Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eirikrautha" data-source="post: 7738336" data-attributes="member: 6777843">I don't want this to sound personal, as I've never met Mr. Seifter and he seems like a great person and a careful designer, but the math focus of much of his commentary makes me uncomfortable.  Before becoming a designer for Paizo, Mr. Seifter was very active on the message boards, and much of his commentary was similar in it's focus on the mathematical roots of PF rules and feats.  I think this focus is an example of an overemphasis on the math, at the expense of the "feel" of the play.Two caveats: as I said above, it's not about Mr. Seifter, but about the role math plays in the design process.  Also, I am very aware that the math plays a vital role in balancing the game, as well as determining the viability of different actions.  My problem lies in the assumption that math can be an accurate prediction of play.For example, the various formulas (and computer simulation) of survivability to different dice rolls of damage is very clinical in nature, and doesn't represent what usually happens at the table.  If a character is taking 13d6 from the BBG only, from full health, you might be able to say that certain outcomes are more likely than others.  But when does this actually happen that way?  What about the character that starts the fight down 7 hp (because it's close enough to full that he doesn't want to spend another spell/charge and waste the excess)?  What about the minions that add 4d6 or 3d8 damage occasionally to the total?  The antiseptic mathematical calculations can't account for that, or for the night you roll ten times under 10 on your d20 in a row.If you go to the Paizo forums, you can find page after page of calculations of bonuses, damage, to hit, etc., all centered around the viability of this or that feat because it produces 12.3 points of damage per round compared to another that produces 12.4 ppr.  I don't begrudge anyone their interests in these kinds of topics, especially since PF and its mechanics tend to exacerbate the math and synergies of the rules.  But I don't think it necessarily describes what actually happens at an actual table.  And I feel like Paizo has gotten a little to caught up in "what does the math say," as opposed to "how is it likely to manifest itself in play."  The second is much harder (if not impossible) to predict, which explains the focus on the next best thing: the math.I understand that, because of unintended synergies, the math on PF has to be tight.  Balance is important when the numbers can get out of hand very quickly.  And there are groups of players who look very carefully for these kinds of synergies to exploit them.  But I don't believe that even the most perfectly balance has more than a tangential effect on the "fun" of the game.  Nor is the "average" a good predictor of what the mechanics are going to feel like at the table.  I just don't find "look at the numbers" to be a persuasive argument when it comes to rules decisions, unless it is to show how incredibly out of expectation the results are.  I'd rather hear "it plays very well"...</blockquote>

Verification