Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Neonchameleon]

It might have not been playtested well enough, but I think it's clear that 3e, and subsequently PF, are the products of better research and testing than any other other rpg ever made, by a ludicrous margin. Maybe the bar isn't that high, but give them some credit.

Um... this is sarcasm?

And far and away the best playtested RPG ever has been Brown Box D&D. Gygax wasn't a particularly good designer (as anyone who's ever read Cyborg Commando or Dangerous Journeys: Mythus would know) - but he was playing oD&D almost as much as was humanly possibly with a group of hardcore wargamers who were playing to win. There has been no development process like it in the history of RPGs.

They took a ton of feedback from the existing 2e crowd and really nailed it. If you go back twenty years, it would be hard to imagine a version of D&D as universally functional as 3e. That it has its problems was inevitable, and it's unfortunate that they haven't been addressed.

Sure they nailed it - nails in the coffin of any semblance of balance. They quite literally tore out almost all the restrictions on the spellcasters, shattered the saving throw mechanics, stripped the fighters power away (have you ever seen what a 2E fighter can do?), took away the fighter's army that was given to them to make up for the wizard's escalating magic, and then without thinking of the effects turned the game from a 10 level game with really high level spells being plot devices into a 20 level game where the wizards could cast plot devices and the fighter had less power beyond the reach of his sword than in previous editions - and dropped from the best saving throws in the game to one of the worst.

Calling 3.X universally functional isn't true. People enjoy it for what it is - but it certainly isn't universally functional.

Well, they did fix Haste in the revision, and they started patching polymorph in various ways towards the end. A little slow on their part, perhaps.

On the revision they also broke druids.

The fighter did get screwed in the new save system a bit, that's for sure. And the infinite diversity in infinite combinations of the spell system is inherently problematic. So yes, these are real things. But compared to the limitations of the AD&D chassis or the huge fundamental problems with 4e or the incoherence we've seen with the 5e playtests, these seem like nitpicks.

The problem isn't "infinite diversity in infinite combinations of the spell system". It's that the saving throw system is simply non-functional, making Save or Suck spells the easiest to get through the defences - and to end combats. The problem is therefore that the entire offensive magic system is broken out of the box. And the utility magic system makes spells pointless.

And that's kind of the thread topic. It seems that because 3e is so well-known (in part because of the OGL and in part because of its sheer popularity) it gets held to a higher standard. I wish people would take the level of scrutiny they apply to 3e, and apply it equally to other games.

I for one think I do. And there are games worse out there than 3.X. A lot of them.

I think that's simple traditionalism. The original ideas that started the hobby simply can't be left behind, apparently.

oD&D was the most bullet proofed RPG in history. The language was ... Gygaxian and it was geared to a certain mode of play. But if we're talking about the original ideas, oD&D is very solid.

Very possibly with good reason on some level. DMs certainly need it, but for a player, the less you know about what's going on outside of the scope of the character's knowledge, the more of an in-character roleplaying experience you're having.

Also as a player the scope of your character's knowledge that isn't directly being communicated to you is vast.

Rules should be tested with DMs messing around with the rules. To not do so would be like testing a car and only driving it in a straight line at 25 mph. The rules need to be put through their paces. There's nothing wrong with relying on post-market surveillance either.

Rules should first be tested being run straight with as little DM interference as possible. To not do this would be like selling a car that doesn't work without the driver first opening the hood and rewiring it.

The standard modifier is completely broken. A feeble character of sufficient level can break down a door.

So. An archwizard who's spat in Lolth's eye places their hand against a wrought iron door that a strong farmboy couldn't open, utters a mystic word, and it shatters. A feeble but very skilled monk who's stolen teeth out of the mouth of a Purple Wyrm looks at the door, narrows their eyes, and taps it to set up resonance before the door shatters easily. And you consider these examples a bad thing?

The same problem that existed specifically with BAB/THAC0 and saves in earlier editions now applies to everything.

The problem that people got better at fighting as they got higher level?

Remember that article about how 3e actually simulates basic things like applications of strength and everyday skills up through level 6 or so? 4e totally fails that test. You've got at-will magic for everyone,

This is a straight up fabrication. You have at will magic for all mages - but not for fighters or thieves. I fail to see how the presence or absence of at will magic simulates basic things in either direction.

you've got self-healing for nonmagical characters,

No you haven't. You've got people who actually behave as they do in the real world rather than having hit points as an on/off switch. If you are down healing surges you aren't fully healed. If you want to see healing surges being spent go watch a boxing match.

you've got minions whose basic numbers don't withstand any scrutiny at all,

You've got minions who are utterly outclassed. Whose combat numbers are barely worth worrying about when facing professionals. So they get simplified.

beginning characters with triple hit points.

And now you are contradicting yourself. If you are making the claim that everyone has self healing then you can not at the same time be making the claim that starting characters have hit points in three digits. They only have hit points in three digits if you count the hit points from healing surges. If you do that then you have no self-healing at all for most PCs. Make up your mind which it is.

Any one of those could be considered world-breaking.

Given that most of them are false, this is irrelevant. If you come up with a list of false statements then you can invent whatever forms of world breaking you like.

Again, how they compare to each other is a downstream consideration. If you can't make one balanced character on an island, you can't balance two characters against each other. In 3e (and earlier editions) there are some (if not many) balanced characters and creatures, and some unbalanced ones, things that maybe should be corrected in some way depending on context. In 4e, there are no balanced characters/creatures to begin with; zero.

Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a balanced character on an island. Balance is all about how they compare to each other. But I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are no balanced creatures in 4e.

The more dynamic and less inflationary mechanical structures of 3e (and to be fair, the earlier editions and the relatively flat math we've seen from 5e) are much more inherently balanced.

"Less inflationary"? In 3e power level doubles every two levels. In 4e power level doubles every four levels. In 3E a second level PC can easily have twice the hit points of a first level character. In 4E they are likely to have 25% more hit points than a first level character. In 3E a level 20 brute monster can have +57 to hit with their primary attack bonus but an AC of only 35. 3.X is the most inflationary version of D&D that there has ever been.

A coin fip is the definition of perfectly balanced. In context, as you note it's a coin flip weighted by the relevant capacities of its participants. It may not be the most engaging tactical gameplay, but it's balanced alright.

The balance in the system itself is discrete from any consideration of how engaging or enjoyable it is. Chutes and Ladders is perfectly balanced. Not much of a game for adults though.

If your definition of "balance" is "the level of difficulty is matched to the capacity of the character", than everything's balanced isn't it?

And if your definition of balance is "the game accurately tells you the level of difficulty" then your argument goes away. And the 3.X challenge system is shown to be not fit for purpose.

I imagine that 4e minions must spend a lot of time at bars drinking and commiserating with each other about how the PCs are playing "rocket tag" with them. Hopefully they never get in bar fights.

Or perhaps bar fights don't involve edged weapons with people trying to kill each other. 4e minions spend time hoping that professional armed to the teeth killers don't slaughter them because they normally know how badly outclassed they are.

 

[Neonchameleon]

They aren't the *played* heroes. But, as was pointed out earlier, in their own minds they're still heroes - and who knows, one of them could be your next character when the current one dies...and I can't speak for you but I sure as hell don't want my character to be permanently stuck at a total of 1 h.p. On the other hand, if the new PC comes in at 57 h.p. then it had 57 h.p. before the player took it over...

If internal consistency is at all important then every creature has some h.p. vaguely commensurate to a few factors including size, toughness, and life experience. The average Human peasant might have 3 or 4 h.p. total; not many, but enough to survive a punch in the head from another commoner. The average run-of-the-mill Hill Giant might have 40 h.p.; not many in Giant terms but enough to survive a punch in the head from another Giant and surely enough to survive a few chops from a Human's wimpy little sword.

Lan-"the world works as the world will, whether PCs are there or not"-efan

All characters have an approximate strength and toughness and behave as they do in the world. But the camera is almost invariably following the PCs. The map is displayed at whatever scale the PCs are at the time This doesn't mean that the underlying reality has changed, any more than switching from a Mercator to a Peters Projection or a Waterman Butterfly changes the world. The game mechanics aren't the laws of the world - they are a map reflecting what is going on in the world.

Neon-"But we don't actually roll it out when the PCs aren't there"-Chameleon

 

[Hussar]

This really is the fundamental issue isn't it? That one group of players wants the mechanics to be able to be applied regardless of the presence of players or not. The DM might not roll the encounter, and very much most likely won't. The orcs ambush the caravan and kill the guards and burn the caravan. We don't bother actually rolling through that without the players present. But, it has to be possible.

I admit, I certainly don't subscribe to this point of view, but, that's what it is isn't it?

To me, the mechanics are only required when there are player's present. Any other time, it's pure free form and whatever I want to happen, happens. For example, in my next adventure, a bunch of demonic constructs have bubbled out of the crypt beneath an abbey and killed everyone. That's what has happened. I'm certainly not going to try to actually roll it out. Heck, I don't even know how many priests were in the abbey at the time. It's not important.

My very serious question though is, if this is what you want, why on earth do you play D&D? D&D has never, ever actually presented this as a way of play. Play has always assumed that anything off screen is done free form. Until Eberron, not a single D&D game world was written based on the mechanics of the day.

If you think it was, what AD&D, or OD&D mechanics account for the Rain of Colorless Fire?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't believe you're right there - Planescape took the cosmology seriously (something Eberron didn't). Secondly there were rules for things like wandering monsters - that were based on the mechanics at least as much as freeform. And in the earliest editions the DM was also known as the referee for very good reasons. But even there they didn't play out NPC vs NPC battles, and when someone asked what the monsters in his dungeon ate in the Lake Geneva group Mike Mornard promptly threw in a McDungeons on the sixth level, with prices in copper pieces.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, it fails in just about every aspect of a simulation, and it is more of a fantasy role playing game than a rules-as-physics simulation of a world?

The terms "fantasy roleplaying game" and "world simulator with rules as physics" are synonyms.

That being said, that's not what I was saying. Whether a minion corresponds to anything in reality or not is not the point. The point is that it isn't balanced with something that is not a minion (and probably not with most of its fellow minions either). If classed characters aren't balanced with minions, solos, and all the rest, what does it matter how they compare to each other. Comparing a fighter to an orc or giant is a lot more pertinent than comparing him to a wizard.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Things "off screen" have no hit points, since hit points are a gameplay convenience and stuff "off screen" is, by definition, not being played at the time and thus needs no gameplay convenience.

Are we to conclude that every NPC's hit points cease to exist every time he leaves the PCs' line of sight and then rematerialize the next time the PCs meet him? With exactly the same amount of damage? (Or not, depending on the circumstance).

Come on, now. Surely, regardless of their gaming philosophy, ENWorlders understand object permanence.

That one group of players wants the mechanics to be able to be applied regardless of the presence of players or not.
...
To me, the mechanics are only required when there are player's present. Any other time, it's pure free form and whatever I want to happen, happens.

Highlighted this for a reason. To be "sound" or whatever you want to call them, the mechanics need to work for any situation that the ruleset could reasonably be expected to cover. That doesn't mean that any individual group will execute all possible applications of the rules, or should. When they are or are not necessary is the DM's call. Routinely, they aren't necessary on screen, let alone off. And certainly, most everything offscreen happens without rules; it's not like DMs around the world are sitting in front of a computer with dice playing out the history of their campaign world.

But if the mechanics really work, they shouldn't just work in one rather narrow set of circumstances.

 

[Obryn]

Are we to conclude that every NPC's hit points cease to exist every time he leaves the PCs' line of sight and then rematerialize the next time the PCs meet him? With exactly the same amount of damage? (Or not, depending on the circumstance).

Come on, now. Surely, regardless of their gaming philosophy, ENWorlders understand object permanence.

Your error is in thinking of "hit points" as objects. Come on now.

NPCs have hit points when gameplay requires them to have hit points.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Your error is in thinking of "hit points" as objects.

They are objects. Fictional objects to be sure, but in the relevant sense they are objects.

NPCs have hit points when gameplay requires them to have hit points.

Exactly my point. Gameplay requires that they have them all the time, or else you end up with some serious nonsense.

 

[Obryn]

They are objects. Fictional objects to be sure, but in the relevant sense they are objects.

Exactly my point. Gameplay requires that they have them all the time, or else you end up with some serious nonsense.

No, you clearly don't, because >99.999% of all narratives in the world don't ever consider the idea of hit points.

They lack the standing of fictional objects. A kobold is a fictional object. A hit point is a game mechanic. You can talk about Holden Caulfield without mentioning hit points, even if you imported him to Greyhawk.

 

[Chaltab]

The terms "fantasy roleplaying game" and "world simulator with rules as physics" are synonyms.

Uh, no they're not. They're categories that sometimes overlap, but there are plenty of fantasy roleplaying games that are not world simulators with rules as physics, and some world simulators with rules as physics that aren't fantasy RPGs, or RPGs at all. More to the point, no edition of D&D has ever been the latter.

That being said, that's not what I was saying. Whether a minion corresponds to anything in reality or not is not the point. The point is that it isn't balanced with something that is not a minion (and probably not with most of its fellow minions either). If classed characters aren't balanced with minions, solos, and all the rest, what does it matter how they compare to each other. Comparing a fighter to an orc or giant is a lot more pertinent than comparing him to a wizard.

But one does not compare a fighter to a single orc or giant in a vaccuum. The context matters, and in the context of a given fight, what matters how the fighter and his allies compares to the opponent and the opponent's allies. Minions simulate opponents that are drastically outclassed by the PCs by themselves but *in a group* with other enemies may pose a threat.

No individual Persian could stand up to the Spartans, but together they overwhelm them.