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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 4236035" data-attributes="member: 12306">Which brings me to a bigger point which I will go into further down.A RL black-box model is tested/valid/used for a limited range of inputs.  If you go outside that range, you need a better model.  If you don't have one and can't make one, you do without.  A DnD black-box model will be used outside of its design range.  If that happens, well, see below.Of course 3e doesn't have a good system for designing specials.  I don't believe it is possible to design a good system for specials (except, possibly, a set of tables a la Astral Construct, for an adequately broad definition of good).  *Without* such a system, a black-box design for the non-specials isn't particularly useful: a process-response system for BaB/AC/HP etc... is easy and more robust.The stuff I kept for the bottom:Reading the 4e excerpts, it feels to me like 4e was designed, not for the Users<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />layers or Users<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Ms, but rather for the designers themselves.  If as a designer you simplify your system to the point that DMs are forced to adjucate things on the fly, you have exported design decisions to the DM, making your life easier, and theirs harder.Sure, designing monsters only for PC vs. NPC combat is easier than coming up with a full design, but it causes problems when players charm/diplomacize them.  Writing modules, it is easier if you only need to place 4 magic items.  It is the DM running the module who needs to figure out how to keep having the level+4 magic for 2 modules in a row being heavy blades with a party without a heavy blade user from causing party power problems from several levels to come.  A job made more difficult because the level+4 magic item stands a good chance of being important to the plot or a central NPC.If the Users<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />layers are non-agressive, there won't be any problem.  But if they try to push boundaries, 4e dumps all the design work on the DM's shoulders.  The designers aren't the ones who have to tell players that the NPCs somehow have awesome stats w/o lootable magic, but the PCs can't.  The designers aren't the ones telling a player that his cool ability that does damage on a miss didn't hurt the minion, even though it does more damage than the other party member's hit that just dropped one.  I could go on, but why bother?Simplicity is only valuable if it doesn't create corner cases that drag games to screeching halts and overload the DM.  If your play-testing groups have great DMs/non-aggressive players who are on board with the design decisions (other devs) you won't notice the potential problems.  If you don't have such a situation though, you want a system with enough "why/how" explained that the DM can adjucate what happens when the players push the boundaries without excessive effort.</blockquote>

Verification