"Accident of Math"???

[SWBaxter]

As such, the entire fact that there even is a sweet spot where the game mathematically makes sense is an "accident of math".

It seems to me it'd be more accurate to call it an "accident of design". It ain't the math's fault that a lot of people feel the design only works well over a subset of the level range, after all.

That said, claiming that 3E is broken strikes me as pure marketing bulls- er, I mean hyperbole. Just as the run up to 3E saw 2E demonized, the same treatment is now being applied to 3E on behalf of 4E's hype machine. It was clearly possible to run a satisfactory 3E game outside of the alleged "sweet spot", because many of us did so (and some are still doing so), just as many of us ran satisfactory campaigns in 2E. I'm hoping 4E will be another improvement in the D&D ruleset, but I'm getting kind of sick of hearing that my current game is unplayable, that any enjoyment derived from it is an accident, and so on - passing off such obvious, er, hyperbole as fact is starting to make me think the developers aren't convinced 4E can succeed on its own merits.

 

[(contact)]

To address the OP's question, the "Accident of Math" is the part of the game where the 3e rules produce the most satisfying chances for task resolution. It wasn't intended that certain levels would play the best, so it was "an accident."

But when you look at *why* the game plays that well at those levels, a big part of the reason is task resolution and degrees of success -- the math.

Hence, the accident of math.

 

[Nifft]

I'm getting kind of sick of hearing that my current game is unplayable, that any enjoyment derived from it is an accident, and so on

Fine.

Those of us who liked 3.0e, liked 3.5e better, and are hopeful for 4e are kind of sick of having people claim we said things which we did not say.

It's possible to enjoy a flawed product. It's even possible to enjoy it while recognizing its flaws. D&D was made by human hands. It's not perfect. Fixing the mistakes won't make it perfect, either: but we might make it better.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Christian]

I need to understand the probability distribution for the number of times I rolled a d20 before I hit something and how that distribution changes as the level of my character changes?

Yes, if you want to understand what James means by 'an accident of math'.

I personally recommend that you don't try, but instead just try out 4th Edition and see if it's fun. And if it is, don't worry too much about how it got that way. Because that way lies madness ...

Math... Too Powerful... Must resist urge to kill Christian...

... and, evidently, death threats.



I think that some analysis of this sort was done for 3E--possibly more than had been done for previous versions of D&D/AD&D in toto. But it's apparently being taken to a much higher level for 4E. Which I find somewhat reassuring; having seen the power of math in other aspects of life, the prospect of scientific game design is bright.

-Christian (B.S. Physics, Mich State U class of 1990. So this *(@#)$(*^ don't scare me. )

 

[Scribble]

It seems to me it'd be more accurate to call it an "accident of design". It ain't the math's fault that a lot of people feel the design only works well over a subset of the level range, after all.

That said, claiming that 3E is broken strikes me as pure marketing bulls- er, I mean hyperbole. Just as the run up to 3E saw 2E demonized, the same treatment is now being applied to 3E on behalf of 4E's hype machine. It was clearly possible to run a satisfactory 3E game outside of the alleged "sweet spot", because many of us did so (and some are still doing so), just as many of us ran satisfactory campaigns in 2E. I'm hoping 4E will be another improvement in the D&D ruleset, but I'm getting kind of sick of hearing that my current game is unplayable, that any enjoyment derived from it is an accident, and so on - passing off such obvious, er, hyperbole as fact is starting to make me think the developers aren't convinced 4E can succeed on its own merits.

I'm not sure they're saying it's "broken;" rather, they're saying it can be improved upon.

They're stating they've noticed that one part of the game seems to be the "sweet spot" and are focusing the new system on extending that sweet spot... It's not really saying that the other parts are bad, just that if there's a sweet spot, why not make it bigger...

 

[TwinBahamut]

It seems to me it'd be more accurate to call it an "accident of design". It ain't the math's fault that a lot of people feel the design only works well over a subset of the level range, after all.

That said, claiming that 3E is broken strikes me as pure marketing bulls- er, I mean hyperbole. Just as the run up to 3E saw 2E demonized, the same treatment is now being applied to 3E on behalf of 4E's hype machine. It was clearly possible to run a satisfactory 3E game outside of the alleged "sweet spot", because many of us did so (and some are still doing so), just as many of us ran satisfactory campaigns in 2E. I'm hoping 4E will be another improvement in the D&D ruleset, but I'm getting kind of sick of hearing that my current game is unplayable, that any enjoyment derived from it is an accident, and so on - passing off such obvious, er, hyperbole as fact is starting to make me think the developers aren't convinced 4E can succeed on its own merits.

What is wrong with criticizing something that isn't perfect? Just because the creators are saying that something doesn't work quite right in 3E, it doesn't mean that they hate 3E or are running some kind of soulless hype machine.

All forms of creativity, whether it is art, film, writing, game-making, or even math and science, are fueled by people who are disastified with the status-quo going on and striving to make improvements. Most often, this is done because they are dissasitisfied with their own creations, and can imagine improvement.

Saying something could be better is the first step to improvement. The bad scenerio is not an artist insulting a creation, it is when the artist is not permitted to insult a creation. The problem isn't that the designers are bashing 3E now, it is that they were not allowed to bash 3E until now. Ideally, they will be bashing 4E come next June, and helping the fan community make improvements to solve the inevitable design flaws of 4E.

Besides, I don't understand why people like you are suddenly acting so hurt by these claims. The 4E designers havn't said anything that fans of the game have not been saying for years now. The problems with 3E are not new inventions; people have been complainging about them since well before 3.5. All the designers are doing now is acknowledging that the fans had a point, and are trying to offer explanations.

No one is trying to insult the fun you had, and if you think they are, you are taking this too personally.

 

[mhensley]

The accident of Math-

http://www.timelessmyths.com/celtic/welsh.html#Math

Math tested Aranrhod by making her stepping over his magic wand. Though a virgin, two infant sons dropped out of her. One was named Dylan and the other was called Lleu.

Now that's a magic wand!

 

[MerricB]

I think that some analysis of this sort was done for 3E--possibly more than had been done for previous versions of D&D/AD&D in toto. But it's apparently being taken to a much higher level for 4E. Which I find somewhat reassuring; having seen the power of math in other aspects of life, the prospect of scientific game design is bright.

It should be noted that most previous analysis of this came from playtesting. The reason 3e begins looking somewhat erratic at high levels is because playtesting was minimal at those levels. High level 3e can work fine, but it really begins to look wonky once a few supplements get added as they distort behaviour at high levels even more.

Cheers!

 

[Gentlegamer]

At 1st level, the d20 rolls are fairly balanced - so few modifiers, it's easy to get the AC in the right spot. No, what goes wrong there is the hit points. One hit - or one crit - and you're down. This stays with the group for a few levels. A 4th level rogue with a 10 Con has - on average - 16.5 hp, which means that an Ogre can quite easily take him or her down.

I agree with your general analysis, but I think this example is a poor one . . . shouldn't an Ogre be able to take down a 4th level rogue in straight combat quite easily?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I think that 3.5e is unplayable.