Design & Development: Magic Item Levels

[BryonD]

I mean, come on, if we can see the obvious flaws, why shouldn't they be able to do it?

That's generally my attitude on these questions. If a flaw is obvious enough that people pick it up quickly, then so should have the designers. That might turn out to optimistic, but, well, then I am just too optimistic.

Then why to unbalanced feats and spells come out of WotC on a regular basis?
Based on your reasoning the designers should have caught these things quickly.
History doesn't support your optimism.

 

[Stalker0]

People are assuming that they will take all the 3e items and shove them into the 30 level scale. Likely not.

Instead, they will put the items close to where they should go, and adjust the item to fit. For example, we have no idea what the rope of climbing in 4e does, or for that matter what the climb skill does.

Maybe there are rules for jumping from high places and doing extra damage. Suddenly the rope of climbing is good in combat!

I think 30 levels is plenty of gradation for what they are trying to accomplish.

The truth about the science of item creation is that a price formula doesn't work consistently, we all learned that in 3e. What does work better is a comparative analysis, which sounds like what they are using in 4e.

 

[helium3]

Based on what we've seen, what makes you think they are?

A couple of things, which unfortunately is all circumstantial evidence at best. One is all their squawking about "the accident of math." If your stated position is that a logical analysis of the old system allows you to discover a region where the "algorithms" that it's constructed from provide for an optimal play experience, I can assume that you're equally or more proficient in the techniques that allowed for the creation of the old system's rule-set. I would err on the side of more proficient, since you're also claiming to have found something the previous designers missed and have solutions for it.

Obviously, the assumption I'm making above completely breaks down if you're (a) lying through your teeth or (b) not as competent as you believe yourself to be. I'll admit either of those could be true in the actual case, but if they are then we might as well just stop paying attention because the new edition is going to suck.

The other bit of circumstantial evidence is a post by someone on the design team where a coy reference was made to the "Negative Binomial Distribution" and how it was a significant part of their overall design approach. Now, I have a fairly hefty background in mathematics but I had no idea what a "Negative Binomial Distribution" was. I looked it up on Wikipedia, read the entry a couple of times, pondered a while and finally asked if he meant that they were focusing on the number of times a character would have to attempt an action before experiencing success. He responded in the affirmative. From this, I think it's a fair assumption to make that any design group that's throwing around lofty terms like "Negative Binomial Distribution" has at least a couple of members that are pretty darned proficient with statistics and mathematics in general. Why would you hire someone like that if you weren't going to utilize their expertise?

Again, as with the previous assumption it's entirely possible that the poster was coached to use overly technical language in order to fool us into assuming things about the design team's approach that isn't true.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I would argue that's exactly what people want to see. Show us some numbers!

I disagree. I think most people wouldn't be able to finish the article if it read like a scientific paper. I think what people really want are what's more commonly referred to as "hand waving." They want the designers to talk about why the new system is better than the old one with concrete examples that don't require the use of equations.

Also, I'm sorry you think it's ridiculous.

 

[helium3]

Then why to unbalanced feats and spells come out of WotC on a regular basis?

I'd imagine it's mostly due to a lack of playtesting and an over-reliance on freelance writers, designers and sometimes even editors. IMO, none of the feats in the core books are seriously broken and I think we can expect the same for 4E. Assuming feats still exist.

My biggest beef with the non-core books has been poor editing and some seriously bland flavor.

 

[BryonD]

I'd imagine it's mostly due to a lack of playtesting and an over-reliance on freelance writers, designers and sometimes even editors. IMO, none of the feats in the core books are seriously broken and I think we can expect the same for 4E. Assuming feats still exist.

My biggest beef with the non-core books has been poor editing and some seriously bland flavor.

Sounds like you will love 4e.

 

[helium3]

One thing true of Game Design is that it continues to evolve away from Art into quantifiable Science. This is an ongoing process.

But again, I read, "It's more an Art than a Science," as indicative of an incompletely-understood game design. No mechanical aspect of game design should properly be considered Art.

It's art by virtue of the commonly held use of the word to refer to a person's expertise that allows them to handle situations encountered while plying their craft that can't be handle through the application of formulaic methods.

In electrochemistry it's knowing when to rely on equations, when to rely on "fudge factors" and when to rely on your guy instinct.

In game design it's knowing when to rely entirely on your design algorithm and when to use your own judgement.

You're right that Game Design will continue to evolve, but it will never reach the point of perfectly simulating a world. You're always going to have to have a sense for where the algorithms break down and you start needing to make approximations.

 

[helium3]

Sounds like you will love 4e.

I'll love it if it's worthy of my love and I'll hate it if it's deserves that instead. I'd rather that I love it but I have no problem with sticking with 3.5.

 

[Voss]

I'd imagine it's mostly due to a lack of playtesting and an over-reliance on freelance writers, designers and sometimes even editors. IMO, none of the feats in the core books are seriously broken and I think we can expect the same for 4E. Assuming feats still exist.

And yet, the core feats are broken down into roughly three categories.
Really good ( natural spell, power attack, quicken spell, item creation)
Average (disarm, expertise)
and so incredibly bad as to be laughable (dodge, a lot of the dual skill feats)

Any subsystem that can range from extra actions to a measly +1 bonus is pretty much broken by default.

 

[helium3]

Any subsystem that can range from extra actions to a measly +1 bonus is pretty much broken by default.

How about an actual argument to back up that rather strong statement?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As an example on how difficult the "science" of a game system can be, consider this:

Let's assume you want to design a subsystem balancing ranged weapons, with the following attributes:
Damage
Rate of Fire
Range

You want to achieve a balanced cost for each ranged weapon. You assume that the users of weapons (might be humanoids, tanks, ships, starfighters or mechs) can only use a limited amount of weapons, based on these cost. (There might be a further difference: A humanoid character can use only one at a time, a ship might be able to bring multiple ones to bear)

Damage and Rate of Fire can usually be shortened to "Average Damage Per Round" (there are corner cases: What happens with "over-penetration" - you deal a gazillion of damage per day, but possible targets can only have 1000 hit points, and combats are usually done within a few minutes)
But how do you factor in range, if you can make _no_ assumptions about the typical ranges?
If all combats take place inside a building, ranges beyond 50 ft are meaningless. If combats take place on the open ocean, ranges become very important (but what if targets can have very different combat speeds?)

----
Closer to D&D:
Flight. At what level is flight appropriate? As a general principle, I guess that it's appropriate whenever you want it too. At 1st level, at 5th level, or never. The important thing is to have all other aspects be informed on this choice. If flight is available at 1st level, people need a counter-measure against it at 1st level (even if it is just some good ranged attacks). Wizards blasting Scorching Rays and Fireball from the sky that don't have to expect enemies that can fly or strike them with ranged attacks won't work.

But there are situations in which flight is mostly meaningless - in a combat encounter in the steppes or a desert it's very powerful. In a combat encounter inside a dungeon with 10 ft tall buildings it's just a +1 to melee attacks (higher ground). For a traveling scenario, you don't need flight much in a desert (it might even be dangerous being aloft in sand storms). In the mountains it could be the only way to cover a cliff.

Balancing such effects is a point where typical scienctific approaches are just to complex, maybe even impossible to use. You need a kind of "grasp" for the situation. It is more an art than science.