Serious question - are you going to invest in D&DNext?

[amerigoV]

Aw, F*** off!

You're getting closer!

 

[C4]

And people, a math polish is the last step in game design!

This is like saying "And players, writing out your character's stats is the last step in chargen!"

Well, maybe it is, if you don't care about mechanical elegance. (Or character effectiveness, in my analogy.) And not caring about elegance is a perfectly valid choice for a game designer. Heck, some players seem to love games that throw it to the wind.

But as a writer of my own fantasy heartbreaker, I can tell you that the math was one of the very first things on my mind when I began writing. Because while things like style and theme are the beating heart of a game, I consider math to be its backbone. And adding the backbone last is only one step away from skipping it completely.

 

[Salamandyr]

This is like saying "And players, writing out your character's stats is the last step in chargen!"

Uh...no. Those two things are not even remotely comparable.

Math polish is more akin to...after having figured out your stats, feats, equipment, and skills, writing it all out on the character sheet and making sure you've added all the modifiers correctly.

What you're talking about...the core mechanic, the method of generating the math, yes you need first. But how many hit points should a hobgoblin have? That comes after you've decided that there's going to be hobgoblins.

What likelihood of success should a fighter have if trying to hide from a band of orcs? Do the numbers actually generate that likelihood?

What number should the proficiency bonus be? Again, you can't decide that until you've decided you need a proficiency bonus.

Once you've decided on the basic structure of the game, and the features, then you can set about making sure all of those things work together like they should and generate the mathematical results you wish to see. That's what they're doing now...deciding how many hit points the hobgoblins should have, how often the fighter can count on hitting them, etc. That's math polish.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip)Sure, anyone can crank out a fantasy heartbreaker much quicker than we have seen the development of Next (I did so myself back in the dark days of 2e). But they only have to account for themselves and a small number of like minded folks. If they hate Modrons and other Planar stuff, they can completely ignore it. If they hate psionics they can completely excluded them. (snip)

I would accept that argument if that argument was reflected in Next. My comment, which I thought was fairly clear, was that Next is pretty simple and it has taken an a bloody long time to produce despite its simplicity.

And I was talking more about the game than things like modrons etc... which are not yet part of Next.

(snip) Simply put, its your fault that they are talking so long since they have to account for how you play D&D (wrong, of course) instead of just making my game

Hehe... not in my case, mate.

They've already made the D&D I prefer.

 

[Starfox]

My comment, which I thought was fairly clear, was that Next is pretty simple and it has taken an a bloody long time to produce despite its simplicity.

Well, simplicity is hard. Much harder than complexity, actually. If they achieve simplicity that works, all praise to them!

The Next team have shown that they finish up with doing the math. I agree it might not be elegant, but if it they get the job done, it can work. Only elegance and simplicity go well together, and as you noted, simplicity comes from a strong mathematical backbone. Shudders.

Basically, we can only hope.

 

[C4]

Once you've decided on the basic structure of the game, and the features, then you can set about making sure all of those things work together like they should and generate the mathematical results you wish to see. That's what they're doing now...deciding how many hit points the hobgoblins should have, how often the fighter can count on hitting them, etc. That's math polish.

What you're calling math 'polish' has a big effect on game play. For example, deciding how many hit points monsters have and what the PC hit-rate is has a direct and dramatic effect on how long combat lasts -- something that has always been an issue in D&D, particularly in later levels. How many fan complaints have we heard about 3e's Russian roulette combat? How many complaints about 4e grind have we heard? How many complaints have there been about both of those things in pre-WotC D&D?

And until I decide how long I want combat to last in my heartbreaker, and from there decide how many hit points to give monsters and how high PC hit-rates should be, there are a lot of details that I just can't flesh out.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing as much as it appears we are, but calling any part of a game's math a 'polish' is a subjective value judgment. You can disagree all you want, but I'm actually writing a game as we speak, and I'm telling you that I don't share your particular design values. So unless you can objectively demonstrate that your design values universal fact, there's nothing to debate.

 

[Salamandyr]

What you're calling math 'polish' has a big effect on game play. For example, deciding how many hit points monsters have and what the PC hit-rate is has a direct and dramatic effect on how long combat lasts -- something that has always been an issue in D&D, particularly in later levels. How many fan complaints have we heard about 3e's Russian roulette combat? How many complaints about 4e grind have we heard? How many complaints have there been about both of those things in pre-WotC D&D?

I'm not sure we're disagreeing as much as it appears we are, but calling any part of a game's math a 'polish' is a subjective value judgment.

Absolutely correct, except for your misapprehension that my use of the word polish was somehow pejorative.

What you're talking about in the first paragraph is exactly the kind of stuff I wish they'd taken the time to do in 3e, but they went with "looks good. ship it!" (or at least I imagine; I understand they playtested levels 1 through 10 pretty extensively). ADDENDUM: 4e had the opposite problem of 3e. They did a lot of work with the numbers, but those numbers didn't generate results matching player expectations.

But it's clear to me that deciding that "fights should last 5 rounds on average, and fighters should succeed at hitting their opponents 70% of the time" are goals one decides on early in the design process, but then, at the end, you have to go through the rules, and figure out that "Yes, fights are lasting about 5 rounds and, oh no! fighers are hitting only 45% of the time! We need to adjust their attack bonus to make them hit more! But now the fights only last 3 rounds. Perhaps we should look at hit points again!".

All of this is incredibly important stuff. But it's not stuff you can look at until you've figured out the basic structure of the game. Which is what the public playtest was about. Do we want expertise dice or a proficiency bonus? Should mages be competent with martial weapons? Should dragons be a challenging fight for a whole party, or should a single rogue be able to take an equal level dragon on? How often should a fighter succeed at hitting?

That's the stuff they needed us to answer. And we did; but now comes sausage making-the math polishing. We've told them we like proficiency bonuses more than expertise dice. So how large should that proficiency bonus be? They don't need us for that part. In fact, we'd only get in the way...the same way a chef in the kitchen needs to know we want steak rather than sea food, but doesn't need us telling him how to cook it.

The frustrating thing is the idea that the math should work absolutely correct right out the door "Waddaya mean my rogue can beat up a dragon! I told you I want rogues and dragons! Can't you do anything right?"

 

[darjr]

I have to defend WotC on their effort as well. The public playtest alone is probably a monumental task and I am VERY grateful that they decided to do it. And I'd MUCH rather they take longer if they need it then to hurry up and try to push something out the door that isn't ready.

How long did 3e and 4e take to develop? How long did Paizo take for Pathfinder? Or TSR with 2e?

 

[Kinak]

How long did 3e and 4e take to develop?

3rd took around three years.

4th took from May 2005 to June 2008, so almost exactly three years.

How long did Paizo take for Pathfinder?

October 2007 to release at GenCon, August 2009. So just under 2 years.

Or TSR with 2e?

Not sure. Sometime after 1985 through 1989.

Keep in mind that all these numbers are from start through release of core books. So the comparison would probably be early 2011 to whenever Next gets released.

It's safe to say it's going to take longer than 4th Edition development. Not hugely, though, assuming they release at GenCon this year.

The main difference is the distance between announcement and release. If you take time since announcement, we'd bee at May 2009 in 4e and already had the two preview books, the core books, both Forgotten Realms books, the Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, the Chromatic Draconomicon, PHB II, Monster Manual II, a bunch of accessories, and nine adventures.

When you look at it that way, it's easy to see why it feels like it's taking forever.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Zardnaar]

2nd ed was mostly 1987-1989. The difference with previous editions is that you had a reasonable idea what was coming down the pipeline assuming you paid attention. They're also basically rebooting the game as 1st to 2nd ed, 2nd to 3rd ed and 3rd to 4th ed they did at least build off the previous edition in some way. Seems a bit more clueless now.