Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4460618" data-attributes="member: 2067">All right, let's try this in a bit more depth. That's all well and good, but the division works at an even more basic level than that: what are you willing to give up at the table? Are you "flavor-first," willing to give up wonky mechanics in pursuit of the plot or character development or whatever? Would you be okay with something super-powerful if it felt right? Or are you "game-first," willing to give up your idea of a character or a world or a plotline if the mechanics work against you? Would you be okay if your character couldn't exist because they're too super-powerful by the numbers?It's not a simple design philosophy, really. It's fundamentally the same question of style that has haunted D&D and other PNPRPG's forever. It's Crunch vs. Fluff. Every game finds a different middle ground. 4e has found its middle ground as well, and certainly isn't looked at from purely one direction.Actually, historically, D&D has always used a "mix." What is a wandering prostitute table if not "Game-first" thinking? The idea that there's a difference between an expensive doxy and a brazen strumpet that should be encoded into the rules is because it's fun to roll the dice and spontaneously adopt the persona at the table, not because if fullfills some archetype. In 4e, D&D still uses "Flavor-First" design. The process of generating an NPC begins by defining what role the character will have in the story (are you going to fight them? are you going to rescue them? are you going to shop for items with them?) as the basis for what stats you need. This is actually a DM/Player communication problem, not a problem of design, because the problem doesn't lie within the rules of the Paladin class, but rather in the fact that the DM can revoke the players' power if the DM thinks the player isn't "playing it right" (even if the player does). The reason for the existence of the code/alignment requirement/ally requirement in early editions was to keep Paladins from being played because they were otherwise clearly superior. By 3e, it had become purely a flavor issue, and thus purely a DM/Player communication issue, just like trying to shoehorn a dragonborn into a strictly medieval Europe-style setting is. You've got a bit of something here. However, there's no reason to think that the reason Favored Enemy doesn't work is because it is flavor-based. It is an example of regular old bad design. Other games have taken the flavor idea of a hated enemy and have dealt with it admirably (drama/fate/karma/hero/action/extreme points come first to mind). D&D lost by tying it to a class, and thus consuming one of the rarest of resources as well as tying it to excess baggage.You're missing the target there. The problem isn't that they wanted to come up with mechanics for a hated foe, the problem was the specific implementation of that mechanic. Other mechanics work just fine.The first part of this fits into "not really a problem" territory. Not every PrC needs to fit into every campaign. Some campaigns can't handle tieflings, some campaigns won't be able to handle 6 months of downtime. I guarantee 4e will have many things that you won't be able to use in it. I bet it already does. PrC's went with the same approach: there's a lot of them, we don't expect you to use them all, but we'll fill a couple of different niches with them.The second part of this is just an exacerbation of the Favored Enemy problem mentioned above. It's an "all your eggs in one basket" problem. 25-75% of your characters' power shouldn't be limited like that. But there are successful ways to implement the idea that don't rely on those mechanics.Again, this is just the Favored Enemy problem. Bad design, okay, but the flavor has also caused good design. You're missing your mark. This isn't baby-with-the-bathwater territory, this is baby-instead-of-the-bathwater territory. I guess the baby's no longer in dirty water, but you've hardly addressed the real problems.This bogeyman of "flavor-first design" that you've conjured rears its head in 4e, and has in all editions of the game. Our potential savior of "game-first design" has likewise popped up all over the place. The metric of success of a mechanic is how well it help you play the game.The metric of success of a game (of D&D, anyway) is how well it helps you evoke the flavor of a good fantasy story.A rule is usually poorly designed for D&D if it makes the game bad (by preventing you from telling your good fantasy story) or if it makes the play bad (by getting in the way somehow).A paladin's ally restriction and a ranger's favored enemy only really make the play bad. Both can be solved without making the game bad. Mostly by getting new mechanics that still represent the archetypes and genre tropes that the players are going to enjoy.Certainly for some, the changes 4e has made to make the play better have made the game worse, because it erodes the very reason some people play the game. They have more trouble telling the fantasy stories they like to tell. So while the game might be a breeze to play, why would you even play it in the first place?It comes back to Fluff and Crunch. Some people play D&D for the former and feel it has been violated by a focus on the latter. Some don't feel it's really been violated. Some people play D&D for the latter and are pretty happy. For some, they already have, because while paladins could have been overlooked by a group that had a problem with them, everyone has second winds and daily abilities, and those can't be overlooked. ...and yeah, my first run was better...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/rant.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rant:" title="Rant    :rant:" data-shortname=":rant:" /></blockquote>

Verification