Expertise vs. previous editions

[billd91]

I am fairly sure there was math to 3e as well (for example, the MM suggests AC = 13+cr). Just that the numerous ways you could stack various modifiers pretty much screwed that up (you were easily getting attack rolls higher than your foe's AC, for instance).

I would say that's not screwed up at all, but in fact an element of the design. It made feats like combat expertise and power attack more useful. Those were great and valuable things to spend excess BAB on during a fight.

 

[Odhanan]

Math definitely seemed a lot less pervasive in 2E and earlier. All the number crunching is definitely a big negative for me.

This is in part because earlier editions relied more on the people around the table to make the game work. Some people will brand this as "DM fiat", and if you substract the negative connotation of the term, it certainly was true.

I would rather say that the game assumed there was a level of understanding and cooperation at the game table that meant the DM was making judgment calls on the spot - in other words, the DM was the final arbiter at the table, not the rules. Most of the rules were modified as the campaign evolved. The whole thing was more about eye-balling fairness at the actual game table rather than consider "game balance" (which actually means rules balance, the shortcut from "rules" to "the whole game" being something of a parapraxis) as something akin to a precise and/or objective "science".

 

[malraux]

I am fairly sure there was math to 3e as well (for example, the MM suggests AC = 13+cr). Just that the numerous ways you could stack various modifiers pretty much screwed that up (you were easily getting attack rolls higher than your foe's AC, for instance).

3e to me always felt like there was a math behind it that was then used to design the building blocks of the various attack progressions, saves, spell bonuses, magic item costs, etc. But it also felt like the different ways those building blocks could be put together was entirely anticipated. Plus, in some ways I think 3e was partially bound to the 2e ways of doing some things, most notably the spell descriptions.

In general, I like the way 4e has moved the math into an explicit given, rather than a behind the scenes sort of thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The math in 3E was mostly there to express the "growth" of a character and the various effects of spells, abilities and stuff.

What the math of 3E didn't have much of was a "target" number for this math. It wasn't fitted along an ideal power curve or anything.

Why have BAB = 1/2 level or BAB = Level? To express the difference between a Wizard and a Fighter when it comes to making attacks. But why did it need to be a 5 point difference at 10th level?
There was no reason or goal behind it. The important thing was that this was ow it progressed and it allowed you to describe a difference between good and bad BAB.

But due to the fact that there were a lot of these formulas, it also created certain "baselines". But they were more or less implicit, and it was possible to diverge from the baseline because there were certain factors not quite placed along these level curve. (At what level do I get a +3 Sword? Should I ever need one?)

In a way, these were formulas that created something that resembled "world laws" - these laws don't have to achieve anything specific (just like the laws of nature in our world aren't - presumably - specifically engineered to allow human life).

The 4E math went into a different way. The important thing was created this baseline, so you could achieve a balance at every level. A 5 point difference over 10 levels due to different BAB progression didn't serve such a purpose. It didn't help the playability of the game. Sure, it showed us there was a difference between "good" and "bad" combat ability, but how did it affect the outcomes of combats over time and was this desirable or not?

The 4E math took into account "what is desirable to have for attack bonuses? What values do we need to achieve the type of gameplay experience that should be satisfying or fun? How do we ensure that everyone hits as often as seems required for that?"

 

[billd91]

The 4E math took into account "what is desirable to have for attack bonuses? What values do we need to achieve the type of gameplay experience that should be satisfying or fun? How do we ensure that everyone hits as often as seems required for that?"

I would argue that 3e does so as well but it does so from a set of different assumptions. 3e proceeds from an assumption that the differences between class abilities with respect to raw hit numbers, as expressed by previous editions, was fine. 4e, clearly, does not.

 

[Treebore]

This is in part because earlier editions relied more on the people around the table to make the game work. Some people will brand this as "DM fiat", and if you substract the negative connotation of the term, it certainly was true.

I would rather say that the game assumed there was a level of understanding and cooperation at the game table that meant the DM was making judgment calls on the spot - in other words, the DM was the final arbiter at the table, not the rules. Most of the rules were modified as the campaign evolved. The whole thing was more about eye-balling fairness at the actual game table rather than consider "game balance" (which actually means rules balance, the shortcut from "rules" to "the whole game" being something of a parapraxis) as something akin to a precise and/or objective "science".

I don't know about that. Everyone seems to talk like there were hardly any guidelines to older editions of D&D, there are plenty. There are rules for grappling, charging, etc... even skills in 2E, etc... In fact, the rules covered 90%+ of the situations in games, 98% if it was all combat and no one wanted to swing from chandeliers.

So I agree that there is a level of understanding and cooperation in the groups, but it wasn't as if a DM was making up most of the rules on the spot as the game progressed. The vast majority of situations were covered by the rules.

Then we can get into house rules. Apparently house rules were "rules of the land" for a lot of groups. Mine were voted on and accepted or rejected. Mine were improved upon by player contributions. Plus house rules were not unique to 2E and earlier, we had plenty of house rules in 3E too. So even 3E, with its rules for everything, still had house rules, and often a couple of pages worth.

So there was still just as much "DM fiat" in 3E, in fact more, because "DM fiat" also applies when splat books are not allowed, and there were a lot of "not allowed" in 3E games, just like I had a lot of "not allowed" in 2E, I forbid a lot of optional rules and kits.

When I played 4E for a couple of months there was a lot of "DM Fiat" going on, simply because we weren't sure about various rules, so we went with the DM's final decision, he did ask for and did give consideration to feedback though. There were going to be house rules too, if we had decided to go with 4E. There were several on our list, and we had only played to 3rd level when we quit.

So my perspective is that there were only a few hundred rules you might have had to be aware of in 1E/OD&D, if you played spell casters, since each spell is a rule of its own. Fighters and such only needed to know maybe a couple of dozen rules about the game to play well.

In 2E that scaled up a bit, especially if you used material from the optional books.

In 3E every single class could require knowing hundreds of feats, skills, cross class skills, etc... Spellcasters needed to know thousands, because spells are each their own little rule, just like feats and skills. Then there are all the race and monster variants. So in 3E if you were trying to use everything, you literally needed to be at the very least aware of thousands of feats and spells, as well as the various skills, not to mention magic items.

Now, obviously, if you stay with core only in 3E, this all stays pretty limited and very manageable, same with 2E and 1E.

4E is off to a good start of staying manageable, but as the additional books come out, and more options are added, the complexity is going to increase.

I have come full circle. I used to be of the mind that "simple and gets the job done is best". I got into all the complexity of 3E, and eventually literally felt like I was going insane. So now I am back to my old belief and am playing "old style". To me all "old style" means is "simple and gets the job done", and because it is simple and gets the job done, it is "best" for what I want out of an RPG.

So I don't want all the mathematical modifications of 3E and 4E, I want something that facilitates the imagination of the players and myself. I used to think all those feats, etc... did that, but now, especially after going back to playing "old style", I have come to believe all of that stuff was nothing but a mental straight jacket. After all, you can only do it if its written on your character sheet with a decent degree of success. Otherwise your likely to fail. I much prefer the idea of "I think of it, and ask my DM how I can go about doing it." I find the practice of thinking of it, look at my character sheet to see if I can do it, and finding out I can't very unappealing now.

So I find mathematical complexity limiting. Its why I stayed away from GURPS and Rolemaster for all those years before 3E came out. Its why I now stay away from 3E and 4E, they are good rules systems, but they do not give me the game I want, and its all due to the math and how it restricts what you can do. People seem to think it gives you more options. It doesn't. Your choosing a list of limitations. The game I play allows for you to try anything you can think of trying. No lists. No limitations, except our imaginations.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would argue that 3e does so as well but it does so from a set of different assumptions. 3e proceeds from an assumption that the differences between class abilities with respect to raw hit numbers, as expressed by previous editions, was fine. 4e, clearly, does not.

So it didn't use the math to achieve that goal, it used the different class abilities.

 

[billd91]

So it didn't use the math to achieve that goal, it used the different class abilities.

I don't think there's a difference. There's nothing inherently more "mathish" about 4e than 3e. They use very similar math to do what they want to do. But what 4e wants to do is something different than 3e.

Math does not give us either 3e or 4e. Rather, math is used as an analytical tool to make the design goals, preferences, and assumptions of the designers work the way they want them to work.

 

[Thasmodious]

The math has always been there if you hung out around math types. You just didn't have as pervasive and internet culture, especially before the Internet was invented...

The designers have always been aware of it. It hasn't always been consistent and balanced throughout the system, but everything mechanical comes down to a set of mathematical assumptions. In older versions it was a certain scaling hit rate against AC 0 by level as a means of expressing a progression in power. It was encumbrance, and distance, and scales of values (the AC scale, saving throw scales, thief skill scales).

3e was the first edition to really publish the math behind the system. Instead of just printing results tables, they showed their work, so DMs could put that extra knowledge to use, so players could as well. Feats skewed the baseline in predictable ways and the effectiveness of different feat options could be analyzed easily, if one so desired.

There is a ton of mathematical analysis of practically everything 3rd edition all over the interwebs, much of it on the CO boards. You can find the same level of analysis for practically everything in 1e as well (or any other edition). When I was a high school kid, mathematical arguements often broke out in game - "but ignoring acceleration from a stand still in movement rates isn't realistic, and it would be simple to model acceleration! I just can't accept that my higher dex shouldn't let me reach the bridge first!" "I don't accept that dex would be the sole determination for speed of acceleration..." "Yeah, well, that's not what your mom said..."

Now, such discussion is where it should be, on internet forums, away from the game. But I've read and done analysis of power attack versus improved critical for a high damage concept, the value of emphasizing hit rate versus total damage, basically anything where you are analysing the value of a trade-off. Are the extra hit points from Con more valuable than the extra AC from dex? (in 3e the answer is a solid yes)