Legends & Lore 09/03 - RPG design philosophy - Page 9




+ Log in or register to post
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 114
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by underfoot007ct View Post
    I'm not really sure if this is a "we know best" attitude". Mearls & crew said the feedback from First playtest, overwhelming disliked the simple fighter. Where as this pleases myself, it might not please you. Play style certainly crosses editions, so support many is their plan. There should be option for the fighter to be more simple/old school.

    I enjoyed 1e for many years, played all the early mods, fond memories of sandbox years. Yet now as a 4e fan, too often people seem to blame 4e for everything, I am fairly sure the 4e did not make any older play style wrong, nor is the cause of global warming.
    Oh it put a stick of dynamite in my playstyle and blew it to kingdom come. I can't fix 4e without basically just rewriting the game. There are too many things that stomp my game preferences. I could fix 3e easier and maybe 1e/2e even more easily.

 

  • #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    Just to add a smidgeon of gasoline to this.

    Before 4e came out, the standard, stock answer to any problems with 3e was to ban any material outside of core. Balance issues? Core only. Too many whatsits? Core only. It was the basic answer to everything.

    With 4e, I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate that a core only game is somehow inherently better than one with additional material.

    So, while I think GreyICE has put it a bit too strongly, there is a point here. In 3e, there was so much material, both from WOTC or ((shudder)) 3pp which was really, really bad. To the point where it was the knee jerk reaction, very similar to 2e as well, to simply ban anything outside of the original books.

    4e at least has that going for it - there is a pretty recognized improvement in the game as time goes on.
    I agree that 4e stuff was "safer" than non-core prior books. I always from 1e on required anything not in the original 3 books to be approved by me as DM. That didn't bother me much. I ran campaigns where the wizard and cleric never dominated or outshone the fighter. And for me it really just wasn't that hard.

    I think the very things I dislike about 4e are the reason it was so stable in this regard. It was like Ford saying "You can have any color you want as long as it's black".

  • #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget View Post
    Personally, I think Chess is boring. It is a Solved Game.
    No, it's not. It is a theoretically solvable game, and all endgame scenarios with 6 or fewer pieces have been solved, but chess as a whole has not been solved and is not likely to be any time soon.

    Whether it's boring is, of course, a matter of personal taste.

    There is no fluff. There is no crunch. There are only rules of varying precision.

  • #84
    Registered User
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    D'karr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA 22192
    Posts
    3,006

    Ignore D'karr
    Quote Originally Posted by Emerikol View Post
    I think the very things I dislike about 4e are the reason it was so stable in this regard. It was like Ford saying "You can have any color you want as long as it's black".
    Man, I couldn't disagree more.

    With 3.x we ran a campaign that started out as anything goes. After less than 3 months we had to scrap it and start a core 3 only, with DM approved specifics for any other stuff. That is the epitome of "You can have any color you want as long as it's black". It was the usual "you can use any source as long as it's the core 3."

    What I found with 4e was that the additional sources all played rather well with the existing sources. Nothing was "blatantly so broken" that I had to expunge complete sources at all. The additional sources usually provided "width" to the characters instead of "height". So that they had much broader power not so much higher power. This allowed great flexibility.

    In 4e I've run multiple campaigns and even one-off games with anything goes (sources) and never had a "problem".

    I just can't see how that Ford analogy is even remotely appropriate to 4e.




    -
    Come see what we're doing at synDCon

    TROGDOR COMES IN THE NIIIIIGHT!!!!!

    D'karr - Burninating the countryside since 1995.

  • #85
    Quote Originally Posted by D'karr View Post
    With 3.x we ran a campaign that started out as anything goes. After less than 3 months we had to scrap it and start a core 3 only, with DM approved specifics for any other stuff.
    In my experience most of the broken stuff of 3rd Ed is in Core.

  • #86
    Registered User
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    D'karr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA 22192
    Posts
    3,006

    Ignore D'karr
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely_Dan View Post
    In my experience most of the broken stuff of 3rd Ed is in Core.
    To an extent that is true, but at least it was constrained to only 1 book. It was easier to "modify" some things from one source, than everything from multiple sources. YMMV.
    Come see what we're doing at synDCon

    TROGDOR COMES IN THE NIIIIIGHT!!!!!

    D'karr - Burninating the countryside since 1995.

  • #87
    Quote Originally Posted by D'karr View Post
    To an extent that is true, but at least it was constrained to only 1 book. It was easier to "modify" some things from one source, than everything from multiple sources. YMMV.
    I agree, keeping track of The Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbook or what-have-you because of that broken feat and those 2 broken spells was painful.

    In 1st Ed it was very easy, it says straight out in the PHB that the DM might omit certain spells, alter them, and/or add some; I mean, you can do the same in any edition, but in 1st Ed it felt very smooth and elegant (and obviously more encouraged).

  • #88
    Registered User
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)

    The Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    880

    Ignore The Shadow
    Quote Originally Posted by D'karr View Post
    I just can't see how that Ford analogy is even remotely appropriate to 4e.
    I'm not Emerikol, but I think I know what he meant. His concern is basically orthogonal to what you said.

    He has a problem with the whole approach of 4e. (Full disclosure: So do I, though probably not in exactly the same way.) Telling him he can use all sorts of books to enhance the experience of a game he doesn't like that don't address the things he doesn't like (because they're fundamental to the whole game) isn't going to encourage him.

    He means, "Telling me I can have all the 4e rules and add-ons I want doesn't help me, if it means I'm still stuck with X, Y, and Z."

    My own issue with 4e is largely two-fold: I don't like gaming with a mat, and rich tactical options don't interest me. 4e combat and powers read like Google Map directions to Hell for me. So telling me I can have lots of books full of great new powers and tactical options isn't going to draw me in.

    I say this without in the least telling anyone else they should like or dislike the same things I do. If you love 4e, more power to you! Have a great time with it.
    "All right, I am not the Shadow. You have nothing at all to worry about. Except, oh, wait, I'm pointing a gun at you."

    --The Shadow

  • #89
    Registered User
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    D'karr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA 22192
    Posts
    3,006

    Ignore D'karr
    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
    I'm not Emerikol, but I think I know what he meant. His concern is basically orthogonal to what you said.
    I didn't read it in that manner.

    His analogy seemed to say you can have all these options as long as they are X. Which is as far away from the truth in 4e as anything I've ever seen.

    I can understand not liking a game and saying so. But when the examples given are looked at they seem like "thinly veiled" excuses to bash someone else's preference.

    If someone likes A or B then more power to them, let them play A or B. Doesn't mean they have to crap on C.



    -
    Last edited by D'karr; Friday, 7th September, 2012 at 12:29 AM.
    Come see what we're doing at synDCon

    TROGDOR COMES IN THE NIIIIIGHT!!!!!

    D'karr - Burninating the countryside since 1995.

  • #90
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    1,123

    Ignore Mishihari Lord
    Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game.
    This is the bit that caught my attention. Too true. I've noticed a strong correlation between balance and boring-ness.
    "Enough screwing around. It's time to kill."

    --Duke Nukem

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23
      By Gundark in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 103
      Last Post: Wednesday, 25th April, 2012, 03:01 PM
    2. Design Philosophy: Mark Rosewater
      By MerricB in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: Tuesday, 10th November, 2009, 02:30 AM
    3. 4e design philosophy
      By Chrysalis in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Saturday, 1st March, 2008, 10:55 PM
    4. The New Design Philosophy?
      By Mark CMG in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 311
      Last Post: Friday, 4th August, 2006, 03:46 PM
    5. Take the GM out of the Equation- A 3e design philosophy
      By Belen in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 236
      Last Post: Thursday, 3rd March, 2005, 03:34 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •