The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[Hussar]

/snip

Premeasured formulas produce balance, predictable results and boredom. What if damage was as structured as the skill challenge system? Each hit will do X damage. Each character can get hit X number of times. The players must score more hits on the monsters than they take or the combat is lost. Would combat be more or less exciting this way?

I would point out there are a number of systems that work this way. Pretty much any system that doesn't use hp, for one. Savage Worlds works pretty much exactly like this - you can get hit X number of times (and any non-Wildcard can only take one hit before going down). I've never heard anyone describe SW combat as boring.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My issue with this quote though is the presumption that 4e is somehow directed at drawing MMO players in. I don't understand this point of view.

Although I am too lazy to look it up, I believe that this POV comes from designer quotes prior to 4e's release. But, as I said, I am too lazy to look it up, so until someone else does so, you may simply assume that I am mistaken.

(And, until that time, your assumption might be right! )


RC

 

[BryonD]

4e isn't any more MMOish than 3e really.

I don't think 4E is MMOish. (I do think it borrowed a few ideas from WoW, but I actually think those were fairly decent ideas and in no way make the overall game MMOish).

I understand the association. But when I say they want to attract MMO fans, I don't mean they want to make 4E be an MMO.

There is a lot that can be said about the marketing campaign etc... And it has been said many many times before.

But the easier to prep, less intimidating, friendlier to causual play approach clearly indicated to me that they wanted to make the footprint of the fan base larger. I'm all for that general principle, I just don't think the application was very realistic. But that aside, I think the major driver for why the marching orders to go find new fans, regardless of impact to existing fans, went out was seeing the massive fan base of WoW.

The management logic was:
I own D&D.
D&D is THE GAME about pretending to be an elf.
THOSE people are paying to pretend to be an elf.
Why are they not paying me?
Fix it.

So it had nothing to do with the specifics of WOW or making 4E be WOW. It was just audience envy.

(And again, I also don't think management in any way micromanaged the design process. I just think they pointed it in a starting direction and said go make it)

 

[BryonD]

Although I am too lazy to look it up, I believe that this POV comes from designer quotes prior to 4e's release. But, as I said, I am too lazy to look it up, so until someone else does so, you may simply assume that I am mistaken.

(And, until that time, your assumption might be right! )


RC

I knwo there were a variety of indications to this effect. I dont' recall if they were this explicit or not. But I know it was entirely clear, to me, that this was a driver. Granted, the sales spin has evolved since then. But the thinking that drove the initial game design is in the books. (pun intended)

 

[BryonD]

Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.

Heh

The bard makes +19 diplomacy attack against the ogre's 26 diplomacy defense. He gets an extra +2 for having the Soapbox feat.

He normally does 1d8+9 points of damage (the ogre has 29 dedication points before he becomes disillusioned). However, he gets an extra +3d6 because the rogue is in bantering position. And then he scores a critical hit doing a grand total of 3d8+27+3d6. He rolls high and scores a total of 50, completely switching the ogre to their side of the battle.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Heh

The bard makes +19 diplomacy attack against the ogre's 26 diplomacy defense. He gets an extra +2 for having the Soapbox feat.

He normally does 1d8+9 points of damage (the ogre has 29 dedication points before he becomes disillusioned). However, he gets an extra +3d6 because the rogue is in bantering position. And then he scores a critical hit doing a grand total of 3d8+27+3d6. He rolls high and scores a total of 50, completely switching the ogre to their side of the battle.

Very entertaining but just a substitution of one mechanical formula for another.

Is meaningful player input truly a lost art?

 

[Hussar]

Very entertaining but just a substitution of one mechanical formula for another.

Is meaningful player input truly a lost art?

I know what you're getting at here, but, I'm not sure how much you can mechanically add to the system to cover "meaningful" player input. How can you quantify that to the point where you can add it to the mechanics?

In earlier editions, there were few mechanics at all to cover this sort of thing, so it was all about the player input and the DM adjudicating its effectiveness. In the hands of a good DM, that's all you really need. You don't need a mechanical system and no mechanical system is going to equal a good DM.

However, that's the rub. How many good DM's are there out there? Depends on who you ask. I imagine a fair number of gamers were turned off the hobby by poor DM's who used the lack of mechanics to ride roughshod over the players.

So, you swing it the other way. Take the DM largely out of the equation. Your success or failure is in the hands of the players and the mechanics. Which in turn results in rather bland, stilted situations where you need X successes over Y failures.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches obviously.

 

[BryonD]

However, that's the rub. How many good DM's are there out there? Depends on who you ask. I imagine a fair number of gamers were turned off the hobby by poor DM's who used the lack of mechanics to ride roughshod over the players.

So, you swing it the other way. Take the DM largely out of the equation. Your success or failure is in the hands of the players and the mechanics. Which in turn results in rather bland, stilted situations where you need X successes over Y failures.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches obviously.

And, again, I agree.

However, I would add that I'd much rather play with a poor DM making progress in a good system, than with a poor DM using a system which presumes poor DMing.

And I also think that systems that take the DM out of the equation don't help create tomorrow's great DMs.

 

[Hussar]

And, again, I agree.

However, I would add that I'd much rather play with a poor DM making progress in a good system, than with a poor DM using a system which presumes poor DMing.

And I also think that systems that take the DM out of the equation don't help create tomorrow's great DMs.

See, it's that whole "progress" thing that I wonder about. I've seen more than my share of experienced DM's not progressing a whole heck of a lot.

Me, if I have to choose between the poor DM who gets no guidance and is expected to adjudicate everything by his gut vs the poor DM who has a whole system designed from the bottom up to support him and help him out, I'll take the latter thanks.

Then again, I'd much rather play game systems I know I can trust. 3e is fantastic for this. I can trust 3e. It has a rule for everything. Unfortunately, for me, it has a rule for everything and everything has a rule. To me, 3e is great at being 3e and as soon as I try to do something that is outside it's presumptions it becomes a great big hassle.

Again, for me, 4e works better for this. Again, solid system that I can trust but has enough built in flexibility that lets me build the campaigns I want to run much more easily.

I'd given up creating stuff for 3e a long time ago. 3e is the game I'll only run modules in and it had been that way since shortly after the release of 3.5. Just too darn much work otherwise. I find creating adventures in 4e to be a whole lot more fun.

Obviously, YMMV.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I know what you're getting at here, but, I'm not sure how much you can mechanically add to the system to cover "meaningful" player input. How can you quantify that to the point where you can add it to the mechanics?

In earlier editions, there were few mechanics at all to cover this sort of thing, so it was all about the player input and the DM adjudicating its effectiveness. In the hands of a good DM, that's all you really need. You don't need a mechanical system and no mechanical system is going to equal a good DM.

However, that's the rub. How many good DM's are there out there? Depends on who you ask. I imagine a fair number of gamers were turned off the hobby by poor DM's who used the lack of mechanics to ride roughshod over the players.

So, you swing it the other way. Take the DM largely out of the equation. Your success or failure is in the hands of the players and the mechanics. Which in turn results in rather bland, stilted situations where you need X successes over Y failures.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches obviously.

And, again, I agree.

However, I would add that I'd much rather play with a poor DM making progress in a good system, than with a poor DM using a system which presumes poor DMing.

And I also think that systems that take the DM out of the equation don't help create tomorrow's great DMs.

Someone throw BryonD some XP for me please!

A human being adjudicating the results of actions undertaken by other human beings is the spark that makes TTRPGs so great. Attempts to replicate the effects with heavier mechanics or a computer always seem to fall short of the real thing.

Do gamers these days not understand the concept of learning by doing? There may be some awesome naturally talented DMs out there who were born knowing how to run great games but I suspect the majority of the very best learned how by running games, finding out what worked, what didn't and applying that knowledge.

A ruleset that assumes the mediocre will produce exactly that.