D&D 5E Merwin said it better than Schwalb

Morrus said:

Is every person over 100 IQ fit and athletic?

Click to expand...

Properly modeling opportunity costs falls into that whole "game design" category.

When you have people throwing their hands into the air and saying, "screw it, don't use things that are obviously overpowered! If you do, you're a jerk!" is easier than actually trying to make the game do what you claim and/or want it to do.

If you tell a fighter he gets proficiency with every weapon (and D&D pretty much does), the fighter's player is going to sift through all the weapons and find the best one. Why? Because there's no reason not to. He has to give up nothing to do so.

And if there is one weapon that's clearly better, that might be intentional on the designers' parts. Maybe they want swords to be more common, because it... fits their image of fantasy, or whatever. So swords have a slight edge. That's fine; but we, as players, need to know that, or else we run into the whole "trap option" thing again, and that's just complete crap.

If you want to balance things, IMO the best way to do it is things like the greatsword and greataxe from 3e: one has more swingy damage, but a higher crit multiplier; the other has a normal curve of damage, but crits more often, but for less damage. There are good reasons to use one or the other; there are arguments, there is an actual opportunity cost in using one or the other.

But that kind of design takes actual work. It takes consideration, it takes a large playtest group, it takes a lot of math. You know, the kind of thing that designers are paid for... the main reason these books cost money.

BryonD said:

Fair enough
But I think I could just rephrase my answer to say gearheads and non-gearheads. I think a key part of that is that non-gearheads are frequently not anti-gearheads. They very often don't mind the presence of gears so long as they are in the background.

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the dynamic I'm trying to show. In essence - the presence of gearheads means the gears don't remain in the background.

Broadly speaking, players want to be effective in the game.*

If there are gears, gearheads will use them, will become more effective for doing so, and then overshadow the non-gearheads. This is a problem, as the non-gearheads then have problems getting a share of the spotlight when the gearheads swiftly chew through the bad guys.

Alternatively, if there are paths to effectiveness that don't use gears, the gearheads don't feel like they are rewarded for their effort. This is a problem, as the player feels cheated.

I've not yet seen a game that makes gearheads feel greatly rewarded that don't also give non-gearheads problems. So far as I can tell, such a game is a mythical creature. Real, practical solutions lie with the GM - table management, adventure design, and so on.




*Yes, I know there exist some extreme story-oriented players who want to play pitifully flawed characters. I submit that they are not a strong enough contingent to be an important point at the moment, and there are games that handle deeply flawed characters much better than D&D does. D&D is a heroic action fantasy game, not an angst-fest.

Again, OK.

I'll accept the shades of grey in that as reasonable. And I'll still say that my prior statement stands compatibly with that.
That doesn't mean any game is perfect for everyone.

Umbran said:

*Yes, I know there exist some extreme story-oriented players who want to play pitifully flawed characters. I submit that they are not a strong enough contingent to be an important point at the moment, and there are games that handle deeply flawed characters much better than D&D does. D&D is a heroic action fantasy game, not an angst-fest.

Click to expand...

There's a German term for that translated to Farmer Gamer Shows they are not exactly a minority over here.

What I detest are the gearheads who insist that I'm somehow ruining their game because my character isn't completely optimal. Lords forbid I create a character that doesn't eek out every single ounce of damage per round possible by taking the Great Axe instead of the Great Sword (as a f'rinstance).

And following a character concept != tragically flawed. Also, not being the most completely optimized character EVAR also != tragically flawed.

GnomeWorks said:

If you tell a fighter he gets proficiency with every weapon (and D&D pretty much does), the fighter's player is going to sift through all the weapons and find the best one. Why? Because there's no reason not to. He has to give up nothing to do so.

Click to expand...

I think you grossly overestimate the number of people who do this. Are there some? Sure. But in the past 30+ years, the vast majority of players I've gamed with model their character after what they visualize him or her being, not what build gives the highest DPS.

But that kind of design takes actual work. It takes consideration, it takes a large playtest group, it takes a lot of math. You know, the kind of thing that designers are paid for... the main reason these books cost money.

Click to expand...

I think you're assuming designers don't do work. Question. What complex role-playing game have you created to have this insight that we all should listen to? To be frank here, as a designer, I am beginning to take some offense at your repeated disdain and vitriol towards a group of people who obviously you don't know what their job entails.

Also, the main reason books cost money isn't based on how well it's designed, it's based on production costs (art, editing, materials, overhead, etc).

Charles Wright said:

What I detest are the gearheads who insist that I'm somehow ruining their game because my character isn't completely optimal. Lords forbid I create a character that doesn't eek out every single ounce of damage per round possible by taking the Great Axe instead of the Great Sword (as a f'rinstance).

And following a character concept != tragically flawed. Also, not being the most completely optimized character EVAR also != tragically flawed.

Click to expand...

For Truth...and Justice!


i.e I agree...

Charles Wright said:

What I detest are the gearheads who insist that I'm somehow ruining their game because my character isn't completely optimal. Lords forbid I create a character that doesn't eek out every single ounce of damage per round possible by taking the Great Axe instead of the Great Sword (as a f'rinstance).

And following a character concept != tragically flawed. Also, not being the most completely optimized character EVAR also != tragically flawed.

Click to expand...

Absolutely

Sacrosanct said:

I think you grossly overestimate the number of people who do this. Are there some? Sure. But in the past 30+ years, the vast majority of players I've gamed with model their character after what they visualize him or her being, not what build gives the highest DPS.

Click to expand...

These are not the people who will wind up finding the corner cases and weird rules interactions.

I think you're assuming designers don't do work.

Click to expand...

Nope, I know they do work. I'm keenly aware of how difficult it can be. But we've seen - repeatedly - a bunch of designers over the past couple weeks tout the rules-light line because anyone who likes heavier crunch is a jerk.

But you already knew that, because of our argument elsewhere (presuming you are who I think you are).

To be frank here, as a designer, I am beginning to take some offense at your repeated disdain and vitriol towards a group of people who obviously you don't know what their job entails.

Click to expand...

Really? Because as a designer I am surprised at how little care and concern the recent crop of D&D designers have for mechanics. Because they apparently think that anyone who investigates mechanical constructs with any amount of rigor is only there to make the lives of everyone around them miserable.

I'm tired of mechanics-focused individuals being constantly misconstrued as a bunch of trolls.

Also, the main reason books cost money isn't based on how well it's designed, it's based on production costs (art, editing, materials, overhead, etc).

Click to expand...

My point is this: if you are going to not actually design rules, what purpose is there in me buying the rules for your game. I will not pay money for the magic tea party, and asking me to do so is an insult to my intelligence.

Charles Wright said:

What I detest are the gearheads who insist that I'm somehow ruining their game because my character isn't completely optimal. Lords forbid I create a character that doesn't eek out every single ounce of damage per round possible by taking the Great Axe instead of the Great Sword (as a f'rinstance).

And following a character concept != tragically flawed. Also, not being the most completely optimized character EVAR also != tragically flawed.

Click to expand...

That's the type of people I don't want in any of my games. So boring.