Legends & Lore 09/03 - RPG design philosophy

Steely_Dan · Sep 4, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
That's right; doesn't he know he isn't allowed to say anything that potentially disparages any edition other than 4th Ed?

Usually comes off as the opposite to me, if you so much as say "Boo" to 4th Ed a crap-storm comes down on you.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 4, 2012

triqui said:
Same goes to other sports. If you are short, you will find Basketball being not that much balanced.

This gentleman may disagree with you.

I'm A Banana · Sep 4, 2012

Just because you personally do not experience a thing...

...does not mean that the thing is a myth.

I've never had caster dominance, never had people refusing to play "homebody halflings," never saw a well-implemented skill challenge, have never personally measured climate change, have never seen the constellation of the Southern Cross, and have never been to New Zealand.

Pretty sure all those things are still out there.

Well, maybe not New Zealand. I mean, come on, kiwis are waaaaaay too ridiculous to be real, guys. But the rest of 'em, yeah. Pretty sure.

Balesir · Sep 5, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Just because you personally do not experience a thing...

...does not mean that the thing is a myth.

Worth quoting for truth.

The converse is also true, though: just because you have personally experienced something...

...doesn't mean it's universal (or even, necessarily, common).

pemerton · Sep 5, 2012

Ratskinner said:
ehh..fine then...They're more like the positions in American Football.

I'll have to take your word for that! (Given that I know almost nothing about American football.)

Ratskinner said:
Personally, I feel that the second part of that is more the issue than the first. D&D too often, and I would say 4e still fails in this regard, defines "mechanical effectiveness" as effectively equivalent to combat effectiveness.

Agreed, though I think 4e is not too bad in this respect for a mainstream fantasy RPG. (I actually think it is better than Rolemaster, for example, because while RM has a good suite of social skills, it lacks a robust social resolution mechanic.)

What I am looking forward to seeing in D&Dnext, but a little pessimistic about, is robust mechanics to frame and resolve social conflicts and interactions.

Crazy Jerome · Sep 5, 2012

Players getting upset about non-death stuff in D&D is directly (but not fully) related to how easy it is to come back from the dead in D&D. Let's see which one many players would prefer:

Your character encounters a rust monster which destroys a key item. Then he has some goblins steal something else. Then a wight drains a couple of levels.
Your character is hugged by an owlbear and bites it. The party takes you back to town and pays for a raise dead.
An ankheg eats your character. The party kills it and grabs most of your stuff. You roll up a new character one level behind the party, which now has extra equipment which they share with you.

The exact consequences vary by system and group style, but it is not uncommon for a player to be in a group where losing your character is not the worst thing that can happen to you, even looking at it from pure gamist, pawn-stance, hack and slash.

Want to make running away and negotiation matter, make death hurt, but use it very sparingly. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem, in that until you get the conditions right, the players won't respond to them, but until they start responding (running away when warranted), it's hard to get the conditions right.

Me, I merely tell the players what the general conditions are (or work them out as a group, if they are interested), and then ruthlessly enforce them as stated. I can't say it's flawless, but it's worked well enough for me every time I've done it.

underfoot007ct · Sep 5, 2012

Emerikol said:
Lol. Yeah Mike must be getting chapped lips. That was nothing but him kissing up to every faction in D&D.

I do take exception of course to the wizards and lackey's comment. So overall I'm displeased by this post. But I'm growing disaffected by WOTC and 5e a lot lately. I'm seriously thinking maybe I should just embrace Pathfinder and be done with it.

After the 'wizards and lackey's' comment, I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, this edition has a good chance to succeed.

underfoot007ct · Sep 5, 2012

Emerikol said:
Yeah I resented the snide tiamat remark too. The sandbox gaming style is a vibrant and fun one. Many great and very fun campaigns have used this approach and there is no need for snark from Mikey. I do believe that while trying to please all they still have a lot of 4e mindset alongside some of their 3e mindset.

They need to incorporate the best of ALL editions. You will be completely disappointing If you are expecting a updated 1e game. The goal is to support many play styles not recreate an old edition with new rules.

underfoot007ct · Sep 5, 2012

Emerikol said:
Thats why it's snarky. No sandbox DM is going to allow a group to meet Tiamat. It's a strawman kind of argument.

He should have said...There are those campaigns where groups can venture into areas that are harder or easier. Playstyles that demand groups be willing to run in the face of superior force.

Edit: it's more a case of him describing my playstyle using the language of a detractor instead of a neutral voice. Thats all. I'm not like enraged or anything. Just annoyed and saddened.

Sounds more like YOU have decide the correct method of 'sand box' play style. Why can't I run a sand box campaign any way I want ? Play styles should conform to the group of players rather than the player conform to the play style.

Emerikol · Sep 5, 2012

underfoot007ct said:
They need to incorporate the best of ALL editions. You will be completely disappointing If you are expecting a updated 1e game. The goal is to support many play styles not recreate an old edition with new rules.

I am sure on this I didn't make myself clear. The 4e attitude that I disliked was the "we know best" attitude. It really wasn't an attack on design per se. I do that occasionally but this wasn't one of the cases intentionally.

But to address your comment...
1. I am expecting respect for many playstyles. Not just editions.
2. Sandbox, gritty, etc.. are some styles along with story, narrative.

I felt he was disparaging sandbox a bit in his comment. I also think at the PAX Q&A I felt they were a tad disparaging of the simple fighter option. Now to be honest I'm happy to play a more complex fighter if done right. But I still think that those who want simple deserve respect too.