Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Creativity?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8930903" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>If I have two actions, one of which is pretty much guaranteed to make concrete actual progress, and one of which has an 80% chance to do <em>literally nothing</em>, I'm going to take the concrete progress--and in essentially all contexts, that's what you <em>should</em> take.</p><p></p><p>Especially because for the vast, vast, vast majority of these spells, it's not "20% chance to end the fight." It's "20% chance to make the fight much easier." But killing/incapacitating <em>one thing</em> reliably is almost always more progress than having an 80% chance of doing absolutely screw-all.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not uniform, and not spotlight. I absolutely <strong>despise</strong> "spotlight" balance. It is the most effective deceptive design goal ever conceived. It hoodwinks designers everywhere into thinking their games work in ways they demonstrably won't once people actually start playing. People throw around the phrase "white room theorizing" with casual abandon, but "spotlight" balance <em>literally is</em> a pure-theory concept that actively clashes with how real people play games.</p><p></p><p>In being a cooperative role-playing game, the game should be <em>equitable</em> (each of the participants contributes approximately the same <em>amount</em> to the group, allowing for statistical spread) and <em>functional</em> (each of the participants always has something meaningful to contribute, even if it isn't the most meaningful thing one could contribute.) Uniformity is the worst, least-interesting, least-effective form of equitable game design. It should be avoided unless there is no other alternative, or the place it is being used is so fundamental that uniformity provides some other kind of value to offset its negative qualities. The unified d20 mechanic, for example, is a place where the advantage of consistency is extremely strong, and where the fact that everyone does things the same way is not a problem, because it's used to facilitate other things, not as an end in and of itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that, <em>again</em>, all these allegedly "big flashy things and work wonders and miracles" won't happen in play, or will be the ONLY thing that happens in play, because dominant strategy is a thing.</p><p></p><p>You can still have wizards who work wonders and miracles <em>if you design the game to actually support that</em>. D&D has, historically, been absolute garbage at actually doing that, because either magic is THE solution and everything else is nearly-pointless window-dressing, or magic is about as effective as a wet fart and you're forced to use mundane solutions.</p><p></p><p>But we can do better. We <em>can</em> design games that have wonders <em>and</em> mundane solutions. It will be hard! Any good game design <em>should</em> be hard, because if it were easy we'd almost surely have done it by now. (This is why it is impressive to develop new simple mechanics that <em>are</em> good game design, e.g. 13A's Escalation Die--they almost always represent a new perspective or clever thought not previously considered.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>At a fundamental level, it literally allows you to produce nigh-infinite loops and do utterly ridiculous things like self-bootstrapping spellcasting. It allows things like the "<em>locate city</em> bomb," the aggressively hegemonizing ursine swarm (aka Druid with Natural Spell, a PHB-only character!), DMM cheese, and all sorts of other nonsense. Or, y'know, just the Leadership feat, all by itself, the feat almost every 3e DM bans because it's stupidly overpowered.</p><p></p><p>Yes, the idea of "roll 1d20+modifiers" is functional, and components like BAB are useful (though iterative attacks, not so much), but by the time you've stripped 3e down to the parts that actually work consistently, you've removed effectively everything that makes it a <em>game</em>. You have to overhaul feats, classes, ACFs, spells, magic items, monsters (<em>especially</em> templates), races, and even to a certain extent the mundane equipment. Keep in mind, 3e is the edition where a 10' ladder is less expensive than two 10' poles...so you can literally generate infinite wealth purely by buying 10' ladders, stripping off the rungs, and selling the two 10' poles that result.</p><p></p><p>It was designed to be naturalistic. Unfortunately, in the hands of even a moderately clever player <em>using the PHB only</em>, it quickly produces anti-naturalistic results. This is not about edition warring, or at least that isn't my intent. I get, very much, that there's a large chunk of players who adore naturalistic design and who feel that no other edition of D&D has successfully pursued it. But 3e is a <em>bad</em> example of naturalistic design. There are zillions of ways to make a better game while still keeping it naturalistic. I freely recognize that naturalism isn't one of my key concerns (for me, it's <em>groundedness</em>, which is a very different beast; unnatural things can be quite grounded if they properly establish their precedents.) But even for someone who <em>does</em> prioritize naturalism, you can (and IMO should) ask for <strong>much</strong> better than what 3e offers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8930903, member: 6790260"] If I have two actions, one of which is pretty much guaranteed to make concrete actual progress, and one of which has an 80% chance to do [I]literally nothing[/I], I'm going to take the concrete progress--and in essentially all contexts, that's what you [I]should[/I] take. Especially because for the vast, vast, vast majority of these spells, it's not "20% chance to end the fight." It's "20% chance to make the fight much easier." But killing/incapacitating [I]one thing[/I] reliably is almost always more progress than having an 80% chance of doing absolutely screw-all. Not uniform, and not spotlight. I absolutely [B]despise[/B] "spotlight" balance. It is the most effective deceptive design goal ever conceived. It hoodwinks designers everywhere into thinking their games work in ways they demonstrably won't once people actually start playing. People throw around the phrase "white room theorizing" with casual abandon, but "spotlight" balance [I]literally is[/I] a pure-theory concept that actively clashes with how real people play games. In being a cooperative role-playing game, the game should be [I]equitable[/I] (each of the participants contributes approximately the same [I]amount[/I] to the group, allowing for statistical spread) and [I]functional[/I] (each of the participants always has something meaningful to contribute, even if it isn't the most meaningful thing one could contribute.) Uniformity is the worst, least-interesting, least-effective form of equitable game design. It should be avoided unless there is no other alternative, or the place it is being used is so fundamental that uniformity provides some other kind of value to offset its negative qualities. The unified d20 mechanic, for example, is a place where the advantage of consistency is extremely strong, and where the fact that everyone does things the same way is not a problem, because it's used to facilitate other things, not as an end in and of itself. Except that, [I]again[/I], all these allegedly "big flashy things and work wonders and miracles" won't happen in play, or will be the ONLY thing that happens in play, because dominant strategy is a thing. You can still have wizards who work wonders and miracles [I]if you design the game to actually support that[/I]. D&D has, historically, been absolute garbage at actually doing that, because either magic is THE solution and everything else is nearly-pointless window-dressing, or magic is about as effective as a wet fart and you're forced to use mundane solutions. But we can do better. We [I]can[/I] design games that have wonders [I]and[/I] mundane solutions. It will be hard! Any good game design [I]should[/I] be hard, because if it were easy we'd almost surely have done it by now. (This is why it is impressive to develop new simple mechanics that [I]are[/I] good game design, e.g. 13A's Escalation Die--they almost always represent a new perspective or clever thought not previously considered.) At a fundamental level, it literally allows you to produce nigh-infinite loops and do utterly ridiculous things like self-bootstrapping spellcasting. It allows things like the "[I]locate city[/I] bomb," the aggressively hegemonizing ursine swarm (aka Druid with Natural Spell, a PHB-only character!), DMM cheese, and all sorts of other nonsense. Or, y'know, just the Leadership feat, all by itself, the feat almost every 3e DM bans because it's stupidly overpowered. Yes, the idea of "roll 1d20+modifiers" is functional, and components like BAB are useful (though iterative attacks, not so much), but by the time you've stripped 3e down to the parts that actually work consistently, you've removed effectively everything that makes it a [I]game[/I]. You have to overhaul feats, classes, ACFs, spells, magic items, monsters ([I]especially[/I] templates), races, and even to a certain extent the mundane equipment. Keep in mind, 3e is the edition where a 10' ladder is less expensive than two 10' poles...so you can literally generate infinite wealth purely by buying 10' ladders, stripping off the rungs, and selling the two 10' poles that result. It was designed to be naturalistic. Unfortunately, in the hands of even a moderately clever player [I]using the PHB only[/I], it quickly produces anti-naturalistic results. This is not about edition warring, or at least that isn't my intent. I get, very much, that there's a large chunk of players who adore naturalistic design and who feel that no other edition of D&D has successfully pursued it. But 3e is a [I]bad[/I] example of naturalistic design. There are zillions of ways to make a better game while still keeping it naturalistic. I freely recognize that naturalism isn't one of my key concerns (for me, it's [I]groundedness[/I], which is a very different beast; unnatural things can be quite grounded if they properly establish their precedents.) But even for someone who [I]does[/I] prioritize naturalism, you can (and IMO should) ask for [B]much[/B] better than what 3e offers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Creativity?
Top