Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3782711" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't think that I would limit the list of 'fundamental' problems to that, but I would say that's a fair summation of the worst problems.&nbsp; I tend to think that games have intrinsic problems which have to do with things like, a D20 is not a perfect randomization device.&nbsp; It's linear.&nbsp; It's range of results is limited to 20.&nbsp; It doesn't have fine resolution.&nbsp; And so forth.&nbsp; The thing about intrinsic problems is that you can't get rid of them.&nbsp; You can only trade them for different problems.&nbsp; A Tri-d20 system for example, is less linear and has finer resolution, but the math is fundamentally more complicated.&nbsp;&nbsp; The fundamental problems you mention are somewhat similar.&nbsp; They aren't so much the result of bad design as the consequence of good design.&nbsp; Combat is time-consuming because it involves many options.&nbsp; It involves many options because players and monsters acquire more and more varied options.&nbsp;&nbsp; The options are there to give players choice, both in how they create there character and how they play them.&nbsp; I can easily design a system that plays more quickly at high levels.&nbsp; Instead of giving players new options as they level up, you replace them with more powerful options and take the weaker ones away.&nbsp;&nbsp; One can easily imagine a wizard where your spell list didn't grow significantly after 6th level or so, and instead you lost old spells and gained newer more powerful ones.&nbsp;&nbsp; You'd grow more powerful, but your options would stay about the same.&nbsp; But the question of course is, 'Is that really what you want?'&nbsp; For some it is.&nbsp; For me, I'm not so sure.So yes, I'm convinced the designers can do the things that they claim they want to do.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can see how you'd go about it.&nbsp; I'm just not sure that I ever wanted to take the game there.&nbsp; Consequently, my anticipation of 4e is quite different than what I experienced when I first saw 3e.&nbsp; Third edition was a game for me.&nbsp; Fourth edition is I think a game designed for someone else. Especially considering this is from Mike 'the designer shouldn't tell you how to play' Mearls.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3782711, member: 4937"] I don't think that I would limit the list of 'fundamental' problems to that, but I would say that's a fair summation of the worst problems. I tend to think that games have intrinsic problems which have to do with things like, a D20 is not a perfect randomization device. It's linear. It's range of results is limited to 20. It doesn't have fine resolution. And so forth. The thing about intrinsic problems is that you can't get rid of them. You can only trade them for different problems. A Tri-d20 system for example, is less linear and has finer resolution, but the math is fundamentally more complicated. The fundamental problems you mention are somewhat similar. They aren't so much the result of bad design as the consequence of good design. Combat is time-consuming because it involves many options. It involves many options because players and monsters acquire more and more varied options. The options are there to give players choice, both in how they create there character and how they play them. I can easily design a system that plays more quickly at high levels. Instead of giving players new options as they level up, you replace them with more powerful options and take the weaker ones away. One can easily imagine a wizard where your spell list didn't grow significantly after 6th level or so, and instead you lost old spells and gained newer more powerful ones. You'd grow more powerful, but your options would stay about the same. But the question of course is, 'Is that really what you want?' For some it is. For me, I'm not so sure. So yes, I'm convinced the designers can do the things that they claim they want to do. I can see how you'd go about it. I'm just not sure that I ever wanted to take the game there. Consequently, my anticipation of 4e is quite different than what I experienced when I first saw 3e. Third edition was a game for me. Fourth edition is I think a game designed for someone else. Especially considering this is from Mike 'the designer shouldn't tell you how to play' Mearls. [/QUOTE]

Verification