Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 5613066" data-attributes="member: 63">Reading Mike Mearls' recent articles reminded me of all the design articles of Mark Rosewater, a big name for WotC's other game, Magic: the Gathering. I started wondering if some of the insights from one game can help in the design of the other. Anyone who spends much time reading WotC's Magic site knows about the three main player profiles.Timmy likes big effects, doesn't want to waste much time on subtlety or finesse, and thinks he ought to do well if he's doing something dramatic. In D&D, this might mean "My barbarian sets himself on fire and grapples the ice troll, head-butting for full power attack!" Johnny likes to tinker with the rules, and likes to achieve success as a result of his own creativity and ingenuity of putting together unusual elements. In D&D that might mean "I've taken the right combination of feats and class levels to be able to punch someone and deliver Baleful Polymorph as an at-will touch spell, so every time I punch someone, they turn into a toad!"Spike likes to be as efficient and effective as possible. They're competitive, they want their playing skill to be rewarded, and will typically pick whatever tactics are the best to win. In D&D, that means, "I found this really nice build online, and it can deal an average of 17.3 damage per round. Plus it grants itself temporary hit points and regeneration." (Sometimes they also intentionally handicap themselves, just to see if they can still win by outwitting their opponents.)Timmy wants to win big. Johnny wants to win with style. Spike wants to not lose (or at least not to screw up). Mearls' latest articles were about different dials of complexity. You also need rules to cater to different playstyles. In general, Timmy likes simpler rules, because there are fewer ways the rules can get in the way of doing cool things. I mean, mechanically, grappling a monster while you're on fire is not nearly as effective as just hacking at it with your sword, and if the grapple rules are complex enough, it ends up turning a cool idea into a lame and tedious moment of disappointment.Johnny likes rules that are interactive. In this regard, I feel 3e was a lot nicer than 4e, because multiclassing let you mix and match stuff so much more easily in 3e. In 4e I can't have my eladrin invoker take feats intended for elf clerics. Also, everything is so well balanced mathematically that few powers let you do wonky but numerically weak things, like turn enemies into toads, or trade access to higher-level powers for the ability to use weaker ones more often.Spike likes rules that he has to figure out. Winning tic-tac-toe is not nearly as satisfying as winning chess, because chess is a better demonstration of skill. How in the world can you make a game that serves all these play styles? Any ideas? What type of player are you? I think I'm a Spike.</blockquote>

Verification