Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Campbell]

One of the more interesting things about the role playing hobby to me is that most tabletop RPGs are designed and developed by creative professionals with strong language skills that lack somewhat in mathematical rigor, but played by a significant number of professionals with strong analytic backgrounds. There are a few factors that I feel encourage this:

• RPG designers are also responsible for communicating and writing the material based on their designs.
• If you have a penchant for process analysis and a head for math the wage gap for choosing to pursue a career in game design is quite a bit higher than it is for most creative professionals. This is changing as design and communication skills become more valued in the work place.
• The standard for mechanical rigor in tabletop RPGs is especially low. Most games in the hobby do not stand up to strong analysis. See: Flat character creation costs vs. exponential character improvement costs in many popular games.
• There is a cultural bias against holding designers to account for lack of rigor. GMs are often told to manipulate events to bring games back in line. See: advice in many popular games that chasetise power gamers and optimizers.
• Many gamers do not like rules transparency.
• Low budgets across the industry make comprehensive testing difficult. Also, even games which are tested do so in an environment that involves GMs futzing with rules. Testing is also all too often seen as something that happens after games are developed and designed mostly in full rather than seen as something that is integral across the lifespan of a project.
• Lack of disciplined project management leads to games being released well before they are ready. This is almost accepted as a norm.'
• Too much armchair analysis and theorycrafting rather than drilling down and seeing how systems and processes really interact with each other.

This isn't really a 3e thing. It's a tabletop RPG thing. It also used to be quite common in the early days of MMOs. Blizzard smartened up and started hiring some of the math whizzes that analyzed their game, but they can afford that. Most RPG publishing companies, even WotC cannot.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Was not play tested that well and apparently not at all over level 10.

It might have not been playtested well enough, but I think it's clear that 3e, and subsequently PF, are the products of better research and testing than any other other rpg ever made, by a ludicrous margin. Maybe the bar isn't that high, but give them some credit.

They took a ton of feedback from the existing 2e crowd and really nailed it. If you go back twenty years, it would be hard to imagine a version of D&D as universally functional as 3e. That it has its problems was inevitable, and it's unfortunate that they haven't been addressed.

They also play tested it like 2nd ed and missed things like wands of CLW, polymorph and 3.0 haste.

Well, they did fix Haste in the revision, and they started patching polymorph in various ways towards the end. A little slow on their part, perhaps.

They also missed the combinations around stacking magic items and spells. They more or less ported over spells from 2nd ed untouched and did not account for the relaxation of the AD&D restrictions, the different levelling rates AD&D had and the change to saving throws. They basically nerfed the fighter for example.

The fighter did get screwed in the new save system a bit, that's for sure. And the infinite diversity in infinite combinations of the spell system is inherently problematic. So yes, these are real things. But compared to the limitations of the AD&D chassis or the huge fundamental problems with 4e or the incoherence we've seen with the 5e playtests, these seem like nitpicks.

And that's kind of the thread topic. It seems that because 3e is so well-known (in part because of the OGL and in part because of its sheer popularity) it gets held to a higher standard. I wish people would take the level of scrutiny they apply to 3e, and apply it equally to other games.

Also a lot of groups were not part of the internet hivemind so they were not power gamers as such or evne knew about how good wands of CLW are,

While it may be true that most groups aren't active on the internet, I think wands of CLW are probably pretty well known.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the more interesting things about the role playing hobby to me is that most tabletop RPGs are designed and developed by creative professionals with strong language skills that lack somewhat in mathematical rigor, but played by a significant number of professionals with strong analytic backgrounds.

To a great degree I think I actually concur with this.

[*]The standard for mechanical rigor in tabletop RPGs is especially low. Most games in the hobby do not stand up to strong analysis. See: Flat character creation costs vs. exponential character improvement costs in many popular games.

I think that's simple traditionalism. The original ideas that started the hobby simply can't be left behind, apparently.

[*]There is a cultural bias against holding designers to account for lack of rigor. GMs are often told to manipulate events to bring games back in line. See: advice in many popular games that chasetise power gamers and optimizers.

Perhaps a more apt philosophy would be to criticize metagaming? Clearly some player behaviors are inappropriate and abusive, and go beyond the reasonable imperative to optimize. And clearly, DMs are responsible for modifying the game to do what they want it to do, though that doesn't exclude its flaws.

That being said, I do think it's true that there's a cultural perception that the people who write these games, if you like them at all, are immune to criticism.

[*]Many gamers do not like rules transparency.

Very possibly with good reason on some level. DMs certainly need it, but for a player, the less you know about what's going on outside of the scope of the character's knowledge, the more of an in-character roleplaying experience you're having.

[*]Low budgets across the industry make comprehensive testing difficult. Also, even games which are tested do so in an environment that involves GMs futzing with rules. Testing is also all too often seen as something that happens after games are developed and designed mostly in full rather than seen as something that is integral across the lifespan of a project.

Rules should be tested with DMs messing around with the rules. To not do so would be like testing a car and only driving it in a straight line at 25 mph. The rules need to be put through their paces. There's nothing wrong with relying on post-market surveillance either.

Realistically, you're also describing how the pharmaceutical industry works, and there's a lot more money in that than there is in rpgs, so I don't know how much we can reasonably expect from the latter.

[*]Lack of disciplined project management leads to games being released well before they are ready. This is almost accepted as a norm.'

That does seem to be an issue.

[*]Too much armchair analysis and theorycrafting rather than drilling down and seeing how systems and processes really interact with each other.

We really don't have any effective means of accumulating specific empirical data in a rigorous and unbiased manner. It seems like D&D should be the one trying to do that, but...

This isn't really a 3e thing. It's a tabletop RPG thing. It also used to be quite common in the early days of MMOs. Blizzard smartened up and started hiring some of the math whizzes that analyzed their game, but they can afford that. Most RPG publishing companies, even WotC cannot.

I guess we'll be waiting a while longer then, won't we?

 

[Hussar]

the huge fundamental problems with 4e

What would those be? I mean, I'm sorry, I can understand not liking 4e for a lot of reasons, but, mechanical failure isn't one of them. To give you an idea, I'm running a short adventure for a group of six PC's. The only limitation I've given is 15th level. That's it. And, I know that I can trust the system enough that they won't run roughshod over the adventure nor will it devolve into rocket tag.

I agree that 3e was a lot more durable than earlier editions, but, 4e is at least as durable as 3e if not moreso. And, to be honest, the "incoherence" in 5e is based far more on an insistence of play style that no edition of D&D has ever really supported except in the minds of a small segment of fandom that insists that D&D is somehow a sim based game.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

What would those be? I mean, I'm sorry, I can understand not liking 4e for a lot of reasons, but, mechanical failure isn't one of them. To give you an idea, I'm running a short adventure for a group of six PC's. The only limitation I've given is 15th level. That's it. And, I know that I can trust the system enough that they won't run roughshod over the adventure nor will it devolve into rocket tag.

I agree that 3e was a lot more durable than earlier editions, but, 4e is at least as durable as 3e if not moreso. And, to be honest, the "incoherence" in 5e is based far more on an insistence of play style that no edition of D&D has ever really supported except in the minds of a small segment of fandom that insists that D&D is somehow a sim based game.

Well said! This matches my experiences as well. Would give you xp, but can't!

 

[Ahnehnois]

What would those be?

The standard modifier is completely broken. A feeble character of sufficient level can break down a door. The same problem that existed specifically with BAB/THAC0 and saves in earlier editions now applies to everything. Remember that article about how 3e actually simulates basic things like applications of strength and everyday skills up through level 6 or so? 4e totally fails that test. You've got at-will magic for everyone, you've got self-healing for nonmagical characters, you've got minions whose basic numbers don't withstand any scrutiny at all, beginning characters with triple hit points. Any one of those could be considered world-breaking.

Again, how they compare to each other is a downstream consideration. If you can't make one balanced character on an island, you can't balance two characters against each other. In 3e (and earlier editions) there are some (if not many) balanced characters and creatures, and some unbalanced ones, things that maybe should be corrected in some way depending on context. In 4e, there are no balanced characters/creatures to begin with; zero.

The more dynamic and less inflationary mechanical structures of 3e (and to be fair, the earlier editions and the relatively flat math we've seen from 5e) are much more inherently balanced.

And, I know that I can trust the system enough that they won't run roughshod over the adventure nor will it devolve into rocket tag.

What you refer to as rocket tag isn't a "mechanical failure" or lack of balance though. It's a statement about the pacing and swinginess of combat. Rocket tag can be perfectly balanced, and can be a perfectly well-executed norm for combat.

The merits of that particular mode are debatable, of course. I'm not a huge fan myself; that's why I like those battles of attrition that wound systems can produce.

And, to be honest, the "incoherence" in 5e is based far more on an insistence of play style that no edition of D&D has ever really supported except in the minds of a small segment of fandom that insists that D&D is somehow a sim based game.

I think far more people are concerned with internal consistency and logic than with mapping the game to specific real-world phenomena.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, Ahn, but, no. Rocket Tag, meaning that one side or the other wins depending on who wins initiative, is the antithesis of balanced game play. That's why it's a problem. It makes the game more or less meaningless because winning or losing is basically a flip of the coin - no tactics, no strategy, no "smart play". All because the math is so far out of whack that whoever rolls higher on the d20 initiative roll wins the combat.

As far as your criticisms of 4e, it would really, really help to actually have read the rules, particularly ALL the rules, before making broad sweeping comments like that. Because even a facile reading of the rules proves your criticisms baseless. "A feeble character of sufficient level can break down a door"? Yup, if my 20th level character is facing doors that a 1st level character would have faced, then sure, no problem. However, since no one outside of some very, very bizarre theory crafted scenarios actually has this happen at the table, it's not really an issue.

And, I just had it explained to me that so long as elements are consistent, then the world will simply adjust around them. That was the whole argument about Hit Points that was brought up in this or another thread like it.

Look, I get that you don't like 4e. That's perfectly fine. What I've never understood is why people feel the need to justify their dislike. Dislike it away. No one is making you play it. Go right ahead. But, please stop conflating your personal tastes for objective quality. It makes discussion pointless.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sorry, Ahn, but, no. Rocket Tag, meaning that one side or the other wins depending on who wins initiative, is the antithesis of balanced game play. That's why it's a problem. It makes the game more or less meaningless because winning or losing is basically a flip of the coin - no tactics, no strategy, no "smart play". All because the math is so far out of whack that whoever rolls higher on the d20 initiative roll wins the combat.

A coin fip is the definition of perfectly balanced. In context, as you note it's a coin flip weighted by the relevant capacities of its participants. It may not be the most engaging tactical gameplay, but it's balanced alright.

The balance in the system itself is discrete from any consideration of how engaging or enjoyable it is. Chutes and Ladders is perfectly balanced. Not much of a game for adults though.

Yup, if my 20th level character is facing doors that a 1st level character would have faced, then sure, no problem. However, since no one outside of some very, very bizarre theory crafted scenarios actually has this happen at the table, it's not really an issue.

If your definition of "balance" is "the level of difficulty is matched to the capacity of the character", than everything's balanced isn't it? After all, in what bizarre scenario would someone encounter a door? Sorry, but "the DMG told me to avoid all the situations where the rules fall apart" isn't much of an excuse for how broken they are, unless there's some actual reasoning behind it. And I read enough to know that there isn't.

And, I just had it explained to me that so long as elements are consistent, then the world will simply adjust around them.

Look, I get that you don't like [3]e. That's perfectly fine. What I've never understood is why people feel the need to justify their dislike. Dislike it away. No one is making you play it. Go right ahead. But, please stop conflating your personal tastes for objective quality. It makes discussion pointless.

Maybe you should stop talking about how "balanced" 3e is or is not then; see above quote.

 

[Savage Wombat]

As I understand it the real-world sport of Kendo, and games such as Legend of the Five Rings, are all about the "winning initiative is everything" concept of battle. I can't imagine that can't be balanced in their own contexts. It depends on what you want, as always. Getting into a fight where you know that your chance of survival is dependent on that one roll - that's emotionally tense.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I imagine that 4e minions must spend a lot of time at bars drinking and commiserating with each other about how the PCs are playing "rocket tag" with them. Hopefully they never get in bar fights.

It depends on what you want, as always. Getting into a fight where you know that your chance of survival is dependent on that one roll - that's emotionally tense.

It also places a very different set of considerations on the steps one takes to prepare for, initiate, or avoid battles. It could be argued that all low-level D&D is "rocket tag", as one decent hit can drop any character to negatives. That tension and sense of danger is a very large part of the D&D experience. I often think that players play much smarter at lower levels because of it.