After Gary Gygax's death I pulled out my 1e books and gave them a looking over. Wow, has the game evolved. But I started to wonder...is a 'dynamic' gaming system better?
For example, today there is a lot of emphasis on game balance, so Wizards and Fighters and Rogues all have something to do. That's obviously one of the concerns Wizards had when designing 4e (whether they succeeded or not remains to be seen).
But upon looking over the 'Roll 3d6, six times, in order' thread, one can obviously see there are good characters and pathetic characters. I remember days of rolling up a "pathetic" character and having a really good time roleplaying them. It was fun.
Sometimes I wonder if trying too hard to create a balanced game system gives "balance" too much emphasis and therefore supports the "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" and those who try to find the loopholes. A too perfect system may put too much emphasis on the rules over the roleplaying.
I don't know if I believe this...I'm just hypothesizing. It's been many years since I've played 1e. I'm tempted to go back and give it a try just to see what the game experience is like. But then I think to myself of asking my players to roll 3d6, six times, in order and accept the results and I fear for my life.
Gaming has certainly changed. Are we actually having more fun than we were 25 years ago when we didn't have these 'dynamic' game systems?
IMO, Better is subjective and balanced can be overdone. From what I have seen of 4E, they have gone beyond overdoing balance. By making powers that perfectly scale for fighters and wizards, how can you tell the difference between a fighter and wizard? By making each have their own niche, but not perfectly useful all the time, you make them memorable.
Is "better" always useable or is better more memorable. The little I know of 4E suggests that there will be thousands of identical characters that are always useful that are different in fluff only, but never any unique ones. My experience with 3.5 tells me there are hundreds of similar characters where fluff and crunch combine to make for interesting characters and hundreds more that are damn near unique.
"Better" is "always" good - however, "Better" is in the eyes of the beholder.
Note, I put "better," in quotes. There is certainly much more thought and planning put into D&D editions nowadays then G. Gygax and friends ever had the time, manpower and tools to take advantage of. However, my basic point is, with all the innovations that have come to the game, is it really a better experience? I'm not sure one way or another.
None of these versions is "better" - just "different."
Very true. I'd hate to see a d20 game of Paranoia or Toon. Different systems will support different gaming objectives.
20 years ago, when I was a kid, I had the time to learn different systems. Today, I like the idea of "one gaming system to rule them all" just so I don't necessarily have to learn a new system with each new setting or style. But this is probably not conducive to the "best" gaming experience.
Ah the days of childhood, when I had time and energy to explore all I wanted.
Riddle me this: If a Fighter is rolling for attack with a bow and does 1d6 damage and a Wizards is rolling for attack with magic missile and does 1d6 damage, how can you tell the difference?
Riddle me this: If a Fighter is rolling for attack with a bow and does 1d6 damage and a Wizards is rolling for attack with magic missile and does 1d6 damage, how can you tell the difference?
Same way with everything in D&D, I imagine it differently.
Greg
Riddle me this: If a Fighter is rolling for attack with a bow and does 1d6 damage and a Wizards is rolling for attack with magic missile and does 1d6 damage, how can you tell the difference?
The arrow sticking out of the dude?
|
Rules systems and their worth are entirely subjective. I personally can't stand "lite" systems like tri-stat. Some people love almost no crunch in their game and take more of a narrative approach. I'm not too fond of the other end of the scale either though. I recall doing physics in Traveller: the new era. I think I was using some calculus to figure out the output of some laser weapon. But hey that's a "hard" science setting for you.
Rules should fit the setting objective, kinda like cars. I've always looked at rules sets like car engines. You don't put a V12 in an economy car, you're not looking for power you're looking for efficiency in that case.
But are some systems "better" than others? Mathematically yes some are. I think every publisher these days should consult with a mathematician when designing rules systems.
After Gary Gygax's death I pulled out my 1e books and gave them a looking over. Wow, has the game evolved. But I started to wonder...is a 'dynamic' gaming system better?
For example, today there is a lot of emphasis on game balance, so Wizards and Fighters and Rogues all have something to do. That's obviously one of the concerns Wizards had when designing 4e (whether they succeeded or not remains to be seen).
But upon looking over the 'Roll 3d6, six times, in order' thread, one can obviously see there are good characters and pathetic characters. I remember days of rolling up a "pathetic" character and having a really good time roleplaying them. It was fun.
Sometimes I wonder if trying too hard to create a balanced game system gives "balance" too much emphasis and therefore supports the "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" and those who try to find the loopholes. A too perfect system may put too much emphasis on the rules over the roleplaying.
I don't know if I believe this...I'm just hypothesizing. It's been many years since I've played 1e. I'm tempted to go back and give it a try just to see what the game experience is like. But then I think to myself of asking my players to roll 3d6, six times, in order and accept the results and I fear for my life.
Gaming has certainly changed. Are we actually having more fun than we were 25 years ago when we didn't have these 'dynamic' game systems?
All this "balance" is very easy to explain. Political correctness tells us that everyone is equal, even though it is not true. Some people are smarter, others taller, others athletic, others ugly, others have wonderful voices. I could go on and on. In the D&D world everyone starts equal, progresses equally, and plays equally. Its more like a board game. Think of monopoly. Everyone starts out with a piece, two dice to move, and the same bundle of money. You aquire more assets through a combination of luck and skill.
D&D 4.0 takes the luck and skill out of the game so that each encounter is becomes an exercise in execution. Each character has a role. Their role dictates their relatively small set of options. Those options are triggered by outcomes that have occurred prior to their action, but are more or less standard and expected. Players can take loot, but since the game is now low risk (hard to die, PC's have distinct advantage over NPC's and Monsters) there are low rewards in terms of treasure and magic items.
In the end, no player is more powerful or has better options then any other. They are simply the average character for their role. They may have advantages over the average commoner, but not so much over a PC or NPC of the same level.
This is how board games and card games work. At the beginning of each game (encounter) each player (character) has as much resources (attack options) as any other given player by which to overcome (defeat) an adversary (monster/NPC). Since each player is balanced and none stands out over the others then everyone should derive the same amount of satisfaction. Of course the adversary is at a sever advanatage (think of a fistfight where one person has one hand tied behind his back) so that the advantage is tilted in the players favor every time.
My generation (30+) wouldn't get much satisfaction from that game. It will only be a matter of time before this situation reveals itself. At that point I expect WoTC to release 4.5 or suggest that DM's begin to think outside the everything is provided for you encounters that 4.0 dictates and have players take on increasly difficult monsters until the judge "gets it right"
|
|
After Gary Gygax's death I pulled out my 1e books and gave them a looking over. Wow, has the game evolved. But I started to wonder...is a 'dynamic' gaming system better?
If by dynamic we're talking about 3 and 4 e vs. 1 and 2 e I'd have to say, no not really. "Back in the day" I mostly played 2e with a few 1e games here and there. I had a lot of fun that's why I kept playing. Sure, some of the rules back then were clunky (though simple houserules remedied many) but the game worked and we would get together the week after. I drifted away from dnd until a little after 3e came out and just before 3.5. At first I was skeptical but then after trying it I said, yep a lot of this does make more sense. I've played since and it remains way to spend an evening. The point is I really think the rules are secondary.
I've played Palladium, Dark Conspiracy, Call of Cthulhu, Mage and others. Just about any published ruleset that's had some reasonable work put into it can make for a good session/campaign. It just depends on what style or genre you're looking for.
I am belabouring the obvious but what it boils down to is simply the group or people you're playing with makes it 'better' or 'worse'. I had just as much fun playing 2e as I do now with 3.5
That said I do find 3e (and I'm expecting 4e) more rules driven. Great for the rules lawyers I suppose. And I do find I do more page flipping, looking up then I did in 2e. Also the whole mentality of finding the best 'build', character optomization, crunch vs. fluff etc. I find rather ugghh... I mean discussing how to wring one more feat out of a build, or tricks to pump up your Dex bonus... it just doesn't fire the imagination for me. However, if some people enjoy it well that's their affair. Luckily I haven't had many in the groups I've played with go that way.
Sometimes I wonder if trying too hard to create a balanced game system gives "balance" too much emphasis and therefore supports the "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" and those who try to find the loopholes.
Possibly - but there were rule lawyers back in the day as well. I had two at my table in 1st and 2nd edition and they could be very annoying. I also tended to find that the loop holes that the rules lawyers found tended to be larger and the system often seemed less ... consistent is the only word I can think of.
The differences between what you could do in 1st with the rules using Oriental Adventures and what you could do as a straight fighter where dramatic. If you could get into some classes then you'd be dramatically better then other players, there really was no contest in this case. Now this was not an impossible situation to deal with generally as the DM could easily give the nerfed character unusually powerful magic items but it was an issue.
In any case I do think that the state of the art in game design has generally improved in RPGs. 4th may or may not blow chunks but I suspect that most would agree that on average new RPGs of all kinds tend to be improvements over their older brethren. Newer systems generally have the advantage of having seen many mechanics and ways of doing things in an RPG and can pick and choose from among the various systems avoiding the failures and emulating success.
IMO, Better is subjective and balanced can be overdone. From what I have seen of 4E, they have gone beyond overdoing balance. By making powers that perfectly scale for fighters and wizards, how can you tell the difference between a fighter and wizard? By making each have their own niche, but not perfectly useful all the time, you make them memorable.
Is "better" always useable or is better more memorable. The little I know of 4E suggests that there will be thousands of identical characters that are always useful that are different in fluff only, but never any unique ones. My experience with 3.5 tells me there are hundreds of similar characters where fluff and crunch combine to make for interesting characters and hundreds more that are damn near unique.
Dammit, DMCoy, keep this up and I just might marry you.
I will remember a character that tries to beat the odds despite middling stats long before I remember a min-maxed, twinked out, or perfectly balanced character that always succeeded at everything they did.
We need the ups and downs in characters at our table and in life. I fear the type of balance 4e is talking about is the kind you get when you hook up the living impaired to a heart monitor.
We need the ups and downs in characters at our table and in life. I fear the type of balance 4e is talking about is the kind you get when you hook up the living impaired to a heart monitor.
Just remember, a heart that is perfectly balanced never beats. Otherwise, you have times of extreme usefulness followed by times when its doing nothing.
Sometimes I wonder if trying too hard to create a balanced game system gives "balance" too much emphasis and therefore supports the "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" and those who try to find the loopholes.Possibly - but there were rule lawyers back in the day as well. I had two at my table in 1st and 2nd edition and they could be very annoying. I also tended to find that the loop holes that the rules lawyers found tended to be larger and the system often seemed less ... consistent is the only word I can think of.
That’s because, 1E and 2E didn’t feel that they had to solve all of your problems for you. This is a quote from David “Zeb” Cook February Ninth, 1989 from the foreword of the 2E Dungeon Master’s guide:
“Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don’t just let the game sit there, and don’t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can’t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.”
Roleplaying by it’s very nature is fluid. It is in reality open ended, nonstructural, and capable of going in any direction. Unlike other games, the rules are meant to be a guide… And that’s ALL! And that has been the reoccurring problem with WotC and Hasbro trying to fit it into a little box like Monopoly or Scrabble. That’s why they feel they need to “Fix” it all the time. They don’t realize that it’s not their job to fix it, it’s ours.
|
|
The differences between what you could do in 1st with the rules using Oriental Adventures and what you could do as a straight fighter where dramatic.
What started with the Paladin and Ranger in 1st edition, which were essentially just 'Fighters with cool stuff,' got exacerbated wildly by Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures (in OA, the classes were at least intended to be played with each other, and the OA Monk wasn't grossly outclassed by the OA Samurai, even if both classes grossly outclassed the 'core' Monk or Fighter).
Once Drow, Duergar, Svirfneblin, Barbarians and Paladin-Cavaliers started running about, things got kinda crazy, and they tried to compensate by giving plain old Fighters Weapon Specialization or whatever.
2nd edition reined that back in, and then Skills & Powers kinda re-opened Pandora's Box by allowing people to 'buy off' racial and class abilities to customize something overly specialized, and supplements like the Complete Spacefarer's Handbook or Elves of Evermeet introduced races like the Xixchil (hey, my glaive specialist has +4 plate armor welded to his carapace and two extra glaive-limbs, giving him 11 attacks every 2 rounds!) and 'kits' like the Totem-Sister (everything a Druid can do *and* carve up free Cure Light Wounds wands every hour, as well as a bunch of other runes to enchant my arrows, speak with animals, gain thief abilities, etc!). And again, the 'plain Jane' classes and races suddenly started getting upgraded, with Weapon DoubleSecretFighterOnly Specialization / Mastery / Gooberization or whatever and the Complete Book of Elves, which Mary-Sued that race beyond belief.
Every edition has done this. 3rd started hitting that point seriously during the Book of Nine Swords, and since 4E is based on the ideas in that book, it looks like they've decided to go whole hog.
Perhaps 4th will be even better about not hosing the 'early adopter' classes and races by constantly 'mudflating' the newer releases to be even more powerful and cool, forcing them to go back and give the early races and classes a hand up to the new level of 'cool.' They certainly seem to be starting them out with a bang, which suggests that they might have little 'room' to actually embiggen them afterwards.
One of the arguments I hear is that you can power game in 1e. True, but I'm arguing (really just playing devil's advocate) that the system itself doesn't care if one character is more powerful than another. Ex. if a min/max'er is forced to deal with a 4 Wisdom, those make for interesting times. There seems to be a feeling that an overly powerful character is bad, and will somehow steal the spotlight. But you know, a low Wisdom Wizard roleplayed correctly can steal the spotlight in different ways too.
By creating a system that emphasizes balance (as I believe 3e and 4e tries to do with varying levels of success), then the loopholes are more glaring and a sense of "unfairness" more likely.
If the game is all about combat, then yes, I think game balance is important. But if the emphasis is story, them I'm not sure it needs to be. If I'm roleplaying "the Rings," for example, does Frodo need to have balance stats with Strider? I would argue, "No," because Frodo's importance is story oriented, not combat oriented.
I guess that just proves what most people have been saying - it's a matter of personal preference. I personally prefer exciting battles at the service of a good story. I actually do think balance is important, but I'm not sure it's the most important part of the game.
There's a certain "horizon effect" here, though.
If I think about that 1e game I played in during my last year of college (not saying how long ago that was, but it was a while) I remember some very fun moments. But I have my college diary still, and if I flip through it I realize that there were a lot of boring sessions, rules arguments, and disappointments as well. In fact, having refreshed my memories on what the game was like, I'm happier with what I have now, masses o' rules and all.
I sat out an awful lot of sessions because my PC had shot off her one spell of the day, and couldn't risk getting wounded. I learned to play bridge and go during the downtime of that game. I can't imagine playing go during one of our modern-day sessions....
Mary
Possibly - but there were rule lawyers back in the day as well. I had two at my table in 1st and 2nd edition and they could be very annoying. I also tended to find that the loop holes that the rules lawyers found tended to be larger and the system often seemed less ... consistent is the only word I can think of.
That�s because, 1E and 2E didn�t feel that they had to solve all of your problems for you. This is a quote from David �Zeb� Cook February Ninth, 1989 from the foreword of the 2E Dungeon Master�s guide:
�Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don�t just let the game sit there, and don�t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can�t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don�t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.�
Roleplaying by it�s very nature is fluid. It is in reality open ended, nonstructural, and capable of going in any direction. Unlike other games, the rules are meant to be a guide� And that�s ALL! And that has been the reoccurring problem with WotC and Hasbro trying to fit it into a little box like Monopoly or Scrabble. That�s why they feel they need to �Fix� it all the time. They don�t realize that it�s not their job to fix it, it�s ours.
I think the benefits of this really tend to depend on group style. If you play at my table your essentially forced to utilize what amounts to a whole other splat book besides the ones normally allowed as I have a 350 page 'Players Guide' thats pretty much a book of my worlds fluff, as well as changes and additions the rules spelled out so that everyone knows exactly what has been changed. So I'm not afraid of house rules by any means but I do like them to be clear, concise and understood as the rules by my players.
If you DM in a style like this then I suspect you'll find that actually having a rule for doing something is usually a good thing. It gives a baseline to work from even if you, as the DM, decide that this effect is not going to work for your group for whatever reason. Essentially at that point you can say 'OK here was the rule [quote source and page number], here is how the new house rule will work, and here is the reason why this has been changed.
Now a lot of DMs prefer to play from the hip and adjudicate things on the fly. That certianly can work depending on the game and the style of play. It tends to work best in a story heavy style of game by which I mean the DM is generally in your corner and everyone is working together to create a story, often one that might feel almost like 'Days of Our Lives' but with Orcs and Dragons. If death is uncommon and its usually something that done essentially with the players agreement because it improves the story then a DM who makes rule calls from the hip won't end up in conflict with his or her players.
With a more adversarial style of gaming - one where PCs have a much higher mortality rate the shoot from the hip style of rules adjuration is much more likely to cause problems.
When I DMed 1st and 2nd my problem tended to be rules arguments, something that I have not really found I have in 3.5 despite the fact that I kill PCs a heck of a lot more these days then I ever did in my youth. A big part of that is clear rules. If I kill your character you at least know how it was done and there is much less feeling that I'm just being arbitrary.
Now as a player in 1st and 2nd I rarely argued with a DMs rule call ... but I'd usually write it down in a little note book first break we got since rulings, once made, set precedents and they work both ways. My DM learned to hate that little rule book 'cause I'd flip it open whenever it'd help my character and it'd be full of ruling like 'Immersion in Boiling Water does 2d6 damage a round'. Eventually that game began to fall apart pretty much becuase I knew the rules to the DMs game better then he did as what he was really doing was essentially deciding how much damage falling in boiling water did on the spur of the moment. Could be 2d6 one day and 10d6 a few months later.
For what its worth, I love playing pathetic characters. Do it all the time. Only a pathetic character has the potential to be a real hero. The hunktastic warrior or brilliant wizard is easy to imagine victorious over a slain dragon. It's the underdogs that make the game worthwhile for me.
|
I've stayed out of this, due to the fact I'm not familiar with the previous rulesets, but I do believe I have something of merit to add.
The "best" rules system is the one that works for you. If you and your players don't like 3.5/4e/whatever, don't play it. It really is that simple.
Me, I don't like much of anything I've heard of 4e, and aside from a 3/3.5, or my friend's homebrew game, haven't played much else.
3.5 seems fairly modular, if you mostly like it, but have problems with one aspect, drop it or change it.
For what its worth, I love playing pathetic characters. Do it all the time. Only a pathetic character has the potential to be a real hero. The hunktastic warrior or brilliant wizard is easy to imagine victorious over a slain dragon. It's the underdogs that make the game worthwhile for me.
I agree. And just like Logue, I am speaking from actual life experience.
For what its worth, I love playing pathetic characters. Do it all the time. Only a pathetic character has the potential to be a real hero. The hunktastic warrior or brilliant wizard is easy to imagine victorious over a slain dragon. It's the underdogs that make the game worthwhile for me.
Me, I tend to play characters that have "something to prove". My current character is a half-giant fighter. He has to prove to himself first that he decides who he is and not everyone that calls him "a big dumb olf" or runs away because he's so much bigger then everyone else. Another recent character is a dwarf wizard. He wants to prove to his clan that he is not a disappointment because he is not a fighter.
So if the players already start off as uber-tastically more powerful then mere commoners, they've succeeded at level 1.