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

[Hussar]

Sigh. Ok, let's look at a specific then

1e Initiative rules. Compared to any later edition. I think there's a pretty clear example of where newer=better.

Whether or not the book is more flavourful, or widely read or anything like that is irrelavent. That's entirely subjective. For every person singing praises of Gygaxian language, you've got another that loathes it. And, while yes, people were perfectly capable of writing coherent paragraphs in 1978, those people weren't writing D&D.

As far as finding material in the books, well, I'd say that's likely a result of the fact that you've been reading, and rereading the same book for 30 years. It certainly isn't because of good organization. Good grief. Are you really going to try to argue that the 1e DMG is well organized?

But, all that aside, I do disagree. Layout is part of design. It has to be. How the rules are presented is every bit as important as the rules themselves. You can have the greatest rules in the world, but, if the layout is bad, the game doesn't work. Particularly if you have to reference the book during play.

Once upon a time, the height of game design was basically to freeform anythign that wasn't combat. You want to talk to the guard? Other than some very rudimentary starting points with reaction tables, the mechanics were largely silent on the whole thing. You just "talked it out".

Later on, people started adding frameworks for detailing this kind of interaction. Even early RPG's other than D&D had skills like fast talk and whatnot. That's been in RPG's and largely standard in most RPG's since the 80's. Social mechnanics aren't new with 3e. They've been a staple of RPG's other than D&D since the 80's.

If they were truly bad design, why does virtually every RPG out there, and certainly almost all mainstream RPG's, have social mechanics. It's just that D&D had such a very long edition cycle that it took 3 editions and almost 25 years, to catch up to every other game out there.

 

[billd91]

Again, you're equating something you like with something of quality.

Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car. It just is. In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.

But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.

However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one. It just isn't. It can't be. Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.

You know that 1965 Mustang? It doesn't require a whole lot of electronic gizmos to diagnose problems with it. That Prius does. That means the 1965 Mustang is a whole lot better designed for the automotive enthusiast who likes to get in and work on fixing up and modifying cars. It also means, when it needs service, a wider variety of placs can do it. Chances are, someone will be able to keep it running YEARS longer than anyone will keep that Prius running, in part because its design will tolerate more variances than the newer models will.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Again, you're equating something you like with something of quality.

Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car. It just is. In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.

But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.

However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one. It just isn't. It can't be. Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.

The same applies to RPG's. The idea, for example, of action points. That players could have authorial control over events in the game didn't exist in 1978 when AD&D came out. No one, as far as I know, had come up with that idea in an RPG. Now, move forward a few years and you have the James Bond RPG, which did have something like Action Points. It was a very cool idea.

And, lo and behold, years later, we see that concept incorporated into many RPG's.

Is newer always better? No of course not. Some new ideas fail. That's a given. However, "because I like it" is NEVER a valid judgement of quality.

We're talking about the Quality of Ideas, here, not Cars or other manufactured items (see below for more on that.) RPG ideas bear their main fruit in the psychic imagination, though this will spill-over into objective reality.

Their result, their worthiness can only be measured by the individual. No physical instruments exists, which can measure those ideas, though you can measure some of the effects upon those individual subjects.

It's not about "because I like it." It's about the reasons why I like it.

And you can argue that the ideas of later designers are of higher quality, until doomsday, but you'll never prove it objectively true.

If you were to do so, you would perforce have also solved so many problems in philosophy, religion, psychology, and numerous other fields, that it would qualify you for the Nobel Prize.

A lot of people claim the unified mechanic of d20 games, is better than the sub-systems of older versions. I disagree. Makes it a pain to kitbash and tweak the system. It may be prettier, but it makes the game almost useless, for my purposes.

Ditto, for d20's three save system. People say it's "elegent." For myself, it just hamstrings my imagination. I don't want, nor do I need all saves, tied to those three ability scores.

Feats. Most of the worthwhile ones, I'd let a player attempt, anyway. Once you 86 those that only make sense within the context of the d20 rules.

Cleave is great, though! Best idea that the 3e designers swiped from Dave Arneson's old campaign.

Balance. A lot of people like 4e's balance. For others, it sucks the life out of the game.

We can discuss, examine, pick apart and argue the quality of the ideas that create 4e's Balance. We'll go for tat. Point for counterpoint.

And the best we'll do, is discover some part of the Intent, plans and purposes, which makes 4e useful for you and 1e useful for me.

For my intent, 4e's ideas just aren't suitable. 1e's ideas are, though adjustments are necessary.

4 more things.

1. The quality of the idea of "seizing narrative control" in RPG's is most definitely, debatable. For many, it moves the game into not-rpg territory. It doesn't serve the intent of what they're trying to create.

2. For an example of a manufacturing process going provably, objectively backwards, quality-wise, see Book Making/Binding.

3. In order to prove that the ideas of 4e are qualitatively better than any other edition, the best you could possibly do is to prove those ideas to be more suitable to the intent of just over half of all gamers. This would necessitate complete knowledge of the nervous system of every rpg gamer who has ever lived and ever will live. And would only prove those ideas to be superior, in that one aspect alone.

4. Technology. The technology behind automobile manufacturing has increased, considerably. For RPG's? It's still Pencil, Paper, Dice, Your Imagination. Mini's optional, dependent upon edition. That last sentence, is the only change at all!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sigh. Ok, let's look at a specific then

1e Initiative rules. Compared to any later edition. I think there's a pretty clear example of where newer=better.

.

I am more familiar with 2E initiative rules. If those are the same, then no newer doesn't equal better and I have made this argument many times. 3E is more streamlined (roll a d20 + modifer for both attack and initiative). But in my opinion the AD&D 2E method of rolling low on a d10 is superior for a number two reasons: counting up is easier than counting down on initiative---at least for me it is and 1-10 is much more manageable a range for the GM to track than 1-20+. I can't comment on the 1E initiative as the last time I used it was 1988. But just comparing 2e to 3e, I don't think you can say 3E is automatically better just because it is newer or more unified and streamlined. You could argue a unified system is easier to remember, but that is traded off with some of the benefits you gain from a less unified system.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If they were truly bad design, why does virtually every RPG out there, and certainly almost all mainstream RPG's, have social mechanics. It's just that D&D had such a very long edition cycle that it took 3 editions and almost 25 years, to catch up to every other game out there.

And social mechanics have been one of the most controversial inclusions in D&D. There are valid arguments for them and against them. But they are not objectively better than an approach that demands less layers between the experience of the PC and player. And social mechanics are not exactly new. They've been around for decades. They are only new to D&D.

 

[Hussar]

You know that 1965 Mustang? It doesn't require a whole lot of electronic gizmos to diagnose problems with it. That Prius does. That means the 1965 Mustang is a whole lot better designed for the automotive enthusiast who likes to get in and work on fixing up and modifying cars. It also means, when it needs service, a wider variety of placs can do it. Chances are, someone will be able to keep it running YEARS longer than anyone will keep that Prius running, in part because its design will tolerate more variances than the newer models will.

Oh, come on.

Look, the Prius is just better designed. There's no getting around this. That Prius will likely run for hundreds of thousands of kilometers with minimal servicing, will never rust, has emission standards that the Mustang couldn't possibly match, will have fuel economy beyond anything produced in 1965, has a better sound system, has better handling, has better brakes, is a THOUSAND times safer, is made from materials that are stronger, lighter and didn't even exist in 1965, and probably a hundred other improvements that I don't even know of.

From an engineering standpoint, you cannot possibly argue that a 1965 Mustang is a better designed car than a 2012 Prius. In every measurable QUANTIFIABLE way, the 2012 car is better designed.

However, better designed doesn't mean that it's a better car. Like you said, if I want something that I can work on at home, then, sure, the Mustang will work better for me. I will like the Mustang better because of non-quantitative criteria.

But, if you think that that Mustang is a better designed car... I dunno. It's utterly mind boggling.

But, I think that's the issue. When I talk about better design, I'm talking about quantifiable elements. X is better than Y because of Z. And Z will never vary depending on the observer because it is quantifiable.

Which is why I hate it when people try to say, "oh well, I like Y better, so, it must be better designed for me". No, it's just that you are judging something on criteria that is not quantifiable. You're judging it based on whether or not you happen to like it. And, anyone who disagrees with you and says, no this is not well designed, is, in your view, only doing it because they don't like it.

Which isn't true. I look at the layout of the 1e DMG and I say that that is poor design. It really is. It's all mashed together, there is very little rhyme or reason for the placement of anything in the book. That is bad design. Whether or not I like the book is irrelevant.

Heck, I think the 4e PHB is poorly designed because it presents the game in such a fashion that it makes many of the criticisms of 4e look reasonable. 4e is a combat centric minis game. Well, I can totally see why someone would think that looking at the 4e PHB. A better layout would present the game in a very different light and we'd see a lot less criticism. For example, why in heck is the section on Rituals buried at the back of the book after the freaking GLOSSARY?

Whether I happen to like it or not should not change my opinion on whether or not something is well designed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, all that aside, I do disagree. Layout is part of design. It has to be. How the rules are presented is every bit as important as the rules themselves. You can have the greatest rules in the world, but, if the layout is bad, the game doesn't work. Particularly if you have to reference the book during play.

.

My point about this was twofold: designers (especially in a company like WOTC which has seperate layout and graphic design people) are not involved in the layout. The layout has nothing to do with the state of game design and everything to do with the state of publishing. Even so, well organized is well organized. It isn't like presenting something in a clear and organized way is a new concept that earlier publishers of the game never heard of. This is a production quality issue, not a design quality issue. It certainly feeds into your experience of the game because referencing is part of play. But guys like Heinsoo and Cook are not personally laying out and indexing the books.

Arguably this hasn't improved drastically over time if you remove 1E from the equation. personally I think the 4E index is way too lean. 3E and 2E had much better indexes in my opinion.

 

[billd91]

Sigh. Ok, let's look at a specific then

1e Initiative rules. Compared to any later edition. I think there's a pretty clear example of where newer=better.

YOU think so. But better in what way? The cyclical initiative of 3e and 4e have certain advantages in smoothness of running encounters. But the side-based initiatives of 1e and 2e make it easier to coordinate player vs NPC groups, particularly for new players. The optional initiative system for 2e, modified by individual weapon speeds and casting times enables more tactical consideration between getting an early strike vs a late, but potentially stronger one, to say nothing about adding better balancing controls for magic spells in combat. When you also consider that the random element in 2e initiative is a d10, the random factor is a smaller proportion of the result, making player choice-drive modifiers more meaningful.

"Better" always depends on certain criteria. How is something better? Under what circumstances is it better? And in gaming, whether you want something better along those criteria is typically a subjective choice.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally Posted by Hussar
Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car. It just is. In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.

But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.

However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one. It just isn't. It can't be. Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.

A couple things
1) looking at your 2012 Prius vs 65 Mustang analogy - is the Prius better designed to give the driving experience you want from the Mustang? I think not - in just about any measurable way that would apply to why you want a mustang. Also for car analogies in general - look at the number of times new models came out that were actually worse than their predecessors. And you don't have to take my word on that just check out car reviews over the years.
2) A better analogy would be musical instruments - for example lets take violins. Using the train of thought running through this thread - A modern violin has the advantage of centuries of "improvements" in manufacturing techniques, materials, and tools - so must be better designed and therefore be better than one made by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù. Except, the consensus among violinists seems to be that a Stradivari is better and sets the standard modern violin makers try to emulate.

 

[steeldragons]

So we have the Wizards all balanced then?

Wut? Wrong thread?