The New Design Philosophy?

[Mark CMG]

Actually the second sentence states the intend and purpose behind the first, thus giving insight into the actual design phillosophy while the first sentence taken alone is a superficial statement.

I disagree. I think the first sentence is a statement that gives insight into the actual design phillosophy and the second sentence tries to give some added reason to the approach.

Well, we've seen nobody state this as actual intend, right?

We have only the indications from the materials shown us that WotC's goal is to reach a larger audience (certainly laudable) and that the design philosphy that they feel will get them there includes removing complexity from the game as a means to create greater ease of play (misguided means to a commendable end, IMO). Are you disagreeing that these are the indications or goals? I'm certainly open to hearing reasons and evidence to the contrary regarding the latter since I disagree with the approach but thus far I have only seen people either say they like the approach (that I do not) or say that they don't believe it is the actual approach (but point to no convincing evidence to the contrary, IMO).

What you are seeing may not exactly be what happens. After all Mearls just stated in a thread I know you've read that the monster makeovers are experiments more than statements of direction. If they are indications for a fourth edition, they are testings of the water, not previews.

I would love nothing better than to hear that the design philosophy will not be as I suspect.

People are complaining about wotc going over their heads and wishes when in fact they are giving us a way of influencing the way D&D is taking.

Perhaps.

Of course the whole action was harmed by mearls at times less than eloguent way of (written) presentation.

I think we have to assume what goes up on the website is vetted by management. I don't believe Mearls has carte blanche in what gets added as articles.

 

[Delta]

If we followed this argument to its logical conclusions, we wouldn't need more than a half dozen monsters - Hitter Monster, Caster Monster, Sneaky Monster, Support Monster, Resistant Monster and Mastermind Monster. Of course, this is absurd.

You'd think so, but look at d20 Modern classes -- literally Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc. Some people defend that approach strongly. (Me, I don't like it.)

 

[Gold Roger]

I disagree. I think the first sentence is a statement that gives insight into the actual design phillosophy and the second sentence tries to give some added reason to the approach.

Then we have to agree to disagree on that part (unless you want us to go "first sentence"-"second sentence" over sides)

We have only the indications from the materials shown us that WotC's goal is to reach a larger audience (certainly laudable) and that the design philosphy that they feel will get them there includes removing complexity from the game as a means to create greater ease of play (misguided means to a commendable end, IMO). Are you disagreeing that these are the indications or goals? I'm certainly open to hearing reasons and evidence to the contrary regarding the latter since I disagree with the approach but thus far I have only seen people either say they like the approach (that I do not) or say that they don't believe it is the actual approach (but point to no convincing evidence to the contrary, IMO).

I actually don't think removing complexity from the game in a larger amount is actually part of the game. The new Ogre Mage is certainly still a complex monster (sneak attack, fly, spell like abilities, including an evocation blast), though it's a bit streamlined (I agree that there's some to much in that "a bit"). The moment D&D stops being a tactical game it lost its complexity. Lets just say that I as a tactician in part see no removal of complexity.

There are shortcuts provided for the inexpirienced, lazy, uncreative and those that simply lack time, people who are all valid and valued part of the games audience. This includes encounter tables, the return of adventures, example encounters, classed Monsters in monster books etc.

Then there's the removal of complication, like the rust monster. Parts of the game that can be fun if handled correctly/introduced to the right crowd, but can screw the games of others. Rust Monsters are great fun, but you need a certain amount of expertise for that. When I carelessly used a rust dragon and consequently destroyed the 6th level fighters complete gear, I was lucky he was mature enough not to storm out in disgust and he was lucky that I came up with something to replace his gear. In our game this lead to some roleplaying and interesting new hooks and plot elements when he took that cursed bone armor from the doomguard to replace his equipment. In other groups, those of younger/more casual people, which is a large number of groups, i.e. customers, that player would have stormed out in disgust or the DM would have left him in the dark without equipment.

What this tells is, that if any complexity is stripped out of the game, it's the complex fun, while the fast and easy fun remains. Everyone can have fun kicking puppies kobolds, slaying dragons, fighting beholder, throwing fireballs etc.

But a Ogre Mages Cone of Cold or Rustmonsters equipment have the possibility to massively wreck games. Hell, there are even those slimy DMs that use rustmonsters or instant kills to screw their players (screwing PC's is fine, but screwing the players just sucks), using their officiality as excuse. And wrecked games are unfun games and lead to players dropping out and leaving the game.

Do I agree that groups shouldn't be screwed with killer encounters? Yes

Do I agree that there should be ways to "complex fun" in my gaming material? Hell yeah.

It's a dilemma for the designers. Mearls articles certainly made it seem that wotc is stripping out the "complex fun", just to be sure. But if the articles are really more experiments (and I don't think mearls lied to us), then they seem to deal with the dilemma by trial and error.

So in a way I agree with you, there are indication that this may be part of the goal. However, my complain is, if you are concerned about this, I don't think complaining on a internet board first is the way to go when you could very well first ask the designer "Is this the design goal?"

I understand that people are concerned, but complaining about proplems that may or may not exist doesn't go right with me. We have little prove that this isn't part of the stated design philosophy, but we don't have much proof that it is either.

I would love nothing better than to hear that the design philosophy will not be as I suspect.

Of course I can't promise you that will never be part of the design philosophy, but I'm pretty confident that wotc has a R&D that creates a design philosophy that is not as one dimensional and single minded as that. The game has to many aspects to be handled that easily.

I think we have to assume what goes up on the website is vetted by management. I don't believe Mearls has carte blanche in what gets added as articles.

Well, management isn't always the most knowledgable on the actual subject. Hell, they don't even know much about marketing communication either. 95% of the time ""This is unfun, so we don't do it" sounds perfect to a manager/marketing expert, but it can still upset the custommer.

 

[Taraxia]

You'd think so, but look at d20 Modern classes -- literally Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc. Some people defend that approach strongly. (Me, I don't like it.)

Yeah, but those are base classes. The deal being that D&D style flavorful base classes would be really hard to run in a generic setting like d20 Modern, since "modern" covers a lot more ground than the sword-and-sorcery fantasy genre of D&D. If "Computer Hacker" were a base class, there'd be tons of campaign ideas that simply couldn't use it. Same deal with "Soldier", or "Doctor", or "Musician".

The idea of generic base classes plus Occupation to define your character fits a lot better with d20 Modern's ethos of making the standard action-movie "ordinary guy rises to extraordinary challenge" plot possible.

However, d20 Modern has no lack of flavor when it comes to its advanced and prestige classes, at least not by my standards.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Mearls in a Homebrew Design V. WotC Design article

In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules.



I see a red flag.

I wonder why? I'm not being facetious here. I would think that designers SHOULD assume that the DM cleaves completely to the RAW. The alternative is design ideas that each DM is going to fold, spindle and maul the rules anyway, so any product doesn't really have to mesh with other products.

This became rather evident in the 2e days. I'm thinking specifically about clerics. The power difference between what was in the PHB, Tome of Magic, Complete Priest and Faiths and Avatars was incredible, never mind Skills and Powers. You went from a fairly balanced class, to an incredibly gibbled one, to unhuman monstrocities.

Personally, I would think that designers should absolutely adhere to RAW and be very explicit when they deviate. To me, that means that the designers have to assume that the DM's also cleave entirely to the RAW. It makes breaking the rules much easier when everyone is on the same page.

 

[Mark CMG]

I wonder why? I'm not being facetious here. I would think that designers SHOULD assume that the DM cleaves completely to the RAW. The alternative is design ideas that each DM is going to fold, spindle and maul the rules anyway, so any product doesn't really have to mesh with other products.

This became rather evident in the 2e days. I'm thinking specifically about clerics. The power difference between what was in the PHB, Tome of Magic, Complete Priest and Faiths and Avatars was incredible, never mind Skills and Powers. You went from a fairly balanced class, to an incredibly gibbled one, to unhuman monstrocities.

Personally, I would think that designers should absolutely adhere to RAW and be very explicit when they deviate. To me, that means that the designers have to assume that the DM's also cleave entirely to the RAW. It makes breaking the rules much easier when everyone is on the same page.

Designing with the thought in mind that players will more than likely follow the rules being designed is very important but it is the very rules that are most likely going to be followed that are being designed with that in mind. You've created a knot of logic that tangles up a few points to support one another.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, I don't see the conflict.

The designer designs rules. The designer is assuming that the rules already written, as well as the rules he's writing right now, are going to be used in a game. Thus, the rules that he writes must mesh with the rules that came before. The standard for this meshing is an absolute rules as written baseline. No houserules, no rules variants (unless, of course, the new rule is based off of a variant, in which case, that should be specifically spelled out).

To me, that seems the best approach to writing game rules. Sure, it results in pretty bland rules without any major changes. I can live with that. It also results in fairly static rules that aren't going to throw massive wrenches into someone's game. To me, this is a great goal.

If I want to make massive changes to my game, that should be my decision (probably with input from my players). I don't think it is the role of game dev's to make those massive changes.

 

[Melan]

It seems to me that there would be a subtle difference between "applies the rules as written" and "applies the rules as a heartless computer". The fist includes a provision for common sense: the second does not. Just my thoughts.

<offtopic> Off I go, holiday at last! Have fun, all.</offtopic>

 

[vulcan_idic]

It seems to me that there would be a subtle difference between "applies the rules as written" and "applies the rules as a heartless computer". The fist includes a provision for common sense: the second does not. Just my thoughts.

<offtopic> Off I go, holiday at last! Have fun, all.</offtopic>

The unfortunate thing about common sense is that it's far too uncommon.

 

[Hussar]

It seems to me that there would be a subtle difference between "applies the rules as written" and "applies the rules as a heartless computer". The fist includes a provision for common sense: the second does not. Just my thoughts.

<offtopic> Off I go, holiday at last! Have fun, all.</offtopic>

I'm with Vulcan-Idic on this one. I think I would much rather the designers assume that I'm brain dead and explain things in terms a six year old could understand than assume I have a grasp of old English and can parse the meaning in vaguely worded rules.

I spent far too much time arguing at gaming tables over rules to ever want to go back to those days again. Even when I look at the rules boards here at En-World, 99% of the the rules arguements never happen at my table. They are usually issues that are pretty esoteric from day to day occurances. Things like why doesn't a held opponent draw an AOO? Well, since having a held PC has occured exactly once to me in the last year or so, this isn't an issue that I have to worry about.

Which xp tables my priest of Kossuth uses is pretty important though.

Basing design assumptions around the idea that the DM has the common sense of a slightly concussed gerbil is probably not a bad thing.