Rich Baker's New Blog Site

[Roele]

Good suggestions, I'll tinker with it some more first thing next week. Still exploring the tool set.

Thanks!

Rich

Glad to see the new blog. Love the name!

A suggestion, if I may...

While it's good to have your image on the site, it's so huge that it takes up most or all of a screen (depending on the screen). I don't even see your blog post until I scroll down. I would recommend resizing that photo and getting the blog up to where folks can see it. That's the point of them coming to the site, after all. And it only takes half a second for someone to decide to move on if they don't see what they want right away.

Personally, I would have gone with WordPress, but I'm biased that way.

Anyway, welcome to the blogosphere and I wish you the best.

 

[Roele]

And today, a new post! I figured there was a chance I might not feel much like writing up something on the 1st.


Atomic Dragon Battleship


Rich

 

[SPECTRE666]

Hey Rich. People are wanting to know if you are gonna visit us over at Candlekeep. You have a home there.

 

[Guest 85555]

Great blog. Interesting thoughts on simulation.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The blog's name has changed to "Atomic Dragon Battleship."

Why the sudden dislike of Robots? Have Futurama and the Terminator franchise soured you against our metallic brethren?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ooooooh, Atomic Dragons....

Really interesting thoughts about Sim / Game play! I think you kind of nailed it with the whole "A game, however, tries very hard to not let you make up actions that aren't what the game designer wants you to do." That resonates with some recent convos over here about cause-based vs. results-based design, and how a lot of people really, really, don't like the latter, even though it's easier, presumably, to balance, and a lot of people really don't like the former, in part, because it's so easy to un-balance.

 

[Roele]

Oh, I still dig robots. But I figured there were a couple of "Robot ____" things out there in the universe already, like Robot Chicken or Robot Viking, so I decided to tweak the name.

The blog's name has changed to "Atomic Dragon Battleship."

Why the sudden dislike of Robots? Have Futurama and the Terminator franchise soured you against our metallic brethren?

 

[Roele]

Cause-based versus results-based is a very solid way of looking at what I'm talking about. 3e monster design is cause-based (with some cheating, like +22 natural armor for high level monsters). 4e monster design is results-based (who cares what it took for this guy to get AC 35?) I think that's a more important split than people think.


Rich

Ooooooh, Atomic Dragons....

Really interesting thoughts about Sim / Game play! I think you kind of nailed it with the whole "A game, however, tries very hard to not let you make up actions that aren't what the game designer wants you to do." That resonates with some recent convos over here about cause-based vs. results-based design, and how a lot of people really, really, don't like the latter, even though it's easier, presumably, to balance, and a lot of people really don't like the former, in part, because it's so easy to un-balance.

 

[Dausuul]

Cause-based versus results-based is a very solid way of looking at what I'm talking about. 3e monster design is cause-based (with some cheating, like +22 natural armor for high level monsters). 4e monster design is results-based (who cares what it took for this guy to get AC 35?) I think that's a more important split than people think.

Hmm. It may be, but I think it needs to be broken down further. There are really three schools of monster design in D&D; the AD&D school, the 3E school, and the 4E school.

AD&D: "The dragon is covered in iron-hard scales. That means it oughta be pretty hard to hurt it. I'm gonna say... AC -2."
3E: "Okay, the dragon is covered in iron-hard scales. That's about +20 natural armor. But it's got a Dex of 8, so -1 for that. Then it's Gargantuan, so -4. Add all that up, base AC 10, final result... AC 25."
4E: "The dragon is a 10th-level controller. *checks table* That's AC 26, give or take."

Personally, I favor a mix of the AD&D and 4E approaches. A monster's AC should be consistent with its description, but it should also be consistent with its stated threat level (whether you express that as 4E level/role, 3E challenge rating, or AD&D XP value). If there's a conflict, go with the description but adjust threat level to fit.

I dislike the 3E approach, which I consider the worst of both worlds. It does not lead either to good simulation (house cats versus wizards for the win!) or to good game balance (as evidenced by how monsters often had to have their stats kludged with giant special modifiers), and it's a serious headache into the bargain.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Good to see some postings. Keep it happening.