Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5523228" data-attributes="member: 51942">Simplicity is good; that's not the problem (in fact, things could probably be simplified even further).&nbsp; The problem is that the game is designed mechanics-first rather than fluff-first.&nbsp; Many powers have fluff that's entirely nonsensical, or have mechanics whereby it's hard to understand what's actually happening in-game.&nbsp; 4e's setup is focused on meta-game mechanics; everything is written in those terms with in-game logic retrospectively bent around it.&nbsp; That makes it hard to think about in-game logic; everyone's so used to thinking in terms of &quot;move actions&quot; or 3[W] attacks with a close burst pulls that that's the terminology you use at the table and in which you think.Terminology and language impact how we think.&nbsp; Creativity in 4e will naturally work better in 4e-native terms: pulls, pushes, mechanics than it will in in-game logic.&nbsp; I think it'd be best to turn that around.&nbsp; That doesn't mean using more rules or more complex rules; it simply means putting fluff first, and then picking the best approximation thereof within the mechanics.&nbsp; Such a system is of course trickier to balance - but if designed well, that work is mostly done before DMing ever starts.&nbsp; If an in-game ability were too strong, it's best not to include it and pick something else, rather that to just slap that fluff onto mechanics that only vaguely resemble it.So I don't think this is a question of 3e (&quot;highly disparate subsystems&quot; as you say) vs. 4e (simple), it's about fluff-first vs. mechanics-first.Symmetric design is boring.&nbsp; It's like rock-paper-scissors without the scissors - there aren't any meaninful choices anymore.&nbsp; Sure, you can refluff the rock as a stone (wooo...), but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...&nbsp; Classes should be meaningfully different.&nbsp; Sure, symmetry implies balance, but lack of symmetry does not necessarily imply lack of balance.&nbsp; It just takes a bit of actual work, that's all.As you say, you'd want PC's to have roughly similar plot relevance.&nbsp; But within that constraint, more variety is better.&nbsp; Having all classes all have the same distribution and levelling of attack+utility powers is not a good thing.&nbsp; Having powers closely follow a formulaic power curve is not a good thing.&nbsp; Basically, if I can take one class, make minor changes and slap on a&nbsp; different fluff, I should not be able to arrive at a different class -&nbsp; but that's almost the case in 4e.&nbsp; As you might imagine, I think essentials is step in a the right direction <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5523228, member: 51942"] Simplicity is good; that's not the problem (in fact, things could probably be simplified even further). The problem is that the game is designed mechanics-first rather than fluff-first. Many powers have fluff that's entirely nonsensical, or have mechanics whereby it's hard to understand what's actually happening in-game. 4e's setup is focused on meta-game mechanics; everything is written in those terms with in-game logic retrospectively bent around it. That makes it hard to think about in-game logic; everyone's so used to thinking in terms of "move actions" or 3[W] attacks with a close burst pulls that that's the terminology you use at the table and in which you think. Terminology and language impact how we think. Creativity in 4e will naturally work better in 4e-native terms: pulls, pushes, [I]mechanics[/I] than it will in in-game logic. I think it'd be best to turn that around. That doesn't mean using more rules or more complex rules; it simply means putting fluff first, and then picking the best approximation thereof within the mechanics. Such a system is of course trickier to balance - but if designed well, that work is mostly done before DMing ever starts. If an in-game ability were too strong, it's best [I]not to include it[/I] and pick something else, rather that to just slap that fluff onto mechanics that only vaguely resemble it. So I don't think this is a question of 3e ("highly disparate subsystems" as you say) vs. 4e (simple), it's about fluff-first vs. mechanics-first. Symmetric design is boring. It's like rock-paper-scissors without the scissors - there aren't any meaninful choices anymore. Sure, you can refluff the rock as a [I]stone[/I] (wooo...), but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... Classes should be meaningfully different. Sure, symmetry implies balance, but lack of symmetry does not necessarily imply lack of balance. It just takes a bit of actual work, that's all. As you say, you'd want PC's to have roughly similar plot relevance. But within that constraint, more variety is better. Having all classes all have the same distribution and levelling of attack+utility powers is not a good thing. Having powers closely follow a formulaic power curve is not a good thing. Basically, if I can take one class, make minor changes and slap on a different fluff, I should not be able to arrive at a different class - but that's almost the case in 4e. As you might imagine, I think essentials is step in a the right direction :-). [/QUOTE]

Verification