J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[Mallus]

As far as class balance is concerned, I enjoy the concept of different classes providing vastly different play experiences. If these differences result in varying power levels between classes thats a part of being different. I'm not playing D&D as a competitive game so precise power balance means very little.

My dislike for 'old-school' D&D class balance stems from being a DM rather than a player (as a player I could always select a class with a more robust set of mechanical options).

The inherent class imbalance made DM'ing harder for me. Some classes --let's say thief-- simply had fewer good mechanical options. Or their abilities were far too situational.

Sure, players were always free to contribute things outside the purview of the game mechanics --ideas, plans, the solutions to riddles/puzzles, great characterization-- but that didn't alter the fact the system conferred good and decisive mechanical abilities haphazardly to the classes, if at all (again, the thief).

I felt like it was a chore to consistently need to address class imbalance via adventure/encounter design ("Must make sure X isn't useless!"), or by adding house rules/special rulings. 4e is an improvement in that regard. Mechanics-wise, everyone is dealt a more-or-less a fair hand. Which means any character will have usable abilities, wherever the action of story takes them.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Thief has a 15% chance to automatically disarm a trap. Disarming a trap is always available by descriptive action . . . by the player of any class.

So the rules that the thief uses to disarm traps (and that he sucks at it) are not bad design because everybody can disarm traps without using the rules the thief uses for disarming traps? I´ve heard this defense for the way thief skills worked before, and i just don´t get it.

 

[seskis281]

The big point of contention rests on perception - especially perception of such words as "broken," "wonky," "balance" etc.

To some people, unless the core mechanics seek to "balance" all characters equally, the system is flawed. Others see the balancing as a flawed concept. Neither or inherently "wrong" or "right" - they are just different approaches and philosophies of RPG gaming, sometimes drawn along generational lines, sometimes on system preference lines, sometimes just very arbitrarily.

One person's "warts" are another person's "beauty marks." Same thing with such things as AC (I like the development of Ascending myself, but I understand the theory behind the other, and that it isn't always just because of "nostalgia," though for some it is).

My personal likes are in imbalance, meaning the need for balance comes from the party as a whole. I understand completely and have many friends who feel the opposite ways. For that school of thought, the mechanical changes that led 1st through 3rd edition and ultimately to 4th are a "fix" and a wonderful thing. For those who don't like it, it's a further shift away from a paradigm/theory that we like and prefer.

Again, this is all a matter of personal perception. Luckily, the gaming world is big enough and there are burgeoning avenues (both traditional and non-traditional, as Erik Mona pointed out on another thread) for all of us.

 

[Mercurius]

A lot of the changes made for 3e and 4e are improvements.

Of course, by fixing the old bugs you create all new bugs, but that's the way living in an imperfect world goes.

This is a refreshingly balanced viewpoint: that recognizes both the "evolution" of different editions without being vitriolic or politically correct, but also the idea that new editions create new problems.

I wouldn't characterize this attitude as "nostalgia".

Sounds like old school fundamentalism to me.

I think that basically sums up my problems with old school forms of D&D, and with new old school clones. There are a lot of good things about an old school style of game, but not quite so many good things about the mechanics. And unfortunately that style of gameplay has been ceded to, or taken over by, people who are far, far too attached to old school D&D mechanics. It would be genuinely surprising if the first major published RPG just happened to get everything essentially right, with no room for mechanical improvement.

Exactly.

 

[Imaro]

So the rules that the thief uses to disarm traps (and that he sucks at it) are not bad design because everybody can disarm traps without using the rules the thief uses for disarming traps? I´ve heard this defense for the way thief skills worked before, and i just don´t get it.

I think what he is saying is that the thief first has a 15% chance to disarm a trap without a hitch and no effort besides rolling the dice. Beyond that, both the thief and other classes have the same chance to try and disarm a trap through describing their actions.

So in other words it would be like you having a 15% chance to auto-kill a monster in the first round of combat... but even if you don't you have the same chance to battle the monster on the same terms as everyone else... in other words it's not an 85% chance to fail... it's a 15% chance to auto-succeed and then a regular chance to try and succeed.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm not going to necessarily take a stand on the subjective merits of aspects of game design; I will suggest that, if one looks at the original form of the game and the way it plays, the later inclusion of the Thief character class is problematic and created a "rules tension" (that may have began a "mechanics/character abilities arms race") that was probably unnecessary.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The 5% exp bonus is a nod toward simulation. We all know the athlete who's better than the other guys and doesn't even half-assed try or the scholar who makes straight A's in school, yet never seems to crack open a book. They advance quicker than others who have to get by on hard work alone. I hate those bastards, lol.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Of course, by fixing the old bugs you create all new bugs, but that's the way living in an imperfect world goes.

At least now you have a choice of bugs. That's progress.

 

[stuart]

The 5% exp bonus is a nod toward simulation. We all know the athlete who's better than the other guys and doesn't even half-assed try or the scholar who makes straight A's in school, yet never seems to crack open a book. They advance quicker than others who have to get by on hard work alone. I hate those bastards, lol.

I've always thought this was a very poor game rule. The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute. If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.

 

[kitsune9]

An interesting post from Jonathan Tweet (designer for D&D 3e) on his recent experiences playing Swords & Wizardry -- which is a clone of Original D&D with tidied up rules.

Miniatures are fun, but I found the idea that *not* using them was "a bald refusal to be realistic and or attempt simulation" was a very strange idea. Sometimes I think people are using these words (eg. realistic, simulation) to mean vastly different things from each other.

Interesting read.