[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

[Herschel]

That is because you pivoted the discussion on a single word. New mechanics are not always better.

Fine, whatever, my god I can't spell it out any more but because you want to take it as a negative preference (which is NOT how it is used) have it your way. You're pivoting the whole thing on a view of a single word that is not how it was being used.

 

[DMKastmaria]

All opinion, not fact.

It is Contemporary.

I'll also give him Inventive.

Cutting-Edge and State of the Art are just buzz-words, when we're talking about imaginary constructs.

The technology of RPG's have barely changed at all. Pen, paper, dice, and your imagination. Mini's, I am told, are no longer considered optional in 4e and by some in 3e.

As for the ideas, 3e and 4e represent possible lines of development. So do ACKS, LotFP and DCC. That's all. Some of those versions, arguably improve certain aspects of play. Other's, arguably, impair certain aspect of play. Many will just not be of use to any particular DM/Group, no matter how "innovative" one might think it is.

If 4e doesn't allow me to run the kind of campaign I want, then it's utterly useless, for my purposes!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually, cars are an apt comparison in this context. Look at it another way: The Delorean. The Stainless Steel body never rusts. That's a better body design in this context. It's expensive, and expensive to repair, etc. but it's still an improvement on 1980s Toyotas, for example. Whether or not you or I want to spend the money on that innovation is another story. My personal cost vs. benefit may mean I'd rather have that 80s Toyota that will rust horribly because I can replace it twice for what I'd spend on the Delorean.

I don't think the comparison holds.

A more apt comparison is film making. Techniques and styles change over time, they aren't neccessarily better than the ones that came before (arguably a lot of the style changes of the 90s for example were worse than what came before). Even then, it is still not a good comparison. Games are their own things. Game mechanics are quite unique and any analogy is going to break down. Bottom line is just because a mechanic was introduced in 1999 that doesn't mean it is better than a mechanic introduced in 1989 or 1978. And a revision of an existing system is not always an improvement.

The skill system of 3E is one such an example. You say it was more robust, but whether that is better for play or not is debatable. In my opinion it covered far too much ground and having skills for things like diplomacy, intimidate and spot introduced bigger problems to play than they solved (by interfering with the player's interaction with the fictional environment). This isn't the only interpretation of 3E skills (many people see them as a vast improvement over NWPs). But it just shows you really can't pinpoint one edition as objectively better. Take initiative for example. Most people think shifting it to the d20 was a major innovation. I think it was terrible. I much prefer having the old mechanic of a d10 from lowest to highest for a very simple reason: counting up is easier for the GM than counting down and 1-10 is a much more manageable range than 1-20+. So while some may see unification of mechanics as inevitable and always good, there are reasons for less unified systems like 1e and 2e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Fine, whatever, my god I can't spell it out any more but because you want to take it as a negative preference (which is NOT how it is used) have it your way. You're pivoting the whole thing on a view of a single word that is not how it was being used.

My intent was not to be hostile or aggressive so I appologize if my post came across as an attack. I think we just disagree on this point or have misunderstood one another's positions (the later is entirely possible).

 

[Keldryn]

LoL, get some context. 3E was a better designed game than 2E, which was better designed than 1E and 4E was better designed than 3E. That's just objective fact because every edition thus far has learned from and mechanically improved upon things of the past. It's evolution. OD&D was the first and had the most holes because, well, it was first. There was really nothing to expand upon but the original idea.

AD&D took that game, added to it and expanded upon it.

2E did the same and fixed/codified a few things from 1E.

3E, more of the same.

4E, ditto.

That's not to say everyone will prefer any particular edition. As I said I prefer 2E to 3E even though 3E is a better designed game.

I also prefer older video games and hate Halo/God of War/etc. even though the latter are better designed games. I'd rather play Frogger.

I'm of the opinion that modern games are largely over-designed. This applies to video games and RPGs like 4e. Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied. Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process. It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is, but the slick presentation, well-thought-out-balance, empirically-proven pacing and reward cycles leave me a little cold.

 

[Lanefan]

So while some may see unification of mechanics as inevitable and always good, there are reasons for less unified systems like 1e and 2e.

A secondary point in support of this is that it is far easier to kitbash a part of a less unified system without upsetting the rest of it too much. Tinkering with one part of a highly unified system has knock-on effects all over the place...

I'm of the opinion that modern games are largely over-designed. This applies to video games and RPGs like 4e. Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied. Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process. It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is, but the slick presentation, well-thought-out-balance, empirically-proven pacing and reward cycles leave me a little cold.over the place...

I've been using "prepackaged" to represent this same thought, but "overdesigned" is a better term. Thanks!

Lanefan

 

[Bedrockgames]

A secondary point in support of this is that it is far easier to kitbash a part of a less unified system without upsetting the rest of it too much. Tinkering with one part of a highly unified system has knock-on effects all over the place...I've been using "prepackaged" to represent this same thought, but "overdesigned" is a better term. Thanks!

Lanefan

Yes. The games i design are streamlined and unified (so i am no enemy of modern design) but that is a key downside and we encounter it every time we make a game. The more you tie yourself to that one mechanic the less you room it can give you to fiddle with different parts of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied. Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process. It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is,

That something is the familiar way the games sucked when they weren't as well designed. It's part nostalgia, part missing the 'lawless wild west' factor. Actually living in the wild west sucked, some jerk might come and shoot you for your boots or steal your horse or jump your claim at any moment. But, that adversity was exciting to read or watch movies about long after it was over. Heroic fantasy is also about characters dealing with extreme adversity. Conflating the adversity the hero faces due to heroic challenges, and the adversity the player faces due to bad rules is an understandable mistake.

 

[Abraxas]

That something is the familiar way the games sucked when they weren't as well designed. It's part nostalgia, part missing the 'lawless wild west' factor. Actually living in the wild west sucked, some jerk might come and shoot you for your boots or steal your horse or jump your claim at any moment. But, that adversity was exciting to read or watch movies about long after it was over. Heroic fantasy is also about characters dealing with extreme adversity. Conflating the adversity the hero faces due to heroic challenges, and the adversity the player faces due to bad rules is an understandable mistake.

Attributing it to nostalgia is an understandable mistake.
Is it so hard to believe that those older systems are liked because the people find them better than newer systems? That people feel they were actually well designed and served the game better? That just because something is newer doesn't mean that it is well designed?
Unfortunately, equating newer with better happens all too frequently around here.

 

[Herschel]

I don't think the comparison holds.

A more apt comparison is film making. Techniques and styles change over time, they aren't neccessarily better than the ones that came before (arguably a lot of the style changes of the 90s for example were worse than what came before).

Using this type of example us audio recording techniques. Listen to "When The Levee Breaks" by Led Zepelin, particularly John Bonham's drums. That thunderous, echoing sound was created "organically" because there wasn't a better method. Bonham played Ludwig Vistalites (Acrylic shells) with no muffling and tuned a bit high. That is the start of that boomy sound but it wasn't enough. They wanted an echoing reverb so they went to a castle, set up the kit at the bottom of a tower and set the microphones up top, allowing the sound to bounce around and off the sides, creating that canyon effect.

Almost 40 years later you can just run the sound through a digital effects processor and get the same effect quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

I also used to do echo/reverb in sound recording by potting the recording destination up slightly to create that extra "loop" and I was good at it. Again, now I could just use a digital effects processor.

But, if I'm more comfortable with the old ways, feeling they're more "organic", "natural" or whatever I can still use them if I prefer them.