Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garnfellow" data-source="post: 1821670" data-attributes="member: 1223">This "Ignorance is Bliss" theory is pretty astonishing. Just because Microsoft Windows is closed source doesn't mean that buggy code doesn't bother or affect me. I may not know just why it happens, but it's still pretty hard to ignore the Blue Screen of Death.I actually think that a better informed fanbase is a happier, stronger, and more loyal fanbase. Pure freeform, LARP-style, let's pretend roleplaying is an important segment of the hobby. I think it's great that there are players out there who couldn’t give a hoot about stats. In my 10-person group, probably 3 of the guys fall into that category, and I wouldn't trade them for anything. But there's a large segment of gamers who enjoy taking the hood off the game and tinkering with the mechanics. Probably 2-3 of my players fall into that category. Being able to clearly see, understand, and manipulate the game mechanics significantly adds to their enjoyment of the game.Um, it's not like there were top secret TSR reference manuals on how to properly design AD&D monsters. You couldn't deconstruct the stats in first and second edition because there was never any underlying system behind it all. Monsters were designed by a series of educated guesses, comparisons to existing monsters, and playtests. Which resulted in widely varying results.Remember all those interminable arguments over balance issues in 1st and 2nd edition? Check out USENET from this period. Back then, the only way to really find out if a rule was broken would be to give it a skeptical once-over, pray to Xagyg, and then run it in a live game. If something went terribly wrong, well, gee, I guess that was broken.It's not as if by obscuring the math you avoid those balance arguments. If anything, you made it worse because no two people ever have a common framework to discuss mechanics. A typical rule discussion from 1st edition went something like this: A: The Bear Barbarian's Mighty Hug ability is broken! It wrecked my campaign!B: I think the Mighty Hug is fine. I never had any problems with it in my campaign!C: The Mighty Hug ability sucks! My Bear Barbarian character is way weaker than this drow ranger!Rinse, Lather, Repeat.In 3e, at least we all have this common framework to argue within. It allows you, me, or anyone else to quickly and accurately examine new mechanics.I agree that rigorous playtests are vital to the design process, and will often point out things that a simple math check will not. Sometimes monster Challenge Ratings, for instance, will look much too high or much too low on paper, but are fine in actual play.But if a publisher can't get the basic math right, why should I have any confidence that they ran a rigorous playtest to start with? Sloppy final editing suggests a sloppy design process throughout. Hiding the math here doesn't really help anyone -- neither the designers nor the users. If anything, it makes things worse by erasing that common framework.</blockquote>

Verification