't want to make tough choices, they just want to play, and their enjoyment is just as important as anyone elses. As such, the game needs options for those players.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
There are people out there who just want to attack things, or just want to heal. They don't want the spotlight, they don't want to make tough choices, they just want to play, and their enjoyment is just as important as anyone elses. As such, the game needs options for those players.
IMHO, these people should probably be playing a simpler game then.
Not every RPG needs to be for everyone. I wouldn't recommend Mountain Witch to a hardcore min/maxer any more than I'd ask a Pure Roleplayer to build a SR3 character. It may just be my personal preferences coming into play but I felt that the 4e Character Builder threaded the needle just right -- a simple framework for character building that had enough scope for the more complexity-driven without leaving the "simple gamers" in the dust.
My proclivities aside, trying to permit "simple" and "complex" options within a single game presents substantial issues when it comes to build-relevance. Since the idea is to have a mix of "simple" and "complex" Players in a single party it is essential to keep the gap in power between the two narrow enough that they can still face the same challenges. It is no good at all for the "simple" Player to be in a game where their basic function is usurped by a "complex" character who can do everything the "simple" character can and more. Likewise "complex" Players will get frustrated if their elaborate min/maxing does not grant them a significant advantage over a "simple" build -- all that effort will feel wasted.
Personally, I don't know of a good way to balance the two. Increased flexibility for the "complex" can quickly result in One Man Parties without scrupulous restraint by the "complex" Player; powerful "simple" options will just be incorporated into "complex" builds unless you segregate the options somehow.
D&D is, at its heart, a war-game with roots in the minuate of Encumbrance Tables, Weapon Speeds, and Damage Type v. Armor Type modifiers: it has never really been suited for rules-light gameplay and efforts to make it so will only end in a bloated, compromised system. Also tears.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oracle_Hunter
IMHO, these people should probably be playing a simpler game then.
A simpler game would not have beholders in it. If D&D is going to hoard its intellectual property, then it should give everyone the opportunity to enjoy that IP, or else Wotco's basically turning down money from people who aren't interested in whatever they've arbitrarily limited D&D to being.
Quote:
Since the idea is to have a mix of "simple" and "complex" Players in a single party it is essential to keep the gap in power between the two narrow enough that they can still face the same challenges. It is no good at all for the "simple" Player to be in a game where their basic function is usurped by a "complex" character who can do everything the "simple" character can and more.
This is why I favor the idea of having a very narrow band of capability within which the power ranking goes: poorly-played Wizard, poorly-played Fighter, well-played Fighter, well-played Wizard. The Wizard needs to be a high-stakes bet, requiring much effort to pilot correctly, paying off in noticeably but not absurdly higher power if you do everything right, but being very easy to do wrong. While the Fighter should be safe, a workhorse, doing good work with minimal effort and nigh-impossible to botch with, but not capable of being pushed very hard. Note that it's not necessary for the complex classes to be magical and the simple ones nonmagical; you could just as easily say Monk/Swordsage and Sorcerer/Warlock (concept of the first/execution of the second, more or less), assuming they were built right. But the no-brainer option should be very central in its effectiveness, while the alternative is a puzzle that has to be successfully unlocked if it's to compete. The player can then gravitate to whichever of those offers the play experience he prefers, without the system punishing him (or giving him unearned rewards).
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
A simpler game would not have beholders in it. If D&D is going to hoard its intellectual property, then it should give everyone the opportunity to enjoy that IP, or else Wotco's basically turning down money from people who aren't interested in whatever they've arbitrarily limited D&D to being.
1) You can add beholders to your home games in any RPG where they would be genre- or theme-appropriate, and that's a very wide range of games indeed.
2) D&D isn't "arbitrarily limited" by its complexity any more than soccer is "arbitrarily limited" by being a game about kicking a ball around into a goal. Complex rules and interlocking subsystems are as much an integral part of 1e through 4e as realism and modularity are to GURPS and aspects and a unified mechanic are to FATE.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
No, that's a trap. Any time a DM has to make up a rule on the fly the rules failed the DM. I could see multiple possible options existing, but the book needs clear rules for stealth so that there is a functional baseline for everyone to work off of.
I actually really likes passive perception from 4e and thought it worked well for the majority of situations. In 4e I'd only have a guard roll their perception if the PC got really close to them or interacted with them in some way.
I misunderstood and thought they were still using passive perception, so people were discussing how often a player or NPC should be allowed to make an active roll. If it's roll-or-nothing then I agree there can be some odd stuff going on that needs a bit more than "let the DM handle it."
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
A simpler game would not have beholders in it. If D&D is going to hoard its intellectual property, then it should give everyone the opportunity to enjoy that IP, or else Wotco's basically turning down money from people who aren't interested in whatever they've arbitrarily limited D&D to being.
I disagree; there's nothing to stop WotC from breaking D&D into two games, one simple, one complex. In fact, they even have an available name for the complex one; Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. All players can be satisfied, but not by the same product. There's no reason to think that D&D should or even can cater to all players simultaneously.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stubbazubba
I disagree; there's nothing to stop WotC from breaking D&D into two games, one simple, one complex. In fact, they even have an available name for the complex one; Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. All players can be satisfied, but not by the same product. There's no reason to think that D&D should or even can cater to all players simultaneously.
But that is what they are currently trying to do with DnD Next. They deliberately seem to want to avoid that split that you suggest, I'm guessing it won't even be considered.
Personally I am also horrified by the idea of a "simpler" fighter. Expertise dice or not, I'm playing a slayer in the current playtest version, and 95% of what I do is stand in one place and swing my weapon. There's no need to deadly strike because monsters die in one hit anyway, there's no need to parry because monsters can't hit, and glancing blow is worthless. Maybe once I get cleave I'll actually get to spend my expertise dice. I honestly don't see how they could make it simpler without it looking just embarrassing.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oracle_Hunter
IMHO, these people should probably be playing a simpler game then.
While I'll be the first person to tell you D&D is not the best system for every game(seriously I will, look at my post history), D&D kind of has to appeal to everybody. It is far and away the most popular PnP RPG, especially here in the States, and a vast majority of the RPG players either know how to play D&D, or only play D&D.
Thus, if you're looking to play RPG's, you'll probably play D&D first, and D&D groups will likely be easier to find. D&D is very successful, but it pays for that success by needed mass market appeal, which means appealing to everyone, including casual gamers. Besides, casual gamers are great to have in the party, they add extra damage and hp to the party, and an extra friend to have fun with without taking screen time or caring if you ham it up a little.
As for splitting the game, that's usually a bad idea. Splitting your player base creates developmental problems, where you have to design two different systems separately. Likely one system will be more well liked and become the standard, and people who bet on the other horse will just be annoyed. Aside from that, splitting your fan base will make it harder to find groups, and one of the greatest strengths of D&D is how(comparatively) easy it is to find players. If I want to play 7th Sea or Paranoia, I'll have a tough time finding people, and even tougher if I need them to have the books. For D&D I know literally dozens of people who play and own the books.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
While I can agree with your reasoning I am widley skeptical they can manage to pull it off without creating some wide gaps in the rules that will be expolited.
I personally think that choosing a middle ground of complexity required character creation as a baseline and designing the class around that would be better.
But I my opinion on Next (so far) is that many of the issues of 3.5 will be back, less highlighted maybe, but still present.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I'm disappointed that they didn't go the route of more focused classes (e.g. the 3.5 Beguiler) when it came to class design guidelines...
- One focused area in which the class is really good, an expert, better than others who aren't focused in this area. It's their space in which to be an authority on the subject within the game world.
- Two focused areas in which the class is reliable and competent without being an expert. Give the player some choices so their build of the class is customized.
- Two focused areas in which the class dabbles, better and more knowledgable than the average person. Give the player some choices so their build of the class is customized.
There are things outside of the class definition that would allow for more customization, for example: skills, backgrounds, and whatnot.
I feel like more focused classes are easire to design and slot into the game system.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I think they're getting to that. Most of the classic d&d classes (aside from the Big Four) are fairly rocused, and it's practically certain that we'll have more classes than just the Big Four in the final game.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Lantern
While I can agree with your reasoning I am widley skeptical they can manage to pull it off without creating some wide gaps in the rules that will be expolited.
I personally think that choosing a middle ground of complexity required character creation as a baseline and designing the class around that would be better.
But I my opinion on Next (so far) is that many of the issues of 3.5 will be back, less highlighted maybe, but still present.
There doesn't need to be wide gaps. Casual players, as a rule, don't like making tough decisions. Ergo, you need to make classes that are effective with fairly rout tactics. The Next Fighter is a good example of this. If you only use your expertise dice to increase your damage on your attacks, you are doing your job as a fighter, you are causing damage(and a lot of damage at that). You can use your other combat maneuvers to gain other abilities that are obvious when they should be used, or just ignore them. Sure you won't be as effective as a fighter who carefully uses all of their maneuvers, but the casual gamer isn't looking for power, they are looking to hang out with friends. This way they get what they want, and the party gets a useful ally.
However, in 5e, the fighter can have more complexity, which means it's not purely for casual gamers, and if a casual gamer starts getting more into the game, that can start making their character more complex.
As for bringing back the issues of 3.5, that's kind of a difficult topic to bring up. What are the issues of 3.5? What caused those issues? How have they be solved by people in the past? What can be done to fix them in the future? Those are all questions that need answers, and I promise you WotC R&D is trying to do just that.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
As for bringing back the issues of 3.5, that's kind of a difficult topic to bring up. What are the issues of 3.5? What caused those issues? How have they be solved by people in the past? What can be done to fix them in the future? Those are all questions that need answers, and I promise you WotC R&D is trying to do just that.
Yes. For starters, what the issues actually are is completely different from what theoretical points are repeated ad infinitum in the echo chamber that is message boards.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Madfellow
I think they're getting to that. Most of the classic d&d classes (aside from the Big Four) are fairly rocused, and it's practically certain that we'll have more classes than just the Big Four in the final game.
I do hope they get there.
I guess I was hoping the typical big four (fighter, mage, cleric, thief) would not exist in the game as generic classes but instead that their more specialized derivities would be present only.
I suppose mentally I'm approaching this as an object oriented design problem with various is-a and has-a relationships where the abstract base classes won't end up appearing in the Player's Handbook.
Code:
abstract class ClassBase
abstract class Spellcaster : ClassBase
abstract class Mage : Spellcaster
class Beguiler : Mage
abstract class Mundane : ClassBase
abstract class Fighter : Mundane
class Warlord : Fighter
While a non-spellcaster class would not have any built in magical abilities, they would still be able to pick up magical abilities via has-a relationships, however they would acquire them according to the game system.
I suppose I'm getting way too geeky because I'm starting to feel the need to draw up a data model or class diagram. So I'll just leave it there.
P.S. Madfellow, as a fellow bard I saLUTE you!
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kerrin
I do hope they get there.
I guess I was hoping the typical big four (fighter, mage, cleric, thief) would not exist in the game as generic classes but instead that their more specialized derivities would be present only.
Well, the big four don't have to be generic. They weren't always the generic "divine magic guy," "arcane magic guy," "combat guy," and "skills guy"--originally, clerics and fighters were armored warriors, one with offensive weapon capabilities and the other with healing/restorative/defensive magic, while thieves and magic-users were primarily non-combat Swiss army knives who could toss a fireball or stab a fool in a pinch. There are plenty of ways to have the big four in the game without them ending up as generic cover-any-concept classes.
Quote:
I suppose I'm getting way too geeky because I'm starting to feel the need to draw up a data model or class diagram. So I'll just leave it there.
Not too geeky at all. I already used (and had to explain) the class inheritance model to my group when they saw that article, as well as interface implementation when the subject of swappable magic systems came up.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
IMHO, in 3.5, much of the issues of non-magic classes vs. magic classes. It's really that simple. It's as if the game was designed by two sets of teams, one of which worked on magic and the other that didn't, and they created classes using different benchmarks.
In general, non-magic folks advanced linearly and needed to use their gold just to keep up their equipment. Magic folks increased power far faster and used their gold to buy even more power.
There's more to it than that, of course, but I think those two points are key.
In Next, classes will be less magic equipment dependent, so any added magic should add equally to the classes. Presumably, they are working on magic to make it cool but less runaway spectacular.
As an aside, I expect no classes to ever come with their own free actions ever again (such as a Druid or a summoner).
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clawhound
As an aside, I expect no classes to ever come with their own free actions ever again (such as a Druid or a summoner).
You may be correct, but I hope not. There's NOTHING inherently wrong or unballanced about a minion based class. There's a problem with minion based classes where the minions are individually combat significant and the PC is also at or above the power level of some of the other PCs.
Default BtB Familiars are not overpowered.
The followers are not what makes Leadership about three times as good as any other feat in the game, 40 followers is fine, one cohort is broken strong.
The Ranger's animal companion or the paladin's mount isn't a big problem either.
Take spellcasting and wildshape off the 3.5 Druid, and the class would be considered very weak. The problem ISN'T the pet, its that you've ADDED a powerful pet to a powerful class. Weak pet is fine, otherwise familiars and ranger pets would break the game. Strong pet is fine, the paladin mount is actually very good.
But strong pet with independent actions + strong class is broken.
I can solve the above statement plenty of ways that don't touch the fact that pets get independent actions. Take 1 CS die off a D&DNext fighter, and give him a pet that's likely to hit for about the equivalent of 1 CS die in damage and takes about the CS die size+1 damage to disable. I don't see how this is a balance problem, and it doesn't really slow the game down if you make sure the pet's powers are limited to "I hit it or I bite it".
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clawhound
As an aside, I expect no classes to ever come with their own free actions ever again (such as a Druid or a summoner).
Do you think summoners in 4E (druids or wizards) are overpowered? Because they certainly do come with their own free actions.
See, I think this just needs to be balanced. If players summon a creature, they expect it to do something, not to require the summoner's actions to move around (you're a summoner, not a puppet master). This is similar to how players, when they fight with two weapons, expect to roll two attack rolls.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I think that the designers have repeatedly learned that any additional player actions are very powerful, especially for ongoing or compounding actions. I know that they were very problematic in 3.X. I saw no issues with 4.x, other than expanding turn time, but as expanding turn time is a no-no in Next, that makes it a problem.
I think that the action ecology of Next is sufficiently narrow that we just won't see the ability to get more actions or proxy actions on an extended basis. We likely will see some additional actions, such as for one round per day.
As for summoners, companions, and such, I expect to see an entire design round dedicated to their issues. They will have to wrestle with that inherent conflict of puppet master vs. additional actions. I can't predict what they will settle on.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
There doesn't need to be wide gaps. Casual players, as a rule, don't like making tough decisions. Ergo, you need to make classes that are effective with fairly rout tactics. The Next Fighter is a good example of this. If you only use your expertise dice to increase your damage on your attacks, you are doing your job as a fighter, you are causing damage(and a lot of damage at that). You can use your other combat maneuvers to gain other abilities that are obvious when they should be used, or just ignore them. Sure you won't be as effective as a fighter who carefully uses all of their maneuvers, but the casual gamer isn't looking for power, they are looking to hang out with friends. This way they get what they want, and the party gets a useful ally.
However, in 5e, the fighter can have more complexity, which means it's not purely for casual gamers, and if a casual gamer starts getting more into the game, that can start making their character more complex.
As for bringing back the issues of 3.5, that's kind of a difficult topic to bring up. What are the issues of 3.5? What caused those issues? How have they be solved by people in the past? What can be done to fix them in the future? Those are all questions that need answers, and I promise you WotC R&D is trying to do just that.
I think you misunderstood my comment, I don't think there is need of a wide gap, I am afraid there will be. I agree with your point of view and I would love nothing more that have classes that could be played in a simple manner, like picking all the default choice, or the same class used at his widest with a lot of options, and that the two options could still be pretty much even, it is just that I am skeptical the designers could manage to do that; after all it is an extremely difficult task.
That is why I think it would be better and a most easily reachable goal to chose a baseline of complexity and balance the classes around that.
Also I believe that even if they manage to pull their state d goal off there will be complains by the people who likes the Char Gen minigame.
Also my issues with 3.5 is that the system encourages complexity in the character creation, and I really don't like all the multiclassing and PrC messes that are so prevalent in the edition.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The only way to ensure that a better-built character is at the same power level as a standard character is by making the choices meaningless. That's not going to happen. As long as there is a list of feats, there will always be stronger and weaker feats, and any player that competently cherry-picks feats will have a stronger character than a player that doesn't. This just follows from the design axioms.
That said, of course WOTC can limit the gap to some extent. But that said, the need for balance is way, way overstated in message board discussions, and I strongly suspect that WOTC is aware of that. So I don't think that creating a fully balanced game is high on their list of priorities - first because that's a huge time investment, and second because only a vocal minority actually wants such a game.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
The only way to ensure that a better-built character is at the same power level as a standard character is by making the choices meaningless. That's not going to happen. As long as there is a list of feats, there will always be stronger and weaker feats, and any player that competently cherry-picks feats will have a stronger character than a player that doesn't. This just follows from the design axioms.
Only if you consider balance to be a binary feature. Perfect balance may be impossible but a competent designer can get imperceptibly close. Furthermore you can save 99% of your work in balancing a game by just thinking ahead.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
Only if you consider balance to be a binary feature. Perfect balance may be impossible but a competent designer can get imperceptibly close. Furthermore you can save 99% of your work in balancing a game by just thinking ahead.
Although arguably, because it's desirable for system mastery and optimization to mean something, perfect balance is not a good goal; however, something more nearly balanced than e.g. 3.5 is still desirable, and not necessarily all that difficult.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
Although arguably, because it's desirable for system mastery and optimization to mean something, perfect balance is not a good goal; however, something more nearly balanced than e.g. 3.5 is still desirable, and not necessarily all that difficult.
Actually, I would argue it's your choices in play where system mastery should matter, not your choices during character creation before play even starts.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
The only way to ensure that a better-built character is at the same power level as a standard character is by making the choices meaningless.
Wrong. If there is a "best" design, then make sure that the standard DEFAULT character presented in the rules is that design.
If there are multiple "best" designs for different roles then make sure that ONE of those roles is best covered by the standard character.
Done. You can have all the choices you want. And the standard default character is ballanced. All that's required is that the designers have a good idea of how their own system works so they can produce at least ONE ballanced alternative. If the designers can't even come up with a competative design then maybe we need different designers.
They're GIVING us backgrounds that are obviously "intended" for certain classes, they're GIVING us specialties similarly focused. Make sure the background and specialty they SAY are good for fighters are actually the BEST choices for fighters, make sure they recommend good ability priorities for that fighter build, and then also make sure the fighter is a reasonable class and you're done. There's a simple, effectively design choice free, class that functions at a high level without any system mastery.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
Actually, I would argue it's your choices in play where system mastery should matter, not your choices during character creation before play even starts.
Indeed, which to me is one of the hidden geniuses of the early magic user spell systems, where by you had to find spells and didn't automatically gain them each level (or if you did, it was still random which ones). There were no choices to be made at character creation or level up regardless of class. System mastery was reflected in play, not on the character sheet.
That said, if you are going to offer choices, they should be meaningful else they are no choice at all. I don't mind incomparables as choices, and I honestly hope that WotC makes most of the choices incomparables. I am afraid however that the math behind the system, and the common sentiment that without hard numbers, the rules aren't worth anything, will not be conducive to a game full of incomparables.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
Although arguably, because it's desirable for system mastery and optimization to mean something, perfect balance is not a good goal; however, something more nearly balanced than e.g. 3.5 is still desirable, and not necessarily all that difficult.
Balance does not mean every single option is mathematically equal, which is something people who complain about people that want balance do not understand.
Balance as part of game design is little more than making every option's difference in power fully intentional. One option being more powerful than another does not a bad, or even unbalanced game make. One option being more powerful than most options, and only because the people that wrote it didn't realize the option would be the best by a large margin. That's bad, unbalanced game design, and it hurts the game far more than it helps.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Do you think summoners in 4E (druids or wizards) are overpowered? Because they certainly do come with their own free actions.
See, I think this just needs to be balanced. If players summon a creature, they expect it to do something, not to require the summoner's actions to move around (you're a summoner, not a puppet master). This is similar to how players, when they fight with two weapons, expect to roll two attack rolls.
Good point about expectations.
This concept of free additional actions goes completely contrary to all my IRL experience. Unless the summoned creature is more competent than the summoner- which should not happen without major consequence- and arrives fully informed and prepared for the situation, it is going to require a lot of direction to be at all useful- not a quick command or two while the summoner focuses on something else entirely.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
Balance does not mean every single option is mathematically equal, which is something people who complain about people that want balance do not understand.
Balance as part of game design is little more than making every option's difference in power fully intentional. One option being more powerful than another does not a bad, or even unbalanced game make. One option being more powerful than most options, and only because the people that wrote it didn't realize the option would be the best by a large margin. That's bad, unbalanced game design, and it hurts the game far more than it helps.
I disagree on two points; first, I don't think intention matters in whether something is balanced or not (otherwise 3.5's Toughness would totally be a balanced choice), and second, balance is actually better defined as "equal power, equal cost": that is, there is some sort of fair cost for everything, and it is proportional to the effectiveness of the option. Whether that cost is character points, XP, levels, feats, magic item slots, gp, spell slots, or something more exotic is not important; the important thing is that there is a fair exchange rate. (This is complicated extraordinarily by the use of multiple exchange rates in the same system, such as levels, feats, magic item slots, gp, spells, and so forth, with inefficient conversions between.)
Importantly, balance does not rely on equality of options; instead, it relies on more effective options costing more, in some meaningful sense.
And, as I previously stated, perfect costing is not only extremely difficult, it's not very fun for players who enjoy optimizing. Therefore, a certain proportion of "discounted options" is reasonable. (Just like in life, where it's possible to buy groceries with nothing but coupons if you spend enough time optimizing them.) Imbalance becomes problematic, however, when there is an enormous difference in resulting effectiveness; consider a family that rose to wealth and influence by clipping coupons, and how absurd that would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
Actually, I would argue it's your choices in play where system mastery should matter, not your choices during character creation before play even starts.
That's a matter of preference, I believe; I don't know of any solid line of reasoning why one or the other style is always strictly superior.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
That's a matter of preference, I believe; I don't know of any solid line of reasoning why one or the other style is always strictly superior.
I can think of a good one: Choices in play happen all the time; Choices in character creation happen relatively rarely. For that reason you get a lot more "mileage" out of effort put into designing good in-play choices than effort put into creation choices. This is not to say that character creation doesn't matter, I just don't think it should be the focus.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
I disagree on two points; first, I don't think intention matters in whether something is balanced or not
Wrong emphasis and definition. Not "this is intended to be balanced", but "it is intentional for this to be weaker than that (when 'this' is in fact weaker than 'that') in an arena". In short, balance as careful and clear design. 3.5 isn't balanced because what the designers where trying to do, and what they ended up doing, are almost at opposites from each other.
Quote:
And, as I previously stated, perfect costing is not only extremely difficult, it's not very fun for players who enjoy optimizing.
Given some of the crap optimizers pull and how hostile most of them are, it's a very hard sell to say that it's bad if the game is not fun for optimizers.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
Wrong emphasis and definition. Not "this is intended to be balanced", but "it is intentional for this to be weaker than that (when 'this' is in fact weaker than 'that') in an arena". In short, balance as careful and clear design. 3.5 isn't balanced because what the designers where trying to do, and what they ended up doing, are almost at opposites from each other.
Would you say that it was balanced if they had, in fact, come out with something identical to 3.5 after long, careful, and logical thought, and having settled on the precise interplay of classes, feats, and spells that we see?
See, I'm disagreeing with the idea that it is correct to define perfect balance as "it does what the designers intended". Certainly, that's a useful property, but it's not the same as balance; otherwise, it is meaningless to discuss how much to prioritize balance in your design, since obviously however much effort you put into it is enough, as long as you're aware of the consequences. Simply saying "sure, it's balanced, the designers thought about it carefully and it turned out like they expected" is pointless if that wasn't even the goal at all.
Instead, there should be an objective way to evaluate how well the designers did on a specific area of the game, based not on whether they intended what they wrote as a whole, but whether the result is good or bad. Balance isn't the only consideration in game design, or even necessarily the most important. But it does need a metric of its own, separate from other ways to evaluate a game's quality.
Don't reduce "is this game good in various ways" to "does it do what its designers expected".
Quote:
Given some of the crap optimizers pull and how hostile most of them are, it's a very hard sell to say that it's bad if the game is not fun for optimizers.
:smallsigh: I'm not referring to cheaters, to munchkins, or even to powergamers. Instead, I'm referring to optimizers: those who a) have a given character concept and b) wish it to perform well against challenges without overshadowing allies. [Or, as the case may be, those who a) wish to build a character capable of performing well without inciting envy and b) fine-tune a concept from that.]
The confusion is natural, perhaps, since munchkins tend to adopt the name "optimizer" as a sort of protective camouflage, trying to avoid repercussions. Unfortunately, accepting this sort of evasion doesn't do anyone any favors.
If you don't care whether it's possible to improve the effectiveness of the characters you create, that's fine, but a lot of people do, and by no means all of them are fun-hating jerks. (Not even close.)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
Would you say that it was balanced if they had, in fact, come out with something identical to 3.5 after long, careful, and logical thought, and having settled on the precise interplay of classes, feats, and spells that we see?
See, I'm disagreeing with the idea that it is correct to define perfect balance as "it does what the designers intended". Certainly, that's a useful property, but it's not the same as balance; otherwise, it is meaningless to discuss how much to prioritize balance in your design, since obviously however much effort you put into it is enough, as long as you're aware of the consequences. Simply saying "sure, it's balanced, the designers thought about it carefully and it turned out like they expected" is pointless if that wasn't even the goal at all.
Instead, there should be an objective way to evaluate how well the designers did on a specific area of the game, based not on whether they intended what they wrote as a whole, but whether the result is good or bad. Balance isn't the only consideration in game design, or even necessarily the most important. But it does need a metric of its own, separate from other ways to evaluate a game's quality.
Don't reduce "is this game good in various ways" to "does it do what its designers expected".
Balance does not mean "it does what the designers intended", it means that when given a choice in how to create and personalize my character, the possibilities open to me are pretty much equivalent, not equal, from a mechanical stanpoint. I also disagree that this make choices pointless, if anything make them more meaningful, I can choose abilities that fit my idea without worring that the character end up too weak or too strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
:smallsigh: I'm not referring to cheaters, to munchkins, or even to powergamers. Instead, I'm referring to optimizers: those who a) have a given character concept and b) wish it to perform well against challenges without overshadowing allies. [Or, as the case may be, those who a) wish to build a character capable of performing well without inciting envy and b) fine-tune a concept from that.]
The confusion is natural, perhaps, since munchkins tend to adopt the name "optimizer" as a sort of protective camouflage, trying to avoid repercussions. Unfortunately, accepting this sort of evasion doesn't do anyone any favors.
If you don't care whether it's possible to improve the effectiveness of the characters you create, that's fine, but a lot of people do, and by no means all of them are fun-hating jerks. (Not even close.)
The need to optimize to create a "viable" charachter (for a given definition of given) only exists in an imbalanced system, if, for instance, the feats for archery are equivalent in power to the ones for two handed fighting, then there is no need for me to have to optimize only to create an archer that can stand his ground against an unoptimized thw fighter.
Also if that is the case I can create an optimized archer that is better at archery that an archer who for some reason put some character resources into other things, maybe for flavour, maybe for the sake of having a second option, but without the former completely overshadowing the latter.
I don't see this as a bad thing.
In a system that actually manages that the only ones who are "punished" are the ones who actually want to break the game.
It won't happen but a man can wish.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Lantern
Balance does not mean "it does what the designers intended", it means that when given a choice in how to create and personalize my character, the possibilities open to me are pretty much equivalent, not equal, from a mechanical stanpoint. I also disagree that this make choices pointless, if anything make them more meaningful, I can choose abilities that fit my idea without worring that the character end up too weak or too strong.
Well, I'd like something very near that: the ability to make a more or less decently-performing character with either next to no system knowledge, or next to no attention paid to effectiveness, combined with the ability to make a somewhat better-performing character with the application of a good bit of knowledge.
Quote:
The need to optimize to create a "viable" charachter (for a given definition of given) only exists in an imbalanced system, if, for instance, the feats for archery are equivalent in power to the ones for two handed fighting, then there is no need for me to have to optimize only to create an archer that can stand his ground against an unoptimized thw fighter.
Also if that is the case I can create an optimized archer that is better at archery that an archer who for some reason put some character resources into other things, maybe for flavour, maybe for the sake of having a second option, but without the former completely overshadowing the latter.
I don't see this as a bad thing.
Yeah, that's basically what I'd like. I'd say that the need to optimize only occurs in severely imbalanced systems (such as 3.5); a perfectly balanced system, however, makes choices so similar in overall mechanical effectiveness that it loses a certain interesting dimension. (It is also ferociously hard to design.)
A good system neither requires nor eliminates optimization; it should be possible to roll up your first character and have fun with it without spending 35 hours reading the various options and their explanations, and it should also be possible to make an even more interesting and effective character after spending that time.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
I can think of a good one: Choices in play happen all the time; Choices in character creation happen relatively rarely. For that reason you get a lot more "mileage" out of effort put into designing good in-play choices than effort put into creation choices. This is not to say that character creation doesn't matter, I just don't think it should be the focus.
I agree with you, but there is the school of thougths claiming that, because character creation choice have usually more far reaching and permanent consequences they should matter more.
@tuggyne
It seems we agree on the general principle but not on the implementation, devil in the detail indeed...
On a personal note though I believe that a system in which character creation can take a number of hours with double digit is doing it wrong.
On a side note I would also add that a perfectly balanced system is only possible within a system with a really close and limited matematical array of ooptions; 4e is the closest thing to a mind as an example and we all know how that turned out.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Lantern
On a personal note though I believe that a system in which character creation can take a number of hours with double digit is doing it wrong.
My apologies, my clarity seems to be lacking*. I was referring more to overall investment of time in learning the system, not expenditure of time making one character. (Although, obviously, making your first character involves both of those.)
*And that's why I'm off to bed now. :smallamused:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Optimizers are an important group, and shouldn't be marginalized because it can be taken to extremes. Role-players have the same issues in the other direction ("I don't want my Monk to be so weak, it doesn't fit my vision of the character, change something to make it work!"). Both of these problems can be fixed by better design.
However, when it comes down to it, I disapprove of the breadth and depth of the character creation mini-game in 3.5. It is the single biggest turn-off to new players, it is so much more determinant of how well you do than what you do while playing that it makes in-game decisions relatively meaningless, and fixing it so it maintains its robustness while addressing the former two is nigh impossible.
That being said, I am fine with compromising, so long as the core math of the game is, in fact, balanced. What do I mean by that? I mean that all classes, in fact that all builds for each class, can handle a roughly equal number of level-appropriate challenges, at least within a certain degree of deviation. So, let's say the difference between any two given builds in overall utility against all the challenges at that level should not exceed 20-25%. One Fighter build might be 15-20% better than another Fighter build, or another class build, but that's the most optimized build vs. the least, there. If that's the case, then your average party is assumed to not differentiate more than maybe 10-15%. Ideally, that would also indicate that while PC X is on average 10% below the party average, there are still a subset of challenges that he is the best equipped to handle.
If this is your balance goal, then it informs you of how to approach design; you create benchmarks for challenges (CR, mostly), and build your challenges first, with their differing immunities, specialties, etc. Then you design classes and feats and what-not which also match those benchmarks, with their own specialties, strengths, and weaknesses. Then you run the math; using average damage, high estimate and low estimate, and taking into account odds for SoDs and basic tactics, and you can figure out what percentage of CR X encounters level Y build A is capable of handling (hopefully 50 or above). That percentage is that particular build's score, and through rigorous testing you get to the point where no known build exceeds the designated variation in effectiveness from any other build. Ta-da, balance!
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
Would you say that it was balanced if they had, in fact, come out with something identical to 3.5 after long, careful, and logical thought, and having settled on the precise interplay of classes, feats, and spells that we see?
No, intentional bad game design is still bad game design. Also, not what I was saying.
Quote:
See, I'm disagreeing with the idea that it is correct to define perfect balance as "it does what the designers intended".
I'm not defining perfect balance. I never was defining perfect balance. I might as well stop bothering trying to explain, since I will apparently still **** up explaining things to you to the point that you are not even addressing anything I have actually said.
Quote:
Don't reduce "is this game good in various ways" to "does it do what its designers expected".
I'm not. You are.
Quote:
:smallsigh: I'm not referring to cheaters, to munchkins, or even to powergamers.
Neither am I. From the point of view of someone who doesn't can't optimize, optimizers are worse for a game world by orders of magnitude than cheaters, munchkins and powergamers. Those people can be dealt with in sensible fashions without apparently being objectively wrong in the eyes of the general community. Optimizers on the other hand: you either agree with the "common perception of the rules", or you are a terrible DM who needs to ****ing stop playing. Optimizers are the reason I outright stopped playing D&D.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Lantern
I agree with you, but there is the school of thougths claiming that, because character creation choice have usually more far reaching and permanent consequences they should matter more.
Regarding "permanent" that I've emphasized above...
This may just be a gaming group thing, but if a player in our group makes a choice when creating/leveling their character and a couple of levels later it's not working out (e.g. "Dang, feat ABC I picked a couple of levels ago doesn't work at all like I thought it did and it's messing things up."), we usually just let them retcon their choice. For us, it's fairly easy to work this into the roleplaying via a retraining sub-storyline.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Getting good game balance is hard. In order to get good balance, your mechanics need to be rooting in good math. Almost every game mechanic when you take it down to it's most base level is math, and by understanding that you can make different options mechanically balanced with one another.
Here's the problem, perfect balance is boring, if two sides are exactly equal there's no choice, no room for customization. In a perfectly balanced game(say checkers, or even chess), there is ALWAYS a best move, always a choice that is better than all others(even if the math involved may be quite difficult).
So pure mechanical choices are boring. Fun choices are intangibles, choices which cannot be mathematically compared to one another. Something lie, what's better, the ability to pick locks, or the ability add fire damage to an attack. There's no way to say which of those two is better because they are completely different. You *can* balance incomparable, but the math involved is very difficult, and it involves lots and lots of playtesting(hint hint, look at what WotC is doing now). So interesting choices make games take a long time if they are done well(see Starcraft II)
In 3.x, we had lots of great incomparable, but they were poorly balanced and rushed out the door, causing balance to suffer. 4e, had much better balance, but didn't really have interesting incomparables, every character felt pretty much the same, the math they used the build the system was overly clear.
So far 5e seems to be trying to find a better balance, and allow some of the problems to go away by making an airtight core system.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stubbazubba
However, when it comes down to it, I disapprove of the breadth and depth of the character creation mini-game in 3.5. It is the single biggest turn-off to new players, it is so much more determinant of how well you do than what you do while playing that it makes in-game decisions relatively meaningless, and fixing it so it maintains its robustness while addressing the former two is nigh impossible.
However, I will not play a game if I don't get to make interesting decisions when creating my character. Heck, as a player who plays mostly in unfortunately unreliable online games, I've probably spent more time making characters than actually playing them. Which is sad, but that's how it is.
With that said, I like the "character creation minigame." Give me stuff to choose, stuff that matters, and stuff that isn't "you get a +1 to a skill of your choice at level 2." To this end, I think there are some goals DnD Next should focus on:
- Keep build options light "fighting styles" and "specializations" in the game. These prepackaged options work as shortcuts for players who don't care about the "character creation minigame." Make them the default, even.
- However, also include an option for someone to make interesting choices every single level. Nothing turned me off from 3.5 quite so much as dead levels, because in a slow-moving game, it really irritated me that I would finally gain a level and have nothing to show for it other than my numbers increasing a bit. 4th edition did a very good thing by removing dead levels from (almost) all classes. Leveling up should be a major event, in my eyes.
- Balance is already being discussed to death so I'll just say in short that there should be a good level of balance, at least on the level of 4th edition. Moving to something else would be a step backwards. Balance does not innately mean homogeneity, unless you have perfect balance which is impossible anyway for a game like DnD (and thus there is no point in discussing it).
- Don't restrict the "interesting choices" to a handful of classes. I want my fighter with no dead levels. I don't want to be told "if you want to make interesting choices every level, play a wizard." I won't accept that.
I don't see these things as particularly difficult to do or too much to ask for. As I've seen it, they've already proven they can do it. If they move backwards by not doing it, then I don't see a point in purchasing the game.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nu
With that said, I like the "character creation minigame."
I do agree with this; I recently got the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game and I'm kind of frustrated that there is no character creation mini-game (random generation notwithstanding). You can freely create a new hero with any level of power you can imagine, go for it. Well, OK, that's fine and the people I play with are all responsible enough to use that maturely and it's no problem at all, but it doesn't give me a little nibble of the game to play right then. It really irks me.
I want to make meaningful choices at chargen, as well, but I have been surprised in how few choices I can make and feel quite satisfied.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nu
also include an option for someone to make interesting choices every single level. Nothing turned me off from 3.5 quite so much as dead levels, because in a slow-moving game, it really irritated me that I would finally gain a level and have nothing to show for it other than my numbers increasing a bit.
So, which one are you protesting -- dead levels, or choice-less levels? Because there's a big difference in some systems. Legend, for example, has no dead levels, but often you level up without making any choices -- your new special ability is pre-determined by your previous special abilities.
If 5e Specialties were designed to be always taken as a package, not breakable into individual feats, would that actually be a bad thing? Well, yes, because I have no faith in WotC's ability to balance Feats well enough to keep me from being frustrated that I can't pick and choose. But if they could balance them well enough, would it bother me to have my new level-up abilities pre-determined? I'm honestly not sure what my own answer to that question would be.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
<snip>
Given some of the crap optimizers pull and how hostile most of them are, it's a very hard sell to say that it's bad if the game is not fun for optimizers.
Why are you saying that optimizers pull crap? do you know that you haven't just had a bad experience with the (relatively) small amount of optimizers you've met? As for hostility I can name a ton of nice,helpfull amazing optimizers on these very forums . Do you have proof that most optimizers are hostile as opposed to just a few? Aren't you being hostile to optimizers right now? You seem to be generalizing a lot.
Also,It seems kind of unfair for you to say that games should only cater to your type of fun. What makes your fun more important then an optimizers fun?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
123456789blaaa
Why are you saying that optimizers pull crap? do you know that you haven't just had a bad experience with the (relatively) small amount of optimizers you've met? As for hostility I can name a ton of nice, helpfull amazing optimizers on these very forums. Do you have proof that most optimizers are hostile as opposed to just a few? Aren't you being hostile to optimizers right now? You seem to be generalizing a lot.
When you don't agree with the optimizers on rules interpretation, and in fact view a lot of the stuff they argue for as outright broken, all those "nice helpfull[sic] amazing optimizers" turn very hostile, very quickly. I've pretty much outright stopped bothering with the D&D forums, and D&D in general because of them (likely even the same people you would name as a part of that list even), something I point out in my last post.
Quote:
Also,It seems kind of unfair for you to say that games should only cater to your type of fun. What makes your fun more important then an optimizers fun?
Not what I'm saying. tuggyne[sic] was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
Not what I'm saying. tuggyne[sic] was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
Well, tuggyne's right on that front, it is undesirable if 5e isn't fun for optimizers...just as it's undesirable for it to be not-fun for the beer-and-pretzels crowd, or the story-teller crowd, or what have you. It's impossible to completely cater to every sort of player, but you want as many categories of player as possible to have something of interest.
People like to claim that optimization culture is a 3e thing. It's not, but because different kinds of optimization happened in each edition, people who can and do optimize in one edition might view another as too hard or too easy to optimize. 3e and 4e have lots of prerequisites, hoop-jumping, and "you must have X to do Y," so optimizing in that ruleset means working your build out ahead of time to ensure you can do what you want to be able to do. AD&D has less flexible classes (with most customization coming in the form of learning spells, making and finding items, and such), as well a fairly delineated level progression ("name level," level caps, different XP tables, UA class variants, etc.), so optimizing in that ruleset means strategic multi- and dual-classing and seeking out magical stuff to make you better. Optimization-in-build vs. optimization-in-play, if you will. For a game to be "bad" or unfun for optimizers would mean it would either have to be practically impossible to optimize (lots of randomness, DM fiat everywhere, etc.) or pointless to optimize (homogeneous options, no advantage to be gained, etc.). Those kinds of games are good for PC-killers like one-shots, old-school dungeoncrawls, tournament play, and such; non-serious games like Paranoia, where the rules don't really matter anyway; and PCs-as-inferior-underdogs games like WHFRP and CoC, where the whole point is that the PCs are relatively powerless and doomed to die; none of which modern D&D really resembles.
Similarly, the people who argue in WotC D&D about the technical literal meaning of RAW are the same people who argue in AD&D about vague and contradictory rules; too many rules is just as bad as too few rules. The people who get upset when 3e DMs don't allow PrC early-entry and ban material for bad reasons are the same people who argue with 2e DMs about banned kits and subsystems or 4e DMs about banned themes and rituals. The fact that there are a lot of powergamers/munchkins/rules lawyers/[derogatory term du jour] online doesn't mean that they should be catered to less than the drama queens/"real" roleplayers/[derogatory term du jour] or the noobs/hack-n-slashers/[derogatory term du jour].
I haven't seen the overly-hostile optimizers you mention, at least on these forums, but I'll take your word for it that you have been burned by them before. Even so, dismissing optimizers as worse than cheaters is not the right reaction--you can deal with them sensibly just as much as cheaters, and usually more so. Calling out D&D forums as being the most wretched hives of scum and villainy around is the wrong reaction--the stuff you can pull in GURPS and Shadowrun is less out-of-genre than D&D but no less crazy. Wanting a game to be badly designed to have more vague and undefined rules to stop them (which would only lead to "story lawyering" on the part of the bad players and god-moding and railroading on the part of the bad DMs) is not the right reaction--note that there's a big different between a rules-light game and one with incomplete or vague rules.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
When you don't agree with the optimizers on rules interpretation, and in fact view a lot of the stuff they argue for as outright broken, all those "nice helpfull[sic] amazing optimizers" turn very hostile, very quickly. I've pretty much outright stopped bothering with the D&D forums, and D&D in general because of them (likely even the same people you would name as a part of that list even), something I point out in my last post.
I could say the same thing for many people hostile to optimizing except in the other direction. I have seen many people hostile to optimization who react badly to the notion that the monk (for example) is underpowered. There are hostile people and pleasant people on both sides. There is also the fact that most optimizers don't share the same opinions (see Answerer and Thiagomartell on these very forums). You can't group us all together like that. One optimizer may think something is outright broken while another might think it's fine.
I'm also a little confused as too why you have "stopped bothering with dnd because of optimizers" when non-optimizers still vastly outnumber optimizers. This is an optimization friendly forum (and this is the only one I can really think of besides the minmaxboards). Go to a site like RPGnet or ENworld or the 3.5 private sanctuary forums or the kick the boot forums or the pathfinder forums or etc etc etc and you will see a ton of people who share your opinions and maybe one or two guys per thread (probably not even that) who don't.
EDIT: I also forgot to mention the RPG youtube brigade as an example of a community made up almost entirely of non-optimizers.
EDIT: the post above this one is gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
Not what I'm saying. tuggyne[sic] was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
Ah I see. I think I'll withold my opinions on this one.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PairO'Dice Lost
you can deal with them sensibly just as much as cheaters, and usually more so.
No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.
To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.
And 123456789blaaa: That's why I can't play D&D anymore. It has nothing to do finding players like-minded or otherwise, I could likely find a group on a D&D forums to run with in a week. Or in the years since I stopped. But it wouldn't change that I would need to be a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D. And being that kind of a hard-ass, or knowtowing to someone in order to make sure I can do anything is not something I want to be. So I don't play, and I don't take solace in things that are good for optimizers.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.
To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.
And 123456789blaaa: That's why I can't play D&D anymore. It has nothing to do finding players like-minded or otherwise, I could likely find a group on a D&D forums to run with in a week. Or in the years since I stopped. But it wouldn't change that I would need to be a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D. And being that kind of a hard-ass, or knowtowing to someone in order to make sure I can do anything is not something I want to be. So I don't play, and I don't take solace in things that are good for optimizers.
But if they are like you then they won't optimize so why would you have to be "a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D." :smallconfused:. I have the feeling I'm missing something...
Also, check my sig.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
Not what I'm saying. tuggyne was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
I wasn't quite saying it was bad design per se, although I can see why it would be easy to get confused, as I wasn't massively clear there. Rather, I am saying it's a bad idea to design a game (however good otherwise) to ignore a particular subset of your target market, when (as Pair O'Dice has eloquently explained) it's such a substantial chunk of your past, present, and future players.
I do, however, consider it bad design to make a game that is vastly imbalanced, or to achieve balance by making all options identical; whether any of these is done intentionally or by accident I consider beside the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.
To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.
And 123456789blaaa: That's why I can't play D&D anymore. It has nothing to do finding players like-minded or otherwise, I could likely find a group on a D&D forums to run with in a week. Or in the years since I stopped. But it wouldn't change that I would need to be a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D. And being that kind of a hard-ass, or knowtowing to someone in order to make sure I can do anything is not something I want to be. So I don't play, and I don't take solace in things that are good for optimizers.
I find this very sad, for three reasons: first, you've obviously experienced mostly "optimizers" who, through accident or intent, have not made characters that fit with the party power level. (It's also possible for an entire party to optimize beyond what a DM can deal with, but this is a bit less common, and tends to be simpler to tone down.) Mistakes do happen, even with experienced optimizers at times, and it's reasonable for players and DMs to work together to fix them, rather than immediately kicking someone out as soon as they slip up.
Secondly, that you're unable to distinguish probable power levels (which is a bit unfortunate, but certainly not a character flaw) and more importantly can't tell the difference between an honest mistake that could reasonably be corrected and a dishonest determination to slip something past you at all costs and with no compunction. I have a personal friend in somewhat the same situation; the only "optimizer" he knows that is at all a decent person is me, and he's had the pain of DMing a party/campaign crossover where one entire party is player-killing munchkins (who, of course, all labeled themselves as optimizers). So you have my sympathy for the players you've dealt with that have betrayed your trust.
And thirdly, the fact that your decision not to DM (because of the danger of lurking optimizers) led directly to a decision not to play (because you don't want to be a parasite) seems really sad, and unnecessary to me. Sometimes, we have to live with not being able to contribute much toward a common goal. But being a perpetual player should not be considered so dishonorable that you give up on playing entirely.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.
To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.
So...you don't like optimizers as a DM because you don't know the rules well enough to gauge power level, you don't trust your players and so impose a "discipline" that they can "break," you expect people to try to sneak things past you as a DM, and your first reaction to "catching" someone with a more-powerful-than-average character is to kick them from the group, and as a player because you feel their rules knowledge eclipses yours and therefore any group with the two of you would involve your "kowtowing" to them and the DM or being a "remora"? :smallconfused: How do you play any RPG more rules-heavy than FATE if that's your attitude towards the rules? And even rules-light games like FATE require a heck of a lot of player-GM trust with all the narrative control given to players.
We have two rules in my group to rein in over-optimization. Rule #1 is "Don't be a ****" and Rule #2 is "Be honest with the group," and we've never had a problem. I think you've either been incredibly unlucky in your selection of players, or any "acting out" they're doing is in response to said iron-fisted DMing. I do hope you give D&D another chance with a good group sometime; with a group of players who are friends rather than jerks, it's nowhere near as bad as you describe.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
I wasn't quite saying it was bad design per se, although I can see why it would be easy to get confused, as I wasn't massively clear there. Rather, I am saying it's a bad idea to design a game (however good otherwise) to ignore a particular subset of your target market, when (as Pair O'Dice has eloquently explained) it's such a substantial chunk of your past, present, and future players.
Which is a valid point, but a matter of taste.
Quote:
I do, however, consider it bad design to make a game that is vastly imbalanced, or to achieve balance by making all options identical; whether any of these is done intentionally or by accident I consider beside the point.
Which is again, not what I was saying or how I was using the word.
Quote:
I find this very sad, for three reasons: first, you've obviously experienced mostly "optimizers" who, through accident or intent, have not made characters that fit with the party power level. (It's also possible for an entire party to optimize beyond what a DM can deal with, but this is a bit less common, and tends to be simpler to tone down.) Mistakes do happen, even with experienced optimizers at times, and it's reasonable for players and DMs to work together to fix them, rather than immediately kicking someone out as soon as they slip up.
I'm just really bad at building synergies in games. When I would play mechwarrior with my family, I was the last person to adapt between rounds, or to the mechanics themselves, making even hilariously casual competitive play for fun a harrowing experience. This pattern would continue itself through my MTG days (which was a much better time, despite losing a vast majority of my games, small tweaks to my deck over time resulted in many wins and plays that were not predictable), and then into D&D. The skills and mindset required for optimization is something I've never had, this makes it hilariously easy to outpreform me as a DM.
Quote:
Secondly, that you're unable to distinguish probable power levels (which is a bit unfortunate, but certainly not a character flaw) and more importantly can't tell the difference between an honest mistake that could reasonably be corrected and a dishonest determination to slip something past you at all costs and with no compunction.
It has to do with who brings it to my attention, because as I've stated, I will not notice. If it's the player himself, then it's something that can be corrected. If another player brings it to my attention, then depending on how the accused reacts, something may possibly be worked out. Both of these situations have happened in games I ran. But, I have to have a standard to adhere to, and because I can't sit down with the character sheet and look it over myself, I have no choice but to assume malice where stupidity may suffice, especially considering my capacity with optimization, and where the default for each scale is between people.
Quote:
And thirdly, the fact that your decision not to DM (because of the danger of lurking optimizers) led directly to a decision not to play (because you don't want to be a parasite) seems really sad, and unnecessary to me. Sometimes, we have to live with not being able to contribute much toward a common goal. But being a perpetual player should not be considered so dishonorable that you give up on playing entirely.
Like has been said by outright better speakers numerous times: It's no fun to constantly be unable to be shown up at what you're supposed to be good at. And for me it's no fun to know that in most groups other than complete new players, I'm likely going to be shown up no matter what I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PairO'Dice Lost
So...you don't like optimizers as a DM because you don't know the rules well enough to gauge power level, you don't trust your players and so impose a "discipline" that they can "break," you expect people to try to sneak things past you as a DM, and your first reaction to "catching" someone with a more-powerful-than-average character is to kick them from the group, and as a player because you feel their rules knowledge eclipses yours and therefore any group with the two of you would involve your "kowtowing" to them and the DM or being a "remora"?
More or less.
Quote:
:smallconfused: How do you play any RPG more rules-heavy than FATE if that's your attitude towards the rules? And even rules-light games like FATE require a heck of a lot of player-GM trust with all the narrative control given to players.
I don't. Very few RPGs have sufficiently interested me like D&D did. The ones that have are generally "no one wants to run" games like Shadowrun, or are games few people have even heard of (and I barely remember myself).
Quote:
I do hope you give D&D another chance with a good group sometime; with a group of players who are friends rather than jerks, it's nowhere near as bad as you describe.
I want to give D&D another shot, it's why I'm here. But for me 3.5 is almost totally ruined as a system, and playing it would require far more work and interpersonal dependence than I'm capable of.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zeful
I want to give D&D another shot, it's why I'm here. But for me 3.5 is almost totally ruined as a system, and playing it would require far more work and interpersonal dependence than I'm capable of.
I think you're pretty much trapped in an unwinnable situation. D&D, due to its nature as a rules-heavy gaming system, is naturally going to allow players to "optimize" if they choose to do so. Even 4e, which for all practical purposes narrowed the gap between RAW "low op" and "high op" significantly is still a game where optimization happens (and some would argue, is baked into the system, to a degree that didn't even exist in 3.5). We haven't seen too much of 5e, but I am confident that whatever gets released will be picked apart on the internet (just like 3.5 and 4e were), from which practical optimization will follow.
What I find more unnerving however, is your general response to "optimization" (and let's be clear that optimization is not always clear cut. One man's optimization, is another man's "in character choice"). You can't be afraid of it. If you worry about optimization, you're going to be spending so much of your time focusing on how to "beat" the optimization, rather than doing all the stuff that makes being a DM enjoyable.
What Pair o' Dice said worth repeating:
1) One of the most important rules for being a player: "Don't be a ****". A player that brings a Cleric 1, switches into Psychic Warrior at level 2, and then goes straight Crusader at level 3, should know better than to pick up a 1d2 weapon once they start nearing level 11. At the same time, "don't be a ****" != "don't optimize, ever". Some players will naturally see that Grease is a superior spell than Magic Missile, and that Power Attack and Improved Initiative are better feats than Endurance and Run.
The dividing line (I think) between "being a ****" and "not" speaks to Pair o' Dice's second point:
2) "Be honest about what you're trying to build". I tell my players straight up in our 4e game: I expect you to optimize, but don't bring a Ranger with dual frost weapons and a bevy of feats to add to cold damage you deal and tell me your character "is not optimized". Get in the habit of asking about what direction they want to "build" their character to, and why they choose particular feats or spells. You'll not only learn why they're creating the character they are, but also you'll be learning more about the game AND how your player approaches it.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Well, if you can't trust your Players, you have the least rules-knowledge in the group and you can't identify whether behavior is acceptable or inappropriate, then you really shouldn't be DMing in the first place. That goes for any system.
But there is a lot of room for Players who don't or can't optimize in D&D 3.X. I run what I consider a fairly high-op game (average encounters are usually CR+4 to CR+8, mooks are optimized for group tactics, monsters get feats/spells/ability scores shuffled around to make them more effective, etc) but there are always a handful of players who need to add up their Attack Bonus every round, and they do just fine. Part of being a Party means looking out for each other and giving the other PCs room to shine; there's nothing parasitic about having to ask for help every now and again with rules issues. A DM who lets a Player sit there feeling useless is, almost by definition, not doing their job.
Obviously it isn't wrong for you to move to a less optimization-heavy game like nWoD or 4e, but if you really enjoy D&D I recommend finding a group which isn't made entirely of *******s and being "the new guy." As long as your RP is strong and you're willing to ask for help with mechanical issues, it shouldn't be a problem.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Draz74
So, which one are you protesting -- dead levels, or choice-less levels? Because there's a big difference in some systems. Legend, for example, has no dead levels, but often you level up without making any choices -- your new special ability is pre-determined by your previous special abilities.
If 5e Specialties were designed to be always taken as a package, not breakable into individual feats, would that actually be a bad thing? Well, yes, because I have no faith in WotC's ability to balance Feats well enough to keep me from being frustrated that I can't pick and choose. But if they could balance them well enough, would it bother me to have my new level-up abilities pre-determined? I'm honestly not sure what my own answer to that question would be.
Well, I more meant choice-less levels, though I guess those aren't necessarily dead levels. I do like to be able to make a choice every level, and have it be more meaningful than "I get +1 to certain rolls that I didn't get last level."
For me, the easiest comparison to what I'd like would be certain 4th Edition DnD Martial classes. They have no true "dead" levels (at least, early on), but a lot of their "choices" are predetermined. My verdict on them is that they are fun and reasonably balanced, but they're not the type of class I would like to play for an extended campaign (I'd be fine with them in a shorter adventure or a one-shot) because of the low ceiling for customization.
Fortunately, DnD 4th edition still has the Weaponmaster fighter, so I can still play a fighter where I get to make a choice every level if I want to--I'm not stuck with the Slayer or Knight if I want to play the martial archetype I envision as "the fighter." Ideally, this would be about what I would want DnD Next to offer me. I want both the "weaponmaster," the build where I can make a choice every level, and the "slayer," where many (or even all) are predetermined. And I don't want to be forced to play a spellcaster if I want the "choice every level."
So I guess, I would say if specialties are the only options for feats--no matter how balanced they are against each other--I would be disappointed.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Water_Bear
But there is a lot of room for Players who don't or can't optimize in D&D 3.X.
I gotta agree to this.
Back when I was in high school, I played during lunch with a group of friends, we all were pretty new. My ex was playing a druid, and she ended up begging the DM that she can switch classes because she felt so weak compared to everyone, mostly the ranger. She switched to a bard if my memory is correct.