WoTC_krg posts on game design theory

[Irda Ranger]

my concern about 4E is that it will be "overly engineered" to the point where the artistic concerns of playing a wide open RPG are stifled.

Yes, this is my concern too. Thank you for putting it succinctly.

 

[Scribble]

Yes, this is my concern too. Thank you for putting it succinctly.

Valid concern, but not sure if it's warranted.

I think the artistic elements will shine through boldly (more so then 3e) in the "feel" of the various classes and monsters. Provided they get that part right, of course.

The engineered part, should be the system itself, with the idea being that the specific mechanics involved have little (or should have little) to do with the "feel" of the character, as opposed to what the character does within the system.

Meaning the Rogue shouldn't feel different then the fighter just because of the dice he or she rolls. It should feel different from the fighter because of the things it does, and can do.

Also, if they ARE listening to Mr Gutschera, then he's already remarked about certain things being "out of whack." He said it's ok to let things "slide" every now and then for the sake of fun. Even though they essentially unbalance things a bit, the fun people get from them outweighs the negative consequences.

 

[Roman]

It is nice to see it confirmed, but I have assumed from the get go that WotC uses mathematics in the process of design and development of D&D. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I am very, very reluctant to use third party products. I simply don't trust them to go through the same kind of rigorous design and development process.

My high regard for balancing games with mathematics (but still using lots of playtesting of course) does not mean that the best-working mathematics should always be chosen. Imperfect mechanics are sometimes prefereble for reasons of tradition/legacy of previous games, feel/purely aesthetic reasons or to support simulationism, but when these are introduced (or kept) it needs to be done consciously.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Hmm. Doesn't this part of the quoted article seem to describe exactly what the 4e designers are doing with classes (making each class be able to do what the others can do--disarm traps, heal, fight with equivalent BAB, etc.) and to be highly critical of this approach?

I don't really get that they are doing this at all. They are making all the classes more "flavorful" by making them more similar in one way so that they can highlight the differences between them.

For instance, using Magic the Gathering as an example. All 5 colors have creatures who are 1/1, same power same toughness. However, the white ones likely have first strike, the red ones have haste, the green ones have trample, and the black ones have fear. They each have their own distinctiveness.

Then, as the creatures get more powerful, you can start to see that green has a slight edge in terms of doing and receiving damage for the cost of its creatures. Not enough to overpower it, but enough to give it that distinctive flavor.

The same ideas can be applied directly to D&D. In order to keep balance, you need to start with a baseline of things that ALL classes can do. Once you figure that out, you start to purposefully add differences to each class based on what you want it to do that is different from all others.

So, all classes get the same BAB and Saves, for instance(maybe hit points?). You let everyone heal themselves slightly in a very limited way in order to keep everyone alive.

Then you add what you want each class to have that is different from everyone else. You add class powers to fighters and paladins to give them pluses to hit and the ability to protect others in the group from damage. You add the ability to heal other people on a regular basis for way more often than everyone can do to themselves and the ability to increase the powers of other people to the cleric and warlord(but make HOW they do it different so it feels like playing a different class). You add the movement powers and heavily damaging attacks to the ranger and rogue. Then you add debuffing, battlefield changing effects and area damage to the wizard.

That way you can easily look at an ability you make up and say "This belongs as a fighter power although a much weaker version of this might work as a warlord power as well."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The idea that they have to have a mathematician to design an rpg is ludicrous. Sure D&D should require simple math, but nothing beyond calculating base attack or Thac0 or subtracting hit points should be required. And thet shouldn't require a mathematician.

 

[Cadfan]

The idea that they have to have a mathematician to design an rpg is ludicrous. Sure D&D should require simple math, but nothing beyond calculating base attack or Thac0 or subtracting hit points should be required. And thet shouldn't require a mathematician.

The mathematician isn't there to figure out things like that. The mathematician is there for more complex stuff that players and DMs don't really need to worry about.

For example, is a 3e character at level 12 who attacks at +23/+18/+13 for 2d6+10 damage balanced in comparison to a character at level 12 who attacks at +20/+15 for 1d6+5, with a conditional bonus of +50? I don't know. But if I had a chart of benchmarks telling me about what AC and how many hit points the typical monster encountered at level 12 possesses, and if I had details on how often the condition is met that grants the second character the +50, my background in mathematics would let me get a lot closer in judging these two characters against each other.

This is stuff that most of us don't have to deal with, but its important that someone, somewhere is handling it.

 

[beholdsa]

The idea that they have to have a mathematician to design an rpg is ludicrous. Sure D&D should require simple math, but nothing beyond calculating base attack or Thac0 or subtracting hit points should be required. And thet shouldn't require a mathematician.

Understanding probability and statistics is necessary for ANY well-designed RPG, even if the players never see the careful math keeping things balanced in the game's core mechanic.

I, for one, am glad they have a mathematician on board, even if I disagree with many of his views on games. (The less things follow specific "roles" the better; I like generalist characters.)

 

[TwinBahamut]

One of the most important things talked about in those articles is the discussion of the need to have a well-defined "vanilla curve" that can be used as a baseline for balancing every other non-vanilla ability.

I think the biggest change from 3E to 4E is that WotC will finally define a vanilla curve. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything like that in 3E. There was no smooth progression of baseline power, just a lot of things that all progress according to their own internal logic and nothing else. But, all the info we have abut 4E, with the new unified BAB and skill progressions and more coherent monster design rules indicate that there will be that kind of baseline in 4E D&D.

There really is a lot of good stuff in those two articles...

 

[Irda Ranger]

The idea that they have to have a mathematician to design an rpg is ludicrous. Sure D&D should require simple math, but nothing beyond calculating base attack or Thac0 or subtracting hit points should be required. And thet shouldn't require a mathematician.

Designing a game and playing it are very different things.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Valid concern, but not sure if it's warranted.

I think the artistic elements will shine through boldly (more so then 3e) in the "feel" of the various classes and monsters. Provided they get that part right, of course.

The engineered part, should be the system itself, with the idea being that the specific mechanics involved have little (or should have little) to do with the "feel" of the character, as opposed to what the character does within the system.

Meaning the Rogue shouldn't feel different then the fighter just because of the dice he or she rolls. It should feel different from the fighter because of the things it does, and can do.

Also, if they ARE listening to Mr Gutschera, then he's already remarked about certain things being "out of whack." He said it's ok to let things "slide" every now and then for the sake of fun. Even though they essentially unbalance things a bit, the fun people get from them outweighs the negative consequences.

Actually, my concern is two-fold, and different than the what you are discussing:

A. I believe that there are artistic trade-offs to be made with engineering, that are acceptable. I'm not talking about this building is 100% engineered well (whatever that means) and this other building is 100% engineered well, so we'll pick the one that has prettier paint. That's just style and substance. I'm not even talking about the second building is 90% engineered well, but since we only needed 70%, that's good enough, and we'll go with the one with nice architectual elements. That's trade a little substance for style. Rather, I'm saying that sometimes the engineers get so bogged down in the details, they miss the macro picture on the substance. The architect comes in and says, "Hey, the building you have rated at 100% is actually about 85%, because you didn't take varying traffic flow into account. The second building is actually about 90% when you consider traffic. We could do a traffic analysis and delay the building another 24 months, but my gut tells me I'm right." And the engineer with a smidgeon of common sense comes back and says, "Well, you'll exceed the minimum you needed in my area of expertise no matter which one you pick, so knock yourself out." Other engineers might be so enamored of getting the best in his area that he can get, he'll say the heck with other concerns.

So it's not just making occasional exceptions for the sake of fun. It's saying that sometimes the best engineered solution is not the best solution. That is, there is an "art" to design itself, same as GMing is not pure science. My impression of 4E thus far is that the team as a whole is enamored with engineering the same way that some of the Soviets got enamored with concrete--it produced buildings that stayed up, but not necessarily ones where the plumbing worked--never mind the aesthetic judgements. (And just because Frank Lloyd Wright can do some amazing things with concrete, it does not follow that it's a good choice for Joe Architect when he builds your house.)

B. Related, I'm a bit concerned that the team is falling into the habit of thinking that pretty paint on the building will be enough to satisfy the "art" side. It's not really the art I care about. I want an "elegant" design, and it takes engineers a long time to get to "elegant". They eventually get there. I just don't want to live in a concrete house whilst they do.

Which is all ironic, because I'm usuallly pretty much a "form follows function; style is irrelevant except what you bring to the table yourself" kind of guy. But I'm extreme that way. The thought that the whole design team might be more extreme than me in that regards makes me kind of nervous.

And in complete fairness, I'm not absolutely convinced this is the case. This is simply a nagging concern that the limited information thus far has produced.