Revisionist game publishing

[Obryn]

The divergence comes when the cart is put before the horse, when the game is designed to serve the rules instead of the opposite.

No, the rules are still defined to serve the game, 100%.

If a player wants to play a high-powered race, there are only a few reasonable approaches to it.

(1) The Savage Species route, which is kind of insane and which I'd love to hear justified in any kind of simulation sense.

(2) Level Adjustments, which are a pure intra-party balance kludge, and which break down any time you involve spellcasters. This showed up (IIRC) in the FRCG, and was greatly expanded by 3.5.

(3) "Just play the monster" - as in, take it right out of the MM and drop it into play. Which is a little odd to me, since it assumes that all monsters are basically identical in ability to one another. (4e supports this with the Companion rules in the DMG2, if you're interested.)

(4) You get a powered-down monster, revised to be suitable for a PC. This is apparently 4e's default, if you take the back of the MM as suitable for player use. Other than minotaurs, I can't think of another actual published example.

(5) Don't allow it. This was, basically, the advice in the 1e DMG.

(6) Make something up. You don't need rulebooks for this one.


In all of those cases, the rules are serving the game. And, in particular, they're largely concerned with balance - either intra-party (so the minotaur fighter doesn't overshadow the dwarf) or game-based (so the DM knows appropriate challenges to throw), and usually both.

Why would this be the game serving the rules, instead? They're just a lot of different paths towards the same basic goals.

-O

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(1) The Savage Species route, which is kind of insane and which I'd love to hear justified in any kind of simulation sense.

(1a) Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved method, which refined the SS route, works better.

The rationale is that the creature in the MM is a typical exemplar, but not the only way such a creature can be.

The AU/AE racial classes let you start off at a certain point of development in the creature's lifespan- call it a juvenile, if you want, but that's not quite it- and then the player chooses how "typical" his PC will be.

Take me for example. Mentally, according to tests, I just barely qualify as a "genius." Physically, I have certain attributes that could have made me money in (a certain small number of) pro sports. I chose to emphasize the former, so now I've got a small collection of advanced degrees...and I'm *ahem* a tad fluffy. I'm atypical.

A Minotaur using AU/AE style racial classes could be a physical brute...if he so chose to emphasize the aspects of his heritage that led to his becoming such. But, OTOH, if he becomes a Wizard, he's going to be spending a lot of time in the stacks of the libraries, and simply won't be as physically imposing.

He'll still be bigger and more formidable than his elf classmates, though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why would this be the game serving the rules, instead? They're just a lot of different paths towards the same basic goals.

-O

It would really be determined by the the participant's definition of what is most important in a game. In earlier editions the default design goals were aimed at the adventure and the shared world in which they took place. The current default design goals are centered around the implementation of exacting mechanical balance used in such adventures.

The game serving the rules is thus determined by the what the primary design goals are.

Scribble says:
"I say make the rules work first. I don't need help with my imagination I'm just fine on that, but numbers... I like it when some other dude figures all those things out ahead of time so I don't have to. "

For him, what he looks for first in "the game" are in fact precise rules. Other folks have different priorities.

 

[Obryn]

(1a) Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved method, which refined the SS route, works better.

Yeah, I really like the Arcana Evolved method. It's a very good way to make "level adjustments" work well. It's borderline sensible, too, and doesn't totally hose casters. It's just predicated on the assumption that gaining experience can allow you to become stronger, smarter, or evey larger - a leap which I, personally, didn't mind making at all, but which is a stretch for simulation. I think it's the cleanest implementation of powerful races under the 3.x rule-set, and probably my favorite innovation in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.

It would really be determined by the the participant's definition of what is most important in a game.

So, in other words, "It's just that I would have done it differently"? In that case, I really don't understand what's the cart and what's the horse in your analogy.

In earlier editions the default design goals were aimed at the adventure and the shared world in which they took place. The current default design goals are centered around the implementation of exacting mechanical balance used in such adventures.

The game serving the rules is thus determined by the what the primary design goals are.

I don't really see that - at least here. In all of the above cases, it's a matter of balance, as far back as I can see. It's a way to balance powerful races - with abilities and characteristics beyond the norm - either with the rest of the party, or with adventures, or usually both. IIRC, as far back as the 1e DMG, Monster-as-PC balance was cited as a legitimate concern.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't really see that - at least here. In all of the above cases, it's a matter of balance, as far back as I can see. It's a way to balance powerful races - with abilities and characteristics beyond the norm - either with the rest of the party, or with adventures, or usually both. IIRC, as far back as the 1e DMG, Monster-as-PC balance was cited as a legitimate concern.

-O

Game balance has always been considered in the design process. The key factor is what priority it has over other elements such as flavor and even fun.

The vorpal sword from 1E was not a balanced item in the modern sense but man was it fun.

Balance for such wacky stuff had to come from the DM/players.

 

[Obryn]

Balance for such wacky stuff had to come from the DM/players.

...because there were no rules for it.

If you'd rather have no rules for it, I don't know why you're arguing about the specifics of existing rules. You're house-ruling it either way.

-O

 

[JPL]

It would really be determined by the the participant's definition of what is most important in a game. In earlier editions the default design goals were aimed at the adventure and the shared world in which they took place. The current default design goals are centered around the implementation of exacting mechanical balance used in such adventures.

As to "adventure and the shared world in which they took place," I would take the non-crunch portions of DMG 4.0 and DMG2 4.0 over anything that was ever published for first edition. 4th Edition provides both players and DMs a wealth of advice about how to actually run an entertaining game. Maybe some people found those 1st edition DMG lists of different titles of nobility or purported magical properties of different semi-precious stones more conductive to a fun game than the 4th edition DM advice . . .

Whether the "shared world" is better than in previous editions is sort of a matter of taste. I would note that there has been a conscious effort to tie mechanics to the background of the world --- the relationship between gods and primordials and primal spirits, the streamlined cosmology, the origins of various monsters and races. 1st Edition, bless its heart, gave us Deities and Demigods without really explaining what use we might make of the stats for the Egyptian pantheon. I guess you could call it a toolbox approach, but there were a lot of tools you didn't need and no instructions as to how to use the tools you DID need.

As I see it, it's an unfair comparison, because 4th Edition stands on the shoulders of giants. It's the first edition that really embraces that D&D is D&D --- not a weird hybrid wargame / improvised theatre with everything Gygax had on his bookshelf slapped together, but rather, the experience that evolved from those origins.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, I really like the Arcana Evolved method. It's a very good way to make "level adjustments" work well. It's borderline sensible, too, and doesn't totally hose casters. It's just predicated on the assumption that gaining experience can allow you to become stronger, smarter, or evey larger - a leap which I, personally, didn't mind making at all, but which is a stretch for simulation. I think it's the cleanest implementation of powerful races under the 3.x rule-set, and probably my favorite innovation in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.

Its my fave, too. (For the record, #2 were some of the changes he made in the magic system- lesser & greater forms, alternative material component effects, and feats that are essentially a broader form of metamagic.)

IMHO, though, the predicate assumption that gaining XP makes you more _________ isn't that far fetched as a simulation, though. The more football you play, the bigger and stronger you get, the more marathons you run, the better your endurance, the more books you read, the smarter you get (generally). The more you practice an instrument, the better you play.

In nature, even getting MUCH larger can be a matter of "experience." When the male wrasse in a given area dies, the alpha female in the area actually gets bigger & brighter as it turns into the new male.

 

[pawsplay]

Once again, you're looking for simulation of reality in a game which fundamentally ignores simulation of reality. I'm not unhappy with saying, "This is what's required for you to play X monster race." If you are unhappy with this, it's just one of those places where your preferences and the game rules diverge.

Well, yeah!

But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?

So, yes, it is a matter of play preference. All the arguments that have been made thus far on the basis of balance are essentially moot, because it hasn't been established there is an inherent play imbalance between characters with different trumps. It is simply a matter of play style preference.

If you must have some kind of evolutionary reasoning, I think there are plenty of examples of divergent evolution wherein "useful" traits disappear. Just as cave fish lose their eyes over generations because it's a wasteful feature, surface- or shallow-cave-dwelling kobolds may lose their darkvision. If you need an evolutionary reason, they're not hard to invent.

Outside of that, and we're in house-rule territory - which is still wide-open and vast. But without some kind of kludgy rule like a level adjustment, you simply won't see it published.

Why would I be motivated to invent surface-dwelling kobolds, if 4e didn't ask me to? How do I reconcile the idea of a surface-dwelling creature with this thing whose main connection to real world mythology is that it lives underground?

Kobolds' "power" doesn't come from darkvision. It mainly comes from one of their racial features which makes them annoying and ... well, kobold-like ... to fight. It's a feature which most enemy kobolds should have, but it's not a genetic trait by any means. (If there's a PC kobold race, I'd expect it to have a cost of some sort, either feat or power-swap.)


I know you haven't been keeping up to date, but there are tons of ways for PCs to gain darkvision, for short or long times. There are several races with it, there are quite a few magic items that provide it, there are more than a few Utility powers which grant it, and there's even a way to pick it up with a feat if you're using the Spellscarred rules from Forgotten Realms. I have no doubt that a PC kobold race would, right now, have Darkvision.

The 4e designers started out very conservative. That changed pretty quickly, though.

-O

So was I right, were the 4e designers wrong? Are you saying PC kobolds should have darkvision?

 

[Squizzle]

I think it's really swell that these threads bitch about the loss of Oversized (which isn't actually represented in any minotaur stat block), but never the wholly player-centric, unknown-in-the-Manual additions of Danger Sense, Defended Mind, and Shifting Fortunes to the Githzerai. Sauce for the goose, right?