Bad feats and PrC - a Magic: tG analogy

[Impeesa]

I could swear I saw a D&D writer talking about this very same concept - I think it must have been the Monte Cook article you refer to. It certainly holds true, though. I think there are a lot of parallels between Magic and D&D design (I've done this very same thing before), and for some reason D&D (despite all its modernization) still treats these things like a some kind of arcane art. While Magic R&D spends a lot of time thinking about these things with the express purpose of making a better game, if D&D R&D admitted doing the same (at least, this openly and completely), there would be nothing but outrage from a lot of players. It's like, to some people, it's not okay for the designers to admit that they're making a game that must be fun to a diverse group of players. :/ For some reason, I suddenly can't think of examples or even articulate this more clearly, but I'm sure most of you know the attitude I'm talking about.

By those definitions, if we apply them to D&D, then I want a table of nothing but Timmies.

You sure? I've played with a table of nothing but Timmies. Had a hell of a time keeping a game going when most of them would be just as happy if we were all sitting around *not* playing. Me, I'd love a table full of nothing but Spikes. A good Spike is savage in his pursuit of the best possible game. In D&D, where there is no 'winning', and the object is to immerse and enjoy yourself and others, you'd have people competing to produce the most interesting backgrounds, effective PCs, and best IC dialogue, group tactics, even attendance. Man, I wish I had a group like that.

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

Also talking back is someone with a poison deck. That wins. In chaos multiplayer.

--Impeesa--

 

[HellHound]

In that article, none of the reasons he gives ever get around to addressing the example he gave earlier of the lightning bolt and that Volcanic Hammer card. He kind of hints at it with his "current meta-environment" spiel, but in more straightforward language, it's only a decent card because they removed a card that is strictly better than it.

Hmmm... as someone with both in the same deck, I'll disagree. Inferior but different isn't purely inferior. A nerfed lightning bolt would have the stats of the volcanic hammer but would still be called lightning bolt.

 

[diaglo]

to add to your research, pick up the 30th anniversary coffee table book.

in it Peter A. talks all about his plans to add MtG style to D&D by way of d02.

 

[gizmo33]

"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!

Not only campaign settings, but how the DM adjucates certain rules has a big effect on some of the classes and abilities. How often is some piece of knowledge defined as "Bardic Knowledge", how often is it a pivotal part of the adventure, and what is it's DC. The aggregate effect of all of these decisions can go a long way to creating the player's perception of how useful a certain ability is (in this case, bardic lore).

Or how often a DM judges a certain type of terrain as "light forest" vs. "heavy forest" can have an effect on encounter distances, which can have an effect on the use of missle weapons, which can have an effect on the usefulness of an archer character class.

So, as an extension of what you're saying, DMing style/campaign are big considerations in this, and so I think that a person saying "such and such is broken" with no context provided is really uninformative in most situations.