Legends and Lore 11/22/2011 - A Different Way to Slice the Pie

[Niccodaemus]

Seems to me Monty's simply talking about how rules are introduced, rather than some sort of "variable complexity level design."

For instance, if I'm going to be playing a magic user, do I really need to know what the 5th level magic spells are in order to create a character and start playing?

That is not to say that I shouldn't be able to find out what those spells are if i want, but the spells do not need to be grouped in the same rules section as lower level spells.

If a spell or melee attack has an effect that is an exception to the rules, that exception doesn't necessarily need to be included in the main rules set, but rather, only in the description of the spell or melee attack.

Lets say you have to have a an attack bonus of at least 10 for an ability to be available. Why include descriptions of that ability for starting players?

I think the real question is, would all the rules be contained under a single cover, just divided into sections according to complexity and level, or are the more complex rules actually housed under different covers, or included with actual adventures.

That is, is there the equivalent of a "basic" rules set for the first half dozen or so levels of play?

 

[Mark CMG]

Seems to me Monty's simply talking about how rules are introduced, rather than some sort of "variable complexity level design."

Good observation. The article taken on its own could be read that way.

I think the real question is, would all the rules be contained under a single cover, just divided into sections according to complexity and level, or are the more complex rules actually housed under different covers, or included with actual adventures.

That is, is there the equivalent of a "basic" rules set for the first half dozen or so levels of play?

That's a good followup question based on your observation. Now I am not sure what to think!

 

[Gundark]

I really don't like the idea of complexity increasing with level.

 

[Niccodaemus]

I really don't like the idea of complexity increasing with level.

The thing is, it does. It always has. Playing a 10th level character is a hell of a lot more complex than playing a first level character.

GMing a high level game is waaaaay more complex than GMing a low level game.

He isn't talking about "making" higher level games more complex. They already are. Just setting those rules aside until you need them, resulting in playing lower level games easier because you don't have so many rules to sort through.

 

[Anselyn]

For instance, if I'm going to be playing a magic user, do I really need to know what the 5th level magic spells are in order to create a character and start playing?

Well, if the game inherently incorporates builds - as helpfully defined elsewhere today - you might really need to have used that knowledge.

I guess that builds are a natural offshoot of enabling "expert play" - or will the powergamers always find them anyway?

 

[Niccodaemus]

Well, if the game inherently incorporates builds - as helpfully defined elsewhere today - you might really need to have used that knowledge.

I guess that builds are a natural offshoot of enabling "expert play" - or will the powergamers always find them anyway?

I think the trick is to make that information available to those who want it, without forcing those who don't to wade through it in order to play at lower levels.

 

[JeffB]

Sounds to me like - and I'm all for it- he may be talking about the modern equivalent of the Basic, Expert, Companion sets.

And FWIW- regarding my earlier comment- I happen to love the new Pathfinder Beginner Box** just that in my personal case with my son, upon first glance it was info overload for him- which also sounds like a point Monte may be addressing in his latest column.


**It's the only 3.X derivative game I would have no problem playing or running. In fact, I'd pre-order a similar expansion product detailing spells, feats, items, monsters, etc for another 5 levels or so ala an "expert set" , but they can keep the whole core rules enchilada- that book makes my head hurt every time I crack it open.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Binding complexity with level is not a smart move. It doesn't matter if it's "always been that way" or not. Epic quests featuring slaying the terrasque with your bare hands shouldn't HAVE to be complex. Missions to kill 30 rats in the basement shouldn't HAVE to be simple. Some folks like encumbrance and arrow-tracking, and that doesn't change from level 1 to level 20. Other folks don't want to be bothered with it, and that doesn't have to change from level 1 to 20, either. The game I start playing at level 1 shouldn't have to become the game I need a spreadsheet to play at level 20.

The dial should be set at the individual table, but it shouldn't be something that happens automatically, it should be something that can be "set it and forget it."

It's also not up to the designers when a rule is needed, it's up to the DMs. If a DM wants to introduce a kobold with energy resistance, that's her perogative, and it's not useful if energy resistance is bundled only with higher-level "complex" monsters.

As long as "level" has some relation to the power of the character, it shouldn't affect these things that are fairly independent of a character's power. Complexity and options aren't something that the game needs to tie to level.

 

[Wiseblood]

I am ok with increasing complexity to a point. Cap it at about the sweet spot and you're golden. Let it grow unrestriccted and it will crush your fun like a grape.

I would rather design consistency than codified rules clutter. This is doubly the case with monsters and spells. I do not need the level of detail describing Burst/Spread/Zone as long as it it clear in the description of the action itself. Referencing (or Remembering) a rule in a different chapter or book to explain a specific effect doesn't make sense.

Take a look at 3e's fireball. Burst effect is not described in it but it is a part of it. Does burst effect need a description if spells are described adequately? Burst effect has only a few cases in the entire game. It does not need its own rule.

Monster abilities do not need to be grouped, classified, and deconstructed. I had to look up the stats on the monster. Why do I need to look up the entangled (condition) too? Just describe it in the monster entry. It will allow monster abilities to be a little more unique. It has the added benefit of not appearing until needed.


AoO's have been a thorn in my side since movning became a sin in 3e. Yes, they existed before but their presence was expanded. They were kept even when a better solution was created (discovered?) to do what they were intended for. That is, to allow melee classes to punish those who try to get at the squishies. Marking is muuuuch better imo.

That is all I can think of for now. His article make me optimistic about their design goals.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The game I start playing at level 1 shouldn't have to become the game I need a spreadsheet to play at level 20.

I can understand exactly what you mean here - I enjoyed playing a 19th level Wizard but needed 11 different predetermined spell lists depending upon what would be expected on any particular day. The thing is how do you stop the expected accumulation of information and rules as your character achieves higher and higher level?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise