Hussar
Legend
Disclaimer - I'll state this right out at the front. I think game first is superior design. I'm going to try to be as even handed as I can here, but, I do feel that game first is the better way to go.
Disclaimer the Second - In the hopes that we're all on the same page here for this discussion, I'm going to define my terms AS I SEE THEM. I'm not trying to get all Forgist here, and, probably would only embarrass myself if I tried. So, for the purpose of my little essay below, apply the following definitions:
For most of the history of D&D, we've had flavour first mechanics. Going all the way back to the beginning, (I'd argue especially back at the beginning) elements were first dreamed up as fitting with the genre or the game and then bolted on using mechanics that hopefully worked at the table. Now, I would like to state that this can work. It most certainly can. Frequently we get some very good stuff out of this approach.
But, when it goes wrong, it goes VERY, very wrong. I'll offer four cases to support my point:
1. The paladin.
From a flavour standpoint, there is probably no more archetypal element you could add to a fantasy game than a holy knight out to right wrongs and lay the beat down on evil. This tunes into some very old memes. Heck, if it worked for Arthurian tales, it can work for D&D right?
But, is there a class that has caused more problems at the table than the paladin? From day 1, the paladin has caused all sorts of issues at the table. Frustration and outright hostility quite often. The flavour says that the holy knight should only work with other good characters. Right off the bat, you're telling the entire table what they can and cannot play the second you put this down. I was just told in no uncertain terms that a player most absolutely cannot tell a DM what races should be in play in the DM's campaign, but, if I play a paladin, I've just told the entire table that they can only play good characters.
Never mind all the restrictions that came with the paladin. The whole "paladin's code" is informed by a very narrow view of what constitutes a holy warrior. Why should a paladin automatically mean Teutonic knight? I cannot have a paladin from any other culture than faux-European?
2. The Ranger.
Again, the flavour here is great. The edge-walking warrior who patrols the borders between civilization and the great unknown. Very archetypal, very inspirational. But, again, when the mechanics hit the table, you get huge problems.
Take the ranger's favoured enemy ability. Back in 1e and 2e, the ability was very limited - basically only giants and giant-kin. Great, did loads of damage against them. But, if you're playing in a game that doesn't feature giants, it's just taking up space on your character sheet. 3e went a little ways to helping, by broadening the ability and allowing players to choose, but, again, the player is pretty much at the mercy of the DM to provide those opponents.
The only way the ability is of use is if the DM tells the player what to take as a favoured opponent. Otherwise, it's just taking up space.
3. Prestige Classes
A 3e issue, because there were no PrC's in earlier editions. Many PrC's relied on role play, or in game elements as balancing. "To become the Yellow Blade Master, you must study with a master for six months". But, what does the rest of the group do for that six months? What if the campaign is on a bit of a time limit? Most of the time, these restrictions meant that either the PrC languished in obscurity, or they were outright ignored.
The other problem was in PrC design that narrowed the focus based on the flavour. Knight of the Chalice (at least the 3e version) is a poster boy here. A PrC that gives you massive bonuses against demons, because that's their purpose - kill demons. But, what if the DM doesn't use a lot of demons, just some? Or he uses demons sometimes, devils another time and other evil outsiders a third? This is so campaign specific that the only way it works is if the DM specifically tailors his game to cater to the PrC. It's essentially the same problem you see with the Ranger's Favoured Enemy.
4. Rogues
Ohh, backstab, sneak attack, how I love thee. I love rolling all that damage. Pulling it off was a thing of beauty. From a flavour point of view, limiting backstab or sneak attack, makes sense. After all, how do you kick a jelly in the vulnerables? Stabbing a golem in the kidney doesn't do a whole lot. Makes perfect sense right?
But, then you hit the table. And the poor rogue player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs because his one main combat ability is nerfed entirely by about a quarter of the creature types out there. In a tomb raider scenario, quintessentially D&D, the rogue is reduced to the role of well armed commoner by pretty much any monster most likely to inhabit a tomb.
And this makes sense?
I could go on, but, I'll stop here. There are many more examples and I'm sure you can think of a few of your own. And, I'm also sure I'm going to be told that the above examples are not really problems with the game, but with the players. To me, these are GAME issues. Anytime the game forces this sort of thing on the players, this is a game issue.
We've had flavour first mechanics for the past thirty years. I think that's more than long enough of a kick at the cat. It's time to let game first rule the table. Find out what works at the table, what results in the most fun (yes, I'm going to use the "f" word here) and then design to that.
We'll see in a few years if things like second wind, or daily abilities, cause anywhere near the gaming anguish that paladins have.
Disclaimer the Second - In the hopes that we're all on the same page here for this discussion, I'm going to define my terms AS I SEE THEM. I'm not trying to get all Forgist here, and, probably would only embarrass myself if I tried. So, for the purpose of my little essay below, apply the following definitions:
Flavour First: The designer comes up with an idea first and then tries to create mechanics to best fit that idea.
Game First: The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that. Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.
Game First: The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that. Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.
For most of the history of D&D, we've had flavour first mechanics. Going all the way back to the beginning, (I'd argue especially back at the beginning) elements were first dreamed up as fitting with the genre or the game and then bolted on using mechanics that hopefully worked at the table. Now, I would like to state that this can work. It most certainly can. Frequently we get some very good stuff out of this approach.
But, when it goes wrong, it goes VERY, very wrong. I'll offer four cases to support my point:
1. The paladin.
From a flavour standpoint, there is probably no more archetypal element you could add to a fantasy game than a holy knight out to right wrongs and lay the beat down on evil. This tunes into some very old memes. Heck, if it worked for Arthurian tales, it can work for D&D right?
But, is there a class that has caused more problems at the table than the paladin? From day 1, the paladin has caused all sorts of issues at the table. Frustration and outright hostility quite often. The flavour says that the holy knight should only work with other good characters. Right off the bat, you're telling the entire table what they can and cannot play the second you put this down. I was just told in no uncertain terms that a player most absolutely cannot tell a DM what races should be in play in the DM's campaign, but, if I play a paladin, I've just told the entire table that they can only play good characters.
Never mind all the restrictions that came with the paladin. The whole "paladin's code" is informed by a very narrow view of what constitutes a holy warrior. Why should a paladin automatically mean Teutonic knight? I cannot have a paladin from any other culture than faux-European?
2. The Ranger.
Again, the flavour here is great. The edge-walking warrior who patrols the borders between civilization and the great unknown. Very archetypal, very inspirational. But, again, when the mechanics hit the table, you get huge problems.
Take the ranger's favoured enemy ability. Back in 1e and 2e, the ability was very limited - basically only giants and giant-kin. Great, did loads of damage against them. But, if you're playing in a game that doesn't feature giants, it's just taking up space on your character sheet. 3e went a little ways to helping, by broadening the ability and allowing players to choose, but, again, the player is pretty much at the mercy of the DM to provide those opponents.
The only way the ability is of use is if the DM tells the player what to take as a favoured opponent. Otherwise, it's just taking up space.
3. Prestige Classes
A 3e issue, because there were no PrC's in earlier editions. Many PrC's relied on role play, or in game elements as balancing. "To become the Yellow Blade Master, you must study with a master for six months". But, what does the rest of the group do for that six months? What if the campaign is on a bit of a time limit? Most of the time, these restrictions meant that either the PrC languished in obscurity, or they were outright ignored.
The other problem was in PrC design that narrowed the focus based on the flavour. Knight of the Chalice (at least the 3e version) is a poster boy here. A PrC that gives you massive bonuses against demons, because that's their purpose - kill demons. But, what if the DM doesn't use a lot of demons, just some? Or he uses demons sometimes, devils another time and other evil outsiders a third? This is so campaign specific that the only way it works is if the DM specifically tailors his game to cater to the PrC. It's essentially the same problem you see with the Ranger's Favoured Enemy.
4. Rogues
Ohh, backstab, sneak attack, how I love thee. I love rolling all that damage. Pulling it off was a thing of beauty. From a flavour point of view, limiting backstab or sneak attack, makes sense. After all, how do you kick a jelly in the vulnerables? Stabbing a golem in the kidney doesn't do a whole lot. Makes perfect sense right?
But, then you hit the table. And the poor rogue player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs because his one main combat ability is nerfed entirely by about a quarter of the creature types out there. In a tomb raider scenario, quintessentially D&D, the rogue is reduced to the role of well armed commoner by pretty much any monster most likely to inhabit a tomb.
And this makes sense?
I could go on, but, I'll stop here. There are many more examples and I'm sure you can think of a few of your own. And, I'm also sure I'm going to be told that the above examples are not really problems with the game, but with the players. To me, these are GAME issues. Anytime the game forces this sort of thing on the players, this is a game issue.
We've had flavour first mechanics for the past thirty years. I think that's more than long enough of a kick at the cat. It's time to let game first rule the table. Find out what works at the table, what results in the most fun (yes, I'm going to use the "f" word here) and then design to that.
We'll see in a few years if things like second wind, or daily abilities, cause anywhere near the gaming anguish that paladins have.
