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

[Neonchameleon]

But you aren't referencing what Monte said, you're referencing an article that's also misinterpreting what he said.

If the article misinterpreting Monte Cook was written by Monte Cook on his own website then yes I am. I looked the article up and not any summaries of it before posting.

Yes, it is a M:tG influenced idea, but the principle is that you can't have every card/feat perfectly balanced due to sheer math. It's not possible. And if the only feats/cards you print are ones that are average or better, then the average inexorably moves up over time. So you have to have some feats that are slightly sub-par, or you get power creep.

Monte's point was that this is OK - a feature, not a bug - because it rewards system mastery. This is not the same thing as "we deliberately make trap feats to trick people who don't min-max their characters correctly".

No. No it isn't. That isn't what Monte Cook said at all. I have linked the original article Monte Cook wrote above and was quoting it directly. He did not say "we made some feats better than others because balance wasn't actually possible". Something I would have respected. He specifically states that "Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game."

I don't mind if you disagree with him - but I resent the 3e bashing of "trap feats" the same way some 4e defenders get sick of people mentioning "weapon expertise feat tax" or whatever the phrase is.

And I resent being told that "you're referencing an article that's also misinterpreting what he said" when I specifically took the time to look the article up, to re-read it, to check whether it said anything different from what I remember it saying, and then to quote it directly with a copy and paste from the web.archive.org archive of the article in question.

For third parties reading this, the section in question written by Monte Cook in his own words reads:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

I will say that something bad mentioned in that article (the very next paragraph) made it through to 4e, and 4e suffered badly because of it.

There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

[/FONT]

 

[Obryn]

But you aren't referencing what Monte said, you're referencing an article that's also misinterpreting what he said.

Yes, it is a M:tG influenced idea, but the principle is that you can't have every card/feat perfectly balanced due to sheer math. It's not possible. And if the only feats/cards you print are ones that are average or better, then the average inexorably moves up over time. So you have to have some feats that are slightly sub-par, or you get power creep.

Monte's point was that this is OK - a feature, not a bug - because it rewards system mastery. This is not the same thing as "we deliberately make trap feats to trick people who don't min-max their characters correctly".

I don't mind if you disagree with him - but I resent the 3e bashing of "trap feats" the same way some 4e defenders get sick of people mentioning "weapon expertise feat tax" or whatever the phrase is.

I suspect that 5e will also have some abilities or feats that the player base will decide are too weak to use, but as long as no one makes the mistake of saying what Monte did, it'll avoid the same argument.

No, you're buying whole-hog into the Alexandrian's revisionism surrounding that article. The whole thing is archived:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070613055537/http://montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

It's pretty clear - they (1) intentionally put less-useful feats in the game, (2) didn't give any guidance as to the better feats or the uses of marginal feats, and (3) he regrets doing that now.

(Also, among most of the 4e fans that I know, "feat taxes" aren't very well-liked at all, and most games hand out Expertise for free in acknowledgement of the math gap. The designers made a design mistake, and it's not cool to make players spend their feats fixing it. 4e fans, as a general rule, are pretty cognizant of the problems with the system, in part because of the game's intentional design transparency. It's just seldom the same problems that edition warriors crow about on message boards.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

The relevant sum-up quote is:

While there's something to be said for just giving gamers the rules to do with as they please, there's just as much to be said for simply giving it to the reader straight in a more honest, conversational approach.

In other words, not remotely what's being suggested here. In fact, what he says regarding relative utility of character options is:

(Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

There's nothing in there about "traps" or that would suggest that anything is "broken".

 

[Savage Wombat]

Thank you, Ahnenois.

The article you (Neonchameleon) cite is his observations six years later, about the problems caused by that statement - not the original statement he made on the subject. And from his phrasing, I don't think he'd agree with your interpretation of his article.

His criticism of himself is not that he included "bad" feats, but that he didn't explain better in the rules how to select feats, and how some were margin cases or circumstantial. That's a legitimate criticism of the "system mastery" argument. He certainly did not say "we deliberately put bad feats in the game to trick newbies, and now we regret that."

I first ran into the argument for weak cards from Mark Rosewater, and when I read Monte's comments I knew he was referring to the same game design logic. Again, you may disagree - it certainly has an issue about collectible cards vs. permanent rules - but words like "trap feats" and the like, to my mind, ascribe a certain malevolent motive to the man that was definitely not there.

(Oh, and yes, Monte's explanation of "Timmy" cards is wrong and misleading.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

The article you (Neonchameleon) cite is his observations six years later, about the problems caused by that statement - not the original statement he made on the subject. And from his phrasing, I don't think he'd agree with your interpretation of his article.

Given that the article I cite was published on or before March 2005 (that being the earliest date it shows up in the Wayback Machine), I'm curious what you think he said in 1999 - or what you think the original column actually was.

His criticism of himself is not that he included "bad" feats, but that he didn't explain better in the rules how to select feats, and how some were margin cases or circumstantial.

Indeed. But he said outright "The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others." That is the fact. Where he criticises himself for this is not where I do.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Given that the article I cite was published on or before March 2005 (that being the earliest date it shows up in the Wayback Machine), I'm curious what you think he said in 1999 - or what you think the original column actually was.

My internet-fu is not as strong as some, but what I recall was some sort of interview, and not particularly an article devoted to the topic. A passing comment, if you will.

Indeed. But he said outright "The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others." That is the fact. Where he criticises himself for this is not where I do.

Note that (a) the first part refers to his misunderstanding of "Timmy" cards, and (b) the following sentence that D&D doesn't exactly "do that". Your main point is "c", and I feel that he is saying "we felt it necessary that all feats not be equal, and some would be weak as a result" whereas you seem to feel he is saying "we deliberately chose to make poor feats to skew gameplay according to our theories". Quoting him at me does not change the fact that I feel you are misunderstanding the meaning of his statement.

Do you feel that it is possible for every feat in a game to be perfectly balanced with every other feat? Even if you constantly tweaked the rules as time passed?

 

[Neonchameleon]

My internet-fu is not as strong as some, but what I recall was some sort of interview, and not particularly an article devoted to the topic. A passing comment, if you will.

It's not one I'm aware of.

Note that (a) the first part refers to his misunderstanding of "Timmy" cards, and (b) the following sentence that D&D doesn't exactly "do that". Your main point is "c", and I feel that he is saying "we felt it necessary that all feats not be equal, and some would be weak as a result" whereas you seem to feel he is saying "we deliberately chose to make poor feats to skew gameplay according to our theories". Quoting him at me does not change the fact that I feel you are misunderstanding the meaning of his statement.

Do you feel that it is possible for every feat in a game to be perfectly balanced with every other feat? Even if you constantly tweaked the rules as time passed?

I consider that you're ignoring the final phrase of the two paragraph section that I have quoted on this thread twice already and am about to quote for a third time. "Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game."

I don't consider perfect balance possible. I consider it a goal to aim for. Monte Cook explicitly quite deliberately did not do this. He ensured that things were deliberately unequal and set out to not design such problems away - in other words set out to ensure that such traps as came up through the design process remained - because they wanted to reward system mastery.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And he's really talking about clarity and honesty. The problem with the Toughness feat is that it doesn't actually make you meaningfully tougher, and that the name and the next might mislead a newbie into thinking that it does. Thus, the need for guidance to show people how to select feats. Anyone who understands the game, as he says, realizes how limited and situational the feat is, so it isn't a trap.

The issue of how Toughness compares to Skill Focus or Power Attack or Quicken Spell (i.e. "balance") isn't even at issue.

PF Toughness easily solves this issue by (rather than giving guidance) simply making the feat do what it says it does. Thus the player's intuitive read is now accurate, at 3+1hp/level, you are actually meaningfully tougher. You can still argue whether a feat that just grants hit points is worth taking, but it isn't a trap.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Again, I have no disagreement with Ahnenois' take on this.

I consider that you're ignoring the final phrase of the two paragraph section that I have quoted on this thread twice already and am about to quote for a third time. "Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game."

I don't consider perfect balance possible. I consider it a goal to aim for. Monte Cook explicitly quite deliberately did not do this. He ensured that things were deliberately unequal and set out to not design such problems away - in other words set out to ensure that such traps as came up through the design process remained - because they wanted to reward system mastery.

I consider that you rephrase his statement, with your comment about "quite deliberately did not". I think that he's saying that the game designers felt that perfection was not achievable and not actually necessary. You seem to think he was saying it wasn't desirable.

Another way to translate it would be "we felt that trying too hard for balance would result in all choices feeling blandly identical, and that would be no fun". I do recall a lot of people making that complaint about another edition.

But to reiterate - I don't want to say you are wrong for feeling that the game has a problem as a result. I dislike the implication that, as so often comes up in ENWorld arguments, a particular game designer deliberately and malevolently made a design decision counter to the interests of the game and the players as a group. Monte (and his team) made a decision about game style that a lot of people disagreed with. Years later he regrets that it caused a problem. This is hardly a deliberate act of sabotage.

 

[Obryn]

I dislike the implication that, as so often comes up in ENWorld arguments, a particular game designer deliberately and malevolently made a design decision counter to the interests of the game and the players as a group. Monte (and his team) made a decision about game style that a lot of people disagreed with. Years later he regrets that it caused a problem. This is hardly a deliberate act of sabotage.

Where is any of this implied?

You're misreading if you think "Monte malevolently sabotaged the game" is the narrative here.