Bad feats and PrC - a Magic: tG analogy

[MerricB]

One of the advantages I have a player of both D&D and Magic: the Gathering is that I get to see bits and pieces of the design process of both, and thereby to see the parallels and differences between the games.

Here's something I find interesting: both games have "building blocks" that players use to create their decks or characters. In Magic, they are the actual cards. In D&D, they are the races, classes, prestige classes, feats and spells. (And probably more elements I'm forgetting).

One of the questions that often comes up in the Magic world is this: Why do Wizards make bad cards? Here is Mark Rosewater's explanation. Read it. It is worth knowing about, and is relevant to the rest of my discussion.

The discussion of the Order of the Bow Initiate PrC (and other bad PrCs) reminded me of the similarities and differences between the games. There's one key difference between them, I think: in Magic, you wonder at a bad card, then put it away. In D&D, you wonder at a bad class or prestige class, and then keep worrying about it.

I don't think this is as true of bad spells and feats. I'm far more likely to discard those and look at the ones I like.

This seems to be a function of several things: the role of what a class or prestige class does, the length of its description, and the actual fact that there really aren't that many classes or prestige classes. Thus, upon seeing the Order of the Bow Initiate - the potential "great archer" - you are more disappointed because there aren't any other prestige classes that are suitable.

Why, then, are prestige classes (and base classes) so hard to get right? Well, complexity for one thing. A feat or spell is simple in comparison. A prestige class is like getting about 10 feats together, plus some change.

Then, there are the reasons given by Mark Rosewater in his article.

I don't think they're all relevant to D&D. This isn't exactly a competitive game, so the first reason, "All The Cards Cannot Be Good", doesn't really apply.

"Different Cards Appeal to Different Players" definitely applies. I know how many people on these boards detest half-orcs, but they're the favourite race of one of my players. No, I don't understand him, either. The quote from Mark that is relevant, "The problem is players tend to define “bad cards” as cards that they personally see no reason to play. But certain cards aren’t meant for them in the first place."

"Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery" is interesting. We don't often think in that way in D&D. We tend to think of "that's a fireball, it's useful". However, especially with 3e, the possibilities granted by combining abilities is now very relevant. Multi-classing is the most obvious manifestation, but there are other combination tricks that players also use. Something that appears weak at present might being great when combined with other pieces of the game. Of course, it could also just be weak...

"Power Levels Are Relative" is also not immediately apparent. We don't have a system where card sets just rotate out of environment. We always play with everything, don't we? Well, that's not true. Campaign settings can differ markedly. This leads to some features of the system being more signficant than they might appear. Consider a semi-historical campaign with no non-humans - suddenly, the Sneak Attack of the rogue is far more useful, while the Turn Undead ability fades into insignificance!

I've also seen Monte Cook discuss the Toughness feat - surely one of the most useless feats in the game? However, it isn't. In a one-shot game for 1st level characters, or a feat for low-level monsters, it has more relevance than in a 20-level game. The gaming environment differs more than you might expect.

"Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player" can be witnessed by anyone on the Character Optimisation boards. Although D&D is mostly non-competitive, it would be a gross misstatement to say that all players don't care about how good their PC's abilities are!

"People Like Finding “Hidden Gems”" is related to the "Diversity of Powers" reason above.

"R&D is Only Human" is so true - especially in a game as complex as D&D, finding all the possibilities and problems in a game feature is incredibly difficult.

Magic: the Gathering puts out about 700-800 cards every year. I don't know the number of new prestige classes that D&D puts out each year, but it is far fewer than that. Magic also has the option of revisiting old concepts and twiddling with them the next year. Does D&D do this? Rather than having the Order of the Bow Initiate being the only (non-elf) archer class, make it one of several. Interestingly, the latest preview from Five Nations - the Knight Phantom - gives a class that is remarkably similar to the Eldritch Knight. Players therefore have a choice.

Of course, this leads to the possibility that one of those variants will be considered "bad"...

Cheers!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Thanks, Merric. That was pretty interesting reading.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Interesting analysis. I especially agree with Different Cards Appeal to Different Players being the case with many PrCs. Power Levels Are Relative and R&D is Only Human go hand in hand, to a degree. Perhaps several overpowered and underpowered PrCs can be explained through the relatively different experiences of various authors. In one person's game something can be amazingly overpowered, while in another it is considerably weak. I shant bring up any examples as not to derail the thread.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Interesting article. Makes me glad I never got into MtG.

To borrow a metaphor, I see building a campaign similar to building a deck. I'm looking to put together a convincing whole where the parts mesh and complement each other. Not every PrC is going to fit; indeed, most times the available PrCs will be extremely limited. OotBI would be a weak PrC in a dungeon crawl where combats started at close range, visibility was limited etc. That same PrC could be quite powerful in a predominantly wilderness campaign, where you could see your enemy coming a mile away and pincushion him before he ever got close.

CCGs are directly competitive in an environment where each player has near total control over his arsenal, and knows beforehand what the rules of engagement are going to be. RPGs are nearly the polar opposite.

Having played a character that took 'Run' and 'Endurance' as feats, I think that most anything can be useful in D&D. Obviously if you are a min-maxer, you're going to have a pretty firm idea of what you think are good and bad choices, but I think most people that play for the character concept will be a lot less judgemental.

PrCs, especially, have been created with an eye towards filling a niche, not towards acheiving some sort of spectrum ranging from uber to sucky. The original Halfling Outrider notwithstanding....

 

[HellHound]

Thanks, Merric. Don't know what else tosay except that is very well written and I have to agree in just about all or all points.

 

[snarfoogle]

in Magic, you wonder at a bad card, then put it away. In D&D, you wonder at a bad class or prestige class, and then keep worrying about it.

I'm still trying to figure out how to use One With Nothing from Saviors of Kamigawa. I guess that's the Johnny in me.

 

[MerricB]

I'm still trying to figure out how to use One With Nothing from Saviors of Kamigawa. I guess that's the Johnny in me.

You're talking to someone who created a Sorrow's Path deck...

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

there is one major differnce though, the purpose of Magic is to win...not so in RPGs. So, the existance of weaker mechancs is much easier to deal with and can actually offer some great playing time in a campaign.

 

[ThirdWizard]

there is one major differnce though, the purpose of Magic is to win...not so in RPGs. So, the existance of weaker mechancs is much easier to deal with and can actually offer some great playing time in a campaign.

The purpose of M:tG isn't always to win. Yeah, I know, its hard to remember that since my friend is a tournament player, but its true. Really!

I remember back in the day when all I did was casual play and people would make dragon decks, and improbable combo decks, and just crazy off the wall stuff that would never actually win against any kind of serious deck. I, myself, made a deck that was totally random. Just about every card was "flip a coin" or some other such random thing. Good fun, it almost never won, but good fun.

Then there's Unglued... Denim walk. HA! Never works on me. HAHAHAHAHA *cough cough*

 

[MerricB]

there is one major differnce though, the purpose of Magic is to win...not so in RPGs. So, the existance of weaker mechancs is much easier to deal with and can actually offer some great playing time in a campaign.

Indeed. However, there is a correlation between winning in Magic and having an effective D&D character.

Many people do want to have the best character they can; if this were not true, then there would be no complaints about the Order of the Bow Initiate and other instances of game mechanics.

I rather think that saying "mechanics don't matter" or "balance doesn't matter" is a great misjudgement.

Another Mark Rosewater article that has relevance to this discussion is this one: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

In the world of Magic design, they have recognised three broad categories of player-type.

The "Spike" type is most interested in winning. I'm sure you've seen the type in D&D as well: these are the people that you'll find on the Character Optimisation board... and then using that material in actual games.

The "Timmy" type likes summoning big creatures. In D&D, I'd guess Timmy plays wizards with big fireballs, or half-orc fighters with massive greataxes or broadsword.

The "Johnny" type is "the creative gamer to whom Magic is a form of self-expression". That translates to D&D as the bards of the game. Well, not entirely, but you get the idea.

Of course, these broad categories also permit hybrids, and there are D&D player-types that don't really fall into the categories of Magic.

As ThirdWizard notes, winning isn't always the only reason for playing Magic. Although, sometimes it is more always winning isn't the reason... winning with style is more important. Thus the Johnny player who builds decks with "One with Nothing" or "Sorrow's Path", just to see if it can be done...

Cheers!