Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3860157" data-attributes="member: 42582">As others have noted, this gives rise to the question "What is broken in 3E?"My impression is that the designers have identified four key aspects of the game that are broken:*Significant parts of the rules are not being used (or not used with pleasure) by a majority of the players of the game. These rules are therefore being changed. (For example, grappling and the elemental planes.) *Significant parts of the character build mechanics are hard to use well (eg multi-classing with spellcasters) and/or a prone to misuse or breakage due to unforseen synergies (see the character optimisation boards). These mechanics are therefore being changed. *Significant parts of the rules lead, due to the overall design logic, to an unsatisfactory play experience. Examples include those part of the spell rules that lead either to players of wizards frequently doing nothing, or to nova-ing and overshadowing non-spell-users. There are two main possible changes here: (i) changing the overall design logic by going back to 1st-ed assumptions about play (in particular, that it is the operational planning and GM-mediated solutions to non-mechanically expressed challenges that will be the crux of the play experience); (ii) changing the suites of class abilities so that they work better with the present design logic (in particular, that character build mechanics, and the overcoming of mechanically-expressed challenges by clever applicaiton of the action resolution mechanics, that will be the crux of the play experience). Of RPGs that I'm familiar with, AD&D is the only one in which option (i) has ever been prominent, and the general trend of the game over the past 25 years has been away from it and towards (ii). So the 4e designers are continuing that trend and revising the suites of class abilities. This also has the advantage of addressing the second point above. *The game is very hard to GM, especially for high level play, because of the complexity of monster and NPC build rules (eg skill points) and the complexity of monster and NPC action resolution rules (eg the many spell-like abilities that high level monsters often have). Both sets of mechanics are therefore being changed. Because what GMs are looking for in their play experience is quite different from what players are looking for (eg complexity of PC build is a plus for many players, but complexity of NPC build is a minus for many GMs), these rules - especially the build rules - will be divorced from those for PCs. This marks a further departure from 3E.(Obviously, any such taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary. And maybe I've missed something. But this is how it looks to me.) It seems to me that, of these changes, about the only one which could be implemented within the context of a 3.75 would be the first. Perhaps some spell or feat errata might handle aspects of the second. But it wouldn't handle all of the second, and certainly wouldn't touch the third and fourth.In addition to these changes to things that are broken, I think the designers are also making a fifth set of changes:*Currently, some aspects of trope and flavour are seen as impediments to easy uptake of the game, and particularly to easy GMing. These include sometimes obscure distinctions between monsters (eg demons and devils), and the perceived need to detail a world before the PCs can interact with it. The designers are therefore changing those things (eg succubi become devils, "points of light" becomes the default setting).While these things are not broken in 3E, I can see why the designers - given the scope of changes required to mend the brokenness - have decided to have a look at them also.I think both of these aspects are attempts, by the rulebooks, to tell the players of the game how the designers envision it being played.Past versions of D&D have done this to an extent with respect to PC roles - for example, Moldvay Basic described the sort of role that each of the human character classes might play in an adventure. I don't think that 3E is as strong in this respect - I have to work out what it is viable to do with my monk or ranger PC, for example, by looking at the mix of feats and skills that PC gets and then thinking about how those abilities interact with the action resolution system. I like the idea the rulebook might just come right out and tell me.3E was the first attempt in D&D that I'm aware of to offer well-thought-out rules for magic item pricing and wealth-per-level. Given the ease with which a D&D game can get out of whack if the treasure awarded is too much or too little, these aspects of the mechanics marked a significant improvement on invocations to "avoid Monty Haul" while at the same time letting the game participants know that "treasure means TREASURE". And I don't think that the relationship in AD&D between typical monsters on a given dungeon level, typical treasures of those monsters (as per the Treasure Types), typical number of GP required to be taken from the dungeon to get a level, training costs (which were at least 1500 gp to become 2nd level, making something of a nonsense of the 1250 XP requirement for a 2nd level Thief), etc, had been subject to the same degree of mathematical scrutiny as is obviously the case for 3E, and appears to be even moreso for 4e.As to whether these matters should be left to the GM - players of games pay for rules that tell them how to play the game. If they want to tweak those rules, fine. But I don't see any unreasonable usurpation in the designers actually writing rules.What the inclusion of this sort of material in a rulebook does do is undercut, to a degree, the relationship between player (and GM) experience and quality of play experience. I don't think that's a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification