Three economies of D&D

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

I think one of the most pertinent facts of this development is that most (if not all) of the developers of the more modern editions were frequent players of the previous editions. And, as AeroDM has eloquently stated, the first economy of character creation is something that is inherently personal, fun, and even competitive.

These players who played earlier editions sought to add more options, as more options meant more unique characters. The reflection of the rules became more important as the differentiating factor, rather than the role-playing of that character. It is my opinion that 4e attempted to resolve this to a degree, actually streamlining the character creation process while still providing ample choices (or bloat to some).

What we see as a result is the following edition is a reaction of the wants and desires of the players of the previous edition. I can remember during the days of 3.5's peak, and one of the biggest outcries was "there are too many skills" and "skill ranks are cumbersome." And thus we have 4e which minimizes the skills into broader chunks; but is levied with complaints at a lack of role-playability due to not enough skills (i.e. crafting) and focusing more on combat.

As Herremann the Wise so wisely pontificated, the balance between the "fluff" and the "stuff" is important; as is the amount of choices for character creation and character action.

I think that good game designers are good game players, but we have seen in modern incarnations the desires of disgruntled gamers from past editions who are now making the current editions; hopefully games can be produced which break the cycle without shifting too fluidly with exponential errata growth.

 

[AeroDm]

AeroDM: I think your use of "economy" was fine given the set up of your theory/argument. It works for me, as does your general assessment of the 3.x/4.x editions' take on your economy model.

It does seems to me that you have focused your model on the player game-play economy, and I'm curious to see how/if your assessments of each edition change when you examine the economy model through the eyes of the DM vs. the player.

I think this is a very fair assessment. The one neat revelation I've had so far is that both 3e and 4e set up the Economy Two so that monsters more or less equaled a PC in terms of actions. Monsters tend to be a bit simpler, but for the most part they can do everything a player can. As a result, the DM's turn takes substantially longer than any single player's turn. Because everyone at the table is, at the end of the day, a person looking to have fun, an ideal Economy Three would have them all take about the same amount of time per turn.

Now, that might not be possible and we wouldn't want to overly diminish Economy One or Two just to ensure "fairness" in Economy Three. But where possible, it might be worth pursuing.

One quick idea I had is that if we step back and think about what a player wants from his or her turn, we probably want most turns to be a "success." Often, that'll mean hitting with the standard action and so it might be reasonable to set up the math so that players hit 65% of the time. The DM, though, takes more standard actions and so we can give monsters a much lower success rate while still making the DM's turn feel like a "success."

Since a miss takes less time than a hit to adjudicate, this should speed up the DM's turn. To balance the game, then we just need monsters to deal more damage. The final result is that monsters hit less often, but when they do it is a bigger deal--in other words, quicker combat that is also (hopefully) more exciting.

Like I said--just seemed like a new way of thinking about issues and it was leading me in areas I thought might be neat and wanted input from the community.

 

[AeroDm]

Hello AeroDM,
Interesting ideas and thread - I'm really enjoying your various discussions so please keep the ball rolling.

[Snip--just a great post]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I wanted to give you XP but evidently did so too recently. Tons of great stuff in there that really put a lot of my wayward thoughts into a structured format.

 

[S'mon]

Was hoping for worldbuilding economy stuff. :\

 

[Pinotage]

Interesting comments, although I'll add in that I think you missed one of the overarching principles of the system in that these economies are likely to change depending on the level of the characters in the game. I think the action economy and the character building one change considerable at higher levels, as does the third. I think one has to consider the various editions in terms of this as well. I'm not even sure where the whole 'Game Balance' economy comes into the picture.

Pinotage

 

[AeroDm]

Interesting comments, although I'll add in that I think you missed one of the overarching principles of the system in that these economies are likely to change depending on the level of the characters in the game. I think the action economy and the character building one change considerable at higher levels, as does the third. I think one has to consider the various editions in terms of this as well. I'm not even sure where the whole 'Game Balance' economy comes into the picture.

Pinotage

I agree that they change but I'm not sure I think that is a good thing. Obviously the first economy will be more prevalent during character creation, but since you continue to acquire power throughout the game it ought to present you with meaningful decisions as you gain levels, select feats, and acquire equipment.

The second economy I think holds the most consistent across levels because the major mechanism is the economy of actions--and you don't (for the most part) get any more. The problem with the second economy is that each action doesn't increase in power at the same rate. Eventually the standard action becomes such a commanding source of power that risking losing it is not a viable strategy, and so "fun" things like moving and jumping are foregone because they aren't worth the risk.

The third economy is the one that I think changes the most across tiers of play (in 4e but even more in 3e) and really has an impact on the quality of the play experience. Like I say, I think this set took a back seat in recent editions, not intentionally but just because you didn't *have" to focus on it before because the game was simpler.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't believe a simpler game necessarily enhances the experience of playing a character.

 

[Ariosto]

I also wouldn’t argue that 2e or older editions *focused* on the third economy...

Mr. Gygax not only would but did declare his focus. In particular -- and notable in light of modern emphasis -- he decried prolonged combat resolution methods. His bluntest statement in that regard may have been in White Dwarf, but there are others in the Introduction to the 1st ed. DMG, in Sorcerer's Scroll columns in The Dragon, and elsewhere.