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

[Doug McCrae]

You guys are supposed to be talking about wizards. Not cars!

 

[Bedrockgames]

You guys are supposed to be talking about wizards. Not cars!

I don't, i always suspected click and clack were gamers. Maybe their one of the posters on this thread

 

[Hussar]

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.

It's better because it doesn't require fifteen pages of explanation and clarification. CF: http://www.multifoliate.com/dnd/ADDICT.pdf

 

[Hussar]

am not accusing your point of view of being trendy, I am saying there is currently a trend in game design toward streamlined and unified. RIght now the preference you developed 25 years ago is experiencing a good deal of popularity and that is what I was talking about. My point is in five years we may all be talking about fiddly and non-unified systems again. Because these are aesthetic design trends.

Well, anything's possible I suppose. But, the continuous trend for the past thirty years is more streamlining and unification of systems, so that would require a complete reversal of all game design over the past three decades.

IOW, I really, really doubt it.

As far as the car analogy goes. Well, are you actually using the vehicle as it was intended? Bill91 talks about the strength of the Mustang being a "tinkers car". But, that was never a design goal of a Mustang which was to provide an affordable high performance car. That you can tinker with it is simply a side effect, but never a design goal.

Musical instruments I don't know about, so, I cannot comment.

But, my question would be, why are the older instruments considered better and why can we not replicate or improve that? Is it simply nostalgia (I doubt it), or are there elements from those old instruments that just cannot be reproduced using modern techniques. And, are those elements applicable to this situation?

The idea that Old=always better is just as ludicrous as the idea that new=always better. I'm not arguing that newer=better. I'm arguing that, from a design perspective, having tens of thousands of man-hours testing a particular design tends to result in improvements in the next design.

Is it always true? Nope. The car example of newer models being worse than older models is certainly true. But, as a general trend? That's pretty much inescapable. We might be slow, but, people tend to learn things over time.

 

[slobster]

It's better because it doesn't require fifteen pages of explanation and clarification. CF: http://www.multifoliate.com/dnd/ADDICT.pdf

Holy crap. I only played one campaign in AD&D, and I was a beginning player and not the GM. I was always a bit hazy on how some of the more arcane bits worked, and since 3E came out at pretty much exactly the point where I became interested in actually learning the system instead of just playing a single character I never read much AD&D rules . . .

Holy crap. I don't remember things being that crazy!

 

[Herschel]

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.

Actually this is a very poor example. Modern instruments have better design tools to do the things master craftsmen did in the past and with better precision, but you can't age wood artificially to emulate the sound and tone of those instruments until they age, for example. I can pull out a set of DW drums with better everything than an old set of Radio Kings or a new Robot Les Paul vs. a late 6o's Gold Top and the new pieces will be easier to tune, stay in tune better, have a more consistent sound and generally be within specifications (and not out-of-round) but there's a warmth in that old wood as it has seasoned for decades. In some cases it may not sound right in close recording either but for live application or certain less-stringent applications they are desired.

Heck, a number of players still swear by the classic Ludwig Speed King pedal even though they all sqeak right out of the box or worn in. Recording with those things is a royal pain though the feel of them brings a familiar comfort to many players.

Musicians tend to be a horribly nostalgic lot.

 

[SkidAce]

As a side note, the Mustang will go faster than the Prius...which one is better again?

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'll just add that recent studies of various types determined no quantifiable difference between the sound from a Stradivarius and a modern high-quality violin, nor could experts reliably discern the difference between the two.

 

[The Shadow]

Okay, first off: Bedrockgames, it's clear I misunderstood you and I'm sorry I reacted in haste.

Having processed a bunch of recent posts, I think I have a better grip on just where both the subjective and objective layers of design lie.

Can everyone agree on this statement of things:

The types of game an individual likes is a matter of taste. Some people like a given type of game, others dislike it.

But given a type of game a designer wants to create, it can be assessed with at least some degree of objectivity whether a design succeeds or fails.

As Exhibit A, I present my assessment of 4e earlier: That it is a notably successful example of design (not perfect, but really good); but that it is a game I personally don't much like at all. Despite my dislike of it, I can - I think objectively - judge that it successfully produces the sort of game the designers were trying to make. (Well, as objectively as I can judge without having played it much at all, anyway.) Certainly I find that people who like tactical skirmish games seem to like 4e a lot - and more power to 'em.

What I said earlier about M&M and Champions? Was partly my taste and partly (I think) objective. The objective part is that my gaming group has had notably more fun playing M&M than Champions, and the GM has had notably more fun running it. It's just plain win-win all around. M&M succeeds better at delivering the sort of game experience we want to have.

We can give numerous reasons why M&M delivers that experience better. It's not just a vague, "I like it better." We can point to definite mechanics (or lack of mechanics) that facilitate the play experience we want to have. However, our preference for that play experience as opposed to others is certainly our own subjective taste.

Likewise, the experience I want to have with D&D is my own taste. But given that taste - and I think there's good evidence that I'm far from a small minority - I can assess that AD&D failed in a number of areas to deliver it. My assessment is objective in the sense that I can with reason point to specific mechanics (or lack thereof) that make that experience less likely or less intense. But it's subjective in the sense that others want a different experience and I have no basis to convince them otherwise.

That said, somewhat paradoxically, it was AD&D itself that gave rise to my desire. It delivered the experience I wanted on some occasions - enough so that when it failed to deliver it on other occasions it was noticeable and annoying. That's why I'm here - I'm very much hoping that 5e will give me a D&D that gives me the experience I want more reliably and more intensely than AD&D, or 3e, or Pathfinder. (Though I've played a bit of PF lately, I have to say it falls down a bit regarding the experience I'm looking for as well - though in totally different ways than AD&D.)

If we're all on the same page now, can we get back to wizards?

I found playing low-level wizards in AD&D to be... intensely frustrating.

Don't think I don't understand what some people are saying about how they were forced to think creatively and do things outside the box. Believe me, I do - one of my very favorite 2e campaigns was an all-thief group where the campaign premise was openly stated to be: "Frontal assault is suicide. You MUST be sneaky to survive." It was an incredible amount of fun. We had to think on our feet constantly just to keep our heads above water, and it was positively exhilarating. (My character from that campaign, a gnomish thief/illusionist, remains my favorite D&D character of all time.)

But it's one thing for the campaign to work that way by agreement, and it's another to have it forced on you by the game saying you can only cast one spell a day. It doesn't work well in the fiction - what master wizard would turn loose a 1st-level apprentice? (How could he possibly support himself, especially in the days before cantrips? How could he be expected to live? As indeed, he often did not - don't even get me started on the idea of rolling a d4 for hit points...) And it doesn't work well in play - according to my taste, anyway. It's just frustrating. Back in the day, we often started things off at 3rd level just to avoid the worst parts. (Well, to be more precise, with enough xp to get the wizards to 3rd level.)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Holy crap. I only played one campaign in AD&D, and I was a beginning player and not the GM. I was always a bit hazy on how some of the more arcane bits worked, and since 3E came out at pretty much exactly the point where I became interested in actually learning the system instead of just playing a single character I never read much AD&D rules . . .

Holy crap. I don't remember things being that crazy!

You don't remember it because they aren't. Initiative in 1E is rather simple. Roll D6. The winning side goes first. Casters in melee subtract casting time from the roll. That's pretty much it. Most of the above document concerns surprise which is a whole 'nother animal.