The New Design Philosophy?

[Mark CMG]

Hussar, I think I see why we have not been connecting.

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

(. . .)

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.

I think you may have gone off on another track that is a topic for a different discussion. Are you, in simplest terms, just saying you do not want D&D to change in 4E unless the new rules are completely optional and merely addons to 3.x?

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.

Are you having trouble with the way in which the rules are explained or are you having trouble with the rules themselves?

Explaining the rules in simple terms is a goal for all game writing. Everyone agrees with that so it's really not the issue being debated here. The debate is over whether the design philosophy should be for non-complex game rules explained simply (which I hasten to point out *would* mean removing much of what is 3.x) or complex game rules explained simply (which I further point out *could* mean keeping much of 3.x but explaining it more accessibly). It's my contention that stripping away everything not used in a brief combat scenario is the former and not a worthy goal.

Is this an issue for you because you are concerned how the rules will be explained or how the rules will actually function? You seem to be concerned about the former while claiming the latter. You seem to be tying the two issues together when they need not be.

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.

This seems to be an area where you feel complexity is superfluous. But I have to ask, "Would you prefer rules for AoOs didn't exist or that they were written more plainly?"

Arguments that I have witnessed over things like AoO are often about how the rules function but are, at the same time, often about how they are interpreted as written, some claiming one interpretation allows the rules to function better, others going with a differing interpretation. Both generally enjoy the complexity of the rules but might find the wording of them ambiguous. This is really an argument for keeping the complexity but explaining it more clearly.

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

I think at the heart of this discussion it has become plain to me that you actually mean that you want the rules explained simply but kept complex. You seem to want the rules written elegantly and to handle a broad range of challenges (and multiple styles of games) but for any intelligent person to be able to understand them on the first reading. I think we are really on the same page.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This might be getting closer to the heart of the matter as many find simply "beating up things and taking their stuff" as an unsatisfying way to spend their time.

Fair enough, but it seems that "beating up things and taking their stuff" is the core game of D&D, and the point from which much pleasure derives. A story you tell is framed by "beating up things and taking their stuff." A legendary feel you recreate...by "beating up things and taking their stuff." A fantastic world of dragons and monsters....that you can beat up and take the stuff of. Evil villains...which you beat up and take the stuff of... Heck, entire D&D sessions can go by without doing it (political intrigue, etc.), but the rules don't need to handle that which does not need die rolls. They need to cater to that which does. The way that most people (not many or some, but most) play D&D needs to be addressed.

You perhaps see the point. While it's not the ONLY way to play the game, it is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game, and so designing for it -- for a way to ensure that there are no unexpected hiccups in beating up things and taking their stuff -- is one of the only logical goals of design.

You would rather them try to explain complexity? Eh. People don't have time to listen to justifications of why they can't just sit down and have fun. D&D shouldn't be something you have to study and work at to be fun. It should just *be* fun. Instantly. That way, if I want to add complexity, it shouldn't be a problem, and if I just want to roll some dice and raid a dungeon, that shouldn't be a problem, either.

I'm not Hussar, but I'm nodding in agreement with a lot of what he says, so I'll see if I can perhaps clarify my own stance...

Are you, in simplest terms, just saying you do not want D&D to change in 4E unless the new rules are completely optional and merely addons to 3.x?

It's the dev's job to support the game that the most people want to play. If 4e winds up being wildly unsuccessful because it does a poor job of that, then 4e is a bad step. If this new design philosophy doesn't make most consumers happy, then it is a bad step. But while it's certain to alienate some, I feel those it alienates are a small fraction of the gaming community who doesn't invest a lot of money in the future of the system anyway.

The changes they make should make the game "better," by making it more fun for more people. If some dozen stoics get stuck in the mud about an issue or three, but those changes draw three dozen more people into the game, the game is better.

[/QUOTE]
Are you having trouble with the way in which the rules are explained or are you having trouble with the rules themselves?
[/QUOTE]

For me, in most cases, it's the rules themselves. Because they shuoldn't need another paragraph or three explanation, IMHO. If the rules were clear and sensible to begin with, there wouldn't need to be any explanation of them.

But I have to ask, "Would you prefer rules for AoOs didn't exist or that they were written more plainly?"

For me, it's very much the former. If the rule can't be explained clearly enough for a brain-dead six year old to understand, it's not a good rule, and should be replaced with something simpler and more efficient that is easier to explain and understand. AoO's serve a purpose that we still want served, but they don't do it well. The same thing is true of grapples, for instance.