The New Design Philosophy?

[The_Gneech]

I also remember "suicide" being ruled as invalid...but "die" was always in play until 3.5; the target essentially feigned death for a round on a failed save, then got up and carried on. But why limit people's options to just 5 rather bland things? What's wrong with using a Command to make someone "jump", for example, or "fly" (if target has an active flight effect, they'd use it, otherwise just stand and foolishly flap their arms like wings), or "dance", or "disrobe", or whatever? This is what I mean by micro-management; it should be up to each DM whether to allow an outside-the-box Command attempt to work or not, as what's fine with one might not be fine with another.

I've had players in my games trying to "break" spells for many years; Command has existed throughout, and has never been a problem.

I remember hearing stories of a CE cleric whose favorite pastime was to cast command on paladins to do salacious things in taverns. I'll spare you the details, but most of them involved cruder bodily functions.

-The Gneech

 

[MerricB]

From d20srd.org (bolding mine):


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

No way. Angry Mice are much more tough than that.

Most Poisons in 3e are a complete joke. You'll have no argument from me on that. The mechanic is great, and some poisons are worth it (Wyvern poison ), but the costs are badly inflated.

Cheers!

 

[FireLance]

flavour is being stripped out of the game to make it bland and more tactical.

Flavor is being stripped out of the game? Tactical == bland? I can understand complaints that the flavor is different, or that you don't like the new flavor, but complaining that the flavor is absent seems somewhat unfair.

 

[wayne62682]

Flavor is being stripped out of the game? Tactical == bland? I can understand complaints that the flavor is different, or that you don't like the new flavor, but complaining that the flavor is absent seems somewhat unfair.

Sorry, that is just my opinion.. all the options being spelled out and the focus on tactics (read: combat) seems to drain the flavour out of the game.

Maybe it's just my group.. but it seems like we have two different "modes" as it were: "Normal" mode when we are interacting with people and roleplaying, and "Tactical" that happens when we enter combat, bust out the grid and miniatures, and start to play D&D Minis for 30 minutes to an hour because all we're doing is moving figs around a board without any flavour whatsoever because the combat rules are all spelled out in tactical terms. It's not "I draw my sword and advance 30 feet" its "I'm moving five squares up and attack him"

 

[PhantomNarrator]

Yeah, but is it D&D?

The task then for D&D designers is two-fold:

1. Simplify.
2. Greater ease of use.

This can be taken too far. If all I wanted was simplicity and ease of use, I'd play tic-tac-toe all day.

I think the real debate is where the line will be drawn on what makes D&D "D&D."

If WotC grows more concerned with attracting the lowest common denominator than satisfying their traditional purchase base, they risk ruining the brand. Pen & Paper RPG's will never be able to match console games for ease of play - they may as well just forget about that and concentrate on the things that make tabletop gaming so unique and special.

A certain minimum level of intelligence and imagination distinguishes the true gamer from the casual game player. I believe gamers enjoy a little complexity to their games - it gives them something to obsess over and tinker with. Not every gamer appreciates the same level of crunch, of course, but let's not forget that D&D has evolved into a progressively more complex game because the fans demanded it.

 

[FireLance]

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.

...

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Okay, I'll be serious now.

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.

You know, I do agree with you that D&D needs to accomodate more than one style of play. The problem is, some creatures (like the rust monster) seemed suited for one style of play only. That's why the revised rust monster, which was viewed as a horrible perversion of the spirit of the original creature by some, was welcomed by many others. It filled an empty niche in the "monster palette" of those that enjoy the "minimum permanent consequences" style of play: a monster that makes the PCs worry about their equipment without threatening quick and irrecoverable destruction.

In the same way that some restaurants (in my country, at least) put little fire icons next to the spicier dishes on their menu, and in the same way that your operating system (presumably) asks you to confirm before reformatting your hard disk drive, creatures that are suited for one style of play but not another ought to come with a warning label. It's not just a question of "the DM should be smart enough to know" or "the players shouldn't be coddled". It's simply good customer service to anticipate problems and work to minimize them so that people using your product enjoy it and want to keep using it, instead of having a bad experience and writing it off.

Hmm. I've just realized that while I've heard a lot of complaints about the new design philosophy, I haven't been hearing a lot of alternatives. How would you change the rules to be more in line with the style of game you'd like to play?

 

[Hussar]

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!?

Please reread what I wrote. The fighter is FOUR levels below the party. While what you are saying makes sense, it in no way actually relates to what I wrote.

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.

Catch up? From FOUR levels down? Note, the 2e fighter NEVER got a save throw at all, never mind any buffs to help him. Considering I can only gain one level at a time and I have to train each time, how in the heck am I going to catch up a four level deficit? Remember, this was from TWO hits. That's it. The creature hit me twice.

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.

Three encounters a day is RUSHING? I've been told time and again that in earlier editions, people went through far more than 3/day.

But, the problem isn't stopping progress in a dungeon crawl. It's completely screwing over one player. The character will never recover from this. The character will spend the next several sessions being babysat by the rest of the party. The rest of the party gets to have the added burden of not only being a man down, but having to cart around dead weight for the next four levels just to get our example fighter BACK to where he started from.

IME, it takes about 3-5 sessions to gain a level. Hell, we'll say that they are rocketing and going 2/session. That means it takes me TWO MONTHS to get back to where I started. Not advance, but just get back. Meanwhile, the rest of the group is one or two or three levels higher (depending on their class), so I'm still in the hole.

This is good game design? Are you kidding?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I don't see this as problematic. From a storytelling perspective, level drain or ability damage or item destruction or usually completely uninteresting. Their are very few instances where a character in a novel actually suffers from such consequences*.
The "real threats" are usually related to the goals of these characters (they fail to accomplish their tasks) or their friends and family (they are kidnapped or killed). The only other permanent consequence in a story is death, and that (usually) marks the end of the story.

*) Level Drain or Ability Damage in a story might be equivalent to permanent scars. Usually, such scars are character defining moments (and not seldomly happened in the past, not during the time of the story told). Item destruction is usually not done by a bizarre monster, but by an enemy that destroyed it.
It's not uncommon in movies or books that characters are hurt or injured, but often enough, they are recovered a scene later.

 

[tahsin]

Hrmm..
I think it's a good thing they streamline the monsters. That way, if I just need a monster to fight the party for some reason they're there quick and easy. I don't know about you, but with a job, family, girlfriend, and other intrests I don't have hours and hours worth of D&D time. So easy monsters with sample treasures and lairs are really usefull. I can spend more time modifying whats there as opposed to making everything up from scratch...

Hear hear!

 

[painandgreed]

Hmm. I've just realized that while I've heard a lot of complaints about the new design philosophy, I haven't been hearing a lot of alternatives. How would you change the rules to be more in line with the style of game you'd like to play?

Alternative woudl be to stop using the new theories and keep with the old ones. You want new, different monsters, create new and diferent monsters. Let each individual DM decide which ones to use, rather than making all monsters conform to a single design theory.

This is a bit different from how I would change the rules to be in line with the style of game I'd like to play. I like the idea of Unearthed Arcana being a set of optional or replacement rules to modify the game in such ways. I wouldn't mind seeing another one. My personal desired house rules run along the lines of a less shallow XP chart, crafting rules for magic items that involve risk as well as earning XP (old ones still apply if desired), codified XP rewards for social encounters and other things besides combat. I would probably also substitute stat damage instead of level loss for energy drainn (like I've been doing since 1E).

Little icons next to monsters like the spicy warning on menus would be good, but first the game would have to acknowledge that such things other than straight combat enoers exist.