Ethos for a New Edition

[Dannager]

Agreed.



The slow nature of their development/release process is itself due to the economic realities of a comparatively small market.

And the whole thing is complicated because the "game science" is only one part of the whole RPG experience - so even if you were expert at that science, you'd still have to wrestle with the other goals at the table.

All good points.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This really sums up the problem though.

How do we balance casters to non-casters? Nerf casters.

This is something I see regularly in MMO design. The solution is almost universally to nerf a superior class in order to put i on par with an inferior class. Why is the solution never to improve an inferior class?

Did you parse over all the stuff (the large bulk of 4e mundane/fighter exploits that ARE believable, powerful, significant and make playing a fighter fun) where I said that you do raise the power level (and in particular defenses as well) of the fighter/mundane character?

Reducing the power level of the 3e wizard however is an obvious step though. In addition, there's a very crucial difference between reducing the rate, resource-use and ease of casting magical spells, and reducing such spells to "damage plus modifier plus condition except one's from a sword and the other's from a spell". From the perspective of those who prefer pre 4e magic to 4e combat magic; the former is far more reasonable where as the latter caused a huge hue and cry when implemented in 4e. For others, the 4e approach to wizards was exactly what they wanted. The point is that both groups are going to have to meet halfway I think in a unified edition (and my points above hinted how that could be easily accomplished).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[mudbunny]

Game design, as a "science", is still in its infancy.

As a science, game design still involves a whole lot of black magic incantations, reading of tea leaves and prayers to the four winds.

 

[Skyscraper]

As a player who played a bunch of tabletop games (including RPGs and board games, including in the latter case several European board games, mostly German ones), and for having even designed (as an amateur) a few myself, both RPG and board, I have an understanding (that I won't rate, being too subjectively disposed) for what people mean when they speak of "elegant" game design, speaking to balance as one aspect of it. The problem is, like in some board games where the game can still flip in anyone's favor in the last of a 4-turn cycle, that the balance is used as a goal itself, to the detriment of, well, fun. I have witnessed so many games where you look at it and say "wow, this game looks really awesome." Yet, after trying them out, I still like my old "bad-design" classics better because there's something about them that's more visceral than the "theoretically nicer" games. Perhaps they represent life better, wherein balance doesn't exist as a practical concept. Perhaps the injustice and the unbalanced power make for good drama. Perhaps the times when the weaker party manages to overcome improbable odds to win the day is what I want to live through, at the expense of unsuccessful tries that I'll need to back off from.

I was just reading the Combat as Sport vs Combat as War thread in this forum, that discusses topics related to the present thread. Although I'm not fully in one camp or another, I think that Combat as War is an interesting concept because it suggests imbalance between parties.

See, I don't mind being the combat-weakling in a party, as long as my PC is able to accomplish something well in a few spheres or circumstances (and as long as those spheres or circumstances are addressed regularly by the game; if it's a combat-only game, then I'd rather play a fighter ). In French, we have a saying, that translates freely as "in winning without peril, you trimph without glory". So sure give me the fighter in a game where the magic-user has powerful spells. I'll probably have fun nonetheless, as long as the game is not designed for the magic-user's interface only.

 

[Dannager]

So sure give me the fighter in a game where the magic-user has powerful spells. I'll probably have fun nonetheless, as long as the game is not designed for the magic-user's interface only.

The problem with this is that it limits Fighters (and non-spellcasters in general) as a valid choice only to those who enjoy the same style of play as you. The guy who wants to play a dude in plate armor and swinging a warhammer and still be just as awesome as any of the spellcasters is going to be disappointed.

 

[harlokin]

The problem with this is that it limits Fighters (and non-spellcasters in general) as a valid choice only to those who enjoy the same style of play as you. The guy who wants to play a dude in plate armor and swinging a warhammer and still be just as awesome as any of the spellcasters is going to be disappointed.

Couldn't hand out Experience, but I very much agree with this. I would like the game to be able to cater for more than one vision of what a Fighter is.

 

[Skyscraper]

The problem with this is that it limits Fighters (and non-spellcasters in general) as a valid choice only to those who enjoy the same style of play as you. The guy who wants to play a dude in plate armor and swinging a warhammer and still be just as awesome as any of the spellcasters is going to be disappointed.

I agree with you.

Hopefully each class can shine somewhere in the game, I simply hope that it's not all classes that shine equally in all aspects.

 

[Dannager]

I agree with you.

Hopefully each class can shine somewhere in the game, I simply hope that it's not all classes that shine equally in all aspects.

I'd like to go a step beyond this - give each class special places to shine, but give every class the ability to contribute meaningfully to nearly every situation. I don't want to find myself, as the DM, in the unenviable position of engaging only a single player for a significant stretch of time while the rest of my players look on, bored, because they don't feel that their character design allows them to contribute meaningfully to the action of the moment.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It does not have to be. What if the introductory spell for flying takes a standard action to sustain

This is the exact mechanic I use in my RPG, though it applies to anyone using the flight, not just the spellcaster. On top of that, hovering takes a move action, and all ranged attacks are a full-round action (meaning that most people cannot do both in a turn). Investing further in movement magic can reduce the action time needed to use flight.

Invisibility might not be 100% perfect. When an invisible character moves, the light might refract around them in a perceptible pattern that perceptive characters have a greater chance to notice.

The base "invisibility" use of my magic system basically does this. It lets you make Hide checks in plain sight (you don't need cover or concealment). You know who invisibility helps the most? Stealthy characters. If the spellcaster does cast this on himself without investing in stealth skills (which probably still won't be as good as a thief-type character), then he might roll high and get an 18, while perceptive creatures might get +8 passively, and can always take a 10, even when threatened or distracted.

I also have rules that bonuses to attack from spells cannot exceed your base attack (this means buffs help warriors the most), reading languages gives you bonuses to Comprehension checks (think a beefy Decipher Script skill that covers reading, writing, and arithmetic) with a chance (on a successful Comprehension check) of understanding the language, etc.

You can definitely engineer magic to help people who have invested in the appropriate area. The goal is not to nerf casters, it's to say, "if you invested in this area, magic helps you the most in that area." And that seems fair to me. A spellcaster can't buff himself up to the level of a warrior, or a thief. He can get close, and he can skyrocket them.

What I'm getting at here is that you put limits on these spells so that there is an innate fairness to the magic; a fairness that admittedly wasn't necessarily there in previous editions.

Agreed.

There are so many ways to limit magic as I've highlighted above. Rationing their use through the Vancian system is really just a small part of what is possible and richly thematic.

Again, agreed.

Extend the capacity for at will spell casting.

I did this as well. You can "overchannel" spells, letting you cast spells using no spellpower. I run a hybrid spell-as-skill-check system and Vancian casting system. When you want to cast a spell with overchanneling, you make the same skill check, but with a penalty. Using a spell slot gives you a huge bonus to the check. This lets you spike higher, but use some spells constantly.

Also reduce the PCs capacity to control their environment at higher levels. Making teleporting expensive and difficult rather than adventuring macro number one will go a long way to forcing a group to soldier on (rather than the DM having to constantly rehash the "x" is going to happen in "y" hours time trope).

Yep, agreed, and did this, too. I made it permanently drain Charisma (the primary casting attribute in my RPG) to long-distance teleport. However, I can see this going either way depending on the setting, so it'd be trivially easy to say "Charisma drain is waved on long-distance teleportation" and fundamentally change the setting. Or, alternatively, it'd be trivially easy to insert that rule, changing the setting. I'd include guidelines for both.

Casters in 3e really had carte blanche in their actions. The thing is, it is not difficult to ratchet this back a step; limiting such magic but still keeping the wondrous essence so that the caster is still "special" enough. You can limit the caster without resorting to the "hp damage plus condition" ethos that turned a significant subset of wizard-lovers off of 4e.

Again I say, it should not be difficult to keep caster-players happy while keeping mundane characters relevant, necessary, powerful, desirable-to-play and significant.

Totally agreed. Also, like you mentioned, it's fine to beef warriors. I have a stance/maneuver system that gives them options, but is not semi-Vancian in nature. There are two stances for each physical attribute, and one stance for each mental attribute (9 total stances), and 9 maneuvers per stance. Additionally, you don't need to be in the stance to use a maneuver, you just need to qualify for the stance (so you could potentially be using 45 maneuvers if you qualify for 5 stances). Additionally, I've streamlined combat maneuvers (with a single feat that gives a +2 on all of them and negates any AoO you'd provoke), while also giving them some additional options for those interested (grappling maneuvers, pressure point attacks, etc.). I also have a called shot system that warriors can use to inflict serious injuries to their opponents, depending on what they want to do to them. They also tend to out-damage casters pretty handily, especially against creatures with spell resistance/energy resistance.

I've also made skills more important and increased their breadth, given them reliable tools (like a feat that lets you take a 10 even when threatened or distracted, which effects more skills with a higher Intelligence), etc. I have a form of skill challenge system, though pretty different from 4e's. While I do use skill points, there's a feat you can take multiple times (which effects more skills with a higher Intelligence) that links two skills together, so when one is boosted, the other is as well. Boosting Stealth gives you +1 to Hide and Move Silently. Don't like the idea of having both for your concept? Don't get the feat that links them. (Keep in mind, my RPG is point-based, and feats only cost one-fifth of a level.)

Anyways... yeah, I'm just in agreement, here. There's a lot of ways to deal with the issue. I think there's a lot of space to be explored, too. It does, admittedly, depend on what style of game you want, though (highly fantastic, or very low fantasy). Thanks for the thread! As always, play what you like

 

[Skyscraper]

I'd like to go a step beyond this - give each class special places to shine, but give every class the ability to contribute meaningfully to nearly every situation. I don't want to find myself, as the DM, in the unenviable position of engaging only a single player for a significant stretch of time while the rest of my players look on, bored, because they don't feel that their character design allows them to contribute meaningfully to the action of the moment.

I guess it's clear by now, but I'm not of your opinion on this. If every class can resolve any situation, then no class is special, really.

I recognize the problem you highlight however: you don't want players to remain idle for long. I think the solution is to avoid game mechanics that require long resolution times, and to avoid engaging in long-winded actions that call for a single type of skill or character attribute. I think one example of this kind of problem is stealthy infiltration. I've seen many times, games where the rogue (or other stealthy PC) explores ahead of the group and everyone else remains idle while the rogue explores.

Honestly, the solution is far from obvious. Take the stealth example: do you make all PCs capable of sneaking somehow, including the plate-mailed fighter?

I think the solution lies more in allowing the rogue to be the only stealthy PC, but to target the adventure design and DM training to avoid long-winded stealthy exploration.

With this example in mind, I also think that it's fine to allow the wizard to have nuke spells or teleportation magic, but to limit the usability of these through adventure design, DM training and also some game mechanics (as suggested by other posters in this thread, like Hermann the Wise).

Of course, I agree that you can't make one PC class all-powerful in all circumstances while the others can't compete in any game sphere. That would not make sense (it seems like some posters here appear to think that this is what I'm suggesting? Perhaps I've not been clear enough.)

I also think that combat has taken wayyy too much space in the last two editions of D&D. I love a good battle, it's great. But the shear length of battles in 3E and 4E made it so that a single battle in a gaming session took more than half our gaming session away. Two battles, and the entire session was battle-only. If adventure design is balanced between the three pillars that they are presenting at WotC (combat, exploration, role-play), then you have much more space to have some PC classes shine much more in some spheres, and other PC classes shine more in other spheres. I have trouble seeing how the wizard will be special if he deals as much damage as the fighter (and vice-versa, consequently) on every round, thus reaching the quintescence of class balance.

To me, class distinctiveness and balance are mutually exclusive.