Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8116937" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Part of the problem, here, is that a lot of these things are very nearly binary: either they're great, or they suck. Consider "status effect magic." In the vast majority of video games, these effects are pointless because most (important) creatures are immune to them, or their rate of effectiveness is so low that they generally aren't worth using. Otherwise, these effects would quite literally trivialize every combat encounter. Stuff like "instant death," long-term inability to act ("paralysis"), attacking one's allies or oneself ("confusion"), etc. are almost never things that work in "important" fights because such things would supersede all other considerations.And if you think this doesn't apply to D&D, just take a look at Legendary Resistance. Literally a mechanic to no-sale fight-ending (or at least fight-trivializing) effects unless the party is willing and able to stake lots of resources (and usually time) on getting them to land. The exact same design problem applies to D&D: "crowd control" is really hard to design so that it is interesting and useful, but not completely dominant. 3.x/PF made it very clear how difficult the "save-or-die"/"save-or-suck" concept is as a design component, and how easy it is to, by accident, create a situation where someone supposedly onlyBuffs are another area that, while less thorny, can still be a huge headache. I have been point-blank told by multiple people across multiple forums that the most effective way to play 3.x/PF is to solely optimize your personal contribution, and it's borne out in the game's design. Buffs require far too much opportunity cost: why give a buddy, say, a 20% boost to whatever they do next, when you can contribute something of your own that is 50% of what they can do normally? Even if it is more fun to be a team player, it is demonstrably and consistently more effective to be effectively several solo adventurers who just coincidentally adventure in the same place at the same time. That's terrible design for a game where teamwork (such as buffing and debuffing) is supposed to be important.And regardless of the above? This is getting far too deep into the specifics. I spoke at the high level I did for a reason. D&D has nothing even remotely comparable to the differences between a pitcher (someone who rarely moves and almost exclusively throws balls) and an outfielder (someone who should never be completely stationary and who almost exclusively catches balls). And that's because every player is supposed to be engaged in every fundamental activity. To squeeze the baseball metaphor further, every single player should be pitching and catching and running and batting on the regular. They need not all be equal at all of them, but minimum competence at every one of the important things is important. And, yes, that (whether you like it or not) includes some kind of minimum competence at dealing, and taking, damage. Because "deal and/or take damage" is possibly the single most common individual behavior D&D characters engage in--because it doesn't just happen in combat....Yes. That is literally what I'm saying. They are poorly designed to do that thing, because that kind of thing is an unwise design decision in the kind of game D&D is. Whatever goals the designers set--the pillars just happen to be defined for us--the kind of game they have put on offer is one where "classes...designed to revolve largely on one specific brick on one specific pillar" aren't going to be good classes. They are practically guaranteed to be overwhelming or inconsequential, and that is bad when the game presents its offerings as equally valid choices for equal participation.An asymmetrical cooperative game can be tons of fun. Consider Keep Talking And No One Explodes. And an asymmetrical competitive (but symmetrically cooperative) game can also be tons of fun; consider the rising popularity of Among Us, which is basically just the parlor game "Mafia" or "Werewolf" facilitated by the internet. Asymmetry as a design decision is perfectly valid. It's just not the decision the D&D designers made. They chose to make a symmetrical game (again, leaving aside the DM, whose role is less "player" and more like an artist, referee, and director rolled into one), one where each player is implicitly given the same opportunities regardless of the thematic preferences they bring to the table.Does this mean every class needs to do the same amount of damage? No. It means the designers should set benchmarks for minimum competence in the things they think are important to do while playing the game, and then test mechanics against those benchmarks until those benchmarks are met (up to a reasonable statistical distribution, of course--D&D is probabilistic, not deterministic.)If you want a truly asymmetrical cooperative game, it's certainly possible within the confines of D&D style thematics. It's just not the kind of game D&D has billed itself as, nor that D&D's designers have sought to make, for decades. The really unfortunate thing is that, in being a game that includes asymmetrical (sometimes wildly asymmetrical) options but presents them as symmetrical ones, we get a game that tries to serve two masters and often fails to serve either. Those who want a genuinely asymmetrical experience can't get it because they'll always start out too symmetrical and it can take a long time to really reinforce the asymmetry, and those who want a symmetrical experience are genuinely denied it in relatively short order. (This has often been phrased as the "sweet spot" problem, at least when discussing editions prior to 5e.)</blockquote>

Verification