D&D Problems

[Iosue]

It's not the only game where this is true. Indeed the most vicious flame war I was ever involved in, which I saw come to blows in a game store, wasn't anything to do with D&D at all. A combination of big mechanical changes to the rules, and a large change to the default setting with it's decade+ of development. People are still angry about it today.

Traveller? It's one of the few games that I think has similar issues as D&D.

 

[Bluenose]

Traveller? It's one of the few games that I think has similar issues as D&D.

Correct. Specifically, Traveller: The New Era. The rules changes to bring the system in line with the other GDW RPGs didn't in practice have a huge effect on how the game played, but they were significant enough that people had to learn a new system which had enough in common with the last to be confusing. The approach to the 4e Realms reminds me a lot of what GDW did to the Third Imperium setting with TNE. Though the TNE changes were much more far-reaching.

 

[fjw70]

I think the modern game design issue is that all characters should have the same or similar mechanics. So fighter powers are needed under this argument because spell casters have powers (I.e. Spells). If you rebuilt D&D and made the magic system more freeform then I think a lot more people would be accepting of freeform weapon combat.

Also complaints are more common about D&D because it is the default RPG. If the Fate rules bother you then you just don't play Fate. Same with all non-D&D game. If the D&D rules bother you then you constantly voice your opinion about it.

 

[Bluenose]

I think the modern game design issue is that all characters should have the same or similar mechanics. So fighter powers are needed under this argument because spell casters have powers (I.e. Spells). If you rebuilt D&D and made the magic system more freeform then I think a lot more people would be accepting of freeform weapon combat.

If "All characters have the same mechanics" is modern game design, then it's been around nearly as long as D&D.

Also complaints are more common about D&D because it is the default RPG. If the Fate rules bother you then you just don't play Fate. Same with all non-D&D game. If the D&D rules bother you then you constantly voice your opinion about it.

You don't have to. If you don't like the current set of D&D rules you're just as free to ignore them as I am to ignore games I don't like.

 

[fjw70]

Of course you can ignore the D&D editions you don't like, but the fact is most people don't. As far as the modern game theory I am just commenting on the way I have seen people use it. Whether it is modern or not is a separate issue.

My post is about what is and not necessarily the ways should be.

 

[pemerton]

I began to wonder if these controversial topics were D&Disms.

I think D&D has some distinctive features that create these discussions - many other games have been designed in reaction to these aspects of D&D, for instance.

But other games have balance issues too (eg in Rolemaster played by the book, at high level casters will tend to dominate over non-casters).

Most systems I own do not include martial powers, the burning need to have fighter-type characters do more than swing and deal damage. Systems occasionally add universal rules for some combat actions like charging, aiming, rapid fire, or recklessly attacking; however, just as often it’s just roll attack and deal damage.

<snip>

Other than d20 games, I haven’t seen many systems that even try to balance encounters.

However, when I think of modern RPG games I think of Fiasco, FATE, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. These games are much more freeform and narrative, with fewer overt powers for everyone.

Marvel Heroic RP has the same power/ability structure for everyone, and (for instance) handles AoEs and iterative attacks in the mechanically same way.

It also uses various devices to achieve balance, including the fact that small dice produce more 1s and hence more plot points - and the GM will tend to use the doom dice from those 1s to try and be effective against the heavier-hitting PCs.

(I also think [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s comments upthread about these "modern" games are pretty sensible.)

 

[the Jester]

If "All characters have the same mechanics" is modern game design, then it's been around nearly as long as D&D.

To a certain extent- I mean, all 1e pcs have hit dice, levels, etc.

But come on, now- it's disingenuous to imply that 1e pcs had anywhere near the level of similarity that 4e pcs do. In 4e, pcs all have powers (even if, in the case of some Essentials builds, those powers don't strictly follow the AEDU scheme). Most have the same number of powers of the same type when they're the same level; a 5th level fighter, a 5th level cleric and a 5th level wizard are both getting 2 at wills, 2 encounter and 2 daily attack powers, as well as a utility power. Of course, each gets some class features and stuff that's specific.

In 1e, a fighter, cleric and wizard of the same xp total might not even be the same level. The fighter won't get any spells or powers at all; the cleric and wizard will have spells, but gain them at different rates, and their thief buddy will have some skills instead.

The level of similarity between pcs, IMHO, qulitatively different.

Now, is this necessarily a bad thing? No, it's a matter of taste. But I think it absolutely is a thing.

 

[Bluenose]

To a certain extent- I mean, all 1e pcs have hit dice, levels, etc.

..snip..

The level of similarity between pcs, IMHO, qualitatively different.

Now, is this necessarily a bad thing? No, it's a matter of taste. But I think it absolutely is a thing.

Game design does not begin and end with D&D. "Modern" game design, the way fjw70 used it when he said it involved "All characters should have the same or similar mechanics", dates from the 1970s with Traveller, to pick one example that's a game I like. This is a use of modern, in the RPG sense, that dates back nearly as long as there have been published RPGs.

 

[Mistwell]

I think balance was not really an issue until the internet became popular and the designers listened to the whiners on the WoTC boards during 3rd eds run.

I disagree. It's always been a real issue. For example, Gary Gygax, Strategic Review 2.2 1976:

Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others. This was the conception, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily at fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items for employment by magic-users tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes (although the GREYHAWK supplement took steps to correct this somewhat).

...

The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals

 

[Mistwell]

even in the 90's with 2e (still worse then what had come before) there were ALOT of restrictions on Mages. They were powerful but it came at a price. Even most non specialist only had a few spells known and some of those spells had drawbacks (go on haste the fighter 4 times in one day and watch him age). And saves were easier to make, it was un heard of for a monster over level 1 to not save on an 18...

3e took away limited number of spells known based on Int, took the drawbacks off dozens of spells, gave more spells per day, and on top of all that made saves scale harder. I have seen LOTS of cases where someone with pimped up saves targeting a monsters lowest save set un hitable or almost unhittable (if a 20 is needed) save.

Prestige classes that gave awesome class features AND +1 caster level made it even worse...

Everyone got a HP boost, but it is most notable with wizards...

2e best case you have at 20th level 9d4+4+18+10 so 41-68 (Average 54)
3e with a 16 con at level 11 has 10d4+4+33 47-77 (Average 61)

I agree. And since all wizards maxed concentration as a skill, interrupting spells went away as well for the most part. Countering spells was so laughable that almost nobody used it. And there were other limits also removed in 3e.