[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

[Bluenose]

How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.

Lanefan

I have more disposable income now than I did when I was a teenager or at college. So I can spend more on gaming material now than I did then.

Sadly for WotC, a lot of it goes on things that aren't D&D. Mind you, that was true even when I didn't have as much to spend.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Citation, please.

Leomund's Tiny Hut. Not the spell, the column. Alternate initiative system is just one example.

After over 30 years of playing in dozens of groups, I've never seen anyone not use the initiative system, or at least casting times.

In the 80s, alone, I saw many. Maybe you played with very orthodox groups who followed the rules precisely. I've personally never met anyone who played 0D&D or 1e 'straight.' I'm not certain it /can/ be played 'RAW' (it was very clunky if you tried to use all the fiddly bits, and there were definitely some serious 'Murphy's rules' in there) for long before you run into an issue where you just need to add or change rules to keep things functional. This millennium, sure, RAW rules, but in the 20th century, the rules were not held as remotely sacred.

I think it might have been regional differences. I'm on the west coast, and in the groups and conventions around the greater SF bay area, that's how things were. Before the internet brought us all together to flame eachother, you could have distinct variations like that...

It's hardly a wonder people think magic is overpowered if spell interruption is not used.

With or without the ineffectual balancing mechanisms that have been attempted, magic can easily prove overpowered in classic D&D. Not just magic-users, but magic items, actually. I agree, though, that the problem was less pronounced in AD&D than in 3e. In 3e the imbalances were more systematic, and players could leverage them consistently. In AD&D they were more random or more firmly in the DMs court.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before. Lanefan

That fits conventional marketing wisdom. In your peak-earning/midlife-crisis years - typically your 40s - you're able, and willing, to blow a lot of disposable income on the hobbies and interests you had in your youth, even if you don't always have time to actually pursue those interests like you used to. One reason trends go in cycles.

20-30 years ago, D&D was a fad, and the 14 year old boys who made it a fad are now in that sucker-for-nostalgia demographic.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm right there with 'em: I started playing D&D at 13, and am now in my 40s.)

 

[Hussar]

How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.

Lanefan

Well, actually, they DID ask you. That's how they knew that the 35+ gamer didn't spend a lot on gaming.

Sure, there are exceptions, but, that's just it, they're exceptions. I mean, my gaming expenditures are far less now than they were fifteen years ago. So far this year, I've spent exactly one dollar on gaming material. Last year it was a year sub to the DDI as a birthday present.

So, every one of you is balanced by one of me. And, according to WOTC's market research, at the time (and, let's not forget that research is now fifteen (ish) years old, there were a lot more 40 somethings like me than you.

Whether or not that is still true who knows. Well, I imagine WOTC and possibly Paizo have spent considerable money finding out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If percentages only worked so plainly at the game table.

It is not enough to sell a product to a group of people.

The people that buy the product have to turn around and sell it to their friends.

This is one of the reasons that I still play 3.5/PF. I played and enjoyed 4e along with one of my friends but the others that I normally game with did not adjust to the change.

Now, of the people that I game with they range in how obstinate they are to change and new things.

For example when I GM, I generally will not allow Psionics in my fantasy. I've played as a player doing Psionics in games like Dark Sun but I generally don't want it when I GM.

My choice kills that option for the rest at my table.

Another two people in the group refuse to play anything that smacks of Sci-fi (including Star Wars and other such types) but will play Spelljammer.

That choice is declared and you either accept it or you may lose that person as a player for the group and often at my age (30 to 40) players come in pairs.

If you have a 10 or 20% rejection of the project then the final impact can be much higher in the overall adoption of the project.

This is why, I've seen WotC working hard on giving 'options' rather than dictating a specific form and style of play and choice.

That works for me and I think that at-will, especially with the aim at more colourful spells with multiple uses, as being the better option.

For example, I think there was a cantrip called 'Fling' which essentially tossed a small item. You can use it for things like tossing a grapple hook between spots, passing a message tied to a rock, tossing an item that is required to another player (like a potion), or it could be for tossing an item like a dagger or rock at an opponent. Change the rock or dagger for a flask of oil with another cantrip like Mage Hand for holding a torch and you've got nice crutch fire dispersion device.

Except of course none of this is relevant if you look out there at the actual games that are successful and WHY they are successful. They succeed because they create a certain specific game. They succeed because there are SOME PEOPLE who like that game and that type of game allows them to tap into their creativity and have fun. Is Paizo running around worrying about what 5% of the people who really dislike PF are thinking? Of course not. They're busy being creative with the toolset they have. Maybe it won't capture ALL players, of course it won't. Making a tepid generic mess and spending all your time basketweaving 900 different variations of spell casting instead of making good adventures and settings and putting out cool strongly-themed stuff is not a recipe for success.

So, yeah, sometimes you really actually do want to just say "you 5%, we like you, but we're just not catering to you with this product." Either the people in that 5% can come into the tent and budge a little or they can play what they do like. Sure, MAYBE it means some other people will play other stuff too, but it works both ways. A lot of the time, when there are enough people that DO like the game you're making they'll pull the others along too. I think it is safest to say that in the long run 5% is 5% and that's about the size of it.

 

[Lwaxy]

It is more than 5% not having a "wizard problem" and thus likely not wanting to see the MUs nerfed, though.

 

[DMKastmaria]

How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.

Lanefan

Yeah, I don't buy that spot of research either. Everyone I know spends more money on their hobbies in their 40's, than they did in their younger years.

They may be spending it on other hobbies and its possible that many respondents, assuming there really were respondents, were also lapsed gamers.

I spend far, far more money on gaming today, than I ever did in my teens, twenties, or even thirties.

 

[billd91]

Just a point on the age thing.

There's a very, very good reason 3e was made for younger gamers. The marketing research capped at 35 years old because it was found that over 35, people's gaming expenditures drop dramatically. The biggest blocks of gamer demographics are high school (where you have lots of free time), college (again, lots of free time) and prison (ditto). The army is also a large demographic for gamers as well.

OK, you're going to need to cite something for this. How did they determine that gaming expenditures drop dramatically if they weren't part of the market survey that helped determine gaming expenditures?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You make a number of general points I largely agree with. I think you are overstating the likely naivete of the 3e designers.

I would say their effort here was quite successful in extending play into the higher levels, however they were under pressure to preserve the feel of these classic spells close to their the original text. To have even partially accomplished that feat was perhaps even evidence of the outright superiority of 3e to its predecessors.

In hindsight, I would vehemently argue that half those spells should have been rewritten completely from scratch, for the reasons you stated. But at the time, such a choice would have been rated a strike against, evidence 3e was "not really D&D".

IMHO the majority of the 3.0 design problems stem from adhering too closely to the original material. 3.5 put a band-aid on a number of them, but I think it is Arcana Unearthed that shows us the real potential of a 3e-style system. It was easier for Monte because there were no expectations other than fun.

Yeah, I have to agree. I think the same thing was true of 2e, its worst features are where it failed to dare to fix 1e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is more than 5% not having a "wizard problem" and thus likely not wanting to see the MUs nerfed, though.

Well, if you are referring to some sort of hypothetical 'wizard nerfing' that you believe happened in 4e then I'd suggest playing it, because this is IMHO largely a myth. But I'm not 100% sure what you mean

Again, IME people are perfectly happy to play 4e in the real world away from fandom land where people will argue arcane trivia like exactly how many times a day should a wizard be able to cast a certain spell. They will be perfectly happy to play 5e. too. What they aren't all that happy to play is a game that gives off a vibe of corporate brand management vs unrestrained creativity. WotC needs to focus on the creativity part. All this screwing around with rules and hand wringing is a monstrous waste of time from their perspective. Sadly it would take more self-reflection than most organizations can muster to understand that.

So really, debates like this thead? They just don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. The whole 'mission' of 5e actually doesn't mean much in the grand scheme. It can be a good thing, but probably not for the reasons WotC thinks. It can also be still-born for reasons utterly outside of what its rules are.