I think this misses what pogre left implicit: the goal is to make the game rules as simple and easy to use as possible, without reducing the complexity they can model. The game of Go is famous for the simplicity of its rules -- not because they're as simple as, say, tic-tac-toe, but because Go's simple rules lead to an extraordinarily intricate game of strategy, very much unlike tic-tac-toe.PhantomNarrator said:
The New Design Philosophy?
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
mmadsen said:
Actually, that is explicitedly what I have been saying. It is my contention, however, that stripping away anything that can't be used in a brief combat scenario is the antithesis of that philosophy while others (and I got the feeling pogre was in this camp) seem to be arguing that stripping away anything that can't be used in a brief combat scenario is on the right track toward achieving that philosophy. That's the core of the debate, from as near as I can tell.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:
Nowhere does it say that these are the only options, or that other options are prohibited. It doesn't say certain commands are disallowed or not applicable. All it does is describe the general effect (give a single command) and then give a few specific instances of that command.
People are interpreting limitations where there are none. Nothing says that other commands can't be used. So they can. They just require that all-famous DM judgement call. Which Command as a spell required in general anyway.
As for the "If it ain't broke" crowd, I'll give you a few things to chew on:
1 - It is broke. D&D needs to compete with other things that sieze your gaming dollar. If nothing was changed, it would not survive, and that means it is malfunctioning.
2 - A rusty jalopy may run, but if you want a Ferrari, it's not going to satisfy you.
3 - Change is inevitable. D&D will adapt or die.
There are ways to model out-of-combat abilities that don't rely on spells, magic, or leet ninja super abilities. Heck, a bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate can do the work of Charm Person more than half the time. In the case of the Ogre Mage, Charm would clutter the list, while giving it a high Intimidate bonus would make sense.
There is also the idea that what a monster is capable in outside of combat is "whatever the DM wants it to be capable of." There don't nessecarily need to be mechanical abilities for monsters to turn the tide outside of combat, because the DM will set them up in any way that makes sense for their campaign.
SLA's are not the best place for out-of-combat monster abilities. How many charm SLA's does a Mind Flayer have? How many campaigns have been run where the Mind Flayer has loyal mental zombie-slaves?
Nowhere does it say that these are the only options, or that other options are prohibited. It doesn't say certain commands are disallowed or not applicable. All it does is describe the general effect (give a single command) and then give a few specific instances of that command.
People are interpreting limitations where there are none. Nothing says that other commands can't be used. So they can. They just require that all-famous DM judgement call. Which Command as a spell required in general anyway.
As for the "If it ain't broke" crowd, I'll give you a few things to chew on:
1 - It is broke. D&D needs to compete with other things that sieze your gaming dollar. If nothing was changed, it would not survive, and that means it is malfunctioning.
2 - A rusty jalopy may run, but if you want a Ferrari, it's not going to satisfy you.
3 - Change is inevitable. D&D will adapt or die.
There are ways to model out-of-combat abilities that don't rely on spells, magic, or leet ninja super abilities. Heck, a bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate can do the work of Charm Person more than half the time. In the case of the Ogre Mage, Charm would clutter the list, while giving it a high Intimidate bonus would make sense.
There is also the idea that what a monster is capable in outside of combat is "whatever the DM wants it to be capable of." There don't nessecarily need to be mechanical abilities for monsters to turn the tide outside of combat, because the DM will set them up in any way that makes sense for their campaign.
SLA's are not the best place for out-of-combat monster abilities. How many charm SLA's does a Mind Flayer have? How many campaigns have been run where the Mind Flayer has loyal mental zombie-slaves?
Last edited:
painandgreed
First Post
Kamikaze Midget said:
Right but you want a Ferrari, somebody else wants a SUV, the other guy wants a small economical car, and I want something inbetween all of them. They can produce one model or they can produce several*. Current design philosophy seems to be towards making it one single model without any attention to the others. You are completly right that this does not satisfy us. Remember that is possible to adapt and die also as one can specialize to a niche that is too small or disappears.
*Car annolgy fails, but suffice to be said that I think it would be possible to build one game that would fit many different people's requirements, rather than specialize.
wayne62682 said:
It's definitely a group issue. There is no reason why the person couldnt' say "I press forward, keeping my defenses ready, and attempt to stab behind his shield" instead of "I move five squares and attack".
Not that either is bad, per se. I 've done both, depending on how tired or into gaming I'm feeling. If you're the DM, try peppering your combat descriptions with something more interesting. "The goblin attacks, and misses." is rather boring compared to "The goblin, hopping from foot to foot and excitedly gibbering, stabs at you with his spear, but his enthusiasm is more evident than his skill, as he misses." Maybe the players will come up with their own.
JohnSnow
Hero
I'm sorry, I was gonna stay quiet until I saw this...
True. And that was the WEAKNESS of pre-3e D&D. Anyone who wanted to play a character who was smarter, swifter or more charismatic than they personally were was SOL. Because ALL of those "personality" things depended on the player.
The character was like a suit of armor with combat abilities, a few task resolution abilities...and nothing else. Because all of the things that relied on the character's mental assets in fact depended on the players.
Now, I'm sure we'd all like to believe that we have 18 INT, 18 WIS, and 18 CHA, but in fact, I doubt most of us gamers have all those. Which means you're unfairly advantaging the character who puts a low score in CHA, INT, or WIS because in those early rules, the disadvantage never came up in play.
And it's fine if you want to play the game that way. But then take out the mental attribute scores. Replace them with Perception, Knowledge, and Willpower because all those force of personality, intuitiveness and memory things are going to come from the player. That may be a valid way to play, but you should be aware what it means.
However, 3e doesn't work that way. You are forced to play your character's ability. There's no cheating by playing Thog the low-INT 1st level fighter as if he were a veteran adventurer who knows where to look for secret doors and trip switches and traps and all that, simply because his PLAYER Bob has been at D&D for 20 years and IS a veteran at D&D adventure. Bob may be a veteran adventurer, but Thog isn't. The rules enforce that. As Thog gets better, his ability to succeed goes up.
Let's see, 5 ranks in search? Unless the character has all the time in the world...(which is NEVER the case in most games I play).
Base: Search (5 ranks) - +5
Aid Another (3 other characters get DC 10) +6
Circumstance Bonus - +2 to +8 depending on where they tell me they're looking
Not trying to do it in combat - Take 10 - 10
That's DC 23+...
And all I needed for that were the PCs to work together (aid another) and to provide them a circumstance bonus for good search descriptions.
Yes, they can "tear the place apart" to find the door.
I don't see this as the death of roleplaying that some do. I see it as the rules preventing player ability from overwhelming character ability. Why should Thog the fighter find the secret door instead of Gareth the thief because Thog's player has been playing longer than Gareth's?
Circumstance bonuses are more than enough to reward veteran players. And aid another rewards good teamwork.
My two pence.
Plane Sailing said:
True. And that was the WEAKNESS of pre-3e D&D. Anyone who wanted to play a character who was smarter, swifter or more charismatic than they personally were was SOL. Because ALL of those "personality" things depended on the player.
The character was like a suit of armor with combat abilities, a few task resolution abilities...and nothing else. Because all of the things that relied on the character's mental assets in fact depended on the players.
Now, I'm sure we'd all like to believe that we have 18 INT, 18 WIS, and 18 CHA, but in fact, I doubt most of us gamers have all those. Which means you're unfairly advantaging the character who puts a low score in CHA, INT, or WIS because in those early rules, the disadvantage never came up in play.
And it's fine if you want to play the game that way. But then take out the mental attribute scores. Replace them with Perception, Knowledge, and Willpower because all those force of personality, intuitiveness and memory things are going to come from the player. That may be a valid way to play, but you should be aware what it means.
However, 3e doesn't work that way. You are forced to play your character's ability. There's no cheating by playing Thog the low-INT 1st level fighter as if he were a veteran adventurer who knows where to look for secret doors and trip switches and traps and all that, simply because his PLAYER Bob has been at D&D for 20 years and IS a veteran at D&D adventure. Bob may be a veteran adventurer, but Thog isn't. The rules enforce that. As Thog gets better, his ability to succeed goes up.
Plane Sailing said:
Let's see, 5 ranks in search? Unless the character has all the time in the world...(which is NEVER the case in most games I play).
Base: Search (5 ranks) - +5
Aid Another (3 other characters get DC 10) +6
Circumstance Bonus - +2 to +8 depending on where they tell me they're looking
Not trying to do it in combat - Take 10 - 10
That's DC 23+...
And all I needed for that were the PCs to work together (aid another) and to provide them a circumstance bonus for good search descriptions.
Yes, they can "tear the place apart" to find the door.
I don't see this as the death of roleplaying that some do. I see it as the rules preventing player ability from overwhelming character ability. Why should Thog the fighter find the secret door instead of Gareth the thief because Thog's player has been playing longer than Gareth's?
Circumstance bonuses are more than enough to reward veteran players. And aid another rewards good teamwork.
My two pence.
wayne62682
First Post
JohnSnow said:
When you say it like that.. I'm inclined to agree. I think that theory is also the reason I see no problem "metagaming"; because it never came up in the rules before (and there was no such term to describe it).. in short I fell into exactly what you were describing above, not playing my character's ability. That IS something that was changed in 3e, and rightly so.
I applaud you for your comments, sir, and while it's not relevant to the topic on hand I think that reading your post will make me a better player in the long run. I thank you.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Re: restorations in 1e-like campaigns:
My campaigns have always had *some* high-level NPC's, and it doesn't take the PC's all that long to find out where they are...to find a Cleric to cast Restoration, for example, just go to a large town, find a significant trustworthy temple, ask if they can do it and if not, who can. I've also changed Restoration in my game to make it somewhat easier on the caster, as well as more useful; by the original rules, though, you'd have a point about it hosing the caster.
Re: a level-busted PC in a continuing party:
Lane-"seventh-level three times and counting"-fan
Easy one first: the PC or the party are paying the gold, so not an issue (*very* rare exception is if the casting Cleric is divinely directed to help out BobPeeCee because the deity has plans for BobPeeCee; has happened maybe once in 20+ years in my games).Hussar said:
My campaigns have always had *some* high-level NPC's, and it doesn't take the PC's all that long to find out where they are...to find a Cleric to cast Restoration, for example, just go to a large town, find a significant trustworthy temple, ask if they can do it and if not, who can. I've also changed Restoration in my game to make it somewhat easier on the caster, as well as more useful; by the original rules, though, you'd have a point about it hosing the caster.
Re: a level-busted PC in a continuing party:
Same holds true if BobPeeCee dies and Bob brings in BobPeeCeeTwo, though. The only difference is that the drained BobPeeCee has the option of keeping going at low level (and probably stinking rich for his level, now), or of getting restored, or of retiring, or of becoming a hench...whatever.Hussar said:Agreed. THe campaign won't die because one PC does. But, that's the trick. The PC didn't die. If he died, things would be a whole lot simpler. However, now Bob has a character that is effectively useless. So, we'll make him a henchman and bring in a new 6th level character for Bob. Am I the only one who has problems with this?
"Uhh, yeah, sorry Bob, you got hit twice by that spectre. You get to stay in the back and carry the torch. THis other guy who we just met is going to get your share of the treasure from now on."
Lane-"seventh-level three times and counting"-fan
