Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by S'mon

I like that crap.

I don't limit my players, nor would I play with any DM that would impose such limitations on myself. I play the game to play what I want, not to play what narrow choices are available to me based on my intellectual prowess and personality. It's a game, not a Communist career placement test.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by The Little Raven

I don't limit my players, nor would I play with any DM that would impose such limitations on myself. I play the game to play what I want, not to play what narrow choices are available to me based on my intellectual prowess and personality. It's a game, not a Communist career placement test.

Communist: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" seems to be your approach. I don't limit players, they can play whatever they like, but a lazy player, or one unfamiliar with the rules, or of low cognitive ability, playing a 3e Wizard usually won't do well. I like that unlike in 1e-2e there is a 3e class, Sorcerer, which with a bit of guidance in spell selection can be played effectively by those players. As a fairly lazy player myself, I dislike that in 4e there seems to be no easy option for me. I've struggled repeatedly in 4e trying to put together a character but been overwhelmed by all the options, whether it's Warlock, Wizard, or even Fighter.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

Problem being, I think most dedicated spellcaster-type players with chafe, if not outright revolt, at the idea of wizards and clerics being knocked down a peg or three.

Hmm. I wonder if one shouldn't make a poll along these lines:
Crossing "Enjoy 4e" with "Usually enjoy playing class X in D&D"
4E raises the complexity for non-spellcasters, but decreases it for spellcasters.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Mort

Isn't saying "well the DM could always make it up" kind of a cop-out? It's certainly not an argument for flexibility.

It is when there's a section in the DMG that goes over such options and gives you guidelines on how to implement these things - whether options in combat or changing character abilities or creating whole new classes. That's options and that's flexibility.

Besides if it wasn't in the rules many (if not most) DM's would rule you can't do it.

It's amazing how every DM ever, prior to 4E, was a totalitarian, viking hat wearing jerkwad.

Regardless, 4e has an entire (decent) section on "saying yes" and allowing improvisation and maneuvers not provided for in the rules. If your argument is in anyway serious and/or not tongue-in-cheek, it does a pretty good job for options; under those conditions.

It does. it also gives the DM the tools to make up stuff. The problem is that 4E, like 3E before it, has lots of interconnected moving parts and it is a lot harder to do things like add or subtract complexity without upsetting the rest of the system. Go ahead and try and create a "simple" 4E class, or up the complexity and options for a class. I bet you run pretty quickly into trouble.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by The Little Raven

That means the game did not come with options.



Options that a person is providing, not the game itself.

Reading: It's fun and informative. Pull those dusty old tomes of your shelf and take a look. lots of good stuff in every edition of (A)D&D.

Except useful at high levels.

You seem to have a vry narrow definition of "useful", one that I don't subscribe to or even think is meaningful. I mean, if the definition of "useful" is limited to combat, that means combat is the only thing that matters in D&D, which would be a really sad, boring thing.

[Mort]

Originally Posted by Reynard

It is when there's a section in the DMG that goes over such options and gives you guidelines on how to implement these things - whether options in combat or changing character abilities or creating whole new classes. That's options and that's flexibility.

Depends on how easy it is to do and how encouraged the DM is to do it. The 3e rules have some throw away lines on the subject (I recall the making a more roguish fighter section) but not all that much. It's been a while since I read prior editions, but I don't recall much at all.

Originally Posted by Reynard

It's amazing how every DM ever, prior to 4E, was a totalitarian, viking hat wearing jerkwad.

Hardly. But it is amazing how most people, when not encouraged to say yes, say no.

Originally Posted by Reynard

It does. it also gives the DM the tools to make up stuff. The problem is that 4E, like 3E before it, has lots of interconnected moving parts and it is a lot harder to do things like add or subtract complexity without upsetting the rest of the system. Go ahead and try and create a "simple" 4E class, or up the complexity and options for a class. I bet you run pretty quickly into trouble.

That's an intersting thought. But you're avoiding the issue.

The question is how much complexity needs to be added. As in, how often does the situation come up where the player says "I want to do X" and how hard is it for the DM when "X" is not in the rules to add it.

[Runestar]

It is when there's a section in the DMG that goes over such options and gives you guidelines on how to implement these things - whether options in combat or changing character abilities or creating whole new classes. That's options and that's flexibility.

The absence of a similar clause in 3e certainly did not prevent players and DMs from doing similar things either. All 4e did was to simply state the obvious, certainly not the revolutionary concept you are making it out to be.

If anything, it seems to me that wotc is simply trying to cover its backside by including such vague and general sweeping statements to cover up any deficiencies (be it real or perceived) with 4e.

"Oh crap, the rules are actually rather vague and incomplete, and fail to cover some key aspects of the game. I know - I will just insert a clause which 'advises' players to come up with their own rules instead. This way, it will be seen as a feature, not a bug."

It is not so much that we cannot come up with new material, it is more that we should not have to. What is the point of paying so much for a book whose advice is to tell us to create our own stuff, when it should be providing them for us?

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Mort

It's been a while since I read prior editions, but I don't recall much at all.

Just as an example, 2E has a whole chapter in the DMG on creating new elements like races, classes, spells and items -- from the DM's perspective -- and makes a point to say "yes" during combat, rather than having a set list of options with mechanics for each.

The question is how much complexity needs to be added. As in, how often does the situation come up where the player says "I want to do X" and how hard is it for the DM when "X" is not in the rules to add it.

That's not the question at all, as I understand the subject of the thread. The question is, if different players/player types want different levels of complexity in their play experience, should one game allow for that, and if so, how does that game achieve it while mainting "equal fun" for everyone.

[Mort]

Originally Posted by Reynard

That's not the question at all, as I understand the subject of the thread. The question is, if different players/player types want different levels of complexity in their play experience, should one game allow for that, and if so, how does that game achieve it while mainting "equal fun" for everyone.

Your right that it wasn't the OP's question I was going off your post.

As for the OP's question. Varying levels of complexity can be satisfying, some people like to experiment and tinker and some just like to throw dice. So in theory varying levels of complexity are a good thing.

There are a few questions though:

1) where does the complexity lead? if it leads nowhere (complexity for complexities sake) what's the point? why not just simplify. If, on the other hand, it leads to a clearly superior character - are you as DM ok with 1 person having a clearly superior character over another? As importantly, are the players ok with this?

2) where is the complexity? Is it up front, or throughout play? This was mentioned up thread - the 3e fighter is complex up front, you need to have an idea what your doing when building the character or the character will likely stink, play execution, however, is usually quick and easy. The wizard is no more complex than the fighter to build up front and may be easier (your best score in Int and your best feat "scribe scroll" is already yours for free) but gets complex in play.

3) Are you as DM willing to put up with complexity at the table, are your players? Is it ok for one person to take 30 seconds and another to take five minutes on a consistant basis?

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mort

4e did this, so obviously the designers were of the same mind. I've always wondered what % of people who dislike 4e were those that really liked the open ended wizards, clerics and druids. My gut feeling is it's a pretty high number.

In my particular case, the dissatisfaction is from decoupling rules from what is happening in-world (4e damage rules, as a big example), even greater focus on the grid, making mundane abilities take on Vancian qualities, and what IMHO are lousy flavour choices. I, for one, prefer the 1e ake on wizards, where you didn't necessarily get the spells you wanted.

RC

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Reading: It's fun and informative. Pull those dusty old tomes of your shelf and take a look. lots of good stuff in every edition of (A)D&D.




You seem to have a vry narrow definition of "useful", one that I don't subscribe to or even think is meaningful. I mean, if the definition of "useful" is limited to combat, that means combat is the only thing that matters in D&D, which would be a really sad, boring thing.

It is not boring, because combat is ultimiately a very interesting part of the game. If it wasn't, there were fewer rules for it. Even "story-telling" games that supposedly focus less on it have complex rules to handle combat.

But anything "important" outside of combat can apply to any character. What out-of-combat options are unique to the Fighter and infeasible for a Wizard, a Rogue or a Cleric? If there were more "meta-game"/narrative/story-telling mechanics to each class, then you might have a point, but there aren't.

Maybe it was different in earlier editions, with the inconsistent skill system that treated skills with different subsystems for different class (like percentile skills for rogues, Non-Weapon Proficiencies and so on.) But we got away from that, maybe for the sake of "verisimilitude" and believability.

The name of the class is Fighter. I would expect him to be useful in combat all the time. I can get why a Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Monk, Archivist, Scientist, Engineer, Wheelman, Warlock, Thief, Priest, Rat Catcher or what-you-have might not useful in combat at all levels (or at all). But a Fighter?

[TerraDave]

Originally Posted by Reynard

There's a huge difference. Options in AD&D were based on GM fiat -- if it wasn't expressly forbidden by the rules, it was possible, depending on the game and the group and the DM. With fewer rules, it follows, a lot more things were possible. 2E, for example, solved the disarm/sunder/bull rush problem rather simple: apply a penalty or use an opposed an opposed attack roll. The end. Everything else was up to the DM. this is millions of options. Even more to the point, a fighter in 1E or 2E could be anything -- any sub-genre, any archetype, any flavor, any role, simply by virtue of those things not being codified into the rules.

To pick up on what little raven said, this didn't always work out in practice. And a lot of stuff in AD&D did have specific rules. Quite a few actually. Then there were spells. Pages, and pages, and pages, and then some more pages, of spells...leading to the point of the thread.

EDIT: And what do you have against viking hats?

Originally Posted by Shroomy

To answer the OP's original question, no, I want all classses to be of equal (or very nearly equal) complexity. I would want a new player to be able to come in and pick any class they want, and then play it effectively without a steep learning curve. I think that 4e accomplishes this via by having classes (and their powers) designed around specific, relatively easy to understand roles and by the unified mechanics used for powers. IMO, its relatively easy for new players to come in and create a PC of any class that will be effective during the game (which is quite different from optimized).

Now, I think the genius of 4e is that on this simple foundation, there's a staggering potential for complexity if you want to optimize your character or delve into the technical minutae of each power.

I have been debating on this, and not really deciding. I almost agree, I know of players over the years who would have benefited from slightly simpler (or a lot simpler) spellcasters, or non-spellscasters with more options...And overall I think 4E tries extra hard to balance being simple with having options...but the fact that in 3E you could make either a wizard with metamagic feats or a barbarian with a greataxe...

Its hard to say. Maybe after a few more posts.

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Reading: It's fun and informative.

Indeed it is. Especially the part where you said that options were available by GM fiat, meaning the book doesn't actually contain those options since the DM has to make them up.

Being able to make stuff up yourself does not mean the book, as written, gives you more options, since you're providing the options, not the book.

Pull those dusty old tomes of your shelf and take a look. lots of good stuff in every edition of (A)D&D.

Indeed. But options to customize characters are lacking. Being able to make them up doesn't make the book have those options.

You seem to have a vry narrow definition of "useful", one that I don't subscribe to or even think is meaningful. I mean, if the definition of "useful" is limited to combat, that means combat is the only thing that matters in D&D, which would be a really sad, boring thing.

A fighter in previous editions wasn't very useful in a social situation, since he had little (3e) to no (2e and earlier) social skills, and he wasn't useful in finding or disarming traps. The player might be useful in a puzzle solving situation, but that doesn't reflect actual usefulness on the part of the specific class since any class's player could do that. So, not a whole lot of use for the fighter, specifically, outside a fight.

And if the Fighter is no longer useful in a fight, then something has seriously gone wrong.

[Mallus]

I don't think a particular class should have should have a significantly greater number of options available to them than another --and adding new abilities that broaden a character's suite of abilities should be relatively easy.

So no, complexity shouldn't vary that much between classes. Though ideally, every class should be playable in 'simple' mode, with a small number of viable abilities for players who aren't interested in immersing themselves in the minutiae of the class mechanics.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Mort

4e did this, so obviously the designers were of the same mind. I've always wondered what % of people who dislike 4e were those that really liked the open ended wizards, clerics and druids. My gut feeling is it's a pretty high number.

I'm sticking with 3e, but if you look at the games I run (such as the pbp games in the top of my signature) you'll see that I switched druids and clerics to use the spontaneous caster options from UA so they have limited spells known.

High level wizard spell prep is something that slows down the game and therefore can be annoying, but it is not enough of a problem for me to switch it in my games.

I like tons of spells existing with options to continually expand them, but I prefer tracking limited individual spell options per character at the table and prefer having characters ready to go instantly the way spontaneous casters and fighters and warlocks, etc. are.