|
I think he chose a very poor word:Arbitary
Adjective
1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles...
Here here!
The one thing I have never had any do in regard to 4E is explain why I NEED to switch. No one has sat down and listed the specific flaws with 3.x and showed how 4E has fixed them and has no flaws of its own. We're talking major expenditures of money here. If it has flaws, what is the point? WHy trade one flaw for another one?
I would even go so far as to say that many of the other 'sweet spot' factors have a bigger impact on creating it, but the math balance issue is still a valid issue.
Just in case no one else said it, you're not at all wrong, Craig. In fact, I wonder if the 20-level paradigm in 3rd edition was because we roll d20's? At +1/level BAB for fighters, there's a good correspondence there...
While a person who has played their character long engough to get to lvl 20 know thier character VERY well and can still choose from a greater set of options then a, say, 5th lvl, they still can do it quickly and without spending to much time to think about what they plan to do.
That's great in theory, but one of the things I've found over the last several years is that many groups of gamers don't start at 1st level to play their characters long enough to really know them. They want all that power NOW. So the issue becomes a PC problem as well as a DM problem as well.
The current group I am running was astounded that I wanted to start them at 1st level. None of them had ever played a 1st lvl character; I was baffled. These were guys who had been playing the game for many years ... not newbs. I have converted them, however. They appreciate their characters much more now that they had to actually survive the earliy levels.
In fact, I wonder if the 20-level paradigm in 3rd edition was because we roll d20's? At +1/level BAB for fighters, there's a good correspondence there...
That was carried over from 2nd Ed AD&D. 1st Ed AD&D had no such paradigm; in fact, different classes had different advancement limits: fighters' "to hit" topped out at level 17, bards and druids (with UA) were limited to 23 levels, spells for clerics and magic users did not advance after 29th level, etc. BECMI D&D had a different advancement scheme, also.
Therefore, please enlighten me about how 4th edition streamlines the sweet spot.Making high level feel almost like mid-level and making low-level feel almost like mid-level.
Reading 4E manual it seem that they have killed level progression
I don't think you answered my question. Assume I am not very bright, how specifically does 4th edition do this? What problems with 3rd edition did 4th edition fix, specifically regarding "the sweet spot." I feel more skeptical than ever after reading this post because Mr. Wyatt did not site examples and noone else has either.
In truth much of what I have heard regarding 4th edition has the same feel as Mr. Wyatt's comments. I feel like I am on a used car lot.
me "how is the gas mileage on this car?"
salesman "its great"
me "what is it?"
salesman "you won't have to fill your tank very often"
me sigh
salesman "its much better than any car you will get across the street"
me "how can you say that?"
salesman "you'll be thrilled you bought this car"
I hope you see my point. I have heard cool, better, and more to describe 4th edition. The more I hear of this the more I feel that Hasbro (the dealership owner) has told the salesman (designers) to move these cars off the lot (4th edition) and they are trying to do their best with propoganda tricks. I am not trying to say that 4th edition has not fixed some problems. I have done so myself with house rules, but their claim of a fix seems impossible.
Here is why. Often a character sheet is known as a character build. When you build anything it becomes more complex. Adding of feats and special abilities to make high level special make it more complex. So by this reasoning I don't believe PathfinderRPG or 4th edition have or can "fix" this problem. They can provide tools to make it less difficult. I firmly believe you will see that by Paizo.
That was carried over from 2nd Ed AD&D. 1st Ed AD&D had no such paradigm.
Yeah; I remember 1st edition quite well. Second didn't last as long with our group.
Still, the idea that your bonus at X is equal to your class level x 5% of the total random spread is kind of cool.
"But I contend that another reason for that sweet spot is that, utterly by coincidence, that's the range of levels where a mostly arbitrary system of damage, hit points, and attack and saving throw numbers align to make the game work reasonably well."
Surely this is not the last sentence of the article! I'd expect a a few concrete examples to back up that claim.
I don't think a concrete example was given because I believe it is a self-evident truth to anyone who is intimately familiar with the system. Is there a single noted game designer who hasn't admitted that the game breaks down at higher levels?
Perhaps I am mistaken.
I do know that I have never run a game above 10th level, and never play below 4th unless I have a good reason (like introducing new players with starting characters).
Among other things, the "sweet spot" is where magic items are present and fun but don't bog down play or diminish the important of who's wearing them; and where warrior-types are almost as good as casters.
Therefore, please enlighten me about how 4th edition streamlines the sweet spot.Making high level feel almost like mid-level and making low-level feel almost like mid-level.
Reading 4E manual it seem that they have killed level progressionI don't think you answered my question. Assume I am not very bright, how specifically does 4th edition do this? What problems with 3rd edition did 4th edition fix, specifically regarding "the sweet spot." I feel more skeptical than ever after reading this post because Mr. Wyatt did not site examples and noone else has either.
In truth much of what I have heard regarding 4th edition has the same feel as Mr. Wyatt's comments. I feel like I am on a used car lot.
me "how is the gas mileage on this car?"
salesman "its great"
me "what is it?"
salesman "you won't have to fill your tank very often"
me sigh
salesman "its much better than any car you will get across the street"
me "how can you say that?"
salesman "you'll be thrilled you bought this car"I hope you see my point. I have heard cool, better, and more to describe 4th edition. The more I hear of this the more I feel that Hasbro (the dealership owner) has told the salesman (designers) to move these cars off the lot (4th edition) and they are trying to do their best with propoganda tricks. ...
I hope this doesn't sound rude.
But have you tried reading 4th edition?
I think he chose a very poor word:
Arbitary
Adjective
1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles
A more accurate definition is "not based on objective facts, reasons, or principles".
For example, something can be arbitrary if it is determined by collective whims or the needs of a group; it doesn't have to be personal to be arbitrary.
Third edition isn't completely based on universal constants or principles ("objective": applying in all situations). It is less arbitrary than second edition, but there are still a lot of "just because"s.
For example, there is some attempt to make save bonuses line up (DCS are +1/2 levels, good bonuses are +1/2 levels), but as we all know all the other factors involved there (not to mention bad saves) mean that at higher levels it's usually all or nothing (it's either "check for 1" or "check for 20"). That a bad save is +1/3 levels, that resistance bonuses go up to +5, that specific level spell DCs don't scale with level; most of the other factors involved are pretty arbitrary.
|
A more accurate definition is "not based on objective facts, reasons, or principles".
That is the same definition.
For example, something can be arbitrary if it is determined by collective whims or the needs of a group; it doesn't have to be personal to be arbitrary.
If it is based on the needs of a group then by definition it is founded on a reason or principle, and theoretically some objective facts.
And of course by that standard, you just demonstrated that 4E is completely arbitrary, as the changes were all based on the theoretical needs of the group of new players as well as the group of current players who do not like optimization.Third edition isn't completely based on universal constants or principles ("objective": applying in all situations). It is less arbitrary than second edition, but there are still a lot of "just because"s.
For example, there is some attempt to make save bonuses line up (DCS are +1/2 levels, good bonuses are +1/2 levels), but as we all know all the other factors involved there (not to mention bad saves) mean that at higher levels it's usually all or nothing (it's either "check for 1" or "check for 20"). That a bad save is +1/3 levels, that resistance bonuses go up to +5, that specific level spell DCs don't scale with level; most of the other factors involved are pretty arbitrary.
That is an example of a principal that applies in all situations, and thus is objective and not arbitrary.
That it has some glitches in function does not change the considered nature of the system itself.
I hope this doesn't sound rude.But have you tried reading 4th edition?
I don't think your reply is rude. I do think you missed my earlier post. I stated I do not have the 4th edition books and I am skeptical about getting them because so many comments I have read from designers do not have any substance. James Wyatt says 4th edition fixes the problem of 3rd edition but does not give any examples of how this is done and what exactly caused these problems? So I asked, for those who have played 4th edition how are these problems resolved? By knowing what 4th edition did right I could better answer the OP of what PathfinderRPG is doing. I did not get any answers. So if you can help please do so.
After months of jargon without substance (cool, better than 3.x, etc) from 4th edition designers, I cannot help but be skeptical.
I hope this doesn't sound rude.But have you tried reading 4th edition?
I have, and I still am. Personally I think it sucks. For the past 3+ years I have played with this group, and I enjoy playing with them. We got two munchkins in the group but they're still good guys. When 4th was announced, they (the munchkins)led the charge espousing how great it was gonna be. So they convinced the others (7 in the group total) to pre order the 3 core books, myself excluded as I took a wait and see mentality.
Now the group has a vested interest in making this work. The munchkins are having a great time, having figured out how to manipulate the system to make themselves much more powerful than the rest of the group. For those who think that 4th balances everything, it doesn't. Some combinations are still much more powerful than others. However, now you dont have to worry about having a charcter that "makes sense" and actually has some story behind him. I guess that's why the rest of us are left behind, because we strive for a charcter concept far more than a character sheet. 4th ed rewards the latter. So it should come as no surprise that most of the group has expressed disatisfaction with this edition (I won't give the exact words used).As for the sweet spot, I personally have always enjoyed playing 1st through 5th levels the most as I really felt it helped define my character. Trust me low level comat is no less deadly now. On our second session, there was a TPK by Kobolds.
I have some good memories of playing with this group, and despite the poor mechanics we still manage to enjoy the role-playing aspect. I can however say with realative certainty, that once I move in 2 months, I will put aside the 4th ed PHB (the one I wasted $20 on) and return exclusively to 3.5 and the pathfinder rules.
If it is based on the needs of a group then by definition it is founded on a reason or principle, and theoretically some objective facts.
Usually, but not always. A group of teens might decide that pants worn around the waist are "uncool." That seems pretty arbitrary; there's no objective fact or reasoned principle behind that decision that I can detect (if anyone knows of one, please share; I've been wondering).
|
|
If it is based on the needs of a group then by definition it is founded on a reason or principle, and theoretically some objective facts.Usually, but not always. A group of teens might decide that pants worn around the waist are "uncool." That seems pretty arbitrary; there's no objective fact or reasoned principle behind that decision that I can detect (if anyone knows of one, please share; I've been wondering).
Objectively, their parents hate it. Therefore it must be a good thing. See, totally objective and reasonable. ;-)
|
|
Usually, but not always. A group of teens might decide that pants worn around the waist are "uncool." That seems pretty arbitrary; there's no objective fact or reasoned principle behind that decision that I can detect (if anyone knows of one, please share; I've been wondering).
Maybe they were stuck wearing hand me downs that were too big and decided to redefine what is "cool" in fashion to be what they had to wear.
However, you have picked an area that is always thoroughly arbitrary. Why does anything go in or out of style in fashion? Because a small clique of fashonistas declares what is to be.Again, using that standard 4E is totally arbitrary, as part of its design process declared that MMORPG styled mechanics are "cooler" than comparable 3.5 mechanics.
Maybe they were stuck wearing hand me downs that were too big and decided to redefine what is "cool" in fashion to be what they had to wear.
I think it grew out of the fact that the cops used to take people's belts away when they were arrested. Hence, pants falling down around the knees are supposed to make a guy look "bad" (as opposed to just silly, because it forces him to waddle like a duck).
However, you have picked an area that is always thoroughly arbitrary. Why does anything go in or out of style in fashion? Because a small clique of fashonistas declares what is to be.
Again, using that standard 4E is totally arbitrary, as part of its design process declared that MMORPG styled mechanics are "cooler" than comparable 3.5 mechanics.
We agree that fashion is arbitrary, being dictated by a group idea of what's "cool" at the moment. Likewise, I won't dispute your assessment of 4e, assuming it's as MMORPG as claimed (I'm not in the best position to judge that, not being a video game player, and actually not even being sure what "MMORPG" even stands for).
I think Keith Baker makes a more precise assessment of the two systems in his blog:
So, do I feel it's video-gamey? No. But it's definitely more like an action movie than 3.5. Realism isn't a paramount concern, and there are lots of things - why can't I trip him again? - that require a suspension of disbelief... just like in the movies.
That suspention of disbelief, is one of the biggest problems with the design philosopy, IMHO.
While I disagree with the conclusions he reaches (he ultimately resorts to: well, either system can be as much "roleplaying" as you make it), I think Baker makes a much more honest comparison, acknowledging 3.5's focus on realism and options, and as a result complexity, and 4E's focus simplification and the resulting loss of options and realism.
On a semi-related note, I'm always mystified when Baker and others complain that people keep comparing 4E to anime and video games. Isn't 4E the system that took the combat maneuvers from Tome of 9 Swords and shoehorned it into every core class? And isn't Tome of 9 Swords the book that starts off by saying these are rules for groups who want a more anime/video game/action movie inspired feel?
It's really hard to say any of this because it so deeply hinges on what people like.
For example I keep hearing about how difficult high level play is, but some of my best campaigns ever were at the higher levels. For our group, high level play is where power plays, political intrigue, choices of the lesser of two evils, and earth shattering events take place.
We ran a thieving campaign and by high level the players had taken over a bar that was being extorted by some local thugs (by extorting it themselves), had paid off the right city officials (via assasination of a rival politician), escaped from the cities prison, battled the local thieves guild barely ending out on top, and began establishing trade routes for illicit goods.
Note this wasn't the campaign. This is what the players managed to do IN ADDITION to the campaign I set forth, and by 13th level the campaign itself had taken on a life of it's own. I began reacting to the storyline I set forth the same or less than I did to the players and the choices they were making. The characters themselves became the driving force behind the campaign and I used that to drive the higher level play...the characters simply had so much more to gain and to lose.
This isn't how many people play though...alot of people don't run things by the seat of their pants that much, and this kind of gaming makes following a narrow storyline path fairly troublesome.
I agree that there can be problems with playing above level 12 or so. The Forgotten Realms campaign that I am playing in has reached that level and it is really becoming less fun than it was at lower levels. The problem in our case is two fold. One we have nine members in our party which makes it difficult to put together challenging encounters that are not overpowering. The other is that our DM, while inventive, is also caught up in old school dungeon crawl gaming. Either that or we get so caught up in political intrigue that there is not enough action for the hack and slashers in our party. The only problem I have with the political intrigue is that it always centers around the character played by the DM's daughter's off and on boyfriend.
I have yet to do it in 3.5 but under 1st edition the group I played with played at 12th level and above all the time and it was a blast. At those levels a DM can stop being careful, pull out the stops and through some potentially world shattering stuff at the PCs. At those levels artifacts would begin to come out of the closet, threats from different planes woould rear their ugly heads, and a DM can play it fast and loose. Scrap the minis at those levels folks don't let your imagination be tied to some little playing piece on a battle mat. How do you use a mini to represent a dragon who is in flight strafing an entire town? You don't you shift combat into cinematic mode, Strip the combat system back to the basics let distances and ranges become abstracts that are determined by a fair DM and DMs don't try to work it all to your advantage because if your players are not having fun then you don't have an advantage. If You try to track every little thing you can make play at any level tedious, don't be afraid to eyeball something and say "yeah it's in range." Think Lord of the Rings, think Legolas on that cave trolls back shooting arrows down into its back and head. Think about scenarios that bring otherworldly threats on the scene and don't try to map it all out with mini's and a battle mat. Think court intrigue, political maneurvering, High level assassins (and not just the standard kind either). Read "Magician, " "Silverthorn," and "A Darkness at Sethanon" by Raymond E. Feist if you want ideas for some high level characters. Don't stay in the framework of the written rules, make up your own stuff and stretch your imagination further than you ever though it might stretch. Bring stuff on the scene that would utterly break the game at lower levels. The high level campaign is a different world than the lower levels but it can be the most fun part of the game if it is handled right.
Charles
It's really hard to say any of this because it so deeply hinges on what people like.
For example I keep hearing about how difficult high level play is, but some of my best campaigns ever were at the higher levels. For our group, high level play is where power plays, political intrigue, choices of the lesser of two evils, and earth shattering events take place.
...
This isn't how many people play though...alot of people don't run things by the seat of their pants that much, and this kind of gaming makes following a narrow storyline path fairly troublesome.
Agreed and agreed. I think my group's consistently positive high-level experience has to do with a DM who almost only uses homebrew and who plays a bit by the seat of his pants, with a basic outline and some characters fleshed out, but a willingness to let the players determine the direction of the campaign on some level.
For example, there is some attempt to make save bonuses line up (DCS are +1/2 levels, good bonuses are +1/2 levels), but as we all know all the other factors involved there (not to mention bad saves) mean that at higher levels it's usually all or nothing (it's either "check for 1" or "check for 20"). That a bad save is +1/3 levels, that resistance bonuses go up to +5, that specific level spell DCs don't scale with level; most of the other factors involved are pretty arbitrary.
I covered this already in this thread, but for those who missed it:
Fighter 20; Elite array, all advancements in Str; 20 (26) Str, 13 (17) Dex, 14 (18) Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; +6 Str item, +4 Dex item, +4 Con item; Fort +16, Ref +9, Will +7
A Fort save with a 27 DC gives a 50% chance of success; a Ref save with a 27 DC gives a 15% chance of success; a Will save with a 27 DC gives a 5% chance of success.
Fighter 20; Elite array, all advancements in Str; 20 (26) Str, 13 (17) Dex, 14 (18) Con, 10 Int, 12 (16) Wis, 8 Cha; +6 Str item, +4 Dex item, +4 Con item, +4 Wis item; Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes; Fort +16, Ref +11, Will +11
A fort save with a 27 DC gives a 50% chance of success; a Ref or Will save with a 27 DC gives a 25% chance of success.
With a little forethought and planning, 3.x does not have to be "all or nothing" at high level.
For example, there is some attempt to make save bonuses line up (DCS are +1/2 levels, good bonuses are +1/2 levels), but as we all know all the other factors involved there (not to mention bad saves) mean that at higher levels it's usually all or nothing (it's either "check for 1" or "check for 20"). That a bad save is +1/3 levels, that resistance bonuses go up to +5, that specific level spell DCs don't scale with level; most of the other factors involved are pretty arbitrary.I covered this already in this thread, but for those who missed it:
Fighter 20; Elite array, all advancements in Str; 20 (26) Str, 13 (17) Dex, 14 (18) Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; +6 Str item, +4 Dex item, +4 Con item; Fort +16, Ref +9, Will +7
A Fort save with a 27 DC gives a 50% chance of success; a Ref save with a 27 DC gives a 15% chance of success; a Will save with a 27 DC gives a 5% chance of success.
Fighter 20; Elite array, all advancements in Str; 20 (26) Str, 13 (17) Dex, 14 (18) Con, 10 Int, 12 (16) Wis, 8 Cha; +6 Str item, +4 Dex item, +4 Con item, +4 Wis item; Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes; Fort +16, Ref +11, Will +11
A fort save with a 27 DC gives a 50% chance of success; a Ref or Will save with a 27 DC gives a 25% chance of success.
With a little forethought and planning, 3.x does not have to be "all or nothing" at high level.
Man this is all well and good but while you guys sit around with your calculators taking the system apart and putting it back together I think I'll just play.
Charles
Man this is all well and good but while you guys sit around with your calculators taking the system apart and putting it back together I think I'll just play.
This is related to the discussion in this thread about the difficulties of high-level play. One of the issues that some people have is the game plays differently at low-, mid-, and high-level. There are strategies involved with high-level play that are much less important at low- and mid-level. This is one of them.
I have to echo some of the thoughts already posted here. The "sweet spot" problem as I see it is that 16th level characters shouldn't still be just climbing around in holes and looting monster lairs. "Wow, I'm powerful enough to slay demons, dragons and even the aspect of an arch-devil..but all I want to do is climb into Trite Hole In the Ground #114."
Political intrigues, great sagas, leading armies, aquiring a tower or castle, running a thieves guild, etc. should be the goals of high-middle and high level play. Asking for the game to easily allow PCs to dungeon crawl as easily from levels 1-20 is a heck of a lot to ask.
Political intrigues, great sagas, leading armies, aquiring a tower or castle, running a thieves guild, etc. should be the goals of high-middle and high level play.
If there were supplemental rules supporting some of these options, I think we'd see them used more often. I for one would shell out for an high/epic-level handbook that addressed these issues, instead of just listing more powerful monsters and detailing some planar city I might or might not decide to ever use.
Political intrigues, great sagas, leading armies, aquiring a tower or castle, running a thieves guild, etc. should be the goals of high-middle and high level play.If there were supplemental rules supporting some of these options, I think we'd see them used more often. I for one would shell out for an high/epic-level handbook that addressed these issues, instead of just listing more powerful monsters and detailing some planar city I might or might not decide to ever use.
Good point.
If WoTC would have created actual epic play options beyond epic-level dungeon delving badassery and that horrid city of Union where there were 21st level city guards or somesuch nonsense. I know that many play in an endless cycle of climbing into holes and looting, but I think that WoTC's imprimatur put on a deeper level of play at high level would go a long way to make such play a valid option for many who otherwise have no interest in such games.