pdzoch
Explorer
I'd love a crunch book on the math and mechanic of the world.
Current 5e DM guide does provide guidelines on the math involved in monsters, NPC, and encounters, but the hard math start become a bit more like new math and art towards the end. The more creative and complex a build, the less confident I am of the consistency of the design. But it was not much different in 1, 3 or 3.5 either.
4th edition had the most solid and consistent design mechanic and math that made it EASY to modify material to build in. Unfortunately, it also meant that game knowledge was hard to be consistent. (Is that a level 1 goblin or a level 15 goblin? They sure do look the same). Their guidance on the +2 mechanic was absolutely valuable for DM to understand when and to what degree to change values.
I've played other systems that also provided the design math and mechanics for the game world for customization and always found it frustrating when I could not get the math and mechanics to match elements already built into the game. I assume the designers fudged the math to fit some design or balance requirements, but not knowing why or how or what degree made me feel that I either did not understand the design math and mechanics or that the designers did not really follow it either.
I've actually stopped playing some games when the design appears to arbitrary or random. And I certainly do not want my players to feel like any custom content I create is "unbalanced" because of my misunderstanding of the game design parameters for a seamless creation.
I do feel that the "plot point" methodology in 5e really opens up the acceptability for design flexibility in the game, but I feel like it is just provide an excuse to avoid explaining the design math better.
It would seem that any game reliance on XP (a number of points) would have a better and more thorough explanation of the design elements to achieve those values and the awarded for XP. Same comment for battle math, spell math, etc.
But, perhaps this is too much information for competitors?
Current 5e DM guide does provide guidelines on the math involved in monsters, NPC, and encounters, but the hard math start become a bit more like new math and art towards the end. The more creative and complex a build, the less confident I am of the consistency of the design. But it was not much different in 1, 3 or 3.5 either.
4th edition had the most solid and consistent design mechanic and math that made it EASY to modify material to build in. Unfortunately, it also meant that game knowledge was hard to be consistent. (Is that a level 1 goblin or a level 15 goblin? They sure do look the same). Their guidance on the +2 mechanic was absolutely valuable for DM to understand when and to what degree to change values.
I've played other systems that also provided the design math and mechanics for the game world for customization and always found it frustrating when I could not get the math and mechanics to match elements already built into the game. I assume the designers fudged the math to fit some design or balance requirements, but not knowing why or how or what degree made me feel that I either did not understand the design math and mechanics or that the designers did not really follow it either.
I've actually stopped playing some games when the design appears to arbitrary or random. And I certainly do not want my players to feel like any custom content I create is "unbalanced" because of my misunderstanding of the game design parameters for a seamless creation.
I do feel that the "plot point" methodology in 5e really opens up the acceptability for design flexibility in the game, but I feel like it is just provide an excuse to avoid explaining the design math better.
It would seem that any game reliance on XP (a number of points) would have a better and more thorough explanation of the design elements to achieve those values and the awarded for XP. Same comment for battle math, spell math, etc.
But, perhaps this is too much information for competitors?
