Ethos for a New Edition

[Dannager]

Sure, but you can't hypocritically say wizards get to break all the rules 'cause they've got magic, but fighters have to abide by real-world physics.

Well, you can say that. But you can't say that and then say, "But hey, look, Fighters are fun, too! They can hit things with pointy sticks while enjoying the spectacular acts of reality-warping sorcery that their spellcasting friends can pull off!" No one will take you seriously. Except the people who don't care about Fighters because they wanted to play Wizards the whole time anyway.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, you can say that. But you can't say that and then say, "But hey, look, Fighters are fun, too! They can hit things with pointy sticks while enjoying the spectacular acts of reality-warping sorcery that their spellcasting friends can pull off!" No one will take you seriously. Except the people who don't care about Fighters because they wanted to play Wizards the whole time anyway.

Right, that's what I mean. People CAN say whatever they want. But realistically nobody's going to enjoy playing a game where there's only one viable style of play.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Verisimilitude has a place within fiction. I won't deny them that. But fiction and games have different priorities (or ought to). Verisimilitude needs to give way to any number of other priorities in game design.

Alternately, perhaps the verisimilitude should conform to the limits of the game. That is, if a good way to give the martial guys some needed oomph is to make them move fast, then the reality of that world should be that, by default, martial training helps guys move fast. Now your verisimilitude is not giving way, but simply falling into place like everything else.

That's usually the real problem with the "verisimilitude" argument--that it presumes a certain reality to which the mechanics are expected to conform, or be judged failures, but it so often isn't upfront about the nature of that reality.

 

[mudbunny]

Awesome discussion. Thanks for keeping it civil. Definitely drawing the attention of this thread to WotC.

 

[Dannager]

Alternately, perhaps the verisimilitude should conform to the limits of the game. That is, if a good way to give the martial guys some needed oomph is to make them move fast, then the reality of that world should be that, by default, martial training helps guys move fast. Now your verisimilitude is not giving way, but simply falling into place like everything else.

Right, and this is the whole "mechanics-supporting-fluff" versus "fluff-supporting-mechanics" argument all over again. A lot of people think that designing the game's fluff to support the mechanics is a bad way to go about things. I'm not sure why, exactly, but it's a thing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

When it comes to accurately modeling the various fantasy genres, I think D&D could benefit immensely from having the equivalent of a section in the 4th edition Fantasy Hero main book--and the mechanical widgets to back up the choices.

FH discusses things like (paraphrasing): "So you want sorcerers to be these bad guys with all kinds of nasty effects that are hard to counter, but go down quickly in melee to a skilled warrior--as in Conan. If you want that, you might consider using X, Y, and Z for warriors, and make all casters take limitations A and D."

Of course, the nature of offense and defense in FH is such that there is more leeway to allow a fairly nasty caster who can still get his head handed to him by the right melee guy, but the basic idea is sound. You run wide-open FH with no restrictions, and you want get Conan casters and warriors (except perhaps by accident). Purposefully choose options, and you can get something fairly close.

So perhaps instead of, "Should D&D fighters confronted by timestop be all out of luck?", perhaps the question should be, "What mechanical options should fighters confronted by timestop have, and when should you make them available?"

 

[Skyscraper]

Then this is a fundamental disagreement through which I very much doubt common ground can be found. A game in which a core character choice that is presented as utterly valid is similarly utterly unable to compete with another core character choice is a poor game. A poor game.

Then the most popular RPG ever, ever!, is a poor game Before 4E, all editions of D&D has a wizard much more powerful than the fighter. Yet, I have witnessed some people actually having fun playing this game. (And, were it not for the objections in this thread, I would admit to having participated in said fun ).

think that is a painfully short-sighted position to take. Who the heck would play the fighter in that situation? What is the point of playing a fighter in that kind of game? Why shouldn't everyone play wizards? Why would playing a fighter be any fun in that style of game? It might be fun for the wizard, but it would not be very fun for the fighter at all!

I've played a wizard, a monk and a dwarf fighter in long-winded 1E campaigns that reached high level. I've played a bunch of other classes too. I've DMed a number of campaigns, in 1E and 3E. I can't say that I had more fun with my wizard than with the other PCs, and I can't say that players told me they have less fun with their thieves, assassins, barbarians, fighters or other non-spellcasting class.

On the other hand, I've played and I DM(ed) a few 4E campaigns, and this edition, for all its balance between the classes, lacks the luster of the other editions I've played.

I contend that balance between classes is not a goal that ought to be searched. When nohting is worse than the rest, nothing is better either.

Now, I agree that allowing the fighter to be efficient in battle is of course desirable. I agree that aiming to make the fighter a fun class to play is of course what you want out of the game. I'm just saying, in trying too much to allow the fighter to jump as far as a wizard flies, to hit as hard as the fireball, or to gate demons in with his sword, you don't have a fighter and a wizard anymore, you have two wiz-ters or fight-zards. You end up with 4E-style characters that, for all their strong mechanics, all do an area burst 1 within 10 that deals 1d8 + Ability_Mod damage. They're the same. One does it with his arrows, the other with his fireburst.

Bring back the magic that scares, that hurst, that's unique. That's what I hope. Taking the magic out of the game was 4E's worst flaw, in what is otherwise a very interesting game mechanic.

(Not trying to flame an edition here BTW, I still play a 4E game and none of the prior editions. Just highlighting my point.)

 

[Dannager]

Then the most popular RPG ever, ever!, is a poor game

Yes.

D&D is a great experience, but from a game design perspective it has a long history of being pretty haphazard and flawed. That doesn't mean it's not a good time. It means that, judged purely on its merits as a game, it has gaping holes.

Game design, as a "science", is still in its infancy. And tabletop RPGs are way behind the rest of the gaming world, in large part due to the slow nature of their development/release process and the relative lack of competition forcing innovation. That's one of the reasons I see Pathfinder as an exciting development - nothing like two giants to push an industry forward.

 

[Sunseeker]

Then the most popular RPG ever, ever!, is a poor game Before 4E, all editions of D&D has a wizard much more powerful than the fighter. Yet, I have witnessed some people actually having fun playing this game. (And, were it not for the objections in this thread, I would admit to having participated in said fun ).

It's not impossible to have fun in an imbalanced system. Some people who play mages are not hell bent on being masters of all reality and constantly showboating how impossible to kill they are.

The problem is simply that the more imba classes are, the faster fun can be ruined, toes can be stepped on, and people annoyed about it.

The more balance you can get, the better. Homogenization isn't much fun, but you can achieve pretty good balance without it.

I contend that balance between classes is not a goal that ought to be searched. When nohting is worse than the rest, nothing is better either.

This kinda reminds me of all those flawed anti-Communism arguments I read on political forums, where they say that Communism is bad because it lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator. Needless to say it's a total mischaracterization of the concept, as it is here. While certainly with more balance the probability of being a spechul-snoflake is less likely. But IMO, how special you feel about your character IMO depends less on what cool powers you have, and how much effort you've put into making it. It may simply be that because character building is easier in 4e, that characters seem less special.

Now, I agree that allowing the fighter to be efficient in battle is of course desirable. I agree that aiming to make the fighter a fun class to play is of course what you want out of the game. I'm just saying, in trying too much to allow the fighter to jump as far as a wizard flies, to hit as hard as the fireball, or to gate demons in with his sword, you don't have a fighter and a wizard anymore, you have two wiz-ters or fight-zards. You end up with 4E-style characters that, for all their strong mechanics, all do an area burst 1 within 10 that deals 1d8 + Ability_Mod damage. They're the same. One does it with his arrows, the other with his fireburst.

The goal I think, should be parity.
Wizards can dim-door X distance so lets give fighters an esc button, really fast retreat speed.
Wizards have gap-closers and gap-creators, so lets give fighters improves charges and grappling hooks.

While the goal is obviously not to make wizards and fighters have all the same abilities, the goal should be to allow fighters and wizards accomplish similar goals reasonably. I mean, imagine a setting where magic is forbidden, or incredibly rare, so much so that having a mage in the party is about as likely as having the pope in your party. A setting where everyone HAS to play non-magic characters. If the non-magic users are too under-powered by design, it will cause serious problems for gaming.

 

[Umbran]

Game design, as a "science", is still in its infancy. And tabletop RPGs are way behind the rest of the gaming world

Agreed.

in large part due to the slow nature of their development/release process and the relative lack of competition forcing innovation.

The slow nature of their development/release process is itself due to the economic realities of a comparatively small market.

And the whole thing is complicated because the "game science" is only one part of the whole RPG experience - so even if you were expert at that science, you'd still have to wrestle with the other goals at the table.