Reasons for lack of versatility in 4e

[Swordguy]

A while back, we had a discussion on Designers Intent vs Optimization. You can look through it here. The reason I bring this up was because of something that I remembered from my OP in the thread.

here's an interesting and highly off-topic point I'd like to bring up regarding that. I have an uncle, Jon Pickens, who worked at TSR and WotC during the late 80's, 90's, and until just after 3.0 was released. I've asked him about play balance in 3.x several times, and he's got a great deal to say about it. The part of this that concerns us at this moment is this:

WOTC playtested D&D [3.x] under their own preconcieved notions about what D&D should be. A fighter SHOULD run up and hit things. A cleric SHOULD stay in the back and heal, unless the fighter goes down, and a Wizard SHOULD primarily be a blaster. They did this because that's how they had been playing for years. The same thing happened with the DM: when the BBEG got run at by the fighter, who starting whaling on him with a sharp object, the BBEG did not immediately Dimension Door away and ignore the fighter - the DM ran the encounter in a particular style that predicated this from happening. The "balance" in D&D 3.x is only supposed to work when the players take on the party roles that the WotC playtesters assigned them. In short, if you don't play the game the way the playtesters did...it's not ever going to balance! They didn't playtest for Batman, or Pun-Pun, or CoDzilla. The ideas behind an arcane caster (and I quote uncle Jon on this) "Why would anyone NOT want to do lots of hitpoints of damage? That's what mages are for."

Play the paradigm that WotC developed, or don't. Just understand that if you don't, then the game isn't going to balance the way you think it should.
....
Again, optimizers are playing D&D using a different perceptual paradigm than the playtesters were. To say in in a way that will tick a LOT of people off, optimizers really are (by the playtesters definition) "Playing D&D wrong".

The bolded part is the most important section of this. For all the talk about playing "any sort of D&D you want" and "unlimited adventure" in 3.x, WotC considered the game to still revolve around a traditional meatshield fighter, healy cleric, trap rogue, and blaster wizard stomping through a dungeon killing things and taking their stuff. What ended up happening, as well all know, is that the combination of extreme versatility and effectiveness inherent to magic in 3.x rendered non-magic classes essentially pointless, and the blasty magic that WotC loves so much simply pointless. The druid and cleric were better fighters than the fighter. The wizard with a couple of wands can render a rogue's trapfinding and lockpicking essentially obsolete. By common consensus, the "best" party was something close to "Batman Wizard, Druid, Beguiler, Artificer".

That's NOT the way WotC wants the game to be played. Among other things, it unfairly penalizes new players who think that Monks and Fighters are legitimate PC choices when you're in a group of veterans who're all playing casters, and makes WotC a target for "too easy!" complaints from players who are getting adventures balanced for a traditional party and going through those adventures with the "optimized" party mentioned above.

Therefore, WotC targeted what they saw was the largest problem with 3.x - the versatility and effectiveness of magic. IE, casters got hit by a nerf bat like a pair of handicappied yahoodies assaulted by Alex and droogs. The end goal of this nerfing was to essentially FORCE players to play the roles that WotC wanted you to play in the first place. PC versatility has been reduced so characters are simply unable to take over another party role. Each and every class is more or less pidgeonholed into a particular playstyle. Now, I'm aware that it opens up somewhat as Paragon Paths( (etc) come into play during late-game...but I think that the majority of games will be played, as they are now, in the level 1-10 region.

Whether this is a good or bad thing remains to be seen. However, I'm certain that forcing the players back to a particular playstyle (the WotC can reasonably forsee and playtest modules for) is a large portion of the reason behind the distinct lack of versatility in PC classes in 4e.

[Saph]

That . . . explains a lot, actually.

- Saph

[Matthew]

Don't forget the 'rules mastery' explanation. That's a doozy. WotC are with 4e supposed to be moving away from that paradigm.

[Swordguy]

Don't forget the 'rules mastery' explanation. That's a doozy. WotC are with 4e supposed to be moving away from that paradigm.

I talked about that with Jon recently. I can't actually repeat what he said, because I don't want another board infraction...but suffice it to say that Mr. Cook is indulging in at least a little bit of Charlie Yankee Alpha there.

As such, I more or less discount Mr. Cook's explanation. No offense, but I'll trust a source that's out of the games industry and has no reason to lie to me over somebody who's trying to maintain their credibility in said industry after releasing a badly flawed product.

[Charity]

In fairness I think it is much more difficult to make poor choices in 4e, and with the retraining much easier to fix.

[Solo]

In fairness I think it is much more difficult to make poor choices in 4e.

Fixed it for you

[Edea]

Elucidating thread.

[Matthew]

I talked about that with Jon recently. I can't actually repeat what he said, because I don't want another board infraction...but suffice it to say that Mr. Cook is indulging in at least a little bit of Charlie Yankee Alpha there.

As such, I more or less discount Mr. Cook's explanation. No offense, but I'll trust a source that's out of the games industry and has no reason to lie to me over somebody who's trying to maintain their credibility in said industry after releasing a badly flawed product.

Fair enough.

[Duke of URL]

I'd have to agree that the system was intentionally designed with a lack of versatility. It fits the business model of more emphasis on the miniatures and online components -- the fewer cases to cover, the easier it is to make your products completely support your players.

The $64,000 question is whether or not this lack of versatility a) holds, and b) truly has either positive or negative effect on the game. Only time will tell.

[Emperor Tippy]

What happened is WotC decided to go from D&D primarily being an RPG, a combat heavy RPG with assumed roles and playstles but still an RPG, to being a tactical wargame.

4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

[TheOOB]

4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

You mean it's not a game where you are playing a role? I would have never guessed.

Yes, D&D 4e is based on combat, and it has a very tactical war gaming feel to it. Thats always what D&D has been about, it's always been a tactical combat based RPG. Lets face it, most the old out of combat rules where down right abysmal (read 3.x diplomacy again). For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

[Matthew]

Lets face it, most the old out of combat rules where down right abysmal (read 3.x diplomacy again). For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

That sounds like an AD&D Traditional Adventure Roleplaying Game philosophy...

[Emperor Tippy]

You mean it's not a game where you are playing a role? I would have never guessed.

Yes, you are playing a role. But you have next to no choice in that role. I can't think of any other RPG that forces you to play as strict a role as 4e.

Yes, D&D 4e is based on combat, and it has a very tactical war gaming feel to it. Thats always what D&D has been about, it's always been a tactical combat based RPG. Lets face it, most the old out of combat rules where down right abysmal (read 3.x diplomacy again). For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

Agreed, 3e had a lot of messed up rules (mostly in out of combat but the incombat ones weren't much better) but they didn't enforce a role.

If you play a wizard in 4e then you are a blaster. If you play an evoker who manages to ban every school except evocation and divination you still have more potential roles you can fill (even restrained to core). You can blast, you can do battle field control, you can save or loose, you can protect, etc.

The same holds true for most classes.

[Swordguy]

Yes, you are playing a role. But you have next to no choice in that role. I can't think of any other RPG that forces you to play as strict a role as 4e.

*shrug* I'm still portraying a character's personality and actions via an interactive social medium. I'm slightly more constrained when combat breaks out, but I still control that character's thoughts, emotions, and actions both in and out of combat. My role is really only pidgeonholed during combat - when we're sitting around the tavern afterwards I'm whoever I want to be. Really, we're getting into "what is an RPG to you?" territory here.

BTW, Tippy, do you post on Fark? I saw an EmperorTippy over there today...

[Quellian-dyrae]

but I think that the majority of games will be played, as they are now, in the level 1-10 region.

I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't occur. I don't have the books, so I can't be sure, but judging from what I've seen, the entire game now has a general level of power that I would estimate to be roughly in the levels 3-11 range from 3e. Which I suppose is in some senses a good thing, as that does seem to be a popular level range.

'Course, my favorite place to start is level 12, so you can imagine why I'm rather annoyed at what I've been seeing thus far.

[Emperor Tippy]

BTW, Tippy, do you post on Fark? I saw an EmperorTippy over there today...

Yeah, thats me. I mostly lurk though. What topic? Prolly best to take this to PM as its off topic.

[Swordguy]

Yeah, thats me. I mostly lurk though. What topic? Prolly best to take this to PM as its off topic.

Submitter wasn't allowed past airport security at Heathrow Terminal 5, as my t-shirt had a picture of a gun on it. It was a picture of a Transformer holding a gun. The Sun is there

That thread. I post as FightDirector over there.

Anyway, that's all I've got on that topic. Back to the topic at hand...

That sounds like an AD&D Traditional Adventure Roleplaying Game philosophy...

That's actually a very valid point. It feels like WotC's going "back to their (OK, TSR's) roots". I wonder how it'll turn out, remembering the elitism and general moving away from that game philosophy in the late 80s and early 90s.

[InaVegt]

Yes, you are playing a role. But you have next to no choice in that role. I can't think of any other RPG that forces you to play as strict a role as 4e.

How about AD&D?

[Reel On, Love]

Fixed it for you

Well, if you were a wizard or druid, sure. And I guess clerics don't get to prepare spells from a list of 4723694234 spells, all of which they know. The others are doin' just fine, chuggin' along with plenty of things to do in combat and as much or more non-magic stuff to do out of it than in 3E.


Edit: the idea that characters are straightjacketed into their roles is ridiculous. Just look at the classes. Fighters and Paladins are both Defenders. Paladins obviously have a side of Leader. Fighters have a side of Striker. Multiclass your Fighter into Warlord and now your Fighter has a side of Leader. Le Gasp!

There's variance within each role, and multiclassing lets you hybridize your roles.

[Aquillion]

If you play a wizard in 4e then you are a blaster. If you play an evoker who manages to ban every school except evocation and divination you still have more potential roles you can fill (even restrained to core). You can blast, you can do battle field control, you can save or loose, you can protect, etc.

The same holds true for most classes.

Uh, I think you mean most non-melee classes. A core fighter or Barbarian doesn't have many at all. Even adding splatbooks, a single-class fighter or Barbarian only has a few options, and most come down to one or two 'right' paths in a field of suck.

Still, I kinda wish they'd gone the ToB route and made fighters more versatile without limiting wizards quite so much.

Also, while nobody has really presented it in this thread, it's common enough to bring up, so: I disagree with the argument that it was necessary to keep the game fun. Characters do not have to be perfectly balanced in power; they have to be decently balanced in utility, with everyone having a role. Fighters sucked because even if you played normally into levels past 6 or so, their role started to drastically decline.

A 3rd edition rogue, though, actually worked really well -- sure, you could theoretically use magic to replace many of their powers, but for several reasons it doesn't generally happen. I've argued against this in other threads -- it's hard to replace constant 24/7 spot/listen/sense motive without fairly high-level magic, while using magical means to search every single room and corridor you encounter is going to burn a huge amount of resources and get old fast. Plus, things like sneak attack and move silently are optimized to work with wizards as a team rather than being replaced by them -- instead of invisibility rendering rogues obsolete the way you might expect, it just makes them more awesome.

They badly needed a way to hide and do other 'rogue things' in combat (beyond just sneak attacking), which 4th edition did provide, but despite that I think the 3rd edition rogue worked really well... and I think that's what they should've done with 4th-edition melee classes.

Your fighter doesn't have to be absolutely as good as the mage in all respects; it's fine for the mage to be mysterious and powerful. Your fighter just has to do some things better than the mage, better enough (and things that matter enough) to create a fun role for everyone. Give fighters more ways to get good initative scores, make casting take more time, make it much much harder to cast with an enemy focusing on you, etc.

Trying to make everyone completely balanced at all times results in cookie-cutter classes... It's possible for a game to be "overbalanced", to the point where the things that make roles and options distinct start to suffer. They don't (and shouldn't) all be equal options; they just have to all be good options, which isn't the same thing at all.

[Reel On, Love]

4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

Tippy, if you can't manage to roleplay in 4E, there's no helpin' ya.

[Emperor Tippy]

Uh, I think you mean most non-melee classes. A core fighter or Barbarian doesn't have many at all. Even adding splatbooks, a single-class fighter or Barbarian only has a few options, and most come down to one or two 'right' paths in a field of suck.

That is why they should have been thrown out the window in 4e. ToB is one of the best books ever published for D&D. It's real sad that they didn't keep it.

The Warblade is a melee class. The Crusader is a melee class. The Swordsage is a melee class. The Fighter is an NPC idiot and the barbarian isn't much better.

[Devils_Advocate]

I talked about that with Jon recently. I can't actually repeat what he said, because I don't want another board infraction...but suffice it to say that Mr. Cook is indulging in at least a little bit of Charlie Yankee Alpha there.

As such, I more or less discount Mr. Cook's explanation. No offense, but I'll trust a source that's out of the games industry and has no reason to lie to me over somebody who's trying to maintain their credibility in said industry after releasing a badly flawed product.

Well, frankly, "This is balanced on the assumption that players won't use it, at least not too often, even though there's no more of a limit placed on its use than on the use of the alternatives" sounds so dumb that it's kind of hard to believe that anyone actually believed that. Was powergaming actually a foreign concept to 3E's designers? I'm pretty sure it existed in 2E. The idea that players might pick options based on how effective they are seems like a fairly obvious concept. That the best way to test the effectiveness of an option is to run a character that makes frequent use of that option also seems pretty obvious. If you run a wizard who specializes in Enchanment but mostly casts Evocation spells, you've hardly really playtested Enchanters. You don't meaningfully playtest something by running it in an ass-backwards way.

I mean... If they accidentally created incentives to play the game "the wrong way", it pretty much follows that they didn't actually know what the hell they were doing, right?

And, here's the thing... If 3E's designers did include things like Glitterdust, Polymorph, Divine Power, and Righteous Might under the assumption that players wouldn't use them because direct damage and in-combat healing are teh roXXor...

Wouldn't that mean that they did intend to include "sucker" choices, and just in addition didn't understand how the system they designed worked well enough to realize which choices those actually were?

The basic notion that 3E was meant to be balanced just looks laughably implausible pretty much whatever way I look at it. For just one example, they theoretically could have set feat chains up so that Fighers could keep getting better and better feats in the same basic sort of way that Wizards automatically keep getting better and better spells. But they pretty blatantly didn't. It's just sort of hard to believe that they didn't mean for high-level and especially Epic spellcasters to have Real Ultimate Power but gave it to them anyway.

[Matthew]

That's actually a very valid point. It feels like WotC's going "back to their (OK, TSR's) roots". I wonder how it'll turn out, remembering the elitism and general moving away from that game philosophy in the late 80s and early 90s.

Hard to guess really. I suppose you will end up with a fairly vocal group of people who concentrate on and highlight the negative aspects and outcomes of that philosophy in the context of 4e, whilst ignoring or marginalising the positive. That is pretty much the situation right now with D20.

[Charity]

Ooo Matt does this make you a double grognard? Or a grognard²?

It seems every edition we go through the same gnashing of teeth and rending of garments...

[Sebastian]

For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

By those standards, monopoly and chess are rpg systems.

[Indon]

Tippy, if you can't manage to roleplay in 4E, there's no helpin' ya.

You know, back when I played Diablo II on Battle.net, I would roleplay.

I mean, it's an RPG, right? And I could roleplay just fine in D2.

[Sebastian]

Your fighter doesn't have to be absolutely as good as the mage in all respects; it's fine for the mage to be mysterious and powerful. Your fighter just has to do some things better than the mage, better enough (and things that matter enough) to create a fun role for everyone. Give fighters more ways to get good initative scores, make casting take more time, make it much much harder to cast with an enemy focusing on you, etc.

You just described 2nd edition (which I love, personally)

I agree with you game balance, while important, should not be the first thing in a RPG.

[Matthew]

Ooo Matt does this make you a double grognard? Or a grognard²?

Apparently, I don't even qualify as an ordinary grognard; I'm not old enough and don't have sufficient background in wargames. On the other hand, if we just use the term literally 'grognard' meaning 'grumbler', I could probably qualify. Of course, these days I am trying to say positive or constructive things, rather than just outright negative things.

It seems every edition we go through the same gnashing of teeth and rending of garments...

It is pretty much a staple of edition change, it seems. Some people don't like change and other people don't like people who don't like change.

I don't usually think much of change for the sake of change, but I think there is an argument that edition changes reinvigorate the market, which might be considered desirable in various ways. Of course, RPGs are my hobby, not my business, so I will just continue running the games I like to run and writing the material I like to write. Not that my likes and dislikes are static and unchanging, that is one of the reasons it is worth sharing them with a larger community.

By those standards, monopoly and chess are rpg systems.

What's so bad about that?

[nagora]

How about AD&D?

Depends on what you mean by "role". AD&D's classes were much more clearly defined, and thus had solid identities, but they didn't push players into playing the character in any particular way, by and large. Also, the lack of a (badly thought-out) skill system and pages of tiresome combat options allowed a great deal of flexibility.

I'd admit, though, that the sort of people who designed 3ed were not all what I would call burdened with over-active imaginations (hello, Skip Williams) and found the lack of rules not inspiring but bewildering and they are not alone.