D&D 4E Comment about 4E designers loving D&D

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I like this quote today from James Wyatt-

3E is inherently unbalanced...

I wonder how the designers of 3.0 feel about comments like this?

If they've been playing it since they created it, they probably agree.

Find a 3E developer's Web site where he doesn't talk about house rules, or even post them.

 

[F4NBOY]

They probably feel much the same way. Monte Cook has said he would do many things differently if he did 3e today. Examples include casters having at will abilities and balance per encounter rather than per day, both of which have found their way into 4e.

Exactly.
Actually I risk to say 4E is the TRUE Monte Cook's D&D

 

[Geron Raveneye]

With respect to a news item posted this afternoon was this quote:

""I can say with confidence that anyone who attests that 4th edition is a “money grab,” or just a “3.75 edition,” need only speak to one of those architects to realize the truth: that 4th edition will be the best yet because the people working on the game, like the fans, love Dungeons and Dragons.""

Yup, when I saw that quote it made me go "Yeah, so were all the other designer teams who worked on all the other editions of D&D/AD&D through the decades. Unsurprisingly, it was more often the people marketing and selling the game that were rather so-so about them while trying to pump out the enthusiasm."

 

[delericho]

""I can say with confidence that anyone who attests that 4th edition is a “money grab,” or just a “3.75 edition,” need only speak to one of those architects to realize the truth: that 4th edition will be the best yet because the people working on the game, like the fans, love Dungeons and Dragons.""

That made me think......the implication here is that the people who made 3.0 and 3.5 *didn't* love D&D......

Yeah, I read that like that, too. Then I realised that it wasn't what the author actually meant, and decided not to worry about it.

The 4e designers are most certainly doing what they're doing in an attempt to make D&D as good a game as they possibly can. It's entirely possible they will fail miserably... it's also entirely possible that they will succeed beyond our wildest hopes. But there is no good reason to believe they won't make an earnest effort to get this right.

If nothing else, consider this: if the game is really good, it will almost certainly be a much bigger success than if it sucks. Given that the cost to develop will be the same either way, it is in Hasbro's best financial interests to produce the best game they can. So, they will.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Everyone will be balanced, because we've erased the accident of math.

What the heck does he mean with that? Did they break an integer or something? How does "accidental math" make characters unbalanced? Sometimes I really wonder what all I'm missing by not being inside of some of the designers' heads..and sometimes I wonder if I really would WANT to be there in the first place.

 

[Kaodi]

Whether or not there is some negative implication in that quote, one should have a hard time not noticing the gaping maw of the logical fallacy.

 

[delericho]

What the heck does he mean with that? Did they break an integer or something? How does "accidental math" make characters unbalanced?

I think what they mean is that the 'sweet spot' exists because the maths just happens to work at those levels - the modifiers to the dice rolls are between 25% and 75% of the range of the dice roll itself (that is, between +5 and +15 on a d20), where at very low levels the modifiers are largely irrelevant (as they get swamped by the variance on the die roll), and at high levels the die roll is largely irrelevant (as it gets swamped by the modifiers).

When the designers put together 3.X, they didn't fully account for this oddity in the numbers, and so caused the 'sweet spot'. In 4e, the designers have noted this fact, and are building the game to suit. Hence, they have eliminated the 'accident of math'.

I might be completely wrong, of course.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think what they mean is that the 'sweet spot' exists because the maths just happens to work at those levels - the modifiers to the dice rolls are between 25% and 75% of the range of the dice roll itself (that is, between +5 and +15 on a d20), where at very low levels the modifiers are largely irrelevant (as they get swamped by the variance on the die roll), and at high levels the die roll is largely irrelevant (as it gets swamped by the modifiers).

When the designers put together 3.X, they didn't fully account for this oddity in the numbers, and so caused the 'sweet spot'. In 4e, the designers have noted this fact, and are building the game to suit. Hence, they have eliminated the 'accident of math'.

I might be completely wrong, of course.

Nope, I think you are completely right. Except for the part where you thought you were completely wrong.

 

[Jer]

I think what they mean is that the 'sweet spot' exists because the maths just happens to work at those levels - the modifiers to the dice rolls are between 25% and 75% of the range of the dice roll itself (that is, between +5 and +15 on a d20), where at very low levels the modifiers are largely irrelevant (as they get swamped by the variance on the die roll), and at high levels the die roll is largely irrelevant (as it gets swamped by the modifiers).

When the designers put together 3.X, they didn't fully account for this oddity in the numbers, and so caused the 'sweet spot'. In 4e, the designers have noted this fact, and are building the game to suit. Hence, they have eliminated the 'accident of math'.

This is the most concise, best thought out explanation of the term "sweet spot" as the designers seem to be using it that I've seen. Thank you.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

There is no such implication. You are bringing that to it yourself.

Well, to be fair, I think it's there too, although I don't think it was intended.

4th edition will be the best yet because the people working on the game...love Dungeons and Dragons.

Why will this be the best game yet? Because the people working on it love D&D.

which can be rearranged into the implication:

If they love D&D, then it will be the best game yet.

Which has the following corollary:

If it is not the best game yet, then they do not love D&D.

If you read it that way, it implies that if there are any shortcomings in 3rd edition, it's because the designers didn't love the game enough. That conclusion is preposterous, and certainly not what the writer of the quote intended, but when the implication operator gets abused by sloppy writing these things tend to fall out. Of course, if we give the author the benefit of the doubt, it ceases to be an issue.