The New Design Philosophy?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Well, I never argued that. I just found the entire reactionary 'D&D being dumbed down because of a what-if article posted on the website that a developer might do if a revision were in the works' thing ludicrous.

And I maintain it's not reactionary. I have zero desire to return to the days where every 9th level fighter was the same, or where only elves could be fighter/mages. I *like* 3e. I like having new classes to monkey with, new spells to try out. I'm a crunch-junkie. I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.

But regardless of when it comes out, there will be a 4th edition unless the laws of capitalism are somehow repealed. And this was more than the beer-lubricated musings of some low-level functionary at WotC. Mr Mearls is a visible and respected (and don't let anything said here, Mike, give you any other idea -- we're passionate because we love ) member of the D&D publishing world, and certainly will have a voice in the future of the game. Nothing gets posted to the WotC website without other eyes looking at it and giving it their tacit consent.

I'm glad these articles are getting posted, and that they are engendering this kind of debate.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) and you'll find that a lot of us are far more interested in stretching the possibilities in the rules than in playing the same-old, same-old. Hardly reactionary. About the only generalization that holds true here is the DM community is probably over-represented.

We're not objecting to crunch, or new ideas or rules. We're objecting to some spurious notion that the future of the game lies in reducing it to a bland, by-the-numbers collection of rules bereft of spirit.

And I maintain it's not reactionary. I have zero desire to return to the days where every 9th level fighter was the same, or where only elves could be fighter/mages. I *like* 3e. I like having new classes to monkey with, new spells to try out. I'm a crunch-junkie. I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.

But regardless of when it comes out, there will be a 4th edition unless the laws of capitalism are somehow repealed. And this was more than the beer-lubricated musings of some low-level functionary at WotC. Mr Mearls is a visible and respected (and don't let anything said here, Mike, give you any other idea -- we're passionate because we love ) member of the D&D publishing world, and certainly will have a voice in the future of the game. Nothing gets posted to the WotC website without other eyes looking at it and giving it their tacit consent.

Hard to put things much better than that, RI.

 

[Kormydigar]

The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me.

Whats all this then? I really don't see anything like a new philosophy going on here. WOTC is doing exactly what they have always done and will continue to do. They will publish a set of rules, and pump out the supplements designed for maximum rules bloat. The gaming community screams for less confusion and more simplicity which WOTC is more than happy to provide in the form a brand new edition with fresh ideas and all kinds of cool stuff. Shortly after the core is released the supplement bloat begins again adding to the ever turning circle of games. This is how game companies sell products, provide a living for game designers, and keep the industry alive and bubbling with excitement. The day that the mega edition to end ALL editions that makes EVERYONE so happy that there is no desire for another book will be the death of D&D.

It may sound like I am really giving WOTC a hard time, but I'm really not. I started gaming in 1980 so I am one of the old farts around here. The game must evolve and constantly change to keep up with the desires of the new generation of gamers. I don't agree with all the changes that have come about but the reality is that I am a dinosaur and WOTC would be foolish to cater to my desires over those of new players. I have all my older gaming material so if the latest offering just isn't for me I can still use it. When all is said and done I would rather welcome the release of an edition I hate than see tabletop roleplaying die.

 

[MerricB]

What's interesting is that the monsters are being designed with the goal of greater simplicity to run in combat - something directly counter to Kormydigar's point.

I think this is an admirable goal. (Try running 4 Vrocks in an encounter one day, and you'll see what an overcomplex creature is.) What is important is that the monsters do not lose the hooks that can give them roles in an adventure. As is pointed out in the Ogre Magi thread, the addition back of a domination/charm ability restores the "boss" ability of the OM for purposes of story construction, while not impacting on the difficulty of running the monster in combat.

The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat. Monsters should be designed so that they're effective in combat (per the level for which their intended). They should also be desinged so they don't suffer from coin-flip and glass jaw syndrome.

Consider a 1 HD monster with a death attack. If you look at it, you must make a Fortitude save or die. The problem with this monster is that it has a glass jaw. There's no interest in the actual combat - it's just a coin-flip. Heads, you win. Tails, you die. That's bad design.

The Ogre Mage in 3e/3.5e suffers from that syndrome. The combat is over in one or two rounds. It's a forgettable creature. If you send it against a party to which its AC and HP are comparable, the cone of cold causes instant death for at least one party member (probably the wizard).

(Ogre Mage: AC 18, HP 37 vs. Ogre: AC 16, HP 29. Not much of a difference. CR difference, 8. Oh dear).

Is the CR system flawed? Well, yes. However, in the Ogre Mage's case, it's not the CR system that creates the flaw, it's the design of the monster itself. Glass Jaw and Coin Flip syndrome. (The OM has a CR that allows the party to survive it, but not for it to put up a fight against the party!)

There needs to be a balance between the CR and the effectiveness of the monster: it is able to participate in combat for a few rounds, and it needs to give the players something they have to work to defeat. One or two signature abilities that distinguish it from other monsters are also essential.

The other aspect of monster design to consider is this: does the monster appear alone or with other monsters. Most interesting fights require more than one opponent, but in such cases, the monsters must be simple enough so that the DM can handle each of them.

Cheers!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks. It's keeping track of all the player character crap, and the inordinate amount of time that can (and some say needs to) be spent tweaking out NPCs with gear, class levels, whatever.

Of all the things to put effort into simplifying, oddball monsters is about the last thing to worry about.

 

[Hussar]

I think the design philosophy reflects a broader general demand for the game. You can poo-poo the thing as just trying to get video gamers, but that's akin to saying they are just trying to appeal to highschoolers, and well, yeah - they are. And should.

The designers should be relativewly unconcerned with the needs of a sophisticated DM - we're all different and we can adjust. They need to be most concerned with two groups - folks getting into the game and having fun right away and those with limited time who want maximum fun in the time they have. Consideration for hardcores like us has to be secondary at best.

The number one complaint from folks about 3E is it is too complicated. The entry level to the game is just too high.

The task then for D&D designers is two-fold:

1. Simplify.
2. Greater ease of use.

Complications are easy - simplifications are where the true geniuses of design shine.

To bring it full circle - the CR table should reflect the basic D&D encounter - a fight with monsters. Let the sophisticated DM who uses his monsters in a myriad of interesting ways also figure out the appropriate XP award.

QFT

RI - Why are you keeping track of the player crap? That's what players are for. If the cleric has ten buffs on him, it's up to the player to keep track of what does what and tell me if I try something and it doesn't work because he has X counterspell up. Fair enough. I know, that means I have to (shock!) trust that my players aren't cheating and actually know the rules for their characters, but, then, by the time they can have umpteen buffs, they should have been playing that character for at least a few months.

I tend to assume that my players are reasonably intelligent and can read a page of text over the course of a few months.

As far as tweaking out NPC's. Well, the easy answer is, don't. Use standard packages of equipment and away you go. You don't need to min/max your NPC's to make them effective. Those tables in the DMG with higher level NPC's is your friend.

And, as a point, just because something has character levels does not mean it gets NPC wealth. A dragon with one level of wizard is NOT a first level NPC. Use the CR treasure tables for equipment.

A lot of the complaints about complexity stem from two reasons. One, bloat of abilities from creatures. Two: a lack of willingness to simplify the game.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'm not the one complaining about complexity. I have a long track record of saying 'close enough is good enough' for NPCs. I have the computer tools to do it right when I feel the need to. I have the experience and tricks of the trade to run complicated fights. I'm not the target of what we're talking about. Sheesh, compared to 1st edition Shadowrun or Cyberpunk 2020, or Aftermath, d20 is a walk in the park. Hell, I used to run 'Powers and Perils' games

What I and others have a problem with is the perceptions that seem to be influencing future design decisions:

* The perception that everyone else is complaining about the complexity, that it's too hard for new players and new DMs, and that we have to simplify creatures to remove extraneous abilities because its too much to keep track of.

* The perception that 'OMG Players will cry and go home' if their gear gets whacked, cause you know its just too hard for the DM to, you know, plan ahead and resupply the party at the appropraite time.

There's no doubt that d20 could use a nip and tuck here and there. But stripping monsters down to the bare minimum, or removing save-or-die spells, or eliminating niche monsters that might hurt the players feelings isn't the right direction, IMO.

The "bloat" of abilities of creatures is non-existant compared to the complexity added by class levels, or high-level NPCs, or a variety of other things. If running an ogre-mage is problematic, how the hell would you run a ogre with six sorceror levels, where there are even more things to deal with?

 

[Campbell]

But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks. It's keeping track of all the player character crap, and the inordinate amount of time that can (and some say needs to) be spent tweaking out NPCs with gear, class levels, whatever.

Of all the things to put effort into simplifying, oddball monsters is about the last thing to worry about.

I've seen WotC address these issues recently. The PHB II gives a remarkable amount of guidance for statting out NPCs and includes equipment profiles, suggested spell choices and feat progressions that vastly reduce the time involved in statting out NPCs.

 

[Pants]

And I maintain it's not reactionary. I have zero desire to return to the days where every 9th level fighter was the same, or where only elves could be fighter/mages. I *like* 3e. I like having new classes to monkey with, new spells to try out. I'm a crunch-junkie. I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.

Dude I'm not arguing with you about that.

All I'm saying is 'Chill out, stop the doom and gloom, because it's just a what-if article.' Mearls has pretty explicitly stated that these are designed to start discussion on these topics.

I agree with everything else, just saying 'Chill' is all.

 

[hong]

But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks.

Yes it is.