Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

Mistwell · Feb 2, 2014

GMforPowergamers said:
Me and XunValdorl don't agree on a lot, and I think he over stated it a bit, but he is right in general here. Let me give some examples...

In a 3e game that no one track encumbrance Str looses a lot of meaning, and you may not realize how that trickles down the balance chain. The wizard puts an 8 in str because it is useless to him, but then carries 3 spell books full of spells, a magic staff, 5 potions, a dozen scrolls and 3-5 wands most of the time, plus treasure and extra cloths and components... you don't realize how much that all adds up.

Are you seriously arguing that 3e games fall apart because the wizard doesn't track encumbrance? At the levels you're talking, they can afford the lackey follower easily, if you really care. I've never heard anyone honestly argue this is an issue. I think thousands of people are playing 3e just fine while ignoring encumbrance. It's sort of proof of the opposite of his point - games don't fall apart when you remove a rule like that.

In a 2e game where you change initiative and just say roll d20, add dex mod highest first... sounds like you just made it easier, but in reality you stop a lot of spell interrupts, change the balance on a lot of weapons...

Yes, it has an impact. DOES THE GAME FALL APART if you do this? No, not at all. That was his claim. His claim is not "things change if you make changes".

In 4e if I play low magic, and at level 12 only dropped a +1 weapon, a +1 armor, and a +1 wand to my 5 players, they are going to be at a disadvantage, but it is more then just numbers you don't realize how the lack of options for daily and encounter powers on items hurt...

I agree in 4e this changes a basic assumption of the game. But, I also think the game doesn't fall apart if you do that, since you (should) know to alter challenges to account for it.

Bottom line, name a rule in 5e that, if altered, makes the game "fall apart". I think it's more than a simple exaggeration.

GMforPowergamers · Feb 2, 2014

Mistwell said:
Are you seriously arguing that 3e games fall apart because the wizard doesn't track encumbrance?

no not at all.

I am argueing that rule changes have unforeseen side effects and showing the most blatent... the game is so broken by RAW it is hard to do worse, but it can happen...

At the levels you're talking,

what level is that, I must have missed where I said a level?

they can afford the lackey follower easily, if you really care. I've never heard anyone honestly argue this is an issue. I think thousands of people are playing 3e just fine while ignoring encumbrance. It's sort of proof of the opposite of his point - games don't fall apart when you remove a rule like that.

I said he was exaggerating, but yes the balance DOES break down a bit, because the fighter with a 23 str and 14 Int has so few advantages over the wizard with a 20 Int and 8 str, but one of them is he can carry a lot more... when you ignore that you change the game, maybe unintentally.

Yes, it has an impact. DOES THE GAME FALL APART if you do this? No, not at all. That was his claim. His claim is not "things change if you make changes".

yes he exaggerated and I conside that but he has a point in there when you get down to it...

I agree in 4e this changes a basic assumption of the game. But, I also think the game doesn't fall apart if you do that, since you (should) know to alter challenges to account for it.

no you don't know in less you really think about it... saying "Well they are +2 -+3 off on attacks so I will lower the defenses a point or two" doesn't account for all the other things magic items do... again a forseen consaquance and an un forseen one...

Bottom line, name a rule in 5e that, if altered, makes the game "fall apart". I think it's more than a simple exaggeration.

Ask me again next year at this time when we have had atleast a few months with the real rules... I hope my answer then is none... I could live with if the answer is what it is in 4e Few and far between and even then they wont break the game... but no one knows...

Mistwell · Feb 2, 2014

GMforPowergamers said:
no not at all.

I am argueing that rule changes have unforeseen side effects and showing the most blatent... the game is so broken by RAW it is hard to do worse, but it can happen...

what level is that, I must have missed where I said a level?

You said, "carries 3 spell books full of spells, a magic staff, 5 potions, a dozen scrolls and 3-5 wands". So clearly a level he can afford a follower.

I said he was exaggerating, but yes the balance DOES break down a bit, because the fighter with a 23 str and 14 Int has so few advantages over the wizard with a 20 Int and 8 str, but one of them is he can carry a lot more... when you ignore that you change the game, maybe unintentally.

Again, show me anyone who says 3e breaks down as a game when the wizard doesn't track encumbrance. Thousands of players have done just fine playing 3e without it. I again say you're proving the opposite of your intended point.

no you don't know in less you really think about it... saying "Well they are +2 -+3 off on attacks so I will lower the defenses a point or two" doesn't account for all the other things magic items do... again a forseen consaquance and an un forseen one...

His point was not "unforeseen consequences" it was "unforeseen consequences THAT DESTROY THE GAME", and that's just not the case. If you can remove it, and the game still functions OK, then his point is disproved. You've repeatedly pretended his point was simply 'if you make changes then you make changes' when that's nothing close to his point.

Why are you ignoring the thesis of his claim? You say he was exaggerating - but the exaggeration WAS the point. My counter-point was that you can remove things and the game doesn't fall apart. You seem to agree with that sentiment, but then claim there's still something left of his point. What, exactly, would that be?

Dominar Rygel XVI · Feb 2, 2014

I apologize for jumping into the conversation but I tell you from personal experience that ignoring time with regards to item creation can cause the game to break down. Dm's who just say "Done, on to the next dungeon" is just asking for trouble. Now if the world actually changes during that downtime then we don't have a problem.

GMforPowergamers · Feb 3, 2014

Mistwell said:
You said, "carries 3 spell books full of spells, a magic staff, 5 potions, a dozen scrolls and 3-5 wands". So clearly a level he can afford a follower.

I don't see were one proves the other, but to avoid another side argument I will conside that such a thing is possible.

Again, show me anyone who says 3e breaks down as a game when the wizard doesn't track encumbrance. Thousands of players have done just fine playing 3e without it. I again say you're proving the opposite of your intended point.

we will start with me

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q0uz?Encumbrance

Mysterious Stranger Aug 4, 2013, 09:50 PM

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Market Patron
Encumbrance is there for a reason. Without anyone who does not plan to get into melee has no reason not to completely dump STR. A cleric with a 10 STR wearing a breastplate and a light wooden shield is already at medium encumbrance. Add a heavy crossbow and 10 bolts that puts him up to 48 pounds. Add a cleric kit from ultimate equipment and he is at 80 lbs. which is heavy encumbrance.

It also balances out other types of characters especially archers. A properly built archer is deadly; one of the things keeping them in check is the need to carry ammunition. True they can get a magic item like an efficient quiver but that takes up some of their wealth by level.

There is some book keeping involved but that is part of the game. If you use a computer to generate the characters the book keeping is almost nonexistent. Hero Labs for example keeps track of encumbrance for you so you don’t really have to worry about it that much.

Mysterious Stranger Aug 4, 2013, 11:11 PM

Market Patron
Also consider that a character with a 7 can only carry 23 lbs. before reaching medium encumbrance. A Wizard with a 7 STR without magic is not even going to be able to carry the basic equipment he needs. Below is a list of the equipment I consider necessary for a 12st level Wizard.

Dagger, Backpack (empty), Bedroll, Belt pouch (empty), Ink, black, Inkpen, Mess kit, Spell component pouch, Spellbook, Trail rations (5), Waterskin.

Change the race to a gnome and his STR drops down to 5, which means he can carry even less. If you really want to ignore the encumbrance rules you could disallow dumping of STR. Make 10 before racial adjustments the absolute minimum STR. For any class that will be wearing armor I would suggest you raise that to 12 to 13. If your players complain then more than likely they are just trying to get something for nothing.

Avatar-1 Aug 4, 2013, 11:24 PM
Xamanthe
You need to use the encumbrance rules.

You'll be surprised how quickly that weight adds up. If you're playing without the encumbrance rules, assume you're on a heavy load 90% of the time.

Why are you ignoring the thesis of his claim? You say he was exaggerating - but the exaggeration WAS the point. My counter-point was that you can remove things and the game doesn't fall apart. You seem to agree with that sentiment, but then claim there's still something left of his point. What, exactly, would that be?

that no one thing would 'break the game wide open' but instead that it is not always wise to blindly mess with rules, enough messing could lead to breaking... it just takes more then one normally.

by itself encumbrance will not break your game... but it could add up to leading to some unintended consaqunces, and enough of those could add up.

no one says "Hey encoumbrace rules are there to balance martial and non martial characters" inless you think it through...

Dominar Rygel XVI said:
I apologize for jumping into the conversation but I tell you from personal experience that ignoring time with regards to item creation can cause the game to break down. Dm's who just say "Done, on to the next dungeon" is just asking for trouble. Now if the world actually changes during that downtime then we don't have a problem.

that is another good one... by the way it and the encounbrance add up badly...

pemerton · Feb 3, 2014

Morrus said:
So it is just a permission thing, then.

I don't think that's what was said.

As I understood [MENTION=51168]MichaelSomething[/MENTION], the point was that the designers know that some rules are tightly integrated with other parts of the game, and that others are not. And that it is helpful when they share this knowledge with their player base.

My view is that WotC are very poor at doing this (and TSR also before them). I would contrast (say) 13th Age, where the book is full of commentary about why certain rules are how they are, and what the logic of those rules is.

An example from 4e can illustrate the contrast between rules that are optional and rules that are not, for one tenable meaning of "optional":

* If you eliminate from 4e its distinctive rest cycles - short rests and extended rests - you have a significant impact on the way the game's mechanics work, because you elide the distinction between encounter abilities and daily abilities that is built into the player-side resources. That impact may be good, bad or indifferent, but the impact is real.

* If you change the time requirements for 4e's rest cycles - say, make short rests take an hour and extended rests take a week - you have virtually no impact on the way the game's mechanics work, because the only 4e rules elements that reference the passage of ingame time (as opposed to its rest cycles) are the casting times for rituals - eg there are no random encounter rules, or exploration rules, that reference the passage of ingame time.

I think it is helpful for designers to point these sorts of things out, because it makes life easy for RPGers. It can also have other benefits, too. For instance, developing a version of 4e that eliminates the encounter/daily distinction would be quite a big deal (on a par with what Essentials did). Whereas including a note that you can change the ingame time required for the two sorts of rest, and that this will have no mechanical impact, would have added about 10 minutes to the time required to write the PHB and DMG, had an utterly marginal impact on layout, but probably headed off as much as 10% of the criticism that edition has been subjected to.

pemerton · Feb 3, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
There is, of course, only one truly playstyle-neutral set of rules. They're called the laws of physics.

Ahnehnois said:
Those laws can then be used to support any number of actions.

<snip>

Rules as physics is as neutral as it gets. They're not neutral with regards to the social contract, but that's not part of the game itself anyway.

I assume you're not talking about the laws of physics insofar as they determine the behaviours of those who play the game, the outcomes of their dice rolls and so on. I assume you mean the laws of physics as something that the action resolution rules of a game might model or emulate.

Assuming that interpretation of your claim, I very strongly disagree with it. There is nothing remotely playstyle neutral about a game whose action resolution mechanics aspire to the emulation or modelling of the laws of physics. For instance, such a game - say, GURPS, an ostensibly genre-neutral physics-emulation RPG would utterly exclude playstyles associated with games whose mechanics don't do that - say HeroQuest revised, an ostensibly genre-neutral scene-resolution-by-way-of-free-descriptors RPG.

In other words, GURPS is no more playstyle neutral than is HeroQuest revised.

Majoru Oakheart · Feb 3, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
Rules as physics is as neutral as it gets. They're not neutral with regards to the social contract, but that's not part of the game itself anyway.

I disagree. By deciding to use real life physics as rules you've decided on a bunch of playstyle decisions in advance. People die really easily. They aren't heroic because heroism gets you killed. There will be random death that was completely impossible to avoid since many things that kill you in the real world simply aren't observable or preventable before they kill you. There is no magic or wondrous achievements in the game because wondrous implies things beyond the laws of physics.

All of these things ARE playstyle choices. Because when rules allow you to do infinite things, choosing to follow a set of rules that models physics precisely is still a choice. It's a choice that prevents certain playstyles from working.

keterys · Feb 3, 2014

pemerton said:
Whereas including a note that you can change the ingame time required for the two sorts of rest, and that this will have no mechanical impact, would have added about 10 minutes to the time required to write the PHB and DMG, had an utterly marginal impact on layout, but probably headed off as much as 10% of the criticism that edition has been subjected to.

I remember reading something in the DMG about handling short rests in dramatic situations and not requiring 5 minutes, so I'm not sure that would have really helped that much.

But it would have been nice to have a full treatment, with the suggestion of an hour and a week, or even a day and a month, depending on the group style.

Ahnehnois · Feb 3, 2014

Majoru Oakheart said:
I disagree. By deciding to use real life physics as rules you've decided on a bunch of playstyle decisions in advance. People die really easily. They aren't heroic because heroism gets you killed. There will be random death that was completely impossible to avoid since many things that kill you in the real world simply aren't observable or preventable before they kill you. There is no magic or wondrous achievements in the game because wondrous implies things beyond the laws of physics.

Yes, but those are neutral decisions. Characters die as easily as people die. They are as heroic as people are. Magic is as magical as it really would be.

And since the rules are observable laws, the DM (who does not, as far as we know, exist in the real world) can use them to create any set of outcomes. If he wants tougher characters, he uses the language of the rules to describe how tough they are, and provides a rationale that could range from naturalism (your character is a Dunedain and thus is tougher than any real person) to fatalism (your character is destined for great things and is harder to kill). The rules saying a level 1 character has 10 hit points, that's a play style. The rules describing how hard a character with 10 hit points is to kill, that's not.

I also find it problematic that you think reality and heroism are compatible. Is there no such thing as a hero? Are there no wondrous things in this life?

Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

GMforPowergamers

Legend

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Dominar Rygel XVI

Banned

GMforPowergamers

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer

keterys

First Post

Ahnehnois

First Post

Similar Threads