The New Design Philosophy?

[MerricB]

Why is everything being redesigned?

To emphasize player skill over random luck.

To allow the ongoing participation of the players throughout the game.

I think those are two very important factors. Consider the 1e magic-user at 1st level. One spell. (If it wasn't sleep, you needed a new character). If the group had four encounters in a session, you could meaningfully participate in one of them. That's a lot of time hanging around and being bored.

This also applies to the DM side of thing, interestingly. The ogre mage redesign is much more interesting from a DM's perspective, because the combat doesn't have to be "cone of cold, run away".

Cheers!

 

[Glyfair]

My question is:

Why is everything being redesigned?

I hear: "Many people want it simplified."

I read: "We need to lure away WoW players!"

I think it's none of the above. Mike didn't say "we are redesigning everything." He said "if we were to redesign these creatures today, here is how we'd do it."

Mike is giving us examples of the sort of things that the development team considers when designing monsters. Rather than using a brand new monster (which has already been done in this article series), he's using classic creatures and showing us what the developers consider in the process.

Personally, I think this is probably best, but it does bring a lot of baggage. A lot of people won't be willing to listen to what he says because they consider the changes to be attacks on the monsters nostalgia factor. Many of the comments along the lines of "stripping the creature of its flavor" wouldn't come up if he had created perhaps an "Ogre Leader" creature (instead we'd have comments like "Why do we need another Ogre, just use templates and classes on the classic Ogre).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

To emphasize player skill over random luck.

To allow the ongoing participation of the players throughout the game.

I think those are two very important factors. Consider the 1e magic-user at 1st level. One spell. (If it wasn't sleep, you needed a new character). If the group had four encounters in a session, you could meaningfully participate in one of them. That's a lot of time hanging around and being bored.

This also applies to the DM side of thing, interestingly. The ogre mage redesign is much more interesting from a DM's perspective, because the combat doesn't have to be "cone of cold, run away".

Cheers!

Not to be snippy, but usually, if a 1st level group had 4 encounters, and healing potions around, they had 2 dead characters on their hands. By the encounters, that is. Or the trap inbetween the encounters.

And I just have to disagree that the DM is much more interesting from a DM's point of view...it may have become a better combat encounter, but on the whole, I don't see it as more interesting. The old version is actually more interesting in my eyes...the one before 3E, that is.

And emphasizing character skill over random dice rolls might be a viable game...as long as they don't take it out completely, as luck always has been a factor in heroic fantasy tales. Player skill actually is challenged by weird, off-the-track, non-standard situations that force them to think outside the usual "can we hack it to bits somehow" pathways. And that simply isn't encouraged by melding everything into variations of one "baseline". But that might as well just be me...as a friend of mine said last night to me while talking about the topic..."You're simply not in the target group of whom WotC wants to sell D&D to anymore at the moment." I guess he's more right than I'd like to admit. :\

 

[Plane Sailing]

To emphasize player skill over random luck.

If they really wanted to emphasize player skill over random luck, they could just get rid of the skill system.

In 1e (pre 'xxx survival guide') searching for things, spotting things, looking in the right places, bluffing the opponents was all a matter of player skill.

The skill system has introduced random luck to what used to be player skill, although it has done it in a way which enables those with less player skill to run a character who is supposed to be good at searching, bluffing, whatever.

It is an interesting example of levelling the player playing field by introducing systemised randomness into the game.

 

[MerricB]

If they really wanted to emphasize player skill over random luck, they could just get rid of the skill system.

In 1e (pre 'xxx survival guide') searching for things, spotting things, looking in the right places, bluffing the opponents was all a matter of player skill.

That is not, in actual fact, true.

Oh, it applies to diplomacy - somewhat, depending on how seriously your DM took the reaction table. (Mind you, given that the DC of a Bluff check depends on how well the player constructs the Bluff, even that isn't a given).

However...
Spot checks are the 3e version of the Surprise roll.
Search checks are the 3e version of the "find secret door 1 in 6" or "34% chance to find traps"

Indeed, knowing when to Take 20 on a Search check (for, in any fair dungeon, a rogue will be able to find anything hidden if they look in the right place) is a major indicator of player skill.

What makes this even more interesting is that the ability of the player to construct their character (rather than have set chances for everything) allows another aspect of player skill to come into it.

Cheers!

 

[Melan]

From d20srd.org (bolding mine):

Poison Needle Trap
CR 1; mechanical; touch trigger; manual reset; Atk +8 ranged (1 plus greenblood oil poison); Search DC 22; Disable Device DC 20. Market Price: 1,300 gp.

Greenblood oil Injury DC 13 1 Con 1d2 Con 100 gp

What, exactly, are you protecting your treasure from with your greenblood oil? Angry mice? Slightly agressive gnats? And for 1,300 gp?

Game balance. Serious business.

 

[Hussar]

THe problem I see with many of these kinds of discussions is that people confuse simplicity with elegance. Not that simple can't be elegant, however, the reverse does not have to be true. A clock is very elegant, however, I don't think anyone would argue that it's simple.

An excellent example of this is the difference between older version of energy drain and 3e's version.

Prior to 3e, an energy draining creature hit you and you lost x levels. You can't really get much simpler than that. Hit, drop levels, go to half way through the level, press on. That's much simpler than 3e's gain a negative level with its encumbent penalties, followed by a saving throw the next day for a permanent level loss.

However, it is far less elegant. The game comes to a grinding halt because of a simple attack by a spectre for example. Say I toss a spectre into an encounter in an adventure in 2e for 6th level characters. The spectre hits the fighter twice and then dies. The fighter is now 2nd level adventuring with a group of 6th level characters.

Now, because restoration was pretty much beyond the grasp of a party of that level, either for price or whatever reason, the campaign comes to a grinding halt. You have two choices. Either the party babysits the 2nd level fighter until such time as he becomes useful again, if he ever does, or the character is retired. This means that a minor encounter with a creature throws a huge wrench into my entire campaign. Bob, the fighter player, doesn't want to sit on his hands for the next five sessions until he gains enough xp to pull a little bit more weight and I'm fairly sure the rest of the group isn't too thrilled with having this albatross around their neck.

Compare that to 3e mechanics. Same fighter gets whacked for 4 negative levels. A sixth level party has access to lesser restoration most likely, so, while those negative levels are dangerous (since a third hit means dead PC), the effects aren't particularly far reaching, nor do I have to rewrite my entire session (or more) because of a single creature.

To me, the 3e mechanics for level drain are far more elegant. Level draining undead are still very dangerous. A small number of hits and you have a dead PC. However, they don't wipe out several weeks worth of gaming while we figure out how to get Bob useful again.

An elegant mechanic works very well and doesn't screw up other things. Simple mechanics might be elegant. OTOH, they might be extremely inelegant. The rust monster was another example of this. A throw away monster that could have huge effects far beyond a single encounter. It's not like a rust monster is going to lead to lots of plot or interaction. It's a bloody big lump. It doesn't talk, it doesn't scheme, it doesn't do anything that a trap doesn't do. Yet, using a rust monster can radically alter my campaign.

So, I don't use rust monsters. Before 3e I could probably count on one hand the number of times I used level draining undead. Both for the exact same reason. They are mechanics that, while very simple, caused far too many compexities in my game.

 

[Belen]

THe problem I see with many of these kinds of discussions is that people confuse simplicity with elegance. Not that simple can't be elegant, however, the reverse does not have to be true. A clock is very elegant, however, I don't think anyone would argue that it's simple.

An excellent example of this is the difference between older version of energy drain and 3e's version.

Prior to 3e, an energy draining creature hit you and you lost x levels. You can't really get much simpler than that. Hit, drop levels, go to half way through the level, press on. That's much simpler than 3e's gain a negative level with its encumbent penalties, followed by a saving throw the next day for a permanent level loss.

However, it is far less elegant. The game comes to a grinding halt because of a simple attack by a spectre for example. Say I toss a spectre into an encounter in an adventure in 2e for 6th level characters. The spectre hits the fighter twice and then dies. The fighter is now 2nd level adventuring with a group of 6th level characters.

Now, because restoration was pretty much beyond the grasp of a party of that level, either for price or whatever reason, the campaign comes to a grinding halt. You have two choices. Either the party babysits the 2nd level fighter until such time as he becomes useful again, if he ever does, or the character is retired. This means that a minor encounter with a creature throws a huge wrench into my entire campaign. Bob, the fighter player, doesn't want to sit on his hands for the next five sessions until he gains enough xp to pull a little bit more weight and I'm fairly sure the rest of the group isn't too thrilled with having this albatross around their neck.

Compare that to 3e mechanics. Same fighter gets whacked for 4 negative levels. A sixth level party has access to lesser restoration most likely, so, while those negative levels are dangerous (since a third hit means dead PC), the effects aren't particularly far reaching, nor do I have to rewrite my entire session (or more) because of a single creature.

To me, the 3e mechanics for level drain are far more elegant. Level draining undead are still very dangerous. A small number of hits and you have a dead PC. However, they don't wipe out several weeks worth of gaming while we figure out how to get Bob useful again.

An elegant mechanic works very well and doesn't screw up other things. Simple mechanics might be elegant. OTOH, they might be extremely inelegant. The rust monster was another example of this. A throw away monster that could have huge effects far beyond a single encounter. It's not like a rust monster is going to lead to lots of plot or interaction. It's a bloody big lump. It doesn't talk, it doesn't scheme, it doesn't do anything that a trap doesn't do. Yet, using a rust monster can radically alter my campaign.

So, I don't use rust monsters. Before 3e I could probably count on one hand the number of times I used level draining undead. Both for the exact same reason. They are mechanics that, while very simple, caused far too many compexities in my game.

Your argument makes no sense. The character who fails their save 24 hours later still loses a level. It was just delayed until after the combat. In your world, that would still stop the entire game because a PC one level lower than the party just cannot survive!?

The only thing the recent changes and this philosophy does is take away real threats and consequences for the players and replace them with temporary pains that go away after a short period.

So instead we have a situation where the game changes from

"Oh my god, that creature just drained the very life from my body. I cannot believe we made it."

to

"Whew. I just took -1 to everything and my hitpoints when down by 5 for 24 hours. Wizards, prepare that buff spell to help my save in 24 hours. We should rest now guys because I am not going forward with a -1."

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how level loss was such a huge deal in previous editions. You lost some hitpoints, maybe had lower saves and maybe a lost point of ThAC0. However, it did not take that long for a PC to catch up.

The problems that you illiuminate are ONLY problems if you are rushing through a dungeon with 3 encounters per day. However, that is one specific style of gaming and I do not think that D&D needs to emphasize that one single style.

The new rules are not elegant game design. They are gamist design meant to minimize any threats that cannot be solved with a cure light wounds.

Stopping progress through a dungeon crawl is not a big deal. Hell, if you do happen to be on a time-dependent mission and persevere despite setbacks, then that is damn heroic.

 

[Scribble]

But what is up with the new simplifications? To me, it looks like it's to improve PC's odds of survival. Since higher level play the PC's live or die by magic items, if something can damage those items, it is "adjusted."

I just wonder: "If ain't broke, why are you fixing it?"

I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer... But I have heard of a Rules lawyer. Seriously, the things that ground my game sessions in the past to a halt where the rules, and really only the rules.

The rules (the numbers and skill checks and such) are the only things that have any direct effect on a character. Flavor and backstory are great, one of my favorite parts of D&D.... But they don't directly effect the characters. Only the numbers do.

If the rules are not logical in their build then people have an argument against certain effects.

If suddenly the game grinds to a halt because the DM and a player get into a heated debate about just why only the party theif can climb a wall, or attempt to hide, that's one more chance for that group to say "screw it lets do something else."

It doesn't matter if a creative DM can give others a chance to climb and hide. What matters is the game lost those players, and thats one less group of people buying the game and keeping it alive.

The rules need to be TIGHT, so that people spend less time arguing, and more time inventing the flavor.

 

[wayne62682]

To be honest.. I don't like the new way things are going... flavour is being stripped out of the game to make it bland and more tactical. Fly used to be the ultimate getaway spell... now it's relatively useless in this context as the duration is so short that whoever you're fleeing from can easily follow you, wait until the spell expires and then take you down. Same with invisibility. Hell, same with most spells now.. the durations have been reduced so that they're *only* good in combat, and practically useless elsewhere.

I know the old editions of the game were even more focused on "Go into the dungeon, walk around, kill stuff, walk around some more, rinse & repeat" than 3/3.5 is, but still.. I agree with whoever said that slowly all the choices and freeoms are being stripped out of the game, to make it easier for newbies to pick up and not strain their minds creatively coming up with solutions. I see it's benefit from a business standpoint (easier to learn and play == more people willing to buy == more $$$$), but I liked my choices. It's something that's easily rectified via houserules, but I'm the sort of person who feels "dirty" whenever I house rule something; it feels like I'm not playing the same game.