David Noonan's historical perspective on 3.0 (Update: Part III posted)

[Glyfair]

Tough call where to put this, but it's only tangentially about 4E, so this is the spot.

The most recent entries in David Noonan's blog cover the design of 3.0 and how playtesters affected the system.

Historical Perspective on D&D 3.0, Part I: Here's something I wonder about sometimes...what's going to be the cyclical initiative of 4.0?

What the heck do I mean by that? Back in 1999, we revealed that in third edition D&D, initiative essentially set a "batting order" that would last for the whole fight. Oh, the howls! Lots of folks were used to rolling every round, and being "stuck" with a low roll was anathema to them. (After eight years playing the game, I think everyone realizes that this is a pretty hollow critique. But at the time, it was reasonably widespread.)

We heard this complaint about cyclical initiative a lot from observers, but also from playtesters. (Keep in mind that 3.0 playtesting was much less targeted, so a lot of playtesters were commenting on what they'd read in the manuscript before actually using it at the table.) But we were using cyclical initiative ourselves, so we saw the upside. Ultimately, we stuck to our guns, and almost everyone came around on cyclical initiative.

(And I'm using "we" in the general sense here. In 1999 I was an RPG editor recently arrived from our magazine for Magic: The Gathering players, which let me observe a lot of these events. But I wasn't a decisionmaker by any stretch of the imagination.)

So when I ask myself, "What's going to be the cyclical initiative of 4.0?" it's really shorthand for "What's a game element that is going to stick in players' craws at first, but once they try it, they'll love it?" If we can answer that question, we can expend a little extra effort telling you why we're doing things in a way that seems out-of-whack to you.

Historical Perspective on D&D 3.0, Part II: Yesterday I talked about how we stuck to our guns with cyclical initiative. Today, let's look at the evil twin: Multiclassing restrictions for monks and paladins. Fairly late in the 3.0 process, there was a push to get rid of them and let monks and pallies multiclass however they like. The playtesters told us with some certainty: "Don't you dare." So the multiclass restrictions remain.

And they're a mistake. I'd contend that you put the world-story through bigger contortions explaining someone who multiclasses into barbarian than you do explaining a monk who multiclasses into something else, then takes more levels of monk. And the other nine classes probably get downright offended that there's something special about the dedication that a monk and a paladin have to their craft. The path of the paladin "requires a constant heart," but a cleric or a druid can multiclass freely? The dedication and study of a monk exceeds that of a wizard? Baloney.

With the benefit of hindsight, I wish we'd stood our ground--and I tend to hold playtester feedback in high regard, so that's a weird attitude for me to take.

As with cyclical initiative, I sometimes ask myself, "What's going to be the monk multiclassing of 4th edition?" Hopefully we'll figure that out and do the right thing from the get-go.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Considering that playtesters are going to be buying the game (as well as friends of those playtesters, who will or wont buy it on their recommendation) i'd say their opinon is slightly more important than the designers. If you have a majority or even a large minority complaining about how something works and you ignore them you are either wasting design time cause they are going to house rule it otherwise or you are going to lose sales.
Of course you cant please everyone all the time, and when you can please no one, please yourself.

 

[Glyfair]

Considering that playtesters are going to be buying the game (as well as friends of those playtesters, who will or wont buy it on their recommendation) i'd say their opinon is slightly more important than the designers.

So, you are saying the multi-classing limits on paladins/monks in 3E was the proper choice?

 

[Desdichado]

Interesting posts.

I completely disagree with Arashi, by the way. I think playtester feedback is good feedback, but when it contradicts your gut feeling (assuming you're a professional game designer with market research on your side and all that jazz) that I'd say make a "dully noted; we'll keep an eye on that idea" but stick with what you think is better.

Designers are paid to have a "big picture" mentality that playtesters do not.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Considering that playtesters are going to be buying the game (as well as friends of those playtesters, who will or wont buy it on their recommendation) i'd say their opinon is slightly more important than the designers.

You must not have ever beta tested a product. Most tester comments are idiotic, to put it mildly.

A week before Blizzard ended the StarCraft beta, beta testers were spamming the board with how lousy the game was and how it was going to be Blizzard's first big flop.

Blizzard stuck to their guns on the issues the testers were howling about and the rest is history.

You cannot design by committee and come up with something truly worth getting excited about.

 

[timbannock]

Options should be in the rules.

Restrictions should be up to the DM to put in place.

Multiclassing restrictions, IMHO, should thus go bye-bye.

I also think the word "prerequisite" should go away (or at least show up a lot less), but that's probably a different debate.

 

[boerngrim]

Hi
On cyclical initiative, I'd say the main pro was that it speeds up the play of combat encounters. Since most combat encounters are over in 3 to 5 rounds it works fine for my games.
On the Monk and Paladin multiclass restriction, I always considered that if there was a good campaign or story driven reason for lifting the restriction then do it. Say for example that you have and order of paladins who serve a god of magic it would follow that some of them might study wizardry or come from sorcerous lineage. So they have paladin/wizards or sorcerer/paladins among the order. An order of monks might double as spies and killers so monk/rogue makes sense.
Ultimately I never felt the need to flat out say no if a player wanted to try a multiclass combo just cause the book said no.
Thanks.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Paladin and Monk should have been prestige classes.

 

[blargney the second]

Heh - I remember my first game of 3.0: the DM had us roll for initiative every round.
-blarg

 

[Moggthegob]

I like multi-classing restrictions for the paladin and the monk. It made them standout and it always(especially initially) got the palyers interested in being that guy who was so devoted. The way they always saw it as once you stop devoting yourself 100% well that was it you couldnt really re-establish that connection as fully to those very specialized lines of work. As for the wizard, the reason not to is because its a fairly common thing to combine fighting and casting. The holy-warrior sorcerer mentioned by Dave just sounds silly.

Maybe monk and Pallie should have been prestiges.....