Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

[Bedrockgames]

D&D characters have always done things 5 times a day (if not 5 times a combat) that actual genre characters might do only a couple of times in an entire story arc. Like cast spells, for instance.

All 4e did was get serious about class balance. If casters' only use of magic was at a dramatic, climatic moment once in a while, then non-casters could get by rallying from near death only once in a while, too.

But D&D is turned up to '11.' D&D doesn't emulate a fantasy setting, it pulls the craziest bits from every fantasy genre anyone working on it has ever heard of, and no small amount of superheroes and science fiction to go with it. At first, it pulled all that stuff and gave it to casters. 4e finally spread the fun around.

Aside from that, it's what D&D has always been - and probably should remain. Just with the martial types getting to have their fun, too.

I am sure some people found it more fun. But as someone who likes fighters and other non-caster classes, that was my big dissapointment with 4E. I just didn't find the fighters fun or believable in 4E (mundane encounter and dailies particularly bothered me on the realism front). But the feel of the new mechanics in general just didn't appeal to me. It didn't play or feel like previous editions (and i dont think that was its intent anyways). At least, to me. It definitely wasn't D&D as I had played it over the years.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am sure some people found it more fun. But as someone who likes fighters and other non-caster classes, that was my big dissapointment with 4E. I just didn't find the fighters fun or believable in 4E (mundane encounter and dailies particularly bothered me on the realism front). But the feel of the new mechanics in general just didn't appeal to me. It didn't play or feel like previous editions (and i dont think that was its intent anyways). At least, to me. It definitely wasn't D&D as I had played it over the years.

As someone who loves martial classes, I loved what 4e did with them. Perhaps not the best solution, but the whole extra attacks thing in 3e was a joke. It was generally impossible to hit with your 3rd and beyond attacks unless you specifically went the CharOp route to break your character. With 3.x, I could not reliably bring a martial class to the table and do enough damage to keep up with the casters. In 4e, I could.

I don't think 4e intnded to be anything like previous editions, because in previous editions after about level 8-10, martial classes were largely worthless save for the rogue's non-combat skill-monkey-ness.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As someone who loves martial classes, I loved what 4e did with them. Perhaps not the best solution, but the whole extra attacks thing in 3e was a joke. It was generally impossible to hit with your 3rd and beyond attacks unless you specifically went the CharOp route to break your character. With 3.x, I could not reliably bring a martial class to the table and do enough damage to keep up with the casters. In 4e, I could.
ss.

Yeah, lots of people enjoyed the 4E approach. But it wasn't my cup of tea. I did dislike some of the balance issues, but would have prefered a return to 1E and 2E balancing techniques (in 2E i never really encountered that many issues).

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, lots of people enjoyed the 4E approach. But it wasn't my cup of tea. I did dislike some of the balance issues, but would have prefered a return to 1E and 2E balancing techniques (in 2E i never really encountered that many issues).

The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche". I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to not be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.

 

[BryonD]

D&D characters have always done things 5 times a day (if not 5 times a combat) that actual genre characters might do only a couple of times in an entire story arc. Like cast spells, for instance.

I'm certain you can cherry pick examples. But I disagree that this is a universal truth.


But for sake of argument, presume you are absolutely correct. There are still dramatic moments that get their energy from being "climactic". In that scene he had finally tracked down the guy who had killed his father and then he lost the fight. But then he did something that the audience understands he could not have done in any other situation. A fight that morning against a random brigand would not have remotely the same narrative weight. And if he had sprung back from death in a fight with a nameless brigand that morning, it would have completely destroyed the amazing value of that scene with the fight against the guy who killed his father. That is a once in a lifetime peak moment. And it has nothing to do with RPGs to observe that tying unique heroism to that unique moment has great value. That is just good storytelling.

If I fireball some goblins in the morning, it doesn't take anything away from fireballing some orcs in the evening. If I do the thing I can only do against the guy who killed my father when I fighting a nobody, then it has no dramatic value when I do it against the guy who really did kill my father.

 

[BryonD]

The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche". I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to not be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.

I strongly disagree with this statement.
And I think it comes down to what are you trying to design for.

If you are trying to design a story telling experience in which the rogue is the rogue, the fighter is the fighter, and the mage is the mage, then getting those things right is critical and putting persistent involvement of all characters regardless of their niche ahead of them being who they should be is defacto "bad design". For the kind of experience I want, 4E is pretty solidly in the "bad design" area.

If you want continuous involvement from all parties, then prioritizing character roles and niches for the sake of storytelling would be bad design.

But these are distinct goals.

 

[Mercutio01]

The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche". I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to not be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.

So every character should be able to do some magic, some melee, some healing, and some stealing?

I disagree completely. As in 100%. I think if we were standing on a globe, we'd be standing on opposite poles.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche". I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to not be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.

No it isn't bad design it is just one design philosophy amng many. In the same way that 4E design isn't bad (even though I findit very unfun), games designed to make characters good at some things and bad at others are simply done with certain preferences in mind. For alot of us games that give player characters abillities to match any part of the game are not enjoyable. I enjoy the thief as a weak combatant for example.

As for the problem existing in previos editions. I think that is matter of perspective. Clearly 4E works for you, and that is great. But believe me when I say 1E, 2E or 3E worked just as well for some of us.

 

[Sunseeker]

So every character should be able to do some magic, some melee, some healing, and some stealing?

I disagree completely. As in 100%. I think if we were standing on a globe, we'd be standing on opposite poles.

I have to wonder if the problem is when i suggest classes should be well rounded is that I am speaking a foreign language or the idea is really that far fetched. Since I have to assume the latter must not be true, I will strive to enunciate more clearly.

There are three primary segments to the game. Combat. Exploration. Social.

This is represented through two aspects of the character; combat abilities(sword, magic, etc...). And through skills, which are roughly divided between exploration and social skills. What I continue to suggest is that characters maintain some functionality in all of these areas. For example fighters have high combat ability, moderate exploration ability, and light social ability. Rogues have moderate combat ability, high exploration ability, and moderate social ability. Bards have low combat ability, moderate exploration ability and high social ability. Through this system, at least as a start @ lvl1 players can participate in the three primary aspects of the game. Noone is expressly left out by lacking the skills to partake. Through choices later, players may choose to become more or less capable in these three areas, usually by sacrificing some aspect of another area.

I beloved this is a highly functional system for maintaining player engagement and preventing class bloated through delegating every permutation to its own new "slightly good at talking but really good at exploring and kinda good at fighting" fighter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have to wonder if the problem is when i suggest classes should be well rounded is that I am speaking a foreign language or the idea is really that far fetched. Since I have to assume the latter must not be true, I will strive to enunciate more clearly.

There are three primary segments to the game. Combat. Exploration. Social.

This is represented through two aspects of the character; combat abilities(sword, magic, etc...). And through skills, which are roughly divided between exploration and social skills. What I continue to suggest is that characters maintain some functionality in all of these areas. For example fighters have high combat ability, moderate exploration ability, and light social ability. Rogues have moderate combat ability, high exploration ability, and moderate social ability. Bards have low combat ability, moderate exploration ability and high social ability. Through this system, at least as a start @ lvl1 players can participate in the three primary aspects of the game. Noone is expressly left out by lacking the skills to partake. Through choices later, players may choose to become more or less capable in these three areas, usually by sacrificing some aspect of another area.

I beloved this is a highly functional system for maintaining player engagement and preventing class bloated through delegating every permutation to its own new "slightly good at talking but really good at exploring and kinda good at fighting" fighter.

Two things. 1) what constitutes "some functionality" is going to vary from person to person----for instance i think 2e allows for some functionali across the pillars to suit my taste (but i imagine you would disagree). 2) your argument doesn't account for different preferences. Yes many people may agree with you that giving characters stuff to do in all three areas is fun, but others won't. Some want their characters (and other peoples' characters) to be bad at one and good at another. My point is you are perfectly right to voice your preference on this issue, but then to take your preference and say games that don't follow it are products of bad design is where I take issue.