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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dm4hire" data-source="post: 6170205" data-attributes="member: 14848">See that's kind of a fallacy as 1st ed had about as many books, including Deities & Demigods, DragonLance Adventures, Dungeon Masters Guide, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Fiend Folio, Greyhawk Adventures, Legends & Lore, Manual of the Planes, Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, Oriental Adventures, Players Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, and Wilderness Survival Guide all as hardback books.  There was no question that 2nd Ed was needed, but it wasn't because there were too many books, but because the rules were conflicting already as well as other gaming aspects needed to be addressed and fixed.I think where the problem with editions, beyond the first, is that the designers (as well as the players) start thinking of cool things to add to the game and don't think of what the overall impact is going to be.  They kick out books adding new details but they don't account for every aspect.  Playtesting has definitely helped curb that and while I think Pathfinder is better than 3e in a lot of respects because of that (and 5e will definitely be better than previous editions for the same reason) they are going to fall into the same hole eventually.Where we can fix this when going to the next edition is looking from the top down.  Once the decision to make the next edition is made I think you need to stop and look at the game from the top down.  Then decide where you want to end both for characters and monsters and scale everything from there.  What monster will be the top of the food chain and start filling in the pyramid going down from there.  By not doing this you end up seeing monsters that were meant to be the top suddenly becoming second rate.  They no longer have the same association they once had as penultimate monsters.  Then to fix the problem you see things like "elder" or whatever template the company comes up with that gets added to the monster to push it up to meet the challenge that the players will be facing.That creates a breakdown because the fix either becomes too powerful or still too weak.  The result eventually leads to the next edition.  4e met that challenge somewhat by setting a maximum level for the game, but even then WotC failed because they kept throwing more stuff into the mix without thought.  By thinking top down you set you limits as to what is the penultimate mob then stick everything else in where they fit below it.I will admit that 13th Age addresses this by having the level cap at 10th for players and then having the monsters cap at 14th.  If they keep the influx of materials down as far as abilities and keep classes to the same restriction then it will work in the long run because they will eliminate the game breaking down.  The key is limiting what gets released as far as rules.If every class is kept to a similar, although hopefully different, pattern then it will work as far as diversity.  So if you want the maximum damage a character can ever do to be 10d# then set it, but let how they reach that 10d# be the difference as long as it stays the limit.This is why I believe 13th Age will work over the long haul since it addresses that power creep and the break down at high levels.  Numenera meets this by using a set range of difficulty and then limiting how it is adjusted as well as giving the GM a little more range to play with, thus through arbitration they can pull the reins back on the game and keep it in check.  Both have strong points and excellent merits that lend themselves to my main question.  Which game do other gamers think will have the staying power.</blockquote>

Verification