Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Scribble]

Compete for what? Unless the DM is encouraging party discord (not my style - it makes it more a first-person shooter than an RPG), the party is working together to defeat enemies. In my game, the other players are quite happy when someone uses a special ability to help the party defeat their enemies, or negotiate a lower price for an item, or figures out the puzzle, etc.

Again, yes I agree good play style. My concern is that because it's balanced, it creates the "idea" that it's a competetion. Now ADD to that the abundance of feats with marketing like "Power up your character!!!" "Get the edge!!!" et al. and you reinforce the idea to new players. It begins to lean more and more towards competition.

And as I said my FEAR is that WOTC has latched onto this competitive angle because it sells product easier. Foster competetion like in MTG and people will keep buying the books to get that edge.

My 2nd edition games suffered from that a lot; and for that I am grateful to messrs. Cook, Tweet, and Williams.

I love 3e don't get me wrong, but I've loved every version of the game actually. I'm, simply pointing out an unintentional consequence of their creation that has the potential to go awry...

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

All these fears about what idea possibly maybe almost MIGHT be promoted. Now, I have to ask this...have you seen any TRUE evidence that it is? I don't mean from the books, but from actual game experience. I have NEVER seen this, and heck, I'm only 18...I introduced 14 year olds to the game(who were all huge video game power gamers, I feared for any RPing...) and there was NOTHING anywhere close to these fears I've seen.

And I've done this at least twice now, introducing younger players who would fit into this 'win!' mentality much easier. It just isn't happening. And it WON'T happen with D&D. No one that I've ever seen has EVER come to D&D to win. They always come to have fun. Always.

 

[fredramsey]

I would say the "Get the Edge" was against any foes your character encounters, not the other characters. And BECAUSE of good game balance, any "edge" you get is illusionary at best. The monsters will still be as tough as the DM makes them. It isn't, after all, a video game with "cheat codes".

 

[Scribble]

It's been said over and over for the last few posts, but they compete for a piece of the story, or "screen time" if you prefer the movie analogy.

In my opinion though this happens in every edition. To me it tends to be more of a function of the player personality thren anything...

But in anycase, I'm not arguing that Balance is a bad thing. I'm simply stating how I think it unfortunately contributes to a MTG type feel.

 

[Akrasia]

The problem with this philosophy, for most gamers, is that using it assumes that all gamers really want to be game designers. IME, this is simply not true. WEG's D6 Star Wars system had this problem. There just weren't enough mechanics out there to deal with problems almost every adventuring group was going to run into, and so almost half of all rulings had to be made "on the fly."
....

This is simply untrue. (I have no knowledge of WEG's Star Wars rules -- but it is always a mistake to generalize on the basis of a single game.)

A 'rules lite' system does not mean a 'rules incomplete' system. It is perfectly possible to have a rules lite system that provides mechanics that cover all situations -- they are just more general mechanics than those used in 'rules heavy' systems like d20. For a good example, look at Eden's Uniystem (especially the 'lite'/Cinematic version used for the Buffy and Angel RPGs). Other complete rules lite systems (i.e. systems that do not require 'ad hoc' rules) have existed, and continue to exist.

Moreover, why giving players the option to add feats, complex tactical combat rules, and so forth -- if they want them -- to their game requires them to become 'game designers' anymore than giving players the option to add new feats, prestige classes, and so forth (or the variant rules in the UA, for that matter), is unclear to me.

As an aside, the RC skill system is a much better example than its weapon mastery rules of how a relatively 'rules lite' version of D&D can add a new option for players who want it -- in this case, skills -- in a manner that does not unbalance the game. Because all players got the same number of skills (adjusted for intelligence), the optional rule applied equally to all, and no single character class benefited to a disproportionate degree.

There is no reason why a similar approach could not have been used for feats, tactical combat rules, etc.

 

[MerricB]

In my opinion though this happens in every edition. To me it tends to be more of a function of the player personality thren anything...

Try playing a 1st level commoner in a band of 12th level PC classes and then tell us that balance doesn't matter.

Balance is complex, and is affected by the style of campaign a DM runs, but it does exist. Players generally don't choose character types that won't be that effective. How many Half-Orc Sorcerers do you see in 3E? Not that many, right?

D&D (and Magic) caters to a wide array of player types. In general, they all want their game choices to be effective - not always "killer", but will do the things they want them to do.

However, their definitions of what is effective differ.

In Magic, we talk about "Timmy", "Johnny" and "Spike".

"Timmy" likes having big creatures and powerful spells. It's all about big is better. Killing someone with a 12/12 creature is much better than killing someone with a 2/2 creature. In D&D, Timmy plays a Half-Orc Barbarian or a Sorcerer who maximises their fireballs.

"Johnny" is more interested in the concept. Winning is important, but it has to be done with style. It's much better to kill someone with a swarm of 200 squirrels, lovingly assembled over 20 turns, rather than just go the obvious route. In D&D, Johnny probably plays something like a Bard.

"Spike" is just concerned with winning. Spike doesn't care what methods he uses, but merely with having the most effective deck - most likely copying it from the internet. In D&D, Spike probably plays one of those overpowered Clerics that gives the class a bad name. Alternatively, check the Order of the Stick. Nale (Elan's half-brother) is a Spike. (See the conversation where Nale explains his multiclass combination to Elan...)

Being D&D, the types don't match entirely, and we have more (because our objectives are far more wide-reaching), but the basic idea remains: there are many different player profiles that play D&D.

Magic has been so successful because it offers people a range of choices about how to play it. You are not forced into one style of playing it. Tournament (Spike) play is only one style, and there are many who play it just casually, seeing if they can get their Weird Theme decks to win...

D&D, as it has progressed since its original release, has been about offering players more and more choices.

In 1974 you could play only three classes: Fighting Man, Cleric or Magic-User. In the first supplement, the Thief and Paladin were added. The history of D&D has been about more and more options.

Unfortunately, in 2E, the options trumped Game Balance. Options are popular, but there was no quality control in 2E at all. Thus, you'd get absurdly underpowered options, and then the absurdly overpowered options. The Complete Elf, anyone?

3E was about creating a system that allowed players to customise their characters. The lessons of 2E were learnt, and learnt well. That's why we have Feats, Prestige Classes and a plethora of new classes.

I've seen expressed in this thread an idea that you can have a rules-light system that allows balanced optional rules to be added.

I wish someone could tell me what that system was, because in the entire history of D&D, optional rules almost invariably favour one class over another. The change the balance of the game.

A new feat also changes the balance of the game - but, in most cases, the effect is much smaller than the optional subsystems that the feat system replaced. As the game progresses, the effect gets smaller and smaller because there are already so many effective options. Is there a feat a 4th level fighter would prefer over Weapon Specialisation? Probably, but it isn't a given. As the feats are generally balanced against each other, choosing between them is of consequence.

I discussed earlier the three player profiles for Magic. Did you know that Wizards designs cards with all three types of player in mind? Some cards in a set are for Spikes, some are for Johnny, and some are for Timmy. There are cards that overlap, of course.

I'm sure that the same is true for D&D, though without a Mark Rosewater in the D&D design team, we don't learn about it. Although there's an eye to keeping the classes balanced, there's also no doubt that they're looking to keep different styles of player happy.

Incidentally, I'm primarily a Johnny. I love using 6-card combos in Magic, and I play Bards in D&D.

Cheers!

 

[Remathilis]

I agree with Meric, I played a thief in 2nd edition in a party make up almost exclusively of fighters and mages. (Incidenlty, we were all elves except one human, go fig). Being the designated door opener was a job security for a while, but after long, the mages could handle anything and the fighters guarded the mages as they cast thier spell-combos and little ole me stood back and tried not to die (which happened quite often, btw).

At 12th-16th level, I enjoyed the RP aspect, but loathed any combat or such because it probably meant the mages unleashing tactical nukes, the fighters keeping the bad guys in play, and me avoiding death like Nodwick...

I TG for 3e allowing diversity, giving rogues abilities to make them useful as more than a wand of trap detection and knock, and above all making a monocrom of balance between wizards and rogues...

 

[Akrasia]

There seem to be (at least) two distinct lines of discussion going on here.

(1.) Whether the rules for 3E give rise to a 'culture' of purchasing new 'crunchy bits' (splatbooks with new feats, prestige classes, etc.) that resembles the 'culture' of MtG -- with the consequence that most current/new D&D players focus on the 'crunchy bits' (and thus view their characters primarily in terms of stats and abilities), rather than 'plot/character elements'.

(2.) Whether the rules for d20 D&D could have been designed in a manner that made feats, skills, the tactical combat rules, and so forth, optional -- rather than required parts of the core system. (The fact that d20 D&D is designed in this way might promote the "crunch culture" mentioned in (1.), but it is a separate matter.)

As for (1.), I have tended to think that this was the case, but since I don't have to deal with most players (thankfully), I guess that even if my perception is correct, it is no big deal. Any players I would want to associate with in this hobby would not be ones who focused on the 'crunchy bits' (no matter the system).

However, I do find that the mechanics of 3E tend to force one to be aware/conscious of all the 'crunchy bits' almost continually when playing the game (in contrast to, say, Unisystem, where the mechanics tend to 'fade into the background' while playing -- at leat IME). But this is certainly something that can be worked around with a good group.

As for (2.), the frustrating thing about 3E D&D is that there is no 'rules lite' alternative version of D&D available right now. During most of the history of D&D, there was always an alternative, simpler set of rules that busy/lazy people could play: viz. the Basic/Expert, and eventually the Rules Cyclopedia, rules. And even AD&D -- not a 'rules lite' system by any definition -- was designed (though probably not intentionally so) in such a way that players could ignore huge chunks of the rules (weapon speeds, weapon vs. armour modifiers, the 1E initiative system, the 1E unarmed combat system, etc.) without unbalancing/ruining the game. In contrast, there is no 'rules lite' version of 3E, and attempts to ignore large parts of the 3E core system (feats, etc.) lead to huge problems.

I know many 'old school' players (30+) who have tried 3E and have either quit altogether, or turned to some 'less crunchy' system (an earlier version of D&D, or another system altogether). The reason: despite using the 'simple' d20 mechanic for most things, acquiring competency in the d20 rules takes a lot of time (especially if you want to DM). While not rocket science, the rules are not easy for many busy 30+ players to master in their limited spare time. Unlike the old days, there is not (yet) a rules lite version of the game for these busy professionals.

 

[johnsemlak]

Balance

Hmm, I'm not so sure it's as important for the PCs of a party to be balanced, as it its for each character in the party to have a role, and a chance to shine/perform. Character balance may help provide this, but won't guarentee it.

It has been said that in 1e classes and races weren't balanced, but each had a role. That was probably because advantures were designed to give each class, and race to a lesser extent, a role.

That leads to an important point--adventure/campaign design. If designed improperly, certain characters may feel left out no matter how 'balanced' a party is (e.g. a party with a rogue which faces mostly hoards of undead).

There are RPGs where races and classes are deliberately imbalanced for flavor. the LOTR RPG and Ars Magica for example. I don't know how enjoyable it is to play characters in these games with such imbalance; it' might interesting to hear some comparisons.

 

[Akrasia]

... I've seen expressed in this thread an idea that you can have a rules-light system that allows balanced optional rules to be added.

I wish someone could tell me what that system was, because in the entire history of D&D, optional rules almost invariably favour one class over another. The change the balance of the game.
...

Well, for an example from the history of D&D, see my earlier description of the optional skills rules for RC D&D. Those were optional rules that did not favour one class over another. (I am sure I could come up with other examples if I had the time.) Moreover, simply because rules options throughout the history of D&D have tended to be unbalancing in nature does not in any way entail that this kind of rules design is impossible.

If you want examples from other game systems, I have already mentioned Unisystem. When the full rules for Castles and Crusades are released, it might also be an example. GURPS Lite and "full" GURPS are balanced with each other. (Heck, even "Sidekick" gives a balanced 'lighter' version of the HERO system, to which elements of the full system can be added without 'unbalancing' things.)