Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5281568" data-attributes="member: 51942">Game Design & ComplexityBrainstorm, you mentioned that you weren't happy with countermeasures because of the extra work they impose on the DM.  I don't think complexity necessarily involves complicated rules and tracking.Compare Warcraft 1 with Starcraft 2:  in the original warcraft, the orcs and humans were balanced because they were virtually identical.  Sure, the opposing factions had "refluffed" creatures, but barring a few exception, most units were very similar.  Still, there were lots of units and that makes things complicated.  Balance was born of symmetry - and that particular type of balance is boring.  On the other hand, starcraft 2's races are also fairly balanced.  This balance is born not of symmetry however, but by the fact that various strategies each have different counters.  Of course you can win simply by having more units and hitting harder - but it's easier to win if you pick the right battles and units.  This kind of balance is the fun kind of balance - it's doesn't take a PhD to figure out, but since you don't know in advance what your opponent's up to, actually picking the right approach isn't trivial (not to mention actually executing it).Or take a look at dominion - a magic-like game, yet it's fun to play despite the fact that there's only a very limited set of cards in any given game and the fact that all players start with the same deck.Gameplay can be complex and interesting without being complicated and tedious.Back to D&D, an issue that comes up with 4e is The Grind.  In essence, this comes from the fact that all combats essentially boil down to attacking and dealing damage - and that whatever else you do, it hardly matters; what matters is hitting and hitting hard - and this takes a long time; it's Grind when it's too long.  There are various ways of avoiding it (see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254630-stalker0s-guide-anti-grind.html" target="_blank">Stalker0's guide to anti-grind</a>) - but it's an issue to keep in mind.One way to avoid grind is to keep combat's short - lot's of damage, few hitpoints.  Another way is to inject confounding factors (traps, terrain, timing issues) that keep things off-kilter.  Great encounters take lots of DM effort, and they're worth it (IMHO).  A third way to avoid boredom is to make the game itself less grindy: that means less focus on slow obliteration of hit points via the only means to do so.  This is where forced movement and status effects come in: they keep things dynamic and hopefully more engaging.  By weaking that core pillar, you could fundamentally undermine the game and promote one of the key issues 4e has.That's why I'd avoid making effects less lethal at all costs.  Effects and other non-damage aspects of combat need to be made more relevant, not less relevant.  So, if you feel stun is too effective, then weaken it by all means: but it's more fun to do so indirectly, by promoting possible counters.  For example, a standard action heal check @ DC 10+half level of stunned creature to snap a creature out of a stun could be such a mechanic.  Let the wizard's Dispel Magic end "magical" dazes and stuns. etc.  Avoid solo's; or use them as particularly powerful elites - with backup minions that can cure nasty status effects, say.  If I had to choose between revamping stun and revamping solo's, I'd choose to keep stun any day.So sure, you could make stun less powerful, but that's a missed opportunity to spice things up.  Why not keep it powerful but have readily available countermeasures instead?</blockquote>

Verification