RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I'd like to take offense with something Chris Youngs said in this article. To wit:
Here’s the deal. Way back last year, when we first started talking about the new Adventure Path, I pointed out that back in the day, Shackled City (Dungeon’s first Adventure Path) was something of a meat grinder. Apparently, many a group ended up a stain on the dungeon floor running through one of those adventures. The interesting thing is that, for the most part, the encounters in the Shackled City Adventure Path weren’t particularly beyond the scope of a normal 3E encounter, at least in terms of XP gained for the level of the characters.
Nope, what made many of those ultra-deadly encounters tough was that each author felt obliged to come up with unique, compelling, and integrated encounters. They felt that, to do the campaign justice, they needed to make the most of their encounters, using a combination of monsters working together with terrain in an elegant, symbiotic, and often fatal, dance. In many ways, they were following the 4th Edition encounter design philosophy—using monsters, traps, and terrain all together in a wonderful stew—before 4th Edition was even a glimmer in anyone’s eye. Kudos to those authors!
The bolded text is what I take offense with. What those authors were doing was creating well-written, well crafted adventures which then made WotC's designers want to emulate them when creating 4e. To say it in the way Youngs has said it makes them seem like idiot savants, blundering onto a mysterious design strategy before the Almighty Wizards had revealed its mystery to the ignorant masses. Which is a load of bunk. What Chris Youngs ought to have said is:
In may ways this level of excellence in design and crafting is what we had hoped to emulate in designing 4th edition! Kudos to them for paving the way for us to attempt to live up to that level of excellence!
I think Chris Youngs owes those writers an apology.
James
|
Actually on that basis, the 4E designers owe everyone who ever wrote an interesting 3E adventure an apology. They went out of their way to tell us how hard to impossible it was to write encounters and adventures in 3E, and how 4E was going to fix everything. Now Chris Youngs has let the cat out of the bag and we see that people could write in the 4E "style" with the 3E rules.
What I think is particularly "amusing" is his assertion that doing so in the AP was so intensely lethal in 3E but is somehow less intrinsically lethal in 4E.
Well, with apparent exceptions of course.
People will look for anything to complain about these days. : \
I think you might be looking to be offended. Really, all he said was that the type of encounter described is the sort of thing that 4th Edition codified into a coherent design philosophy. This should not be a thing of controversy.
|
Nope, what made many of those ultra-deadly encounters tough was that each author felt obliged to come up with unique, compelling, and integrated encounters. They felt that, to do the campaign justice, they needed to make the most of their encounters, using a combination of monsters working together with terrain in an elegant, symbiotic, and often fatal, dance.
What I get is that he is saying the 3rd Edition design philosophy created bland encounters, and that applying "good game design" to ovecome this made 3rd Edition uncommonly deadly because it was against the design philosophy.
He makes a few assumptions/opinions:
1) That the designers didn't know their encounters were deadly.
2) That deadly encounters are not fun.
3) That other designers do not attempt to use good adventure design.
I don't find it controversial, but it is a bit of hubris. But at least they know a good adventure when they see one.
People will look for anything to complain about these days. : \Yes, that's it. Your keen powers of observation are truly dizzying to behold. Seriously, if you're not even going to be at all useful to the discussion, why even post?
Hey, he had a good point. This isn't something worth complaining about. Not everyone is going to see Chris' article and assume that he was being haughty or that he somehow owes an entire group of adventure writers an apology.
Yes, that's it. Your keen powers of observation are truly dizzying to behold. Seriously, if you're not even going to be at all useful to the discussion, why even post?
Because it's very obvious you're just looking for something to complain about.
Well, I'm glad they were able to benefit from SCAP authors' guidance on encounter design for 4e. Hopefully, they're all reading the Pathfinder AP's to pick up pointers on how to write fascinating characters and stimulating plotlines, now.
Actually on that basis, the 4E designers owe everyone who ever wrote an interesting 3E adventure an apology. They went out of their way to tell us how hard to impossible it was to write encounters and adventures in 3E, and how 4E was going to fix everything. Now Chris Youngs has let the cat out of the bag and we see that people could write in the 4E "style" with the 3E rules.
What I think is particularly "amusing" is his assertion that doing so in the AP was so intensely lethal in 3E but is somehow less intrinsically lethal in 4E.
Well, with apparent exceptions of course.
I'm with you. That's an absurd suggestion. What a bunch of hooey.
If 4E found a way to make it easier and more fun to build great encounters, thats great (and to some extent I think they did). But the spin in that article is bunk.
That wasnt the problem with SCAP. :) The problem with SCAP was a lack of top down design and some seriously bad gaps in level range between the first few adventures that were remedied to some degree in the hardcover (though not that well). I love SCAP. Its not perfect, by a long shot. But it is the beginning of something very great.
Clark
People will look for anything to complain about these days. : \
Yes, that's it. Your keen powers of observation are truly dizzying to behold. Seriously, if you're not even going to be at all useful to the discussion, why even post?
Hey, he had a good point. This isn't something worth complaining about. Not everyone is going to see Chris' article and assume that he was being haughty or that he somehow owes an entire group of adventure writers an apology.
No, he doesn't. That was trolling -- the post accomplished nothing beyond insulting the OP (it didn't even pretend to do otherwise).
And some will see the article and interpret it exactly as James did. Why is your interpretation superior?
Personally, I found the article a bit disingenuous. Chris Young spoke so glowingly of SCAP design, yet the only quality he addressed -- its lethality -- is one of the things 4e was specifically designed to reduce.
Furthermore, the combat encounters are not what made Paizo's APs so successful -- rather, it was the high quality of character, setting, and plot development, qualities notably absent from WotC's flagship adventures to date (Keep on the Shadowfell and Rescue at Rivenroar).
This article was, IMO, a weak attempt to associate WotC with another company's achievement.
I'm with you. That's an absurd suggestion. What a bunch of hooey. If 4E found a way to make it easier and more fun to build great encounters, thats great (and to some extent I think they did). But the spin in that article is bunk.
Exactly! Thank you!
Furthermore, the combat encounters are not what made Paizo's APs so successful -- rather, it was the high quality of character, setting, and plot development, qualities notably absent from WotC's flagship adventures to date (Keep on the Shadowfell and Rescue at Rivenroar).
This was the most glaring oversight of the editorial and it showed a complete lack of understanding of the importance of story to an AP. At this point, it can't really be a misunderstanding, though--there's a definite disdain of story elements in WotC's current politburo. And that's why I remain a Pathfinder gamer despite preferring the 4e system.
Furthermore, the combat encounters are not what made Paizo's APs so successful -- rather, it was the high quality of character, setting, and plot development, qualities notably absent from WotC's flagship adventures to date (Keep on the Shadowfell and Rescue at Rivenroar).This was the most glaring oversight of the editorial and it showed a complete lack of understanding of the importance of story to an AP. At this point, it can't really be a misunderstanding, though--there's a definite disdain of story elements in WotC's current politburo. And that's why I remain a Pathfinder gamer despite preferring the 4e system.
No. The editorial was about character death, not story elements. Saying that WotC has "disdain of story elements" is completely unsupportable. You're hunting for evidence of something you want to believe is true, and finding it in places where it doesn't really exist.
Yes, that's it. Your keen powers of observation are truly dizzying to behold. Seriously, if you're not even going to be at all useful to the discussion, why even post?
Let's be honest. This thread is not meant to be a discussion. The only purpose for this thread is to bash WotC. There's not going to be any discussion.
I think you might be looking to be offended. Really, all he said was that the type of encounter described is the sort of thing that 4th Edition codified into a coherent design philosophy. This should not be a thing of controversy.
Amen.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you for your impressive psychic powers Sebast,
For me, I find it annoying that he calls it 'the 4E design method' like it didn't exist before they started working on 4.x.
"Look at the Wright Brothers! Putting wings on an engine and flying away! It's like they were doing the Boening Design method before Boeing was a glimmer in anyone's eye!"
There is an acceptance that Paizo could build the '4.x method' but it could have been phrased better.
Offsetting penalties, repeat the down.
Saying that WotC has "disdain of story elements" is completely unsupportable. You're hunting for evidence of something you want to believe is true, and finding it in places where it doesn't really exist.
Then you've been ignoring almost every review of KotS, and most of the stuff on RaR. That evidence is abundant, in lots of forums (several of them being notably pro-WotC, much like this forum is mostly anti-WotC).
I agree Chris Young's article wasn't about story development. Fact is, you'd be hard-pressed nowadays to find WotC talking much about story and plots anywhere.
But you need to become less fond of that word unsupportable. This particular claim is supportable, and has been supported by a bipartisan audience in lots of places.
|
|
Thank you for your impressive psychic powers Sebast,
For me, I find it annoying that he calls it 'the 4E design method' like it didn't exist before they started working on 4.x.
"Look at the Wright Brothers! Putting wings on an engine and flying away! It's like they were doing the Boening Design method before Boeing was a glimmer in anyone's eye!"
There is an acceptance that Paizo could build the '4.x method' but it could have been phrased better.
Offsetting penalties, repeat the down.
Actually, using a process would be a more accurate joke (but yours is still good):
"Look at Henry Ford! He dedicated himself to building a cheaper, more standardized automobile to maximize production! It's like he was doing the Toyota design philosophy before Toyota was a glimmer in anyone's eye!"
Actually, in retrospect:
"Look at Matthew Morris! Taking a current situation people are arguing about and comparing it to existing widely-known concepts rooted in historical fact in order to make a humourous observation regarding the arguments of a publicly published article! It's like he was doing what I am doing before my post was a glimmer in anyone's eye!"
And, as I think about this more:
In many ways, they were following the 4th Edition encounter design philosophy—using monsters, traps, and terrain all together in a wonderful stew—before 4th Edition was even a glimmer in anyone’s eye. Kudos to those authors!
The more I think about this, the more I think the OP was spot-on.
WotC didn't say they took lessons from successful authors from the past -- their language specifically establishes ownership of the creative process that was also used in SCAP. Maybe Youngs didn't mean it that way (and I don't really think he did), but the words he chose imply precisely this.
Wait, why would that seem in any way strange? 4E was designed around PCs fighting balanced encounters of groups of enemies - 3rd Edition was designed around PCs dogpiling single enemies, and thus did become more deadly if you threw several monsters at a group, especially if those monsters were designed to work together.
I think you're being a bit unfair. 3e was also designed around PCs fighting balanced encounters of enemies -- that's what ELs are for. In fact, unlike 4e, those rules were capable of gauging the difficulty when you mixed different types of monsters.
I'd agree that 3e has its flaws, but this isn't one of them.
Edit:
I think he could have phrased it better... but I think that being offended by this, and going so far as to insist he owes people an apology, is certainly overreacting.
For the record, I think that's probably true :)
The more I think about this, the more I think the OP was spot-on.
WotC didn't say they took lessons from successful authors from the past -- their language specifically establishes ownership of the creative process that was also used in SCAP. Maybe Youngs didn't mean it that way (and I don't really think he did), but the words he chose imply precisely this.
The more I read it, the more I think he is giving credit to early authors who modified 3rd Edition's system for creating encounters reflecting the current design process. Obviously, those authors didn't peer into the future and copy 4th Edition. That's impossible, so how and why would he imply that? He's saying they had a design process for encounters codified into the game in 4th Edition - and some people were already doing that in 3rd Edition to make compelling encounters. Then he goes on to give them kudos for doing something the 4th Edition designers wanted to do in their game as a standard!
He is most definitely acknowledging those author's design talent as "forward" thinking and in the process crediting 4th Edition's encounter design process as forward.
Great minds think alike?
....ahh I got nothing.
Excuse me, but I'm going to go climb that mountain over there (points to molehill).
|
|
I think that the underlying message here is:
Divide and conquer. If you don't, then the monster community becomes particularly lethal.
Or in the alternative:
How to make a pet monster.
Case in point:
Here we are again (as the monsters) slipping into divisive camps, waiting to be slaughtered in our separate dens. We can hear the screams of our fellow CR01 Gamers next door, but we dare not go over there, for they were stupid to camp out in that room.
Wonder where the hero will hit next? They'll probably stay out of our room because there's no treasure to be had in here for them.
Hey. We are the monsters. We eat the heroes. If we like the heroes, we may let them live. But right now, because of our own antics, the heroes need be concerned with only one room of monsters. The others are kowtowed.
In the end, adventuring should be about us, the monsters, and how much of a threat we pose - unified - or at least cooperating - against the heroes.
"Look at Henry Ford! He dedicated himself to building a cheaper, more standardized automobile to maximize production! It's like he was doing the Toyota design philosophy before Toyota was a glimmer in anyone's eye!"
QFT! This post FTW! Other letters!
I don't know if its worth taking offense over this... but at the same time there's already a bonfire of dispute against 4E. It's possible that by throwing kudos to Paizo, that they were trying to appear magnanimous... but with the wording they chose, it's like they're trying to put out that fire with gasoline.
So it is important that we make fun of them for it. :D
The more I read it, the more I think he is giving credit to early authors who modified 3rd Edition's system for creating encounters reflecting the current design process...
I'll grant you that -- he is definitely giving some credit where credit is due. But he takes pains to criticize 3e, implying such success was rare with the system. I think that is false and (deliberately) misleading suggestion.
Regards :)
The more I read it, the more I think he is giving credit to early authors who modified 3rd Edition's system for creating encounters reflecting the current design process...I'll grant you that -- he is definitely giving some credit where credit is due. But he takes pains to criticize 3e, implying such success was rare with the system. I think that is false and (deliberately) misleading suggestion.
Regards :)
I don't think so.
Actually, he says this:
"The interesting thing is that, for the most part, the encounters in the Shackled City Adventure Path weren’t particularly beyond the scope of a normal 3E encounter, at least in terms of XP gained for the level of the characters."
Which, to me says that the encounters weren't too far designed from normal 3E encounters in terms of the actual monsters. What made them great encounters was the terrain and other obstacles besides the monsters.
Now, that created a problem because that also made them more difficult for players despite using the CR system to calculate what should be a balanced encounter. 3E's encounter design system didn't factor in terrain and obstacles as part of the design process and so if you included those, the encounters might be TOO lethal.
The point of his article is that - while those authors made amazing encounters in the vein of 4th Edition - the system of 3E didn't suit that design process well because it sometimes made the encounters too lethal. 4th Edition DOES factor in all those elements, and so an encounter using all those elements is more likely to be compelling AND balanced.
That's how I read it anyways.
...But he takes pains to criticize 3e, implying such success was rare with the system. I think that is false and (deliberately) misleading suggestion.
I don't think so. Actually, he says this:
"The interesting thing is that, for the most part, the encounters in the Shackled City Adventure Path weren’t particularly beyond the scope of a normal 3E encounter, at least in terms of XP gained for the level of the characters."
Which, to me says that the encounters weren't too far designed from normal 3E encounters in terms of the actual monsters. What made them great encounters was the terrain and other obstacles besides the monsters.
But XP gained isn't the relevant measure. Experience in 3.5 is based on the monsters' CRs, not the encounter's EL -- and EL is the relevant measure of an encounter's lethality. Also, as another poster suggested, Youngs assumes (or leads us to conclude) that those deadly encounters were an accident partially borne out of 3e's design flaws -- and false argument based upon incorrect assumptions.
Youngs is either uninformed, mentally thick, or trying to deceive us. Take your pick :)
Edit:
Oh, yeah...
Many other 3E encounters didn’t follow this philosophy. Sure, they featured the occasional bit of interesting terrain or a cool trap, but encounters weren’t often designed with all three game elements in mind. Now, encounters integrate these elements as the rule, not the exception.
This paragraph, immediately after the one quoted by the OP, does indeed imply that well-constructed encounters were rare in 3e, due to a flawed design philosophy that 4e remedies.
Also, as another poster suggested, Youngs assumes (or leads us to conclude) that those deadly encounters were an accident partially borne out of 3e's design flaws -- and false argument based upon incorrect assumptions.
Are they not? Were those encounters intentionally designed to be lethal?
Edit:
Oh, yeah...Many other 3E encounters didn’t follow this philosophy. Sure, they featured the occasional bit of interesting terrain or a cool trap, but encounters weren’t often designed with all three game elements in mind. Now, encounters integrate these elements as the rule, not the exception.This paragraph, immediately after the one quoted by the OP, does indeed imply that well-constructed encounters were rare in 3e, due to a flawed design philosophy that 4e remedies.
Were 3rd Edition encounters that followed the design philosophy of the SCAP and 4th Edition common? If so, why give kudos to the authors of that adventure path?
I am offended by the OP being offended and think I deserve an apology. Somebody call the Waaahhhmbulance. ;-)
I am offended by the OP being offended and think I deserve an apology. Somebody call the Waaahhhmbulance. ;-)
I am offended by your offense of the OP's offense, and I don't appreciate your marginalization of the emergency healthcare profession. I believe you owe EMT's throughout all space and time an apology.
I may be wrong, but I believe SCAP was Chris Young's baby. And Chris Perkins (one of the major designers of 4e) wrote about a third of the adventures.
If this is the case, I think they can say whatever they want about SCAP.
...Youngs assumes (or leads us to conclude) that those deadly encounters were an accident partially borne out of 3e's design flaws -- and false argument based upon incorrect assumptions.
Are they not? Were those encounters intentionally designed to be lethal?
I'd say so. The lethality of SCAP continued (though it was toned down a bit), and subsequent Paizo APs willfully continued the practice. It would be difficult to conclude that it wasn't intentional.
But if you want to conclude otherwise, I can't stop you.
This paragraph, immediately after the one quoted by the OP, does indeed imply that well-constructed encounters were rare in 3e, due to a flawed design philosophy that 4e remedies.
Were 3rd Edition encounters that followed the design philosophy of the SCAP and 4th Edition common? If so, why give kudos to the authors of that adventure path?
I think you're getting off-track. My point is not about the credit he gave those authors, or why.
What I was trying to point out is that he goes on to make unfair criticism (supporting it with a specious metric), then compounds the offense by arrogantly implying that 4e can't ever be guilty of such mistakes.
I may be wrong, but I believe SCAP was Chris Young's baby.
Wow. I didn't realize that -- kudos to him :)
If this is the case, I think they can say whatever they want about SCAP.
I agree. But IMO the problem isn't that he's slamming SCAP, but rather using SCAP as a platform to slam 3e -- falsely, I would claim.
As I said before, 3e has some serious design flaws. I just don't this was one of them.
I'd say so. The lethality of SCAP continued (though it was toned down a bit), and subsequent Paizo APs willfully continued the practice. It would be difficult to conclude that it wasn't intentional.
But if you want to conclude otherwise, I can't stop you.
Well, all we really have to go by is the guidelines for designing adventures in the RAW. If the SCAP authors decided to increase the difficulty to create some sort of "lethality" in their adventures (which doesn't really make sense... why kill off the party who's supposed to be developing over the course of many adventures), I guess only they know that. Perhaps they can chime in at some point.
I think you're getting off-track. My point is not about the credit he gave those authors, or why.
What I was trying to point out is that he goes on to make unfair criticism (supporting it with a specious metric), then compounds the offense by arrogantly implying that 4e can't ever be guilty of such mistakes.
Am I getting off track? You yourself said that the praise should be awarded to those authors for making compelling encounters that involved creatures, terrain, and traps/obstacles - which is now the principle design philosophy behind 4th Edition D&D.
But, if creating encounters like that wasn't rare, which is what you are implying, why should those authors be given any special kudos for doing much of the same??
So, is it an unfair criticism of 3rd Edition? I don't think so. I think it is ENTIRELY fair to criticise a game system that doesn't take into account factors such as terrain and traps when creating a compelling encounter that is also balanced. If it's not in the design process of the system, that means the DM has to account for it, and in the case of published modules, that can be problematic. If the editor is asserting that 4th Edition solves this design problem by integrating those three elements into the encounter design process, maybe it does.
|
|
Wait, why would that seem in any way strange? 4E was designed around PCs fighting balanced encounters of groups of enemies - 3rd Edition was designed around PCs dogpiling single enemies, and thus did become more deadly if you threw several monsters at a group, especially if those monsters were designed to work together.
Except the synergy boost required for such low level critters is massive, particularly when trying to equal or exceed the number of party members. Lower HD in particular often leads to one shot kills at low levels, and cleave fests at higher, not to mention the monsters not having a chance to even hit the PCs.
It also sets you up to wonder how such excessively lethal encounters got through editing and playtest.
...basically Bush-era Rovian propaganda that should be spewing from Bill O'Reilly's mouth on Fox News, not from a fantasy RPG designer.
You sir are wound up.
But this quote is the best quote I've ever seen on a forum. :)
So, is it an unfair criticism of 3rd Edition? I don't think so. I think it is ENTIRELY fair to criticise a game system that doesn't take into account factors such as terrain and traps when creating a compelling encounter that is also balanced. If it's not in the design process of the system, that means the DM has to account for it, and in the case of published modules, that can be problematic. If the editor is asserting that 4th Edition solves this design problem by integrating those three elements into the encounter design process, maybe it does.
OK, fine. You win.
BTW, I have a closed portcullis through which four orcish archers are firing at my party. Can you check your 4e DMG and tell me how it modifies the level of the encounter?
...basically Bush-era Rovian propaganda that should be spewing from Bill O'Reilly's mouth on Fox News, not from a fantasy RPG designer.You sir are wound up.
But this quote is the best quote I've ever seen on a forum. :)
sorry. wow. i was wound up. and I haven't even had coffee yet. i shouldn't hop on the boards as a form or stress relief from work. my bad.
in a calmer tone, I think that it's natural for designers of a system to talk about how the new system is better than the old one--they were put on the job to make improvements and move forward. however, they shouldn't allow any short-sightedness get in the way of giving credit to their predecessors in the proper way. you can't fault a system for bad adventure design. first edition had some great encounters that were a combination of terrain, traps, and creatures (the "C" or "I" series anyone?) making that combination a mandatory part of encounter design because of rules isn't necessarily a good think. i mean, things tend to get a little boring after a while if all the pcs keep expecting the same thing "oh boy, there goes another minion, or, gee, wonder which square the mandatory spike pit is in?"
Very true. I see exactly what you are saying, and I think the idea is to encourage vivid, memorable encounters - opposed to generic battles.
But I think most memorable encounters involve something interesting about its terrain or possibly some sort of obstacle. The grand finale on a flat, barren battlefield just doesn't elicit the same grandeur as on a sheer ledge inside a volcano deep inside the enemy lines.
Well, all we really have to go by is the guidelines for designing adventures in the RAW. If the SCAP authors decided to increase the difficulty to create some sort of "lethality" in their adventures (which doesn't really make sense... why kill off the party who's supposed to be developing over the course of many adventures), I guess only they know that. Perhaps they can chime in at some point.
The designers have chimed in. Paizo staff have discussed the lethality of their campaigns on these boards before.
Was that supposedly-flawed scheme a mistake? Decide for yourself, but Paizo's APs are some of the best-received adventures in the game's history. Despite the deliberate lethality.
But I think most memorable encounters involve something interesting about its terrain or possibly some sort of obstacle. The grand finale on a flat, barren battlefield just doesn't elicit the same grandeur as on a sheer ledge inside a volcano deep inside the enemy lines.
BTW, I agree with you totally on this -- and 4e deserves praise for this part of their design, as well as many others.
But Youngs' editorial was still flawed.
|
The problem that I saw when reading the quote struck me mainly as giving credit in a very backhanded way, and came off as twisting the facts to meet a given preconception.
To elaborate, instead of saying "what these guys did was a good idea, and was better than the average 3.5 deal" and then explaining how it's the same sort of thing they wanted to see in 4th Edition, he instead comes off sounding like "we had this great idea, it's ours, but other people were emulating it beforehand," and then seems to try to argue that the lack of these things was part of why 3.5 was 'flawed' despite the fact that this was being done anyway, in 3.5.
In summary, I think the reason a lot of us are harping on this matter, and why we find it to be a big deal, has a lot to do with WotC's attempts to convince us that the system we enjoy, and have been enjoying, is horribly, inherently flawed.