What did WOTC do RIGHT? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Eldariel

2012-09-01, 09:13 PM

The ideas and the designs behind the game are sound. The game is fun to play, the classes are evocative of classic fantasy archetypes and the versatility of the class system rivals or exceeds that of even classless system. The classic monsters are all in the game, all the classic fantasy magic is possible, it has "classic" down to the T.

Far as nailing mechanics too, ToB was pretty good. I really would prefer they would've increased a mundane assassination school (basically, something with lots of extraordinary maneuvers with "flat-footed" and maybe "flanked" trigger; Shadow Hand is too magical) and incorporated ranged weaponry beyond one PRC (seriously, neglected in PHB, neglected in Completes, neglected in 3.5 splats at large, then ToB?). Expanded Psionics Handbook nailed it. Races of the Wild (and the "Races of"-series in general) had pretty good fluff available for fleshing out what being of "Race X" might mean and what's different from being a mere human.

TuggyNE

2012-09-01, 09:24 PM

OGL was awesome. (Even though they probably don't think so anymore.)

Oh, vastly agreed on both counts.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 09:24 PM

I count making a fun, interesting game that blew new life into the most powerful and known franchise in the RPG world as a right thing to do. Building a system that completely took over the market, forcing most other companies to start using said system also does seem like a very right thing to do.
D&D 3.5 is a very interesting and fun game. The designers did very well in putting it together. If they didn't, we wouldn't be talking about it (and discovering new interactions) 6 years after they stopped publishing it.

Zaq

2012-09-01, 09:30 PM

Yeah, honestly, sometimes it's easy to lose track of what they did right in complaining about what needs some help. The game is solid. It's deeply flawed, but it's solid enough to make me (and, I'd wager, a whoooole lotta people like me) love it despite its flaws, and love it enough to want to fix those flaws.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 09:35 PM

Eldariel

2012-09-01, 10:11 PM

Yeah, 3.5 is a frequent victim of having it's weak points accentuated (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AccentuateTheNegative) by it's own fans (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenBase).

To be fair, it does have an obscenely large number of them made all the more obvious by the close scrutiny commonly performed by the long-term players; it's not just noise after all. Luckily you get to choose what material you use in your games :smallwink:

Loki_42

2012-09-01, 11:03 PM

Zeful

2012-09-01, 11:10 PM

I'd say the core of the multiclassing system is right. Discounting the xp penalties, and playing with a group that will let you refluff, you can build almost any concept you want by dipping around classes.

I'd argue that that is an example of them failing to build classes correctly. You never wanted to go to 20 in a class because multi-classing was better in every respect rather than a matter of choice. Most base classes could stop existing past level 7 and it wouldn't impact anything of importance.

eggs

2012-09-01, 11:19 PM

There are enough prestige classes made solely to patch holes in the multiclassing mechanic that I probably wouldn't count it as a stellar high point.

Beside OGL, the best thing I think WotC did with 3e was make an endlessly strategically fiddly M:tG-kind of system. It's not something I would say is a great trait in RPGs in general, and it's not something I always feel up to, but it's the reason my group usually has an ongoing 3e game - even when we have systems that better represent the genres or types of conflict that we enjoy. It's fun to piece together that clever build and see if you can make it thrive.

navar100

2012-09-01, 11:23 PM

Created 3E, rejuvenating D&D excitement
Feats
Spontaneous healing for clerics, releasing them from the chains of healbot while at the same time improving their healing ability.
Tome of Battle
Expanded Psionics
Prestige Classes
OGL that allowed Paizo to improve 3E

Zeful

2012-09-01, 11:38 PM

There are enough prestige classes made solely to patch holes in the multiclassing mechanic that I probably wouldn't count it as a stellar high point.

Beside OGL, the best thing I think WotC did with 3e was make an endlessly strategically fiddly M:tG-kind of system. It's not something I would say is a great trait in RPGs in general, and it's something I don't always enjoy, but it's the reason my group usually has an ongoing 3e game - even when we have systems that better represent the genres or types of conflict that we enjoy. It's fun to piece together that clever build and see if you can make it thrive.

Only if you are good at that kind of thing. If you aren't, then it's playing Russian Roulette with 5 out of 6 chambers loaded with live ammo, and the entire system becomes a giant trap and being able to have fun becomes a luck-based mission.

Big Fau

2012-09-01, 11:40 PM

Some of their ideas were pure gold (early Eberron books were amazing, CS' skill tricks were something that should have existed from the inception of 3.0, the Bo9S and Incarnum were well thought-out if a little shaky in places, etc.).

Dimers

2012-09-02, 12:55 AM

I like the warlock chassis, mechanically. The fluff can go to Hell, pun intended. With a wider variety of invocations possible and a couple ACFs, you could make all kinds of interesting tier 3 or 4 concepts out of that basic build.

Other people have already said most of the things I have been impressed by.

Answerer

2012-09-02, 01:06 AM

Multiclassing, assuming you ignore the XP penalties.

That, and a rather large number of classes, if not done right, are done well enough to be useful and create an interesting game, such that the sheer quantity of them becomes a quality in and of itself.

Randomguy

2012-09-02, 01:17 AM

Tvtyrant

2012-09-02, 01:22 AM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?
I rather like ToB and 4E, but... I don't like it enough to throw out all of the other valid and interesting subsystems. 4E's mechanics are perfectly okay IMO, but they aren't any better than 3.5's psionics, or Incarnum, or Vancian, or a Factotum. If they came out with the daily system as a subsystem of 3.5 it would be awesome, but it just isn't cool enough to warrant wiping the ledger clean the way they did.

The perfect 4E to me would have been modifying and updating all of the major subsystems, rather than ditching all but one.

wayfare

2012-09-02, 01:47 AM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?

Keep in mind that ToB didn't get experienced by most casual players -- it was at the end of 3.5.

Anybody who played a combat class loved 4e. The fighter was one of the most powerful and balanced classes in the entire run. In fact, 4e had almost the opposite problem from 3.5 -- it got so much right in the first run it was hard to make classes that were not derivative or weaker.

To the OP: I love the idea of incarnum, and think that if it had been expanded a bit, it could have completely replaced conventional magic. I also love the warlock, and wish it had been given different backrounds for folks to choose from (angelic, fey, far realms...there is a project on these boards that does that). Finally, I love the Beguiler/Dreadnecro, etc -- tier 3 casters are thematic fun, and I wish 3.5 had finished a run of them.

Mithril Leaf

2012-09-02, 04:37 AM

Honestly, Binder's were fairly well made. They're a very cool concept that was well executed and fairly well balanced (high power with some options but not broken). I think all of the game's magic being a mix of psionics, binders, and incarnum would have been a nice basis and fairly well balanced.

Eldan

2012-09-02, 05:09 AM

The game is, despite all it's flaws, fun to play. I think they did something right there. The mechanics are fundamentally unbalanced and unfair to certain archetypes, but they still work well enough that you can play and enjoy them.

In a certain way, I think if hte rules had been balanced, we would never have seen so much enduring popularity. It's been over twelve years now, and the homebrew people are still squabbling over fighter fixes and better ways to play monsters and alternative spellcasting mechanics. Take that from us, and we wouldn't know what to do with our time.

We all love the game. We also just love tearing into it, playing with it in ways never intended and breaking it to heaven and back.

The basic system is, I think, relatively robust. D20+modifier against target is a swingy mechanic with a lot of randomness built in, but it works and rolling 20s is great fun at a table.

THat's the basics. On top of that, they gave us endless different mechanics to play with. I know no other system that has such mechanically different things in one game as Vancian, Psionics, Binding and Incarnum, all for what is essentially still magic.

Boci

2012-09-02, 05:49 AM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?

4E built every class off the same template, so balance was easy. 3.5 showed us that it is possible to have classes designed in wildly different ways (factotum, ToB, incarnum (-the soul born), binder, ect, yet still be reasonably balanced compared to each other.

Yora

2012-09-02, 05:53 AM

d20 + bonuses - penalties vs. d20 + bonuses - penalties or DC

It's so simple, but such a massive improvement over AD&D.

In the final game, BAB, saves, and skill modifiers were getting up much too quickly with each new level, but the simple universal mechanic was the best thing D&D ever did.

Also Expanded Psionic Handbook. Best D&D magic system ever made, and even though it was a new attempt at the D&D magic system that had always been the worst nightmare before.

The Dark Fiddler

2012-09-02, 06:54 AM

I'd say the core of the multiclassing system is right. Discounting the xp penalties, and playing with a group that will let you refluff, you can build almost any concept you want by dipping around classes.

Multiclassing, assuming you ignore the XP penalties.

That, and a rather large number of classes, if not done right, are done well enough to be useful and create an interesting game, such that the sheer quantity of them becomes a quality in and of itself.

I agree wholeheartedly. Any of system I've seen that involves classes of some sort (barring Legend, which also does a very good job here) makes it obscenely difficult to pick and choose what powers feel right for a character. The only change I'd make to multiclassing in a 3.5 revision would be implementing something akin to the Initiator Level advancement from ToB across the board.

Eldariel

2012-09-02, 08:09 AM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?

That's a whole other can of worms but basically, there's a few different types of dislikes people have for 4E. Personally, I simply feel the classes too close to each other mechanically.

I also greatly dislike the lack of proper multiclassing and the forced archetypes (in 3.5, any class can more or less handle any role built right). I find 4E has its place but I generally prefer 3.5 a lot, which seems to be a fairly common sentiment.

Spontaneous healing for clerics, releasing them from the chains of healbot while at the same time improving their healing ability.

This is really big, I actually forgot this on my list. Easy access to healing removing the need for healbots entirely (Wand of Cure Light Wounds in core, even better options out of Core) and making being a Cleric with access to healing easy even if you don't waste your slots on Cure-spells.

Clerics in 3e are probably the most fun they've ever been to play simply 'cause you have the quantity of slots to buff and fight, and because they don't need to dedicate a single slot to healing. And their combat spells are really good, too!

Eldan

2012-09-02, 08:17 AM

What Eldariel said, really. I came into D&D when 3E was already in full swing. By the time, we already had several mechanically different sub-systems.

I like Tome of Battle because it introduces a new subsystem with new and distinct rules. It's different from what we have seen before, but it's fun, it's relatively versatile, and it works better alongside other systems than most things seen before.

4E really did the opposite to some degree. There's no backwards compatibility, and at least in the PHB, which was the only thing I read, all classes have the same basic system for gaining and using powers.

darksolitaire

2012-09-02, 08:42 AM

The Dark Fiddler

2012-09-02, 09:04 AM

Also, I think D20 hits the sweet spot between complicated and mechanical D100 and simple D10/D6.

d100 isn't necessarily more complex, though. Same with d10/d6 being simpler. Dark Heresy, for example, uses a d100 system, and the entire system can be summed up as "You have stats that range from 1 to 100, if you roll under the stat you succeed; circumstance modifiers make things easier/more difficult." Meanwhile, I still haven't gotten a grasp on Exalted 2e's rules (granted, I still haven't read through the entire book).

Eldan

2012-09-02, 09:15 AM

And you can make d6 or d10 dice pool systems very complicated.

Assume your base mechanic is
"Roll a number of d6 equal to your attribute, All that roll 4+ are successes, number of successes indicates how well you did".

You can endlessly modify that. Modify your attribute to gain more or less dice. Grant bonus dice. Give fewer dice. Change the target number. Change the number of necessary successes. Call 1's failures and subtract them from successes. Require rolling a certain combination of numbers (One 3, two 1s) for bigger success. And so on.

Sir Enigma

2012-09-02, 09:44 AM

I also greatly dislike the lack of proper multiclassing and the forced archetypes (in 3.5, any class can more or less handle any role built right). I find 4E has its place but I generally prefer 3.5 a lot, which seems to be a fairly common sentiment.

Strongly agree with this here - 3e hits a perfect sweet spot for me between ease and flexibility. Point buy systems are more flexible, but can be overwhelming to first get into, while I found 4e to be very restrictive (it had a whole bunch of ideas I liked, but the inflexibility of it killed the whole system off for me). I think that later supplements (Tome of Battle, the restricted-list casters, Psionics) showed that the worst of the balance issues aren't inherent to the system, just a result of poor class/spell design; I found 4e's drastic revamp unnecessary.

Half-Orc Rage

2012-09-02, 10:21 AM

I agree with most of what was said here. I am currently playing a duskblade and I love the class, it blends melee and magic so well. It's very well designed.

Knaight

2012-09-02, 10:24 AM

OGL is WotC's biggest contribution. It allowed the market to grow, it's a license that can be used by just about any game that developers want to be open, preventing each game from having its own license, and it is a simple and effective license to work under. It's a shame they didn't release 4e under it.

The core d20 mechanic, applied to everything, is also nice. Granted, consolidated systems built around a core mechanic were nothing new at the time, and D&D was a bit behind for not having one, plus there is still use of other dice intermittently that is a bit odd, but it is still a very large improvement.

There were also some interesting concepts floated around. Incarnum was interesting, even if much of it wasn't particularly useful.

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?
4e doesn't use the ToB style. Manuevers aren't per-encounter because of refresh mechanics, at-wills don't have an equivalent. and dailies are avoided by ToB. There are some superficial similarities, nothing more.

AmberVael

2012-09-02, 10:33 AM

Variety.

You can do a ton of different things in 3.5, and it's not just fluff- there are entirely unique mechanics which give a truly different feel to things. I can find games in which I can do lots of things, or where lots of things are possible, but I don't often see the staggering array of distinct systems within a single game system.

The fact that a Binder, Warlock, Totemist, Swordsage and Psychic Warrior all exist in the same game and actually have relatively decent balance towards one another is impressive.

TheFallenOne

2012-09-02, 10:52 AM

The sheer amount of options is very important. Feats. Free multiclassing. A plethora of PrCs.
Many other systems made characters of the same class too similar. Classless systems often lack ways to give characters something distinctive in crunch.

And that's what kept the game alive for so long. Even after twelve years you don't run out of interesting builds to play.

Venger

2012-09-02, 12:39 PM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?

Well, that's actually quite a simple question to answer. It's the New Coke Effect.

in 1985, Coke found its sales were flagging and thought, somewhat reasonably, "let's try something new and see if our consumer base responds positively to it"

so they did taste tests and asked people what they thought of new coke. and the majority of reactions were positive, so they thought "okay, let's start making this new coke"

with beta-testing (as it were) done, they made the announcement!:

say goodbye to coke! it's only new coke from now on!

people got understandably butthurt about it and new coke was a failure with regular coke being reinstated shortly thereafter.

what happened?

well, people were asked about new coke strictly on its own merits. they knew that coke's people were going to start making new coke, but they were never asked how they would feel about new coke replacing coke.

that's the problem most people have with 4e. the update from 3.0 to 3.5 was pretty painless because 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0. I can play a gondian techsmith or a goldeye in a 3.5 game, and there are few notable differences. I call my "wilderness lore" "survival" now, but it's not a huge deal, like how nintendo made their DS's with GBA dongles, so you could still play your old games on them,

versus other game companies coming out with a cool new line of games, but only making them available on one particular platform instead of what the fans of the series already had (halo 2 being xbox only instead of being available for the PC, as combat evolved was) so people were complaining on the same grounds. not that halo 2 is a terrible game and completely misses the entire spirit of the original (it doesn't) but that I have to go and buy a new machine to play it.

it's like if when buying new coke, I had to go out and buy special reinforced cups to pour it into, because there is a magic spell cast on the liquid inside and it will just pour right through my old glasses. that would be a real pain.

during the playtest/ask the audience/gather feedback/etc things when developing 4e, they did ask people "what do you like about 3.5? what do you think we could do better?" etc. and they got answers, but they new coked us, and that ended up being detrimental to both the fans and the company in the end, and that's terrible.

navar100

2012-09-02, 12:54 PM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?

You asked . . .

1) Because all classes are like it.

2) There's no recovery system, so you eventually end up doing the boring at will power over and over and over.

3) Daily powers are just encounter powers with a bigger number for the level.

4) Magic doesn't exist. "Magic" is just another word for "sword" or "bow" with everyone doing X[W] damage + effect, X and severity of effect increasing as the levels increase, slowly. (Wizard does have some powers that aren't like this.)

5) Magic items don't exist. "Magic item" is just another way of saying "daily power", plus you have a limit on how many you can use in a day.

6) Rituals nickel and dime you and take too long for when you need something done Now. WOTC admitted they made Rituals a chore to do so that players won't use them.

7) Skill DC increase with your level such that exact same something that's DC 20 at level 1 has to be DC 40 at level 11. For example, swinging on a chandelier. The chandelier does not know the level of the character wanting to swing on it without falling. If the task is DC 20 at level 1, it should be DC 20 at level 11, DC 20 at level 25. If that means the PC can automatically do it, good. The PC is just that good.

8) With everything scaling at half-level, being high level doesn't mean anything. You get half-level bonus to your roll to do something. You also get half-level bonus on your defense against an opponent doing something to you. The percentage chance of succeeding remains the same for all levels. You never effectively get better; you're just working with higher numbers.

9) 4E players like to continually bash 3E.

Zeful

2012-09-02, 01:34 PM

9) 4E players like to continually bash 3E.

Not like 3e players are much better. The number of "mundane classes should be mook" discussion that come up any freaking time a change to either magical classes or mundane classes come up make it so that it's pretty much pointless to bother trying to homebrew fixes because all your critique will be endless whining about changing the status quo rather than anything useful.

Anodai

2012-09-02, 01:35 PM

To me, the best thing about 3.x is that everything is based on the same fundamental principles. You can take any race, any monster, advance it any number of hit dice, and give it any class (or classes), and the process works the same way and the rules will support it. 4th edition and most other systems have monsters that don't work like characters, nonfunctional or nonexistent multiclassing, and an overall lower level of diversity. The D20 system really is a system, it is as if you could take the whole world, see how it works, and put it back together however you want. I think in this way it is a set of rules more becoming of a role-playing game than any other, and to me, it is what sets D&D apart from and above every other game I have played.

The game is very imbalanced in a lot of places, yes. But the way I see it, to have a game that is both so open and so unified almost requires imbalance. The beautiful thing about roleplaying games, though, is that's ok. You can break every class under the sun and build unkillable godlike cheesy builds, but when you sit down around the table, that never seems to happen.

9) 4E players like to continually bash 3E.

To be perfectly fair, we like to bash them too, and I think we started it.

Knaight

2012-09-02, 01:53 PM

To me, the best thing about 3.x is that everything is based on the same fundamental principles. You can take any race, any monster, advance it any number of hit dice, and give it any class (or classes), and the process works the same way and the rules will support it. 4th edition and most other systems have monsters that don't work like characters, nonfunctional or nonexistent multiclassing, and an overall lower level of diversity. The D20 system really is a system, it is as if you could take the whole world, see how it works, and put it back together however you want. I think in this way it is a set of rules more becoming of a role-playing game than any other, and to me, it is what sets D&D apart from and above every other game I have played.

Most other systems have nonexistent multiclassing because they don't have classes, and as classless systems they usually support far more variety.

Alabenson

2012-09-02, 02:26 PM

There's just so much in 3.X that you can choose what you like and what you don't. If you want a character that throws bears, you can do this :smallbiggrin:

Also, I think D20 hits the sweet spot between complicated and mechanical D100 and simple D10/D6.

This right here is perhaps the single greatest thing about 3.X; no matter how bizzare your character concept is, it's almost always possible to build a (somewhat) functional character out of it.
Illusion-wielding mime? Yes.
Insane pyromaniac gish? Easy.
The Swedish Chef as a spellcaster? If only my DM would approve it.

0Megabyte

2012-09-02, 02:56 PM

4th Edition D&D.

Oh, sorry, you meant what did they do right about 3rd edition!

For that, I'd say:

Ascending armor class.

d20 system applied to everything.

The Eberron Campaign Setting.

Truly excellent and flavorful non-core material, such as the ToB, the Binder, the Factotum, the Warlock, the MIC, etc.

The Expanded Psionics Handbook.

I love 3.5, great fun. But yeah, Wizards of the Coast made something awesome in 4th, too, so I stick by that being one of the things Wizards did right.

navar100

2012-09-02, 04:35 PM

Not like 3e players are much better. The number of "mundane classes should be mook" discussion that come up any freaking time a change to either magical classes or mundane classes come up make it so that it's pretty much pointless to bother trying to homebrew fixes because all your critique will be endless whining about changing the status quo rather than anything useful.

True, but that's a whole other can of worms pet peeve of mine. *cough*tiers*cough*

Anyway, to be fair, what I find WOTC did right with 4E:

1) No MAD classes. All are DAD classes.

2) Saving throws use the better of two ability scores for their modifier.

3) 1) & 2) combined means for the first time Point Buy actually works for the recommended point value given. You can always get a "decent" array, "decent" subjective to the individual.

4) Concept of no dead levels. Every level every class gets a new toy.

5) Consolidated skills. Warriors get skills.

Venger

2012-09-02, 05:01 PM

1) No MAD classes. All are DAD classes.

what is DAD? Dual ability dependent?

Coidzor

2012-09-02, 05:06 PM

what is DAD? Dual ability dependent?

Primary, Secondary, and sometimes Tertiary/Constitution, I think, and then the rest is scrubs. Partially because the stats are paired so that you can use the higher of the two for some things, IIRC.

navar100

2012-09-02, 08:29 PM

what is DAD? Dual ability dependent?

Yes. Each class's powers use one of two scores for the modifier. If you want to use both sets, Point Buy allows 16's in each prime for a good start. If you know you'll prefer just one set as the levels progress, that prime can have an 18. The other can have a 14 in case once in a while you want one from the other set which you can improve later. You aren't even forced an 8 in some other score. 18 and 16 in both is doable, but you'll have to accept an 8 or two. However, since saving throws use the higher of two ability score modifiers, the 8's aren't going to hurt you so much because you can use the other score even if it's only a 10. You aren't "punished" for having an 18; it's just a disadvantage. Then you add in racial modifiers you have great flexibility.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 08:52 PM

Yes. Each class's powers use one of two scores for the modifier. If you want to use both sets, Point Buy allows 16's in each prime for a good start. If you know you'll prefer just one set as the levels progress, that prime can have an 18. The other can have a 14 in case once in a while you want one from the other set which you can improve later. You aren't even forced an 8 in some other score. 18 and 16 in both is doable, but you'll have to accept an 8 or two. However, since saving throws use the higher of two ability score modifiers, the 8's aren't going to hurt you so much because you can use the other score even if it's only a 10. You aren't "punished" for having an 18; it's just a disadvantage. Then you add in racial modifiers you have great flexibility.

Archer Ranger is very close to SAD...

VeliciaL

2012-09-02, 09:12 PM

It's possible to build a MAD 4th edition character, but harder, and classes are generally designed out the gate to be SAD.

That said, this is something I kinda miss from 3-3.5. If you wanted to build a slightly off the wall build stats wise, there was generally a minor benefit to doing so. You could get more skill points with higher int, raise a save, or whatnot. That kinda went away in 4th edition.

THAT said, I never really did like 3rd edition. :P

However, I'll give it two things; one, it really helped to popularize a fairly niche (still niche, but less so) hobby, and it gave newbies a common entry point with veterans. It may not have been PERFECT with the latter, but it did.

Ok, a third thing. OGL eventually meant that nearly everything that wasn't Vampire or Werewolf related used some form of D20, so if you knew the basics of D&D you could jump off to various other third-party supplements and settings.

EDIT: You mean archer ranger isn't SAD? :P

Crow

2012-09-02, 09:15 PM

My choices while building and levelling up the character actually MATTER. Maybe a little too much, but hey whatever.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 09:19 PM

THAT said, I never really did like 3rd edition. :P

...What are you even doing in this part of the forum, then?

Novawurmson

2012-09-02, 09:39 PM

The modularity of the system. You've got a Race, a Class, Skills, Feats, and Items. If you can imagine a Race, Class, Skill, Feat or Item, you can probably translate it into game terms.

Grollub

2012-09-02, 09:39 PM

They hired Paizo to do Dungeon Magazine, and Dragon Magazine.. which led to Pathfinder.. :smallcool:

Squark

2012-09-02, 09:47 PM

Honestly, on the topic of 4e, I feel like the real failing was not taking more out of what they did in Saga Edition.

On what was good about 3rd edition:

1)Standardized Mechanics without being homogenous; Everything has the same basic underpinnings (With the exception of Incarnum, which was a noble undertaking that I think works fairly well, but a fair number of people dislike), but you have enough mechanical difference that people get to feel special (Because yes, this is a game, done in my spare time for my enjoyment, and everyone likes to feel special), but concepts are still explainable.

2)Freedom to customize; Related to the above, when you make a character in 3.5, even if it's a somewhat cookie-cutter build, the character still feels like its "yours," mechanically. Two second edition fighters looked pretty much identical on paper. Related to this, multiclassing was a great idea (One of the things I love about Saga Edition was the ability to go completely nuts with Multiclassing.

3)Freedom to Expand, both within D&D proper and from the OGL; The fact that you could have all that variety and still have people playing what was at least nominally the same game did wonders for expanding the Geek community, and giving the system longevity.

Lord_Gareth

2012-09-02, 10:03 PM

They hired Paizo to do Dungeon Magazine, and Dragon Magazine.. which led to Pathfinder.. :smallcool:

Considering that Paizo went on to hire Sean K. Reynolds, this was less 'doing something right' and more [REDACTED]

EDIT: Self-censored for theoretical violation of TOS.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 10:05 PM

Considering that Paizo went on to hire Sean K. Reynolds, this was less 'doing something right' and more 'committing a war crime'.

Ok, we get it, you don't like Pathfinder. :smalltongue:

Lord_Gareth

2012-09-02, 10:06 PM

Ok, we get it, you don't like Pathfinder. :smalltongue:

Nah, I don't like SKR - and, surprise of all surprises, he claims credit for most of the design decisions in PF that I felt were appallingly bad!

olentu

2012-09-02, 10:12 PM

They hired Paizo to do Dungeon Magazine, and Dragon Magazine.. which led to Pathfinder.. :smallcool:

Eh, I would file that under OGL.

Venger

2012-09-02, 10:15 PM

Nah, I don't like SKR - and, surprise of all surprises, he claims credit for most of the design decisions in PF that I felt were appallingly bad!
me neither.

he has a skewed sense of game balance (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html)

Zaydos

2012-09-02, 10:34 PM

Okay let's see...

Streamlined most (but very importantly not all) rolls to d20 based.
Made a usable non-weapon proficiency system (after playing with 2e's 3.X's skills are a massive improvement).
Feats.
Psionics which actually worked.
Tome of Battle.
Spell descriptors and ability groupings (Ex, Su, Sp) it makes things so much easier to be able to go look at is this mind-affecting.
The OGL.
Making the game less deadly at low levels.
Playable monstrous races.
Spontaneous healing.
No racial max level limits.
Switch from low AC is good to high AC is good (helps new players learn).
Prestige Classes.
Racial ACFs (so much better than the old "only X race can be this").
Character customization options. Compared to 2e and earlier 3.X has so many options.

There's a reason I play 3.5... ok my friends know 3.5 and even the ones I teach the game to want to learn the most popular one but that's not the only reason. I like the system, it has flaws, it has holes, sometimes yeah I want to go back and DM a game of 2e again, or play 4e, or play 2e or earlier, but 3.5 is my favorite and there's a reason it's remained popular (like I said I can't find people IRL to play other systems with).

Gnorman

2012-09-04, 06:50 AM

me neither.

he has a skewed sense of game balance (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html)

Two for one metamagic? Sign me up!

To be fair, the feat point idea isn't necessarily bad - but the point values he's assigning to each one betray a certain fundamental lack of understanding, balance-wise.

[Spell Focus is] never going to be as universally as effective as Weapon Focus is in the hands of a fighter

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 06:55 AM

Boci

2012-09-04, 07:06 AM

It doesn't change the fact that he is a successful professional game designer, while most of his demeaners want to get there and never will.

Pretty sure that is a fallacy. There are plenty of successful people who make stupid mistakes. Lord Sugar predicted the Ipod would be dead by Christmas. That doesn't change the fact that he is a millionaire entrepreneur, but it also doesn't change the fact that he made a mistake (and his mistake was with a topic that was not written down).

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 07:26 AM

Pretty sure that is a fallacy. There are plenty of successful people who make stupid mistakes. Lord Sugar predicted the Ipod would be dead by Christmas. That doesn't change the fact that he is a millionaire entrepreneur, but it also doesn't change the fact that he made a mistake (and his mistake was with a topic that was not written down).

I'm not saying he didn't make a mistake.
I'm saying that the fact that one of the most successful game designers in the business is a human being that commits mistakes as all other human beings does not mean that hiring one of the most successful game designers in the business is akin to a freaking war crime like other people commented.

Dead_Jester

2012-09-04, 07:34 AM

He's working from the base concept that all classes are equally balanced.
It's easy to look back on what he did with years of extra study and standing on the shoulders of giant and demean the guy. It doesn't change the fact that he is a successful professional game designer, while most of his demeaners want to get there and never will.

And why does it seem half the game designers can't do it? It's not about being a game designer, it's about understanding basic market behavior; if A is bad in the eyes of most people, and most experts on the topic except a few fervent defenders think it's bad, than it's safe to assume it's at least somewhat flawed, and people won't like it (which isn't to say they won't still buy your things in the hope you finally learn, but that only lasts so long).

On topic, what WotC did right with 3.5:

1. A semblance of balance. 3rd edition recover more or less graciously from a terrible start as far as balance is concerned. Core and the early splatbooks give us the worst imbalance as far as classes go, with later splatbooks tending to be closer to a balanced level (discounting aberrations such as the Truenamer) that was widely accepted as "the best" (low tier 2 and tier 3).

2. Feats that do something other than static small number increases. Again, horrible start, and barely any improvement, but there are a few great ideas in the pile, such as weapon style feats (great idea in theory, the execution was sometimes lacking), and partial class ability access feats (Martial Maneuver, Bind Vestige, the series in MoI).

3. Variety in built-in character options; again Core was terrible, but the discrepancy between casters and non-casters more or less flattens out at the end, with casters getting less means to affect or break the narrative, and non-casters getting more.

4. Different subsystems for different classes. This is what makes current 3.5 a homebrewers dream, and, after an adaptation period that really isn't that long (if you understand core spellcasters, you can understand any of the splat options, as they are all simpler and more limited), a great new player friendly system; while at the start, many character archetypes required fiddling around with multiclassing and knowledge of dozens of feats (and probably ending as an unbalanced or unplayable mess), at the end of 3.5, most character concepts could be achieved with a single class and PrC, and are effective from 1st to 20th level. The only bad thing about this was non-existent support for many subsystems except in the magazines (a series of Complete style books for the later subsystems would have been awesome on WotC part, although it might have reduced a lot of the motivation to create new content by the community).

olentu

2012-09-04, 07:34 AM

I'm not saying he didn't make a mistake.
I'm saying that the fact that one of the most successful game designers in the business is a human being that commits mistakes as all other human beings does not mean that hiring one of the most successful game designers in the business is akin to a freaking war crime like other people commented.

Hmm, how are you measuring success.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 07:39 AM

And why does it seem half the game designers can't do it? It's not about being a game designer, it's about understanding basic market behavior; if A is bad in the eyes of most people, and most experts on the topic except a few fervent defenders think it's bad, than it's safe to assume it's at least somewhat flawed, and people won't like it (which isn't to say they won't still buy your things in the hope you finally learn, but that only lasts so long).
Considering how much Pathfinder sells, I'm pretty sure they understand basic market behavior.
People in gaming forums are not "most people". We are a small subset of the market. Pandering to us would be not understanding basic market behavior.

Hmm, how are you measuring success.
Amount of successful projects. Isn't that a given?

olentu

2012-09-04, 08:13 AM

Amount of successful projects. Isn't that a given?

So, monetary success then.

Answerer

2012-09-04, 08:16 AM

Sean K. Reynolds has not only stated that he doesn't know or care about mechanics, but that he actively disdains anyone who does.

His influence on the game has been hideous.

DigoDragon

2012-09-04, 08:19 AM

The Eberron Campaign Setting.

I agree! I think one of the best things done was to release a brand new campaign setting, one that was different and from the classic heavily established ones of editions past (like Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms). Warforged was also a pretty brilliant new playable race. Those things really can add new flavor into a campaign.

Venger

2012-09-04, 08:35 AM

I agree! I think one of the best things done was to release a brand new campaign setting, one that was different and from the classic heavily established ones of editions past (like Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms). Warforged was also a pretty brilliant new playable race. Those things really can add new flavor into a campaign.

Yep, and it's thanks in large to rich burlew, the founder of our favorite D&D web forum.

Eldariel

2012-09-04, 08:37 AM

Boci

2012-09-04, 08:43 AM

Yep, and it's thanks in large to rich burlew, the founder of our favorite D&D web forum.

I thought only part of his work Rich could legally tell us was used in Eberron were the death worshiping elves.

He's also committing multiple simple mistakes in his feat model that have nothing to do with years of scrutiny and everything to do with basic understanding of the trade-offs offered. For instance, he values Scribe Scroll higher than Brew Potion 'cause Scribe Scroll is uncapped; which is fine until we remember that "Oh geez, Potions can be used by a vastly larger number of characters than Scrolls"!

Isn't that conventional wisdom though? I also see scribe scroll rated higher than brew potion (although more because of the cost than the lack of cap).

darksolitaire

2012-09-04, 08:53 AM

I thought only part of his work Rich could legally tell us was used in Eberron were the death worshiping elves.

I've think there were some tongue on the cheek rumors about how Rich invented the swift action/eberron/whatnot :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel

2012-09-04, 09:04 AM

Isn't that conventional wisdom though? I also see scribe scroll rated higher than brew potion (although more because of the cost than the lack of cap).

That's not the point. My point was that in his assessments, he's only assessing one half while ignoring the other. That is to say, he's not assessing the whole but rather pieces of it, which cannot lead to a very consistent result.

sonofzeal

2012-09-04, 09:27 AM

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245177) on fixing SKR's point system might be of interest.....

123456789blaaa

2012-09-04, 09:36 AM

Sean K. Reynolds has not only stated that he doesn't know or care about mechanics, but that he actively disdains anyone who does.

His influence on the game has been hideous.

Could you present a link please? I would rather not rely on some guy on the internets word.

Venger

2012-09-04, 09:51 AM

Could you present a link please? I would rather not rely on some guy on the internets word.

I also remember reading that article that reynolds wrote. It was like a bizarre counterpoint to monte's article about how proud he was that "90% of the published feats were crap" and how it was the player's job to find the few good ones with a high degree of system mastery (and of course in those days, a lot of money to buy all those splats)

I understand your skepticism and that's healthy, but I am vouching that I too remember reading reynolds's views on this subject. I will also try to provide a link to it, because I do remember him saying this and it obviously received a large amount of attention from the fans.

back to positive things:

ACFs in general, as they've already been mentioned, are some of my favorite things. they let 2 people play the same class (or even the same level by level build!) and be very different characters.

Alabenson

2012-09-04, 10:08 AM

Rappy

2012-09-04, 10:21 AM

Sean K. Reynolds has not only stated that he doesn't know or care about mechanics, but that he actively disdains anyone who does.

His influence on the game has been hideous.
While not the primary writer, SKR helped put out the Tome of Horrors, a title that resurrected many older edition monsters and also brought them into Open Game License territory en masse, so I cannot really say I agree that his influence on the game has been unanimously hideous.

Tyndmyr

2012-09-04, 10:39 AM

To be fair, it does have an obscenely large number of them made all the more obvious by the close scrutiny commonly performed by the long-term players; it's not just noise after all. Luckily you get to choose what material you use in your games :smallwink:

Meh. The amount of flaws in 3.5 is often overstated. If you get much variety at all in the RPG world, you quickly realize just how many games manage to blow it away in terms of brokenness.

Keep in mind that ToB didn't get experienced by most casual players -- it was at the end of 3.5.

Anybody who played a combat class loved 4e. The fighter was one of the most powerful and balanced classes in the entire run. In fact, 4e had almost the opposite problem from 3.5 -- it got so much right in the first run it was hard to make classes that were not derivative or weaker.

Oh, god no, this is wildly incorrect. Both my current groups use 3.5, allow ToB(with current chars from ToB, in fact), and despise 4e. This outright disproves your 'anybody' statement.

Additionally, 4e's first infinite combo was discovered before it made it out of beta, if memory serves. It's initial skill challenge system was mathematically terrible. It's balance is overhyped...and furthermore, what balance it did achieve happened at the expense of much in 3.5 that fans of it loved.

Anodai

2012-09-04, 12:36 PM

I also remember reading that article that reynolds wrote. It was like a bizarre counterpoint to monte's article about how proud he was that "90% of the published feats were crap" and how it was the player's job to find the few good ones with a high degree of system mastery (and of course in those days, a lot of money to buy all those splats)

I understand your skepticism and that's healthy, but I am vouching that I too remember reading reynolds's views on this subject. I will also try to provide a link to it, because I do remember him saying this and it obviously received a large amount of attention from the fans.

I also would like to see the original quote, not because I doubt you guys, but because I want to see its context and exactly what it is he said.

Tyndmyr

2012-09-04, 12:46 PM

He's also committing multiple simple mistakes in his feat model that have nothing to do with years of scrutiny and everything to do with basic understanding of the trade-offs offered. For instance, he values Scribe Scroll higher than Brew Potion 'cause Scribe Scroll is uncapped; which is fine until we remember that "Oh geez, Potions can be used by a vastly larger number of characters than Scrolls"!

While I don't disagree with your conclusion....Scribe Scroll IS better than Brew Potion. The uncapped nature of it does matter...and potions are just more expensive. Brew Potions not a particularly good feat.

Nah, the problem is assuming that things that scale have a static relationship to things that don't at all. It's not a matter of toughness being x% as good as improved toughness...the point is that the relationship between the two is not, and never can be, static. In a 1st level one shot, toughness is unambiguously better. In a 10th-14th level campaign, imp toughness crushes is.

Sure, he made even more basic errors than this, such that the whole feat point idea is basically comedy, but at a fundamental level, the thing he was trying to do was not really possible.

Venger

2012-09-04, 01:06 PM

I also would like to see the original quote, not because I doubt you guys, but because I want to see its context and exactly what it is he said.

Sure. Like I said, I understand wanting to see the actual quote in context, but do appreciate that you believe us.

I kind of want to say that it was a response from reynolds to monte's article on "ivory tower game design (http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design) which started out, I believe, as rejecting monte's school of thought, which we can all generally agree with. it's not nice or considerate as a game designer to intentionally make most of the feats poor choices in order to have a "haha! gotcha!" moments against the players. it seems kind of mean spirited, so I can understand reynold's objections to this school of thought in his introduction. unfortunately, he soon swings in the opposite extreme, decrying those who are able to decipher the code of feats purposefully laid by monte as being as bad as he is. I forget if he used the word "munchkin" but I am pretty sure he said something like "optimizer is a dirty word" or at least to that intent.

all that I seem to be able to find is ivory tower game design and reynold's site, which I haven't been able to find this particular essay on. this doesn't exactly seem that out of character (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/index.html) so I'm sure that maybe someone with better google fu than I will be able to dig it up.

Another thing I love about WotC is the "Races of X" books. they are some of my favoirte ones to read (with races of eberron topping this list) they provide a lot of fun well thought out stuff that's great for DMs and for player backstories too.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 01:19 PM

Sean K. Reynolds has not only stated that he doesn't know or care about mechanics, but that he actively disdains anyone who does.

His influence on the game has been hideous.

Also known as "Answerer's unbacked claims", "Answerer's ungrounded assertion" or [Citation Needed]

eggs

2012-09-04, 01:44 PM

all that I seem to be able to find is ivory tower game design and reynold's site, which I haven't been able to find this particular essay on. this doesn't exactly seem that out of character (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/index.html) so I'm sure that maybe someone with better google fu than I will be able to dig it up.
I'm seeing him being a bit out of touch with probabilities and certain game considerations, but not ever railing on people who optimize them. And all those articles look quite focused on analyzing game mechanics for a guy who doesn't care about game mechanics.

If there's no source, claims that a guy deliberately neglects to do what he's paid for aren't claims I'd give the benefit of the doubt.

Squark

2012-09-04, 01:50 PM

I kind of want to say that it was a response from reynolds to monte's article on "ivory tower game design (http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design) which started out, I believe, as rejecting monte's school of thought, which we can all generally agree with. it's not nice or considerate as a game designer to intentionally make most of the feats poor choices in order to have a "haha! gotcha!" moments against the players. it seems kind of mean spirited, so I can understand reynold's objections to this school of thought in his introduction. unfortunately, he soon swings in the opposite extreme, decrying those who are able to decipher the code of feats purposefully laid by monte as being as bad as he is. I forget if he used the word "munchkin" but I am pretty sure he said something like "optimizer is a dirty word" or at least to that intent.

Something of a tangent here: The frustrating thing with Monte's article is it's obvious Cook has a very warped idea of what the concept of "Timmy Cards" actually is. They might be slightly related to system mastery, but not directly. What a "Timmy Card" is is a big, powerful, splashy effect. Some show up in competitive magic (like the titans from the recent core sets), and others are simply too impractical to see use (Trying to cast a spell that costs 15 mana when the default growth of mana generation is one per turn is kind of impractical) In D&D, this is stuff like Fireball, yes, but also stuff like Power attack, and a lot of other things that actually are powerful.

Alabenson

2012-09-04, 02:18 PM

I'm seeing him being a bit out of touch with probabilities and certain game considerations, but not ever railing on people who do. And all those articles look quite focused on analyzing game mechanics for a guy who doesn't care about game mechanics.

If there's no source, claims that a guy deliberately neglects to do what he's paid for aren't claims I'd give the benefit of the doubt.

To be honest, I'm not really familiar enough with him and his work to make any specific claims against him. However, I greatly resent the assertion that professionals shouldn't be subject to criticism by amateurs by virtue of their being professionals. I've always felt that, if one is going to be paid for game design, than ones work should be held to a higher standard, part of which means displaying an understanding of class balance.

Coidzor

2012-09-04, 02:27 PM

Sean K. Reynolds has not only stated that he doesn't know or care about mechanics, but that he actively disdains anyone who does.

His influence on the game has been hideous.

Wow. I knew he was bad and a living example of cronyism and "star power" in favor of competence as the reason for his continued employment in the field... But.... Just... ... Wow...

eggs

2012-09-04, 02:28 PM

I agree completely, but being critical of a professional and blindly trusting that a professional is incompetent are very different things.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 02:29 PM

To be honest, I'm not really familiar enough with him and his work to make any specific claims against him. However, I greatly resent the assertion that professionals shouldn't be subject to criticism by amateurs by virtue of their being professionals. I've always felt that, if one is going to be paid for game design, than ones work should be held to a higher standard, part of which means displaying an understanding of class balance.

Criticism is one thing. Bashing for the sake of bashing is a completely different thing.

Alabenson

2012-09-04, 02:45 PM

I agree completely, but being critical of a professional and blindly trusting that a professional is incompetent are very different things.

Criticism is one thing. Bashing for the sake of bashing is a completely different thing.

I'll agree that some of the terms being through around regarding him are absurd (using the term "war crime" to describe his employment, for example, is ridiculous). However, given the evidence I have, I'd say that its fair to accuse him of a critical lack of understanding game balance, and for a professional game designer such a lack of understanding is inexcusable.

Comparing him to a war criminal may be ridiculous, but comparing him to a quack doctor might be a fair analogy.

Tyndmyr

2012-09-04, 02:52 PM

The only game designer I'll ever compare to a war criminal is whoever wrote FATAL.

Answerer

2012-09-04, 02:52 PM

Also known as "Answerer's unbacked claims", "Answerer's ungrounded assertion" or [Citation Needed]
Fair criticism, particularly consider our history.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to dig for references for this, because SKR isn't worth that kind of time to me. I fully appreciate not wanting to take me at face value, and I appreciate Venger trying to find better info, but I'm not going to.

I will say that my memory seems to be somewhat different from Venger's, which either means one or both of our memories is faulty, or he's made comments along these lines consistently.

But I was actually thinking of some comments made during the "Flurry is Two-Weapon Fighting" fiasco. His responses to mathematical analyses of the ramifications of one ruling vs. another were extremely... disappointing. He didn't simply disagree, he seemed to attack the person in question for even thinking that such mathematics could have any relevance whatsoever. It wasn't even a criticism of the particular maths used, or an objection to some simplification or assumption: it was an attack on the very idea of even trying to quantify the power of various options. The idea that options should be even somewhat related to one another, power-wise, seems to be one he finds extremely distasteful. He seems to think that he, as a writer, should be free to write whatever seems flavorful in his mind, the mechanics be damned.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 02:54 PM

I'll agree that some of the terms being through around regarding him are absurd (using the term "war crime" to describe his employment, for example, is ridiculous). However, given the evidence I have, I'd say that its fair to accuse him of a critical lack of understanding game balance, and for a professional game designer such a lack of understanding is inexcusable.

Comparing him to a war criminal may be ridiculous, but comparing him to a quack doctor might be a fair analogy.

Meh, balance is overrated. Fun and diversity are both more important to most gamers than balance. That seems to be the main reason behind 4e failing even with the D&D name to support it and Pathfinder succeeding before coming from a small company. SKR states now and again that he cares very little about game balance and that it usually only come up when people intentionally try to break the game. He is not alone, Chris Pramas, Keith Baker and Richard Baker have said similar stuff in interviews throughout the years.

Give me a diverse unbalanced game instead of a nondiverse balance game any day. Not even competitive games are perfectly balanced... why must cooperative games be? :smallconfused:

Fair criticism, particularly consider our history.
It's very noble of you to admit so.

But I was actually thinking of some comments made during the "Flurry is Two-Weapon Fighting" fiasco. His responses to mathematical analyses of the ramifications of one ruling vs. another were extremely... disappointing. He didn't simply disagree, he seemed to attack the person in question for even thinking that such mathematics could have any relevance whatsoever. It wasn't even a criticism of the particular maths used, or an objection to some simplification or assumption: it was an attack on the very idea of even trying to quantify the power of various options. The idea that options should be even somewhat related to one another, power-wise, seems to be one he finds extremely distasteful. He seems to think that he, as a writer, should be free to write whatever seems flavorful in his mind, the mechanics be damned.
SKR is very rude, that cannot be denied. I kind of agree with him about balance, though.

Dusk Eclipse

2012-09-04, 03:03 PM

Venger

2012-09-04, 03:10 PM

Unfortunately, I'm not going to dig for references for this, because SKR isn't worth that kind of time to me. I fully appreciate not wanting to take me at face value, and I appreciate Venger trying to find better info, but I'm not going to.
Thank you, I appreciate the recognition.

I will say that my memory seems to be somewhat different from Venger's, which either means one or both of our memories is faulty, or he's made comments along these lines consistently.I think we may well be talking about different instances. the essay I am thinking about it quite a bit older than this, being 3.5 or 3.0 maybe, but it certainly wasn't paizo.

But I was actually thinking of some comments made during the "Flurry is Two-Weapon Fighting" fiasco. His responses to mathematical analyses of the ramifications of one ruling vs. another were extremely... disappointing. He didn't simply disagree, he seemed to attack the person in question for even thinking that such mathematics could have any relevance whatsoever. It wasn't even a criticism of the particular maths used, or an objection to some simplification or assumption: it was an attack on the very idea of even trying to quantify the power of various options. The idea that options should be even somewhat related to one another, power-wise, seems to be one he finds extremely distasteful. He seems to think that he, as a writer, should be free to write whatever seems flavorful in his mind, the mechanics be damned.
his "I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude seems... ill-suited to someone who chooses to work on the internet.

Monks, especially PF monks, don't need further nerfs. this is a pretty good example of why many people in the fan community find him disagreeable as a person, though, regardless of how you feel about his game policies.

As far as positive things go, I really like the feats like tashalatora, ascetic stalker, swift hunter, etc. that let you add your classes to get more power are cool and fun and make the old school of multiclassing a lot more viable.

Give me a diverse unbalanced game instead of a nondiverse balance game any day. Not even competitive games are perfectly balanced... why must cooperative games be? :smallconfused:

I can respect that.

The only game designer I'll ever compare to a war criminal is whoever wrote FATAL.

Byron Hall is that fine gentleman's name

Tyndmyr

2012-09-04, 03:12 PM

The thing is that balance can coexist with diversity (see Tier 3, it has at least 1 exponent of each and every subsystem in 3.5, baring Truenaming and Shadowcasting which can be made tier 3 with the Author's Unnofficial errata).

I don't want a perfectly balanced game were everyone does the same, I want a game where on occasions I can shine and on others I'll have to struggle while my companions shine. I don't want a system were a single guy can do everything. And while it took a long time, 3.5 managed to somewhat reach that balance.

And yet, banning everything except tier 3 would pretty dramatically reduce diversity. I wouldn't be for that. I'd much rather just use a more casual "don't be a jackass" sort of rule. Then, everyone can just play whatever, and we can have fun.

Dusk Eclipse

2012-09-04, 03:18 PM

It was meant as an example that balance isn't mutually exclusive with diversity.

Answerer

2012-09-04, 03:22 PM

SKR's problem isn't really balance, so much as the fact that he seems utterly convinced that he is beyond reproach and impossible to make any mistakes.

In fact, it really does seem that he defines "correct" as "the way I like it."

Also, we're not usually talking about overpowered options that break the game. We're really talking about underpowered options that make it impossible to play certain archetypes because the options relating to doing so were poorly made. I'm not thinking about Clerics or Wizards, I'm thinking about Monks and Fighters.

Alabenson

2012-09-04, 04:04 PM

Anodai

2012-09-04, 04:38 PM

Give me a diverse unbalanced game instead of a nondiverse balance game any day. Not even competitive games are perfectly balanced... why must cooperative games be? :smallconfused:
This, more than anything else.

Lord_Gareth

2012-09-04, 05:01 PM

Also, we're not usually talking about overpowered options that break the game. We're really talking about underpowered options that make it impossible to play certain archetypes because the options relating to doing so were poorly made. I'm not thinking about Clerics or Wizards, I'm thinking about Monks and Fighters.

This, more than anything, is my issues with SKR/Paizo. The problem isn't necessarily overpowered classes, because each group sort of naturally shakes out to a certain 'power cap' all on its own. The problem is that some classes have natural power limits that can be frustrating or unfun to work around - or, worse, when you do work around it a DM bans the character for "having too many books" or "being munchkiny". 3.P is EXTREMELY FULL of attractive-looking options that are not only hideously bad for trying to play your archetype (weapon focus, as an example) but can actively make your character less interesting or fun to play mechanically/tactically. SKR endorses these options, and the moment I can hunt up the link I'll get you the example on Vow of Poverty ("Being poor is supposed to suck,").

Now, as far as things being done right, I ADORE 3.5's sheer versatility, and because it's such a well-known and well-worn system it's also pretty easy to homebrew for if, for some reason, you can't find what you need in 500+ official books (not mentioning third party material). That's good times, is what it is.

Knaight

2012-09-04, 05:30 PM

The only game designer I'll ever compare to a war criminal is whoever wrote FATAL.

You might need a plural - Byron Hall may not have written FATAL alone. Plus, there are other games that are about as bad, such as Racial Holy War.

123456789blaaa

2012-09-04, 05:38 PM

You might need a plural - Byron Hall may not have written FATAL alone. Plus, there are other games that are about as bad, such as Racial Holy War.

Racial Holy War

Racial Holy War

All my Wat.

Novawurmson

2012-09-04, 05:39 PM

All my Wat.

::softly sings in a Led Zeppelin impression (http://youtu.be/z0DAnu5Sq6k)::

Aaaaaaall my waaaaat, aaaaaall my waaaaaat...

Knaight

2012-09-04, 05:41 PM

All my Wat.

It's not just a game in really bad taste about...well, a racial holy war, but with characters who are at least acknowledged to be bad. Instead, it is an overtly white supremacist roleplaying game, where the most ridiculous views associated with white supremacists are explicitly true. Like FATAL, it is one of those games that is not merely disliked but is instead an embarrassment to the hobby.

demigodus

2012-09-04, 05:47 PM

This, more than anything, is my issues with SKR/Paizo. The problem isn't necessarily overpowered classes, because each group sort of naturally shakes out to a certain 'power cap' all on its own. The problem is that some classes have natural power limits that can be frustrating or unfun to work around - or, worse, when you do work around it a DM bans the character for "having too many books" or "being munchkiny". 3.P is EXTREMELY FULL of attractive-looking options that are not only hideously bad for trying to play your archetype (weapon focus, as an example) but can actively make your character less interesting or fun to play mechanically/tactically. SKR endorses these options, and the moment I can hunt up the link I'll get you the example on Vow of Poverty ("Being poor is supposed to suck,").

You mean this (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uzz?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44)?

Novawurmson

2012-09-04, 05:58 PM

You mean this (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uzz?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44)?

Gah. I can understand where he's coming from, and I think that's a noble view for a DM to have; as a DM, it's your job to tailor the game to choices and attitudes of your players and their characters.

I think it's a terrible view for a game designer to have; as a designer, I feel like it's your contract with your customers to provide game rules that are interesting, useful, and as closely balanced as possible.

On the other hand, this gives me a lot of insight into why PF modules are often quite easy for even moderately optimized parties.

demigodus

2012-09-04, 06:10 PM

Pretty much. Just because it is a DM's job to scale encounters to the party level, doesn't mean that as a designer, you can use this as an excuse to suck at your job. Especially since this leaves the possibility that the option I find flavorful is extremely powerful, while the option my friend finds flavorful is brokenly weak. You can easily tailor encounters to a party of VoP monk, sword and board fighter, over sized two weapon fighting rogue, and an optimized commoner. You can easily tailor encounters to a party of moderately optimized druid, wizard, cleric, and psion, who feel like playing army creator, god, war machine, and... not sure what an optimized psion plays like.

Tailoring a game to a VoP monk, a bear that runs around wielding nature itself as a weapon (druid using certain fun spells), sword and board fighter that thinks he is a tank, and a cleric that channels the powers of his deity into himself to personally wreck havoc on heretics... is extremely difficult. You can't really call any of those options flavorless. Each is valid on its own, and should be a valid play choice. Yet in the same party, 2 of the 4 decisions would have to go.

THAT is why his decision is a design failure he is trying to find an excuse for. Because character options don't exist in a vacuum, and as game designer, his job is to create character options that work with other characters in a party, not in a party custom tailored to suit the "flavorful" character.

123456789blaaa

2012-09-04, 06:12 PM

You mean this (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uzz?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44)?

I assume this was the article answerer was talking about?

Eldariel

2012-09-04, 06:19 PM

Meh, balance is overrated. Fun and diversity are both more important to most gamers than balance. That seems to be the main reason behind 4e failing even with the D&D name to support it and Pathfinder succeeding before coming from a small company. SKR states now and again that he cares very little about game balance and that it usually only come up when people intentionally try to break the game. He is not alone, Chris Pramas, Keith Baker and Richard Baker have said similar stuff in interviews throughout the years.

Give me a diverse unbalanced game instead of a nondiverse balance game any day. Not even competitive games are perfectly balanced... why must cooperative games be? :smallconfused:

I find the balance in cooperative game really is about helping players be able to all do something in the game. If a class has minor benefits over another class, I wouldn't mind that. However, if a class is weak enough that they have trouble performing the role they're assigned for and the role you'd initially assume they should take when you're picking a character, then you have a problem because there are bound to be tens of thousands of players in a game the size of D&D who're going to pick said class thinking it does what they want to do only to gradually come to realize they are unable to do what they were hoping to be able to as they play the campaign and eventually come to a disappointment.

Another important factor to consider are living campaigns, which have to be written for a certain power level and this leads to certain less powerful groups wiping consistently while stronger groups have no challenge. Also, some players will have terrible game sessions where they are simply unable to do anything if their character happens to end in a party with stronger variants of the same archetype (say, Fighter in the same party as a Summoner; I've seen that happen a couple of times).

Lacking internal balance also makes it hard to write things like challenge rating guidelines since one party of the same level might be able to handily defeat a creature other party can't beat in a hundred battles.

I don't think balance isn't everything in everything and perfect balance isn't important, but I do think the options need some semblance of balance to enable better game design and design elements, organized play and to make the game easier to pick up.

The important part, I find, is that in a game like D&D all classes are reasonably competent at what they advertise themselves to be competent. For instance, a melee build Fighter should be reasonably competent in melee combat, so much so that no other class does everything he does better, and also able to do the stunts a mythological Fighter can pull off some way at some point. And a Wizard should be competent enough a spellcaster that they don't get surpassed by another spellcaster, and their spell options should be versatile enough that they should be able to do what magicians of mythology can, in some way.

Boci

2012-09-04, 06:21 PM

You mean this (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uzz?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44)?

Just because this is wrong in so many ways, this is the first thing that occurred to me upon reading it: Isn't it ironic, that the person claiming to stand for roleplaying neglects to consider that a character without money is still sacrificing something, even if they get what they would have gotten from items for their sacrifice. No fine food, no fancy living, no silk clothes, nothing. Does it affect the player? Not really, but hello, roleplaying.

Also, give credit where due, game designers are coming up with slightly more convincing stories as to why they deliberately made the game unbalanced.

Venger

2012-09-04, 06:40 PM

You might need a plural - Byron Hall may not have written FATAL alone. Plus, there are other games that are about as bad, such as Racial Holy War.

It is a matter of debate between sartin and his partner whether hall wrote FATAL alone, one thinks he did, the other thinks he didn't.

personally, being a writer, I am pretty sure that Hall worked alone. I base this largely in part on the "rebuttal" that the (read: hall) wrote to the humorous review of FATAL on rpgnet. when "alternating" between himself and "burnout", his alter ego (or partner in crime depending on your point of view) his narrative voice did not change at all. his sentence structure, diction, etc. were the same. I genuinely did not feel as though that were written by two people collaborating, but rather by one person sockpuppeting.

I actually know where to find a copy of Racial Holy War's "rules" as it were (the game was never finished, it's just a bunch of charts, copypasta, and a paragraph or two of fluff)

could a mod please come in and tell me if it's permitted by the board's Code of Conduct to post a link to Racial Holy War? I'm not posting it as a mark of support, but rather as a target of ridicule. if it falls under hate speech or whatever, then that's fine, I'll just leave it be and those that want to google can google.

You mean this (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uzz?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44)?

Yes, that is the post Answerer and I were talking about.

thank you for finding it, it was really starting to drive me nuts.

do you guys see what we were talking about earlier now? (thiagomartel and I think one or two other people) I understand your initial skepticism (it is rather unprofessional conduct for a designer who has much of his job consist of talking to people on the internet, so I can understand why one would be leery of accepting secondhand commentary on hsi words, but now that they're pointed out, what is your opinion?

Positive things:

Tactical feats. finally! a way for melee to have nice things. when taking 1 feat, it is now 3 minifeats. options at last :) I always try to squeeze these in, no matter what kind of character I play, they're quite lovely

Lord_Gareth

2012-09-04, 06:46 PM

Positive things: Tactical feats. finally! a way for melee to have nice things. when taking 1 feat, it is now 3 minifeats. options at last :) I always try to squeeze these in, no matter what kind of character I play, they're quite lovely

You know, as a homebrewer I also liked tactical feats quite a bit. Has anyone else noticed how many times something we like about D&D was a great idea that just needed a little/lot of fixing?

Zeful

2012-09-04, 07:41 PM

Meh, balance is overrated.Bull.

Fun and diversity are both more important to most gamers than balance.Where's the fun and diversity in being a caster's porter because you chose not to be a caster?

That seems to be the main reason behind 4e failing even with the D&D name to support it and Pathfinder succeeding before coming from a small company.No and yes. No in that 4e had some pretty bad mechanical failings, and yes because games essentially brainwash players (this is not a specific snipe against any specific game. This is something all games do, expectation and learning through mechanics all color the perception of other games through the filter of the ones you've learned, it is actual brainwashing, for good or ill) and the closer a game is to one that you like, the more your going to like it because of that.

SKR states now and again that he cares very little about game balance and that it usually only come up when people intentionally try to break the game.And when you don't try to intentionally break the game but do anyway? Or if you aren't an optimizer you shouldn't bother trying to play/run the game? Because that is the "Balance is overrated" argument in total. Balance is required or you need the community to police themselves in instances where the game is broken so people can have fun. If someone doesn't play along or agree with these unstated rules, the game literally falls apart. The "Gentlemen's Agreement" used in D&D is an example of communal policing that attempts to "fix" the broken aspects of 3.5 by ignoring them.

Give me a diverse unbalanced game instead of a nondiverse balance game any day. Not even competitive games are perfectly balanced... why must cooperative games be? :smallconfused:
Fine, example time. Assume a game, this game has many options, but no balance. Any combination of options could lead to you dominating the game, or failing to participate, but there is no way to know without observing all combinations of options. 90% of all combinations in this game result in a player failing to do anything meaningful. For the purposes of the 10% play: 90% of all options essentially DON'T EXIST. From the perspective of design: 90% of this game's material is wasted development time.

That's why balance is not optional. It need not be absolute, but games need to be balanced so that the developer's time hasn't been wasted, so that options actually mean something, and so that you don't have players incapable of playing because they haven't spent the hundreds of hours required to look up every option in the game. I suck at optimization, both in the recognition of, and in implementation of it as a practice. D&D's wildly unblanced state has made it impossible for me to play meaningful characters, or GM at all. By saying balance isn't important, you're pretty much saying I shouldn't play at all and I take umbrage with that sentiment.

Boci

2012-09-04, 07:44 PM

Bull.

Not bull, unless you think a gritty modern game should make the unarmed character options just as good as marine, because balance is key. Yes I know this is a 3.5 forum, but ThiagoMartell seemed, to at least, be talking RPGs in general.

Bull.Fine, example time. Assume a game, this game has many options, but no balance. Any combination of options could lead to you dominating the game, or failing to participate, but there is no way to know without observing all combinations of options. 90% of all combinations in this game result in a player failing to do anything meaningful. For the purposes of the 10% play: 90% of all options essentially DON'T EXIST. From the perspective of design: 90% of this game's material is wasted development time.

See above. "Gee I'm sorry your dual penknife wielding elderly woman basket weaver is overshadowed by my former SBS turned mercenary/assassin" its a realistic game that offers different levels of competency. You can play teenagers stranded and forced to fight, or battle hardened veterans, and if the group doesn't mind massive inbalance, you can play them both in the same group.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 07:54 PM

Yes, that is the post Answerer and I were talking about.

I doubt it was. Maybe it was what you were talking about, but Answerer mentioned very specific sayings that are simply not in this post.

Bull.

Wow, now that is a rich argument, if I ever saw one.

Fine, example time. Assume a game, this game has many options, but no balance. Any combination of options could lead to you dominating the game, or failing to participate, but there is no way to know without observing all combinations of options. 90% of all combinations in this game result in a player failing to do anything meaningful. For the purposes of the 10% play: 90% of all options essentially DON'T EXIST. From the perspective of design: 90% of this game's material is wasted development time.

This is a very simplistic (and wrong) approach to game design.
Are you familiar with Final Fantays Tactics? It's one of the most celebrated S-RPGs of all time. It is also ridiculously unbalanced, with sword skills, Dual Wield Monks, Shirahadori, Manafont/Manashield and Calculator being basically better than pretty most anything in the game (that's without mentioning equipment or how Speed is a freaking godstat). Now, do you think people only play Dual Wield Monks and Dark Knights in FFT? Of course not. They choose other stuff and experiment with their other options, even though they are not the most powerful, because a) experimenting is fun and b) they already know what's the best option, so they could just fall back on it.
That's how many DCUO players go, also. You keep some equipment for your main role, but when you want to try the damage role for a while, it's time to experiment, maybe even getting a different weapon.
All options not being balanced does not mean only the most powerful options exist. That's preposterous. It's like playing chess and only using the queen.

You know, as a homebrewer I also liked tactical feats quite a bit. Has anyone else noticed how many times something we like about D&D was a great idea that just needed a little/lot of fixing?
Now, tell me. As a homebrewer, what would you think about knowing some DM banned some work from being used because 'using material created by Lord_Gareth is a war crime'?

Zeful

2012-09-04, 08:09 PM

Not bull

No, it pretty much is Bull. Also false equivalence. The correct analogy would be having sniper rifles do so much more damage than every other gun in the game and poor stealth and range rules so as to make the choice of any other gun for any other situational purpose non-viable. The GM also has to make all missions solvable by the PC sniper, and can't have any himself, regardless of how many of the PCs are snipers.

Balance is required, because it doesn't mean "all things are equal, in terms of individual performance", it never has, it's "a state of equilibrium". Balance in game terms can mean quite a lot, but for tabletop games, the best definition would be "an equal distribution of significance". For D&D? This means that there should be things a certain distribution of options outright cannot do well enough to put off making a character that does that thing well. Shadowrun is a good example: No one character can do everything, outside of something silly like a 20,000 point build, because the system is balanced. Making the choice to build a mage costs you the opportunity to do other things, just like building a Street Samurai would cost you something, while a jack of all trades is still useful because he's another gun, a lookout, a distraction or a roadblock. A balanced system has a certain elasticity to it, such that if you a bunch of characters that all do the same kind of things: you can build an adventure around them and use the things they cannot do to add tension and uncertainty to the game. That's just not true of an unbalanced system.

Wow, now that is a rich argument, if I ever saw one.It wasn't an argument, though you do seem to have refused to acknowledge my other arguments, so I have to assume you concede the point on those positions.

This is a very simplistic (and wrong) approach to game design.
Are you familiar with Final Fantays Tactics?Yes.

Now, do you think people only play Dual Wield Monks and Dark Knights in FFT? Of course not.Actually, yes. It's the single most common bit of discussion around the game second only to the assertion that new players should "break the system" their first time 'round. I've done it and it made the game less interesting, less fun, and makes me spend less of my time on it (I'm not even done with the first chapter of the game, and haven't booted it up in over two years). Tactics Advance on the other hand? Love that game, it's better balance makes the optimization macro only rather than micro, making the game just better. A2 was too far in the other direction, adding unnecessary crap on top of the system to "limit" abuses, and the game suffers for it. The entire tactics line is pretty much a microcosm of our discussion on balance.

All options not being balanced does not mean only the most powerful options exist. That's preposterous. It's like playing chess and only using the queen.Given all anecdotal evidence from not only the lifetime of this forum, and other games: yeah it kinda does. Nobody ever suggests anything but the most powerful options, or considers them beyond, "what have we missed?". The crappy 90% of D&D could be fully excised from D&D with very little impact on the game as a whole.

Also Chess is a game where the only imbalance literally revolves around who goes first, but is otherwise a perfectly balanced game, which undermines your point significantly.

eggs

2012-09-04, 08:12 PM

do you guys see what we were talking about earlier now? (thiagomartel and I think one or two other people) I understand your initial skepticism (it is rather unprofessional conduct for a designer who has much of his job consist of talking to people on the internet, so I can understand why one would be leery of accepting secondhand commentary on hsi words, but now that they're pointed out, what is your opinion?
I don't think this is the right line - It doesn't support Answerer's statement, anyway.

It supports a different argument: that SKR doesn't think all possible concepts should be equal. It's a contestable position - one I'm leaning toward disagreeing with - but I don't think it's necessarily wrong, especially with 3e's design paradigm of every NPC, monster, PC and squirrel existing within the same set of rules.

From SKR's web site, I can see he doesn't have the firmest grasp on the math involved; I could see criticizing that in a game designer, but some contestable game design goals and calculation oversights are a long way from not knowing/caring how mechanics work, expressing disdain for people who do or exerting a hideous influence on the game. Those last parts are harsh enough condemnation for someone whose job is game mechanics that I'd still hesitate to take them on faith.

I'll look up the Flurry/TWF quarrel though. It sounds relevant.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 08:14 PM

Shadowrun is a good example: No one character can do everything, outside of something silly like a 20,000 point build, because the system is balanced.

So now Shadowrun is balanced. The game where money can get you everything, and it's easy to get money. This is, somehow, balanced. Because everyone goes for the money, since it's the only option, right? That is what balance means, right? Having only a small subset of actually good options?

Dusk Eclipse

2012-09-04, 08:16 PM

Fixing posting glitch

eggs

2012-09-04, 08:19 PM

Balance is required or you need the community to police themselves in instances where the game is broken so people can have fun.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your argument is: balance is required because without it the game ends up imbalanced. This begs the question of whether an imbalanced game is necessarily unenjoyable. Mechwarrior and Rifts are popular enough that I have trouble accepting that as the case.

Zeful

2012-09-04, 08:31 PM

So now Shadowrun is balanced. The game where money can get you everything, and it's easy to get money. This is, somehow, balanced. Because everyone goes for the money, since it's the only option, right? That is what balance means, right? Having only a small subset of actually good options?

No, money is Nuyen. "Points" are character build points. Most characters are built with 400 of them and might get maybe 100 more over the course of play before the character dies or is retired, which is enough to build quite a variety of characters, and the systemic parity (dice pools) makes it very hard to build a bad character.

And no. That's not what balance means, you're starting to build arguments that I have not made to assault. Stop.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your argument is: balance is required because without it the game ends up imbalanced. This begs the question of whether an imbalanced game is necessarily unenjoyable. Mechwarrior and Rifts are popular enough that I have trouble accepting that as the case.

No, that argument was "Balance is needed, because not doing so places shackles on the game to try to unbreak it."

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 08:38 PM

No, money is Nuyen. "Points" are character build points. Most characters are built with 400 of them and might get maybe 100 more over the course of play before the character dies or is retired, which is enough to build quite a variety of characters, and the systemic parity (dice pools) makes it very hard to build a bad character.
Points are only worth something in Shadowrun because you can get money with it. Shadowrun is not a balanced game. It's not even supposed to be a balanced game.
I wasn't even creating strawmen, I just point out how your definition of a balanced system was actually an unbalanced system. Sorry if it was too complicated to follow through that line of thought.

eggs

2012-09-04, 08:47 PM

No, that argument was "Balance is needed, because not doing so places shackles on the game to try to unbreak it."
What do you mean by "break"?

Alabenson

2012-09-04, 08:53 PM

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 08:56 PM

Fact: There are major class balance issues within 3.5, to the extent that a large number of players feel that there is a problem.
If this weren't the case, people wouldn't be continually coming up with fixes for the Fighter, Monk, and other non-TOB melee classes. If a large number of players, particularly those with a high level of system mastery, agree that there is a balance issue, than it is reasonable to conclude that there is in fact a balance issue.
Is said issue a problem in every gaming group? No, clearly not. However, that does not mean that said balance issue isn't a problem, or that it doesn't exist.
No one is saying there is no balance issue.
The point is if balance should be that much of an issue.
Your "large number of players" is a small group, really. Most players don't have the time to homebrew. And sincerely, most "fixes" I see are very poorly done and created by people with very little system mastery.

demigodus

2012-09-04, 08:57 PM

Here (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ec0?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows) is a thread that starts out with a bunch of quotes from SKR about flurry/TWF from a previous thread (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5drg?Attacking-with-a-weapon).

Haven't looked at it yet, cause I'm about to have a game, and playing game >>>>> discussing SKR. But here in case anyone has trouble googling, as well as reference for myself when I get home.

Now maybe someone can find the relevant quotes in that thread.

Coidzor

2012-09-04, 09:03 PM

Not bull, unless you think a gritty modern game should make the unarmed character options just as good as marine, because balance is key. Yes I know this is a 3.5 forum, but ThiagoMartell seemed, to at least, be talking RPGs in general.

In that case the gritty modern game shouldn't be billing the unarmed character options as being designed and intended to be played alongside marines with assault weapons. :smallwink:

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 09:04 PM

In that case the gritty modern game shouldn't be billing the unarmed character options as being as designed and intended to be played alongside marines with assault weapons. :smallwink:

Like Shadowrun does? Because Shadowrun does exactly that. Just wanted to point this out. You know, leaving it out there.

Zeful

2012-09-04, 09:24 PM

Points are only worth something in Shadowrun because you can get money with it. Shadowrun is not a balanced game. It's not even supposed to be a balanced game.
I wasn't even creating strawmen, I just point out how your definition of a balanced system was actually an unbalanced system. Sorry if it was too complicated to follow through that line of thought.

"Can get money with"?:smallamused:

Yes you can get money with points, but treating that as somehow a valid argument that the game's unbalanced is ludicrous. If gear didn't have a point cost, all starting characters would be nude and unarmed, and would have to be either scavenged off of people in the starting scenario (which, honestly, sounds incredible), moreover stating gear as .1 or .025 points and having it's monetary cost for normal play would be redundant.

Points are worth something because they let you increase your stats and skills, buy advantages and disabilities to build and flesh out a character. That it also has a monetary equivalence, when points are only for character generation and all future character advancement is based in Karma? So what?

And no your point wasn't complicated to follow because of your brilliance, it was hard to follow because your assertion doesn't fit with the realities of the game, thus in following Occam's and Hanlon's Razors, the more likely answer was that you didn't know the system and were confused about my point. That notion has been thoroughly debunked.

What do you mean by "break"?"To act contrary to", a broken game has rules that act contrary to the clear intent of the game, or are contrary to other rules in the system. Broken systems that are played extensively tend to have a higher set of meta rules to limit specific types of broken behavior because the using the rules doesn't let the game be fun. Playing an enemy Wizard in D&D like players are suggested to is an example of something that would break the game. He would have perfect knowledge of the PC's capabilities, direct counters to them, as well as back up plans, in case his preparations weren't enough, and the capability and desire to wipe them out the moment they let they're a threat. You can't build a compelling story out of that that engages the player more than superfluously, because the rules allow for that.

123456789blaaa

2012-09-04, 09:29 PM

Personally (and keep in mind that I'm not an expert on game design) I think that balance is important for some types of games and not very important for others. The types of games in which balance is not important are rules light make-stuff-up-on-the-spot types of games (barbarians of lemuria for example). While more structured rules heavy games (exalted, dnd 3.5) benefit much more by the inclusion of balance.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 09:32 PM

Yes you can get money with points, but treating that as somehow a valid argument that the game's unbalanced is ludicrous. If gear didn't have a point cost, all starting characters would be nude and unarmed, and would have to be either scavenged off of people in the starting scenario (which, honestly, sounds incredible), moreover stating gear as .1 or .025 points and having it's monetary cost for normal play would be redundant.
Dude, gear is everything in Shadowrun. Gear costs money. Character A can spend less points than character B in gear. This is the definition of unbalanced.

Points are worth something because they let you increase your stats and skills, buy advantages and disabilities to build and flesh out a character. That it also has a monetary equivalence, when points are only for character generation and all future character advancement is based in Karma? So what?
See before, man.

And no your point wasn't complicated to follow because of your brilliance, it was hard to follow because your assertion doesn't fit with the realities of the game, thus in following Occam's and Hanlon's Razors, the more likely answer was that you didn't know the system and were confused about my point. That notion has been thoroughly debunked.
Dude, I never said I was brilliant or anything. I realized the post was convoluted and apologized. And you're bashing me for that...? :smallconfused:

Kavurcen

2012-09-04, 09:43 PM

This thread is so far off the rails you can't even see them anymore.

I think 3.5 books are laid out in a pretty easy to read way.
The system (3.5), if it's the first RPG you've encountered, actually seems pretty intuitive. The learning curve isn't that bad either.

Answerer

2012-09-04, 09:44 PM

I assume this was the article answerer was talking about?
Yes, that is the post Answerer and I were talking about.
No, in fact, it's not. Pretty sure the specific post (not really an article) I had in mind was on the Paizo forums regarding the Flurry/TWF thing.

I doubt it was. Maybe it was what you were talking about, but Answerer mentioned very specific sayings that are simply not in this post.
I did not use quotation marks. He has stated, time and again, his disdain for balance, but I do not recall the exact phrasing of any one such time.

Not bull, unless you think a gritty modern game should make the unarmed character options just as good as marine, because balance is key. Yes I know this is a 3.5 forum, but ThiagoMartell seemed, to at least, be talking RPGs in general.
The problem is less with imbalance than with player expectations. If you explicitly tell your players that option A is going to be weaker and have more problems than option B, that's entirely reasonable (not for every group, but could work for some).

But this is not the case for any product that SKR has ever worked on, so far as I can tell. Certainly isn't true of any D&D or PF product out there.

D&D and PF books are advertised as providing options that can seamlessly fit into the rest of your game. Key to doing so is being able to accomplish what they claim, and no more. Your wizard should be able to cast spells, but wading into melee and kicking the fighter's ass should be hard-if-not-difficult. Meanwhile, the fighter's supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with the best of them and come out on top. Every feat, spell, and class is supposed to extend the system in a meaningful way – and if an option cannot be used because it is too weak to be meaningful, or cannot be used because it would break the system, then it's effectively something you paid for but never got.

And please, let's not get into a false dichotomy: the material must also be interesting, creative, and varied. None of those things is an excuse for failing this also-important criteria.

So I will state this right clearly: I strongly consider SKR to be lying to his customers whenever he publishes any of his work. He is claiming to provide a product he has neither the interest nor the skill to create, and at no point does he actually provide it.

HunterOfJello

2012-09-04, 09:47 PM

What did WOTC do RIGHT?

MAGIC! Magic is awesome in this game. Playing a Wizard makes you feel like a man who is feared by all because of his studiousness and intelligence. Sorcerers feel and play like beings who were born with unfathomable magical power within them that allows them to become minor demigods. Clerics feel and play like holy men who bring healing (or death) to those under their protection, divine knowledge through their divine connections, and control over the unnatural realm of the undead. Druids even feel and play like crazy hippies who run around with wild animals, turn into wild animals, and use their bizzaro magic to ends that no one by them seem to understand.

Even bard magic feel and plays as if you are a charismatic swashbuckling minor spellcaster who can't cast too often, but are highly effective at the spells you do occasionally use to your own profit.

~

PSIONICS! Psionics are awesome in this game. They're quite well balanced, when people aren't looking to develop crazy combos, and give you options that feel and play as if you're a strange psychic dude running around and not just a wizard/sorcerer who happens to cast all his spells with Silent and Still metamagics.

~

TOME OF BATTLING STUFFS!

ToB is awesomesauce. Warblades are amazing examples of warriors without magic. Want to play a character who is perfectly awesome without resorting to any real magic at all? Play a Warblade. Swordsages finally introduced a real gish class into the mix. Do you want to stab people while being all magical and ****? Swordsage is the way to go. Wizards with full BAB really were never gishes, but swordsages truly are. Crusaders finally introduced a true tank into the game. If you can find a method of getting 10 DR or so and grab the feat Stone Power, then you can quickly become a nearly unkillable tanking machine. Your holy anger brings death to your enemies and, surprisingly, healing to your allies!

~

Binders

These guys are freaking weird. If you can never decide what kind of character you want to play each session, then go play a Binder. They're half-way decent at almost everything, but if played right then they can become really awesome characters.

~

Races and Templates

Are the races in this game balanced properly with LAs? No, but they're all fun and there are freak loads of races to choose from and they each have their own fun quirks and details. Do the templates in this game possess anything near a resemblance to balance? Hell no, but they're awesome anyway!

~

UNEARTHED ARCANA

Want to play the game a different way? Here are over 9000 suggestions for how to do that. This game is highly variable, so go decide how YOU want to play it.

~

HOMEBREW

I hate homebrew in my games, but this game is very well balanced for an interjection of homebrew at all sorts of stages. Homebrew for it is easy to develop and easy to balance out to find out what sorts of things you want in a character that seem as if they aren't already there.

~

FACTOTUM

I have wet dreams at night about the factotum.

~

MONSTER MONSTER MONSTER MONSTER MONSTER MANUALS!!!

There are a bajillion different prefabbed monsters in this game and they're all pretty damn awesome. Want an interesting new encounter in your game? Flip to a random page in one of the FIVE monster manuals and make that new monster pop up. Scare the crap out of your players and laugh your ass off. God this is an awesome game.

~

FOURTH EDITION

Know why so many of us hate Fourth Edition so much? Because it isn't Three Point FIVER Edition. We love our 3.5 so much that anything that isn't it gets our ultimate hatred. We love loving 3.5 as long as we never have to admit it in front of anyone else.

Lord_Gareth

2012-09-04, 09:50 PM

Now, tell me. As a homebrewer, what would you think about knowing some DM banned some work from being used because 'using material created by Lord_Gareth is a war crime'?

I'd think, "Dear Asmodeus in Baator, what persistent and evidently catastrophic flaw in my work has devastated this man's table?" and probably venture forth to ask this person what has gone wrong. A good designer accepts critique and uses it to improve their work, and I'm proud to say that the material I'm putting out nowadays is much better than the abominations against nature I made once upon a time. SKR hasn't just failed to improve, he's scoffed at the idea that improvement is necessary, all the while banning contrary opinions from his forums at Paizo and insulting and belittling alternate viewpoints from his own.

WotC, never the brightest bulbs, knew enough to fire this man. Paizo snapped him up right afterwards. I, as others, believe that says something about how reliable one should consider Paizo as a company.

Positive Stuff - Binders. Full stop. Just...Binders.

Zeful

2012-09-04, 10:14 PM

Dude, gear is everything in Shadowrun. Gear costs money. Character A can spend less points than character B in gear. This is the definition of unbalanced.No. No it's not the definition of unbalanced. And yeah, gear is powerful, but very limited, as in 4e you're only allowed 50 points worth of gear (60 if you buy an advantage for it) and only then up to 12R without a perk. And running through building a character under those restrictions: getting 50 points worth of stuff is hard unless you spend most of it of it on cyberware.

Dude, I never said I was brilliant or anything. I realized the post was convoluted and apologized. And you're bashing me for that...? :smallconfused:
Generally when people on the internet say, "Sorry if it was too complicated to follow[...]," they are not sincerely apologizing, and instead being insulting and condescending that whoever they were responding to for not understanding them. I did not think that you were actually apologizing, and instead trying to goad me into flaming you. So I apologize, I misunderstood your post and intent.

Zaydos

2012-09-04, 10:30 PM

On the derailed side: I think the part about the quoted SKR post which gets me is when he talks about playing a 12 Int wizard in the playtest which shows that evidently he doesn't realize that purposefully crippling your character when trying to find out if something is mechanically broken (in either direction) is counter-productive and not something that a professional designer should be doing and especially not getting paid to do.

On the actual topic: WotC did do a lot of things right, and I'm surprised I didn't note homebrew in my first post in this thread. I've played every edition except OD&D, and hackmaster if you count it, but still have always found 3.X simpler to homebrew for. It's not my first system, but it's the one I took to the most.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 10:46 PM

I give up. Keep personally attacking people you don't know as much as you want. I'm done here.

eggs

2012-09-04, 10:48 PM

"To act contrary to", a broken game has rules that act contrary to the clear intent of the game, or are contrary to other rules in the system. Broken systems that are played extensively tend to have a higher set of meta rules to limit specific types of broken behavior because the using the rules doesn't let the game be fun. Playing an enemy Wizard in D&D like players are suggested to is an example of something that would break the game. He would have perfect knowledge of the PC's capabilities, direct counters to them, as well as back up plans, in case his preparations weren't enough, and the capability and desire to wipe them out the moment they let they're a threat. You can't build a compelling story out of that that engages the player more than superfluously, because the rules allow for that.
What you're describing has little relation to what's normally meant by "balance."

A Commoner in the same system as a Warblade is not balanced by any means - the Warblade can do anything the Commoner can do, and more. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't work as it's supposed to - the Commoner was supposed to suck, the Warblade was supposed to fight - or that the game will be unplayable if it's run as it was designed - with the Warblades whacking things with swords and the Commoners working the fields.

Such a system would only be unplayable if balance were necessary for playability, but that's the case you're trying to support in the first place.

Game balance is a trait of the system, but it's not an inherently desirable one - at least to the degree you portray it. Clearly, not every player finds it necessary for a game to be enjoyable (or else 3e/Rifts/Mechwarrior wouldn't have sold a second copy, and nobody would play a Monk or Druid twice).

Lord_Gareth

2012-09-04, 10:48 PM

I give up. Keep personally attacking people you don't know as much as you want. I'm done here.

I attack only the man's work and the way he's treated his customer base; it isn't my fault that he's left both forms of communication lying all over the internet where everyone can see them. If he'd acted like the professional he's supposed to be, Mr. Reynolds wouldn't be getting nearly as many complaints. As it stands, his work and work ethic have both been found severely...wanting.

More positive stuff - Putting all the math in the same direction. As someone raised on 2e, lemme tell you, everything going the same way (in this case, up) was a GODSEND. SO much more intuitive.

Coidzor

2012-09-04, 10:55 PM

On the actual topic: WotC did do a lot of things right, and I'm surprised I didn't note homebrew in my first post in this thread. I've played every edition except OD&D, and hackmaster if you count it, but still have always found 3.X simpler to homebrew for. It's not my first system, but it's the one I took to the most.

While the framework can be a lot messier and it's easy to be horrible at it starting out, it does seem a lot easier to approach homebrewing for the d20 chassis than the other ones I've poked around inside.

Boci

2012-09-05, 02:42 AM

No, it pretty much is Bull. Also false equivalence. The correct analogy would be having sniper rifles do so much more damage than every other gun in the game and poor stealth and range rules so as to make the choice of any other gun for any other situational purpose non-viable. The GM also has to make all missions solvable by the PC sniper, and can't have any himself, regardless of how many of the PCs are snipers.

Balance is required, because it doesn't mean "all things are equal, in terms of individual performance", it never has, it's "a state of equilibrium". Balance in game terms can mean quite a lot, but for tabletop games, the best definition would be "an equal distribution of significance".

Explain to me how a gritty modern setting is going to have a "an equal distribution of significance" between the former special forces character and an unarmed character.

I played a Dark Ages: Vampire game where after a couple of sessions my character died and I made an assamite warrior who could mop the floor with the party's nosferatu warrior (even without a surprise attack), and could do ranged and unarmed combat in addition. Hell is he had lived longer my setite vampire, who was only secondary physical, just by using plit actions to dodge and attack and dealing aggravated damage which he wouldn't have been able to soak. Does that make the game bad?

Hell, from a mechanical perspective there is little reason to play a brujah in V:tM. Just play a primarily physical torreador. They both get celerity and presence, but the torreador gets auspex instead of potence (arguably better in the modern age even for a combat character) and have a tamer clan weakness.

AmberVael

2012-09-05, 10:43 AM

I think 3.5 books are laid out in a pretty easy to read way.

I don't think I would have thought of it myself, but yes, definitely this.
There may be a lot of stuff, but WotC did always make absolutely sure to put in good indexes, glossaries, and content pages. It's never been too hard for me to find something in their books, really.

I probably wouldn't have realized how spoiled I was with it if I hadn't started playing Exalted, which... well... they could stand to learn from WotC on this.

Qwertystop

2012-09-05, 10:49 AM

[QUOTE=Yora;13828619]d20 + bonuses - penalties vs. d20 + bonuses - penalties or DCQUOTE]

What was it like before?

Boci

2012-09-05, 10:52 AM

d20 + bonuses - penalties vs. d20 + bonuses - penalties or DCQUOTE]

What was it like before?

Your BAB was THAC0 - (number required) to hit armour class 0 (with I believe was the equivalent to a human with no dex wearing magical full plate and a shield). The lower your AC was the better, so the same applied to your attack bonus.

The Glyphstone

2012-09-05, 10:53 AM

[QUOTE=Yora;13828619]d20 + bonuses - penalties vs. d20 + bonuses - penalties or DCQUOTE]

What was it like before?

D20+penalties-bonuses vs. d20 + penalties - bonuses, I believe, if we're talking about pre-3E.

Also, SKR cannot game-design his way out of a wet paper bag with the OGL printed on the inside. I have more respect for the designers of the Immortals Handbook.

Boci

2012-09-05, 10:55 AM

I have more respect for the designers of the Immortals Handbook.

Yeah I was sorry to hear that after they were cured of epilepsy their only real job choice was the zoo.

Novawurmson

2012-09-05, 11:23 AM

Yeah I was sorry to hear that after they were cured of epilepsy their only real job choice was the zoo.

Luckily, there was room by the crocodile pit.

Eldan

2012-09-05, 11:29 AM

[QUOTE=Qwertystop;13845899]

D20+penalties-bonuses vs. d20 + penalties - bonuses, I believe, if we're talking about pre-3E.

Also, SKR cannot game-design his way out of a wet paper bag with the OGL printed on the inside. I have more respect for the designers of the Immortals Handbook.

Or in some cases, whatever the hell Gygax thought of. Percentages and other non-d20 dice weren't exactly rare. Sometimes you rolled over a DC, sometimes under. I've seen cases where you had to roll under your own ability score, as an example.

Kazyan

2012-09-05, 11:36 AM

D&D 3.5 has the most content and the most room for creativity you can find basically anywhere. This is the sort of game where if you want to fight by beating people to death with flying monkeys that are on fire, there are like 10 ways to do that. I mean, Duskblade/Drunken Master/Effigy Master. That took like 30 seconds.

Squark

2012-09-05, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=Yora;13828619]d20 + bonuses - penalties vs. d20 + bonuses - penalties or DCQUOTE]

What was it like before?

Right... Going from memory of 2nd edition, let's break down a couple of things.

Initiative: There were maybe... four different ways you could run initiative in the player's handbook alone? Anyway, it was 1d10-dexterity bonus to initiative (Lower initiative is good)+Your weapon speed or the casting time of your spell (Lower is good, so a dagger might be speed 2, a greatsword speed 6. Magical weapons subtract their bonus from the weapon speed). Then compare initiative rolls, going from lowest to highest. Everyone states actions before initiative is rolled, so if the mage goes late in the round (Initiative is rolled every round), and they take so much as 1 damage, their spell goes poof.

To hit: Start with your THAC0 (To-Hit-Armor-Class-0). This is determined by your class and level (Gradually goes from 20 to lower, with warrior classes progressing faster than others, and mages going the slowest of all, obviously). Now, Add person's AC to that number (Basic, unmodified AC is 9. Armor sets it to a lower value (a magical bonus lowering it further), shields subtract a point or two, and the value can increase or decrease based on what type of weapon damage is being used). Now roll a dice, perhaps with some modifiers from your strength or dexterity, enchantments on your weapon, and other miscelany. If what you roll is greater than the number set out by your THAC0 and the AC, you hit.

Nonweapon Proficiencies (AKA skills): Uhh... I really, really don't remember, and my dad's old PHB is miles away. I think each skill had a relevant ability score, and you rolled against your ability score, modified by the difficulty of the task. If you weren't profficient in the skill, you might be unable to even try, or you might just take a penalty, depending on the task.

So, yeah, the D20 system is a lot simpler.

Philistine

2012-09-05, 12:12 PM

What you're describing has little relation to what's normally meant by "balance."

A Commoner in the same system as a Warblade is not balanced by any means - the Warblade can do anything the Commoner can do, and more. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't work as it's supposed to - the Commoner was supposed to suck, the Warblade was supposed to fight - or that the game will be unplayable if it's run as it was designed - with the Warblades whacking things with swords and the Commoners working the fields.

Such a system would only be unplayable if balance were necessary for playability, but that's the case you're trying to support in the first place.

Game balance is a trait of the system, but it's not an inherently desirable one - at least to the degree you portray it. Clearly, not every player finds it necessary for a game to be enjoyable (or else 3e/Rifts/Mechwarrior wouldn't have sold a second copy, and nobody would play a Monk or Druid twice).

This entire argument is specious, because you're not expected to actually play Commoners - it's explicitly tagged as an NPC class. Certainly you're not expected to play a Commoner in the same party with real characters. They don't belong in the same game. Just like - in case you somehow hadn't noticed - a lot of people strongly suggest not putting PHB Monks and Druids in the same party.

Menteith

2012-09-05, 12:31 PM

LordBlades

2012-09-05, 12:58 PM

Menteith

2012-09-05, 01:00 PM

...which is why I said it.

"To me, the problem is that people aren't always aware of a class's capabilities, and their expectation of a class may fall short of the actual capabilities, leading to disappointment."

eggs

2012-09-05, 01:16 PM

This entire argument is specious, because you're not expected to actually play Commoners - it's explicitly tagged as an NPC class. Certainly you're not expected to play a Commoner in the same party with real characters. They don't belong in the same game. Just like - in case you somehow hadn't noticed - a lot of people strongly suggest not putting PHB Monks and Druids in the same party.
That's unrelated to my point. Maybe I expressed myself poorly.

What I meant to say is that "the game doesn't work as it's supposed to" (AKA "the game is broken") is a different complaint than "characters are not equally powerful" (AKA "the game is imbalanced").

Through the Warblade and Commoner example, I hoped to illustrate characters that, as you say, are explicitly and deliberately imbalanced, but whose use does not make the game unplayable, degenerate or "broken" in the way that a neurotic tricked-out wizard does.

My point was that Imbalanced != Broken/Unplayable, which was the foundation of Zeful's objections to Thiago's statement that balance is not necessary for an enjoyable game. To back that up further, I brought up Rifts and Mechwarrior's common play and popularity - two games with abysmal balance whose designers, iirc, have explicitly dismissed game balance as a design goal.

I hope this was less unclear.

Anodai

2012-09-05, 01:43 PM

Remember when this thread was about things that it was supposed to be about?

The art direction for 3rd edition, especially core, and especially Tom Lockwood's stuff, is fantastic!

Scots Dragon

2012-09-05, 02:21 PM

Well, with the exception of Mialee. I've never seen someone get 'draw a female elven mage' so very, very wrong before...

Ravens_cry

2012-09-05, 02:48 PM

I like most pictures of Mialee personally, but I'm weird like that.
She's a nerdy elf, I can respect that.
Also, I like the basic idea behind d20. Roll your die, add your bonus, does it equal or exceed a certain number? If yes, hit, if no, not.
It's pretty abstract, but it doesn't get bogged down in over-simulating things either. It's also pretty easy to tell how hard a task is for someone based on their bonuses.

Anodai

2012-09-05, 02:54 PM

Well, with the exception of Mialee. I've never seen someone get 'draw a female elven mage' so very, very wrong before...

Actually, strangely enough, the only thing 'wrong' with the original Mialee art (http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/concept/01/mailee.shtml) (by Lockwood) is that she has a rather long face that seems too big for her head. This in and of itself isn't a problem, if Benedict Cumberbatch (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU5MDkwNDg3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjI5NTIxNw%40% 40._V1._SY314_CR8,0,214,314_.jpg) is anything to go by.

Most other artists who have portrayed her since attempted to preserve her face without really understanding what it is that they are looking at, and it hasn't worked out at all.

Coidzor

2012-09-05, 02:58 PM

If everyone knows what they're doing, there's nothing wrong with running an unbalanced group. I can think of reasons why a person might choose to play a Commoner or other low powered class, even in a relatively strong party. To me, the problem is that people aren't always aware of a class's capabilities, and their expectation of a class may fall short of the actual capabilities, leading to disappointment.

Indeed. Problem is the designers either did not or were actively lying to get people to believe that x is equivalent to y when really x is in a whole other league. Which from how I've read the thread is what is being discussed, the class(es) design and being billed as having some level of rough parity between the classes as choices when such is not the case.

That's unrelated to my point. Maybe I expressed myself poorly.

What I meant to say is that "the game doesn't work as it's supposed to" (AKA "the game is broken") is a different complaint than "characters are not equally powerful" (AKA "the game is imbalanced").

Through the Warblade and Commoner example, I hoped to illustrate characters that, as you say, are explicitly and deliberately imbalanced, but whose use does not make the game unplayable, degenerate or "broken" in the way that a neurotic tricked-out wizard does.

My point was that Imbalanced != Broken/Unplayable, which was the foundation of Zeful's objections to Thiago's statement that balance is not necessary for an enjoyable game. To back that up further, I brought up Rifts and Mechwarrior's common play and popularity - two games with abysmal balance whose designers, iirc, have explicitly dismissed game balance as a design goal.

I hope this was less unclear.

But there's overlap, especially in the case of the monk and to a certain, IIRC more debatable, extent the fighter.

Monk does not deliver what it's supposed to do and be (Broken) and it can't really keep up with the other classes (Imbalanced).

Vael: I agree. After trying to read the Vampire the Masquerade books and make a Deadlands character, I understand the importance of glossaries, indices, and tables of contents. Was rather surprised how head and shoulders above the competition WOTC has been, even with notable examples like Magic of Incarnum for how they've managed to bork their organization.

Gnorman

2012-09-05, 03:45 PM

Well, with the exception of Mialee. I've never seen someone get 'draw a female elven mage' so very, very wrong before...

Mialee has an 8 in Charisma. Her being an hideous, frog-faced abomination in violation of all standards of beauty is appropriate.

Maybe she's got a good personality.

Eldariel

2012-09-05, 03:51 PM

Mialee has an 8 in Charisma. Her being an hideous, frog-faced abomination in violation of all standards of beauty is appropriate.

Maybe she's got a good personality.

8 Charisma does not decolor your skin.

darksolitaire

2012-09-05, 04:00 PM

8 Charisma does not decolor your skin.

They couldn't put it below 8 because of elite array.:smallamused:

Gnorman

2012-09-05, 04:01 PM

8 Charisma does not decolor your skin.

Don't be applying your human-centric standards of beauty to me!

Eldariel

2012-09-05, 04:01 PM

They couldn't put it below 8 because point buy.

Indeed. So...logically she shouldn't be drawn with less than 8 Cha, should she?

darksolitaire

2012-09-05, 04:04 PM

Indeed. So...logically she shouldn't be drawn with less than 8 Cha, should she?

Don't know, I just googled her and some of those pictures seems to have...rather good charisma.

Gnorman

2012-09-05, 04:06 PM

Indeed. So...logically she shouldn't be drawn with less than 8 Cha, should she?

1. She's an elf, so already we're into "alien-looking and weird" territory. That skin color may not actually be a detriment. In fact, by elven standards, she might be considered quite attractive.

2. She's appeared in derivative works as being aloof, but not entirely unpleasant, showing that she does in fact have at least a tolerable personality. Maybe not. But maybe the wizard is too useful to get rid of, even if she is has the equivalent personality of a bulette in heat. Either way, this component is only useful if we separate appearance and personality, averaging them (say, calling her Personality a 12 and her Appearance a 4, and average that out to an 8 in Charisma).

Here's something WotC didn't do right: using physical appearance as a stat. The ugliest mind flayer in the world still has a 14 in Charisma. And he just keeps getting prettier with age.

Boci

2012-09-05, 04:10 PM

Here's something WotC didn't do right: using physical appearance as a stat.

Or naming physical attractiveness as one of the things charisma signifies.

Gnorman

2012-09-05, 04:12 PM

Or naming physical attractiveness as one of the things charisma signifies.

Yes, that is more accurate.

Zeful

2012-09-05, 04:16 PM

Explain to me how a gritty modern setting is going to have a "an equal distribution of significance" between the former special forces character and an unarmed character.That entirely depends on how the non-combat parts of the system work: but off the top of my head? Computer specialist brought on to the mission specifically to get critical files out of a terrorist network, and an involved hacking system that requires the GM to interact more with the unarmed character than the rest of the squad who are only specced for infiltration and combat.

Balance is not "everything is 1", which you and eggs seem to think I mean.

Boci

2012-09-05, 04:23 PM

That entirely depends on how the non-combat parts of the system work: but off the top of my head? Computer specialist brought on to the mission specifically to get critical files out of a terrorist network, and an involved hacking system that requires the GM to interact more with the unarmed character than the rest of the squad who are only specced for infiltration and combat.

Given that my initial example involved a martial artist, I thought it was clear what I meant by unarmed character, but I may not have been clear, so let me rephrase the question:

How is a gritty modern setting is going to have a "an equal distribution of significance" between the former special forces character and an MMA blackbelt?

Starbuck_II

2012-09-05, 04:29 PM

They pushed the boundries with ideas.
Some of them ended up sucking in execution like Blighters need Druid levels to enter, but you lost all the abililies. You can't enter at 5th because they forgot Druid BAB is 3/4th so you wasted more levels.

But the idea of a Blighter was awesome.

Zeful

2012-09-05, 04:58 PM

Given that my initial example involved a martial artist, I thought it was clear what I meant by unarmed character, but I may not have been clear, so let me rephrase the question:

How is a gritty modern setting is going to have a "an equal distribution of significance" between the former special forces character and an MMA blackbelt?

Given that your initial example was not related to any thing I was talking about, it doesn't really matter if you were being clear or not.

But to answer your question: It wouldn't, because this hypothetical system wouldn't have a melee option at all, being focused around marines. It's why I bothered to correct your analogy at all, it's incorrect on it's face.

Boci

2012-09-05, 05:04 PM

Given that your initial example was not related to any thing I was talking about, it doesn't really matter if you were being clear or not.

But to answer your question: It wouldn't, because this hypothetical system wouldn't have a melee option at all, being focused around marines. It's why I bothered to correct your analogy at all, it's incorrect on it's face.

World of Darkness, your argument is void. (In case it isn't immediately obvious why, in world of darkness you can make a black belt in MMA and you can make an ex-marine character. So no, a game in which you can make a marine would not necessarily be focused around marines.)

Scots Dragon

2012-09-05, 05:07 PM

Military forces are almost universally trained in close-quarters combat anyway, and have minimum health standards in order to qualify. They may not be to the level of an MMA blackbelt type, but they're no slouches when it comes to a bout of fisticuffs.

And a game focused around marines that doesn't involve melee combat would be a remarkably stupid idea. It might not be used very often, but marines are always well-trained close-quarters fighters.

Eldariel

2012-09-05, 05:18 PM

Military forces are almost universally trained in close-quarters combat anyway, and have minimum health standards in order to qualify. They may not be to the level of an MMA blackbelt type, but they're no slouches when it comes to a bout of fisticuffs.

They actually have some advantages over MMA fighters in war conditions since the military close combat training is for real brawling without rules, not legal combat. So any melee weapons (such as the butt of your gun) are a go and the fight is all about aiming for the most likely lethal areas (MMA for example forbids hits to the back of the head).

Zeful

2012-09-05, 05:22 PM

World of Darkness, your argument is void. (In case it isn't immediately obvious why, in world of darkness you can make a black belt in MMA and you can make an ex-marine character. So no, a game in which you can make a marine would not necessarily be focused around marines.)

Being able to build a marine is not "being focused around marines" which was in your first example: You are not arguing in good faith. I will no longer respond to you at all.

B33rm4n

2012-09-05, 05:26 PM

Hang on a sec...

ToB is hugely popular, because it's more balanced and gives fighters things to do other than hit it until it dies. But 4E made the same ToB style the default. Why do so many people hate 4E again?

ToB balanced the melee spectrum, 4E put casters down on the same peg, people hate 4th edition because it's too simplified. Part of what makes D&D so fun for me is that there is SO MUCH to do! I mean, i get on and still learn variants, rules, spells, classes, items and class combinations that blow my mind. 4E is just in my opinion, bland.

Boci

2012-09-05, 05:30 PM

Being able to build a marine is not "being focused around marines" which was in your first example: You are not arguing in good faith. I will no longer respond to you at all.

When did I say the hypothetical game was focused around marines? My first first example says nothing apart from the game being "gritty modern". This is from my initial example:

See above. "Gee I'm sorry your dual penknife wielding elderly woman basket weaver is overshadowed by my former SBS turned mercenary/assassin" its a realistic game that offers different levels of competency. You can play teenagers stranded and forced to fight, or battle hardened veterans, and if the group doesn't mind massive inbalance, you can play them both in the same group.

I blatantly did not say it was focused on marines. Whose not arguing in good faith now?

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-05, 05:39 PM

They actually have some advantages over MMA fighters in war conditions since the military close combat training is for real brawling without rules, not legal combat. So any melee weapons (such as the butt of your gun) are a go and the fight is all about aiming for the most likely lethal areas (MMA for example forbids hits to the back of the head).

That's really only a change in expectation though. The skills MMA fighters develop will adapt very quickly and easily to a cqb mission, assuming they also pick up some firearms proficiency and infiltration skills.

Eldariel

2012-09-05, 05:47 PM

That's really only a change in expectation though. The skills MMA fighters develop will adapt very quickly and easily to a cqb mission, assuming they also pick up some firearms proficiency and infiltration skills.

True, but there are few MMA techniques that are only viable because killing is understandably not allowed in the sport. Of course a person trained for melee combat has great martial aptitude but adding lethality and weapons to the mix does stir the pot a bit so much so that pure MMA training is likely not as efficient as actual military melee combat training (though given the disparity in the amount of martial arts training they do, an MMA fighter is obviously very likely to have far superior technique).

My point was merely though that even in melee, marine training is probably worth something pure MMA training can't offer so even a trained martial artist is not strictly superior to a marine in an actual war situation (of course, a marine with MMA training would probably stomp a marine without the MMA training even though both have the military melee training).

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-05, 06:21 PM

True, but there are few MMA techniques that are only viable because killing is understandably not allowed in the sport. Of course a person trained for melee combat has great martial aptitude but adding lethality and weapons to the mix does stir the pot a bit so much so that pure MMA training is likely not as efficient as actual military melee combat training (though given the disparity in the amount of martial arts training they do, an MMA fighter is obviously very likely to have far superior technique).

My point was merely though that even in melee, marine training is probably worth something pure MMA training can't offer so even a trained martial artist is not strictly superior to a marine in an actual war situation (of course, a marine with MMA training would probably stomp a marine without the MMA training even though both have the military melee training).

Which MMA techniques do you think are non-viable in a combat situation? :smallconfused:

Eldariel

2012-09-05, 10:33 PM

Which MMA techniques do you think are non-viable in a combat situation? :smallconfused:

Well, for instance, a standard takedown attempt defended by a sprawl leaves the person attempting the takedown in a position with his upper back and/or neck exposed; rules forbid the potentially fatal elbow that would be fairly easy to land in this position.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-05, 11:32 PM

Well, for instance, a standard takedown attempt defended by a sprawl leaves the person attempting the takedown in a position with his upper back and/or neck exposed; rules forbid the potentially fatal elbow that would be fairly easy to land in this position.

By "standard takedown attempt" I'm guessing you mean a double leg takedown.

That's only innappropriate if the enemy knows both when and how to counter it which may not be part of standard military close-quarters training. Even then, the potentially lethal follow up to stuffing a takedown requires either a weapon or the kind of pin-point striking ability that isn't even common among close-quarters combat instructors, military or not.

In fact, IIRC, the double leg takedown is taught as part of basic military hand to hand training for most militaries. Though if I'm right about that I suppose the basic counter would be taught as well.

Care to try again? and, if so, do you think we should take this discussion to another thread?

GeriSch

2012-09-06, 08:45 AM

To get back to the topic:

For me, WotC did nearly everything right with 3.0/3.5, well at least in comparison with AD&D and many other Systems i played - its inherent logic structure which allows building so many many completely different things with the same underlying mechanic is a real beauty. The balance "problem" as i see it, is more of a feature than a bug - because i postulate that if you create a game which allows you to do nearly EVERYTHING you can think of, you will get automatic imbalances. If you can imagine most powerful characters, there also have to be a place for the sub-par underdogs - or else the powerful wouldn't be powerful.
And this is what 4E did, it completely flattened out the classes to perfectly balance them - and suddenly there was nothing powerful anymore and nothing weak anymore, just a big homogenized mass.
So i'm still in love with 3.x because it doesn't limit my imagination of playable and doable things - well it does limit it, but less so than other systems i know.

gr,
Geri

Eldariel

2012-09-06, 09:39 AM

By "standard takedown attempt" I'm guessing you mean a double leg takedown.

That's only innappropriate if the enemy knows both when and how to counter it which may not be part of standard military close-quarters training. Even then, the potentially lethal follow up to stuffing a takedown requires either a weapon or the kind of pin-point striking ability that isn't even common among close-quarters combat instructors, military or not.

In fact, IIRC, the double leg takedown is taught as part of basic military hand to hand training for most militaries. Though if I'm right about that I suppose the basic counter would be taught as well.

I don't think that really matters though. My point is that it's a position an MMA fighter actively seeks (advantageous for the person performing the takedown) since there's literally nothing you can do from that position due to rules forbidding the follow-ups. There's also some grapple positions where it'd be possible to knee the enemy but again, it's not allowed.

The move itself isn't unviable; if you pull the takedown off you obviously get to a very advantageous position. But there are factors that make one position you often go for undesirable in ruleless combat but desirable in an MMA fight, which is my point. The rules are a reason for some basic assumptions in MMA fights that fly out of the window in a street fight or a war situation.

Perhaps saying "moves are unviable" is inaccurate; my point is that basic assumptions in an MMA fight are a consequence of the rules in place and there are positions you end up in that are only desirable due to said rules.

Care to try again? and, if so, do you think we should take this discussion to another thread?

I'm not really invested enough in this discussion, though fascinating it is, that I feel we necessarily need to continue it. Even though I've done my share of martial arts & military service I'm far from what you could consider an expert anyways.

Feel free to post a rebuttal, of course, but I feel we simply lack the substance to really start a thread on this particular discussion. Though, it's definitely not appropriate for this thread either.

marc

2012-09-06, 10:04 AM

From a DM's perspective, here is what they did right in 3e:
1) Feats
2) Clerics are more than medics
3) the Incorporeal subtype - 50% miss chance unless you have a Ghost Touch weapon? Along with immunity to critical hits, this made PC's fear the undead - which is as it should be, because they have risen from the grave!
4) CR and Encounter Levels: Helped DM's better gauge what was an appropriately challenging encounter for a party.

Tyndmyr

2012-09-06, 10:21 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-07, 04:48 AM

I'm also former mil/martial arts. Eld is correct. You are not. MMA, while useful, is not quite the same as real combat. It can't be without ending up with people dead or broken.

But more importantly, it's pretty far from what WoTC did right.

The best thing? Lots and lots of options. Seriously, that's amazing. So many books, so much to explore...it really lets you do quite a lot with the game.

I don't think that really matters though. My point is that it's a position an MMA fighter actively seeks (advantageous for the person performing the takedown) since there's literally nothing you can do from that position due to rules forbidding the follow-ups. There's also some grapple positions where it'd be possible to knee the enemy but again, it's not allowed.

The move itself isn't unviable; if you pull the takedown off you obviously get to a very advantageous position. But there are factors that make one position you often go for undesirable in ruleless combat but desirable in an MMA fight, which is my point. The rules are a reason for some basic assumptions in MMA fights that fly out of the window in a street fight or a war situation.

Perhaps saying "moves are unviable" is inaccurate; my point is that basic assumptions in an MMA fight are a consequence of the rules in place and there are positions you end up in that are only desirable due to said rules.

I'm not really invested enough in this discussion, though fascinating it is, that I feel we necessarily need to continue it. Even though I've done my share of martial arts & military service I'm far from what you could consider an expert anyways.

Feel free to post a rebuttal, of course, but I feel we simply lack the substance to really start a thread on this particular discussion. Though, it's definitely not appropriate for this thread either.

I'm not entirely convinced. IMO most MMA fighters that go for the double leg and get it stuffed, waste way too much time and energy trying to get it to work anyway, probably -because- they know that the rules forbid the most effective counters, but this thread is far enough off the rails that I'll drop it.

I will note that being in the position created by having a takedown stuffed is not advantageous in or out of the cage, and that the UFC actually has some of the strictest safety rules regarding what's allowed in MMA.