The New Design Philosophy?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

The vast majority of D&D players have never visited ENWorld (or any other rpg-oriented web site) and have constantly asked for one thing: simplification.

But that's not the point. No one has said that simplifying the game is wrong, but removing a couple abilities here or there isn't doing jack to simplify the game. The re-designed rust monster actually complicated things. Adding class levels to monsters is much more complicated than giving them a couple specific abilities. Adding umpteen base classes, some with brand new mechanics, isn't simplifying.

No, what some are objecting to is not simplifying some aspects of the game (which can be done, although it would probably affect WotC bottom-line as they'd have to reign in the crunch-products), it's the seeming intent to narrow the focus down to a purely combat oriented game. If anything, it's in WotCs interest to make the game more complicated (and what happened to Magic certainly bears that out). Crunch sells to players, fluff to DMs, and there are a lot more players than DMs.

Look at the still-prominent place of AoOs, arguably the factor of the game that causes the most trouble for players. Look at the emphasis on items. Look at the expansion of base classes, the proliferation of bonus types, feat types, action types, etc. The trend is towards more complexity, not less.

You can simplify the problematic parts of the game without robbing it of its flavor and personality and versatility.

 

[I'm A Banana]

3.0 and earlier, yes. 3.5 as written limits the caster to the 5 options presented.

Those specific options help me to better understand what kinds of power the PC's have available. If someone wants to make a similar spell to allow "disrobe" or "fly" or etc., I now have some rules to judge at what power level it could be. I have the rules for designing new spells to use, and I have a player who likes a specific effect enough to make a spell around it -- this makes sure the creativity of my team fits the game in a manner that doesn't make it too powerful.

I have many options for adding more options if I want them. Rule 0, New Spells, etc. And if I don't want them, I don't have to worry about how some dragon is going to interpret "fly" if he fails his save against Command.

I think like that as a player...I detest having to micromanage encumbrance, arrows remaining, and so on. But as a DM I see it as my job to do the micromanaging you describe above (other than inventing uses for pointless abilities).

As a player, I don't think like that, either. My players have never managed copper or silver pieces, arrows, food, or encumbrance because none of that is very exciting or adventurous, and it annoys me to do so.

I see my JOB as a DM as having fun running the game. If I have to do little detailed obnoxious work, I may as well just go play a videogame that'll do it all for me. And now that I can play it over the internet with my friends, what does D&D have to offer?

Hmmm...the vagueness of the 1e rules inspired me and many others to some pretty good ideas (and some very bad ones, but hey) in game design...and I'm glad of it.

But the 1e rules were poor rules because they forced you to do that. They made a bad game. You can have fun with a bad game, but more people can usually have more fun with a good one.

The 3e rules are good rules because they give you a standard way to do that, and tell you that you can tweak it (and, in many cases, tell you what the effect of tweaking it will be). You can still use the good house rules you had, but now your way isn't the only way you know of, you can choose between two competing systems, allowing the one that's most fun for you to flourish.

 

[eyebeams]

You win the thread. It's hard for us to swallow, but folks like us do not matter in the big scheme of things. The vast majority of D&D players have never visited ENWorld (or any other rpg-oriented web site) and have constantly asked for one thing: simplification. We can complicate the game up as much as we like. Complication is easy, as you said -- all anyone has to do is dig up their house rules from 1978 to prove that.

Well no, they haven't asked for simplification. The entire thrust of 3e's design was based on research that apparently showed that the idea of a simple "friendly" game was a crock and didn't enhance playability at all (in terms of optimizing the minutes of fun in hours of play). If anything the widespread use of house rules to add bells and whistles to D&D is the most representative example of that and 3e is the most complex iteration of the line. Other editions didn't have one task resolution system but they were far less complex in terms of character design and tactics. That ability to take control of your character's abilities and think of ways to exploit them within the system *is* something familiar to MMO players and the like.

I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but that's it.

That said, individual encounters as the sole benchmark of a creature's design isn't a good idea -- but it's a good first step to developing a creature. Once you know what a creature's profile should be with respect to a single encounter you can add "what if" scenarios to flesh it out for a campaign. Same thing for spells and class abilities.

Development can handle this in two ways. They can either remove as many of the "soft" elements as possible (such as abilities that only work when the DM gives you a specific encounter and things amenable to lots of interpretation at the table) to render it down to a tactical game with character advancement, or they can clearly delineate places where the tactical benchmark has been ignored to allow for campaign and session-scale choices. In this case DMs will need support on how to deal with NPCs, scenario-driven abilities like turning undead and so on.

 

[Scribble]

Look at the still-prominent place of AoOs, arguably the factor of the game that causes the most trouble for players. Look at the emphasis on items. Look at the expansion of base classes, the proliferation of bonus types, feat types, action types, etc. The trend is towards more complexity, not less.

You can simplify the problematic parts of the game without robbing it of its flavor and personality and versatility.

Of course you can. But by that token just because something isn't simple doesn't mean it lacks personality.

AOO can be confusing sure. And yeah there are lots of bonus types and rules. BUT that doesn't make it "complex." All of those rules are built off of a sort of singular idea. (d20 system.) The rules make sense when proped up next to other rules, and similar ideas.

Like theif skills. Now, they are just normal skills, whereas in previous editions, they were percentages, while other skills were basically just stat checks...

Simplifying doesn't mean less options and rules. It means making sure those rules all work together in a coherent way that "makes sense."

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Simplifying doesn't mean less options and rules. It means making sure those rules all work together in a coherent way that "makes sense."

I beg to differ. Complexity is the result of numerous interactions of simple functions. Chess has relatively few functions, yet can be incredibly complex. At a certain level, all biological processes can be boiled down to the interaction of a relatively few elements.

The 'Roll a 20-sided die to beat a target number' is a simple function. The interaction of that function with the myriad exceptions, additions, modifiers, not to mention the human element, is complex.

 

[jmucchiello]

This was with regard to the 1+1 HD spider with deadly poison:

I have no problem with using creative tactics to get around it. But if something is an instant kill it should reward you as such...

In the DM, the xp value of the large spider (1+1 HD) was 65+2/hp. That was your reward. The hobgoblin (also 1+1 HD) was only worth 20+2/hp. At 1+1 to 2 HD, exceptional abilities were worth an extra 45 xp (according to the chart on page 85).* Also, note that large spider appears on the Monster Level III encounter chart. Not on the first level chart. This means you shouldn't encounter them until you are strong enough to also deal with bugbears, ghouls, ogres, gelatinous cubes and even rot grubs to name a few monsters on that chart. Hobgoblins appear on the Monster Level I chart.

The difference is now the CR is in the open. But even in 1e, the large spider with deadly poison was not a 1st level party encounter. Based on the other monsters, the party should be around 4th to 5th level when they first start encountering such monsters.

* Wow, haven't really opened the 1e DMG in ages but my sense of where stuff is located was still excellent. Must be because it imprinted on my brain when it was young.

 

[luke_twigger]

Lessee...The original ogre mage was not a "leader for ogres" - funny, there's no mention of that in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual, in either the entries for ogres or ogre magi. The only apparent connection between the two is that ogre magi speak their own language and that of ogres.

A common language is not the *only* apparent connection between the two - there's the small fact that an Ogre Mage has the word Ogre in its name! I'm not being facetious. I've been playing since 2E days but it was only reading this thread that made me realise that the two monsters weren't originally connected. I think it's a reasonable assumption that an Ogre Mage is a more powerful relative of a regular Ogre.

 

[Delta]

How many of the prospective new players have even read classic fantasy? Compare that to the number of them who have played CCG and computer games...

Including having seen a Lord of the Rings movie? Or read a Harry Potter novel?

 

[MerricB]

Including having seen a Lord of the Rings movie? Or read a Harry Potter novel?

Both those sources are closer to modern fantasy than classic fantasy, actually.

Witness the feats of Legolas in the LotR movies, and the prominence of magic in Harry Potter.

Cheers!

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

My question is:

Why is everything being redesigned?

I hear: "Many people want it simplified."

I read: "We need to lure away WoW players!"

But what is up with the new simplifications? To me, it looks like it's to improve PC's odds of survival. Since higher level play the PC's live or die by magic items, if something can damage those items, it is "adjusted."

People complain about save or die spells, saying it's unfair. Some people say it is.

So why all this redesign? I don't by the "OH NOES! 4E IS BEING PLAYTESTED!" outcry.

I just wonder: "If ain't broke, why are you fixing it?"