D&D's abstraction level

[Mister Doug]

I do, by the way, agree with your sentiment. I'm struggling to decide how best to represent and explain any given action or the relationship between my PCs and their environment, from the micro scale to the macro, even as we speak... er... post.

As a former Hero System GM and player, I find the frustration people have with describing powers (spells/exploits/whathaveyous) a little baffling -- essentially, D&D has pre-made effect-based powers with explanations of effects narrated in-game.

My experience in Hero system is that the gamist nature of effect-based powers are easy to get past if you reinforce the idea of the players narrating the use of those abiities in powers. When my players stopped talking about hitting the hero with the armor piercing autofire ranged killing attack and focused on describing the volley of titanium-tipped razor-edged arrows fired from the Cosmic Crossbow, things worked very differently in play than they read on the page. That meant that Hero read very flavorless, but played very differently.

I suspect the same to be true of 4e.

 

[jdrakeh]

Whoa there. I never meant to suggest that 4E uses M:tG rules.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical, as you typed:

I think I've pinpointed something that's fundamentally changed about the game. In Talisman and Magic: The Gathering, you don't necessarily think about the gameworld implications of a game mechanic like the Prophetess drawing an extra card and choosing between them, or the Llanowar Elves adding a green mana. In D&D, you do.

P.S. Although applying M:tG's exception rules system to D&D may make sense superficially, I expect D&D 4E to be much less robust than M:tG, and that the new books people are waiting on to "complete" the game are likely to break it in short order. A broken card in M:tG will still only appear four times in a deck, whereas a broken at-will ability will appear continually in a substantial amount of the campaign.

You seem to be going to great lengths to infer that D&D 4e does, in fact, use the M:TG rules or a system of rules based on M:TG by oh. . . I dunno. . . specifcally making that very assocation multiple times in your first post. Crazy!

If you don't think that the new D&D is more exception-based than the old one, then I'm not sure I agree.

You suggested that simple rules with special case exceptions have their basis in M:TG. My point is not that D&D 4e is less exception-based than OD&D but that simple rules with special case exceptions was the default for many early RPGs (including the original D&D rules).

 

[rounser]

I think one of Rounser's main points is that exception based design for everything is much harder to achieve balance for. When you have a finite number of exceptions it is easy (comparatively) to balance, this is harder to do with D&D's model of continual power, feat, class, paragon path, epic destiny, singular monster, etc. philosophy... unless one continues producing the same exceptions in different coatings (which ultimately leads to no real expansion of the game). You have to balance things against a steadily growing number of options that are divergent to the core mechanic in and of themselves.

Yup. Arguably we've been down this path with prestige classes and kits in the past, though. Apart from last ditch rules overhauls which scramble the rules like Skills and Powers and the Book of Nine Swords, I think people place the blame at the feet of kits and prestige classes for scuttling 2E and 3E, from memory. Before the splatbooks, the game seemed less of a bloated mess.

Now they've just been given their rightful place in the design hierarchy of making D&D a capitalist treadmill.

Behold Exceptions - Destroyer of Editions, Seller of Splat, Maharajah of Munchkins. All shall buy them and despair!

(Or, at least, that's the business plan...and just in case you thought you had a choice, the first three core books are incomplete, and everything's now core...)

 

[rounser]

You seem to be going to great lengths to infer that D&D 4e does, in fact, use the M:TG rules

No, specifically said I didn't mean that.

or a system of rules based on M:TG

Not really, just based on the same rules design template or philosophy (whatever you want to call it) of simple rules foundation, many, many exceptions.

by oh. . . I dunno. . . specifcally making that very assocation multiple times in your first post. Crazy!

Zoinks!

 

[Scribble]

The powers aren't much more of an exception based design then spells and feats were.

Spells have been with us from the beginning, feats for a number of years.

Characters always suffer an opportunity Attack if they try to trip someone... EXCEPT when they have Improved Trip.

Character must always roll to hit, EXCEPT when they fire off magic missile, or an area attack spell.

This edition calls it out and embraces it, and I think it will be slightly easier to design balanced ideas, however, then it has been in the past.

Improved Trip again... What's the power level of that? Is it always the same? When a rogue takes it? When a fighter takes it? When a wizard takes it?

Since the classes are on the same page as far as attack bonuses and such, it's easier to decide how it will effect the numbers.

 

[rounser]

The powers aren't much more of an exception based design then spells and feats were.

They seem to leave a bigger footprint than said spells and feats, though. You cast a particular spell maybe once or thrice a day, use Improved Trip when it's likely to be useful and work....4E's at-will powers seem a lot more of a fallback default to use each and every round than either of these.

Break one of these, or get a combination with a broken result in the same party, and I'd expect that the effect on the game will be much bigger than even most broken spells of the past (hello haste, polymorph and harm).

That's just a prediction, though. And M:tG proves that exceptions often interact in unexpected ways - Find the Path + Windwalk is just a hint of things to come for D&D if M:tG is any guide.

 

[Scribble]

They seem to leave a bigger footprint than said spells and feats, though. You cast a particular spell maybe once or thrice a day, use Improved Trip when it's likely to be useful and work....4E's at-will powers seem a lot more of a fallback default to use each and every round than either of these.

Yeah but countered by the idea that the system is much easier to compare the numbers then it was in the past.

Trip is only one example. There are TONS of feats and spells. All designed with the exception based idea, it just wasn't called out.

 

[rounser]

Trip is only one example. There are TONS of feats and spells. All designed with the exception based idea, it just wasn't called out.

I'm not sure you follow what I'm saying, because you're not arguing against my point there.

I'm suggesting to you that broken feats and spells left much less of a footprint on the old game than broken at-will exploits would on the new one. It's a matter of screentime. Rare is the feat that you use every round as your default attack.

Yeah but countered by the idea that the system is much easier to compare the numbers then it was in the past.

And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in the City of Greyhawk. I'm sure M:tG's number crunching was easy to begin with, too.

 

[Imaro]

The powers aren't much more of an exception based design then spells and feats were.

Spells have been with us from the beginning, feats for a number of years.

Characters always suffer an opportunity Attack if they try to trip someone... EXCEPT when they have Improved Trip.

Character must always roll to hit, EXCEPT when they fire off magic missile, or an area attack spell.

This edition calls it out and embraces it, and I think it will be slightly easier to design balanced ideas, however, then it has been in the past.

Improved Trip again... What's the power level of that? Is it always the same? When a rogue takes it? When a fighter takes it? When a wizard takes it?

Since the classes are on the same page as far as attack bonuses and such, it's easier to decide how it will effect the numbers.

One of the reasons for removing spells was the unfeasibility of being able to balance them vs. other classes abilities, yet 4e throws more abilities with supposedly differing levels of utility into the mix (such as feat vs. power) how does this not put us back at square one...or even worse since now it spans all classes and monsters?

Ok, quick 4e question... how does one balance the effect of being able to shift? Is it equal, more valuable or less valuable than being able to shift an enemy, what about the number of squares the shift allows? What about in comparison to pushes and pulls? In comparison to increased damage, or the ability to switch squares with an ally?

I don't think saying 3e had this problem so it doesn't matter if 4e has it is valid because...

1. 4e is suppose to be an improvement in the area of balance

2. It has a wider range than previous editions and this only increases exponentially as more is added.

4e seems to be a point buy system that, while claiming it is transparent, really isn't outside of damage and to hit numbers. That's why when reducing a monsters levels no mention is made aout balancing it's tactical powers...Big mistake IMO.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think saying 3e had this problem so it doesn't matter if 4e has it is valid because...

I was simply saying it's nothing new. It's not really a new design concept for 4e. It's just been pointed out from the beginning in 4e.

As far as it not mattering? I never said that either. I said I think the new edition will be able to handle it better, as it tries to start from an an even starting point and moves from there.

Will there be unbalanced rules? Sure. In a game where the rules get added on in multiple hundred page books at a time, there will be unbalanced rules.