Proffessor Cirno,
Your mostly answering the arguments as to why Wizards aren't gods, not the ones as to why the tier system is dumb.
You forget a number of arguements like:
There are too many variable for it to in any way acurately portray the game.
It requires ideal conditions that can't be observed, and therefore any conclusions it reaches are flawed.
The variables it measures aren't the most important.
The method of assessing classes doesn't reflect actual play.
While many say it should not be used for balance, it often is pointed to in arguments to nerf classes or make changes that are unsupported by actual play. The data it presents is easily taken of context.
It doesn't measure how different classes contribute to a party or the game as a whole, only claims that the heigher teirs will dominate play more.
The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.
So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
Here's an idea for the Spellhunter concept I brought up earlier...
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/theSpellhunterPrestigeClass&page=1#0
A post/conversation that starts off with someone already having made up their mind normally means that its pointless to try to convince them otherwise.Indeed, but I do love to see a couple rams butting heads until one is unconcious. XD
Yeah, I had no expectations at receiving "the love". LOL
Proffessor Cirno,
Your mostly answering the arguments as to why Wizards aren't gods, not the ones as to why the tier system is dumb.You forget a number of arguements like:
There are too many variable for it to in any way acurately portray the game.
No, there aren't.
It requires ideal conditions that can't be observed, and therefore any conclusions it reaches are flawed.
No, it doesn't.
The variables it measures aren't the most important.
Yes, they are.
The method of assessing classes doesn't reflect actual play.
Yes, it does.
While many say it should not be used for balance, it often is pointed to in arguments to nerf classes or make changes that are unsupported by actual play. The data it presents is easily taken of context.
This isn't an argument against the tier system. This is an argument against taking things out of context.
It doesn't measure how different classes contribute to a party or the game as a whole, only claims that the heigher teirs will dominate play more.
If you are dominating play, by definition you are contributing the most to the party or game, because no one else has the chance to do so.
So does anyone has any idea of a good 2 sentence premise for an adventuring day?Rocks fall. Everyone dies.
OMG. You just changed part of Friday's adventure!
The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
What he is saying is that he has seen this take place, which means that, mechanically, the tier system exists. It is perfectly possible for someone to play their spellcaster terribly, and spend the entire time doing the D&D equivalent of sitting on his hands. Someone who has only played with these impotent spellcasters will not understand the tier system, because they've never witnessed its ramifications. On the other hand, someone who has played regularly with a player running an effective spellcaster (or who plays one himself) will find the tier system insightful because it reflects a phenomenon of the game system that they know takes place.
This is basically like someone saying "I've never seen a lion in person, so it doesn't exist!" to a zookeeper. Yes, many people have never noticed a power discrepency. These people may be unobservant, or they may play in a game where the spellcasters are holding back. Neither of these things matter. What matters is that many people have noticed the power discrepency (enough that it is one of the most griped about issues of 3.5), which means that the system makes the power discrepency illustrated by the tier system both possible and attractive to those willing to take advantage of it.
It's starting to seem as though there is a group of people who simply does not want the tier system to have any sort of validity.
stuffTry reading back a bit and actually answering some of the questions instead of just dismissing them. I am especially interested to hear how the variables being measured in the tier system are the most important, since even proponents of said system admit that it must be modified to take into account the extranious variables I bring up.
D&D has an assumed playstyle. When this assumed playstyle is utilized, the tier system is a very accurate descriptor of gameplay. If you run your game in Antimagic-Zone-Everywhere-World, clearly the tier system is no longer accurate, but then again you're no longer playing D&D as the designers optimized the game for - you are obviating a huge number of classes, abilities, and items.
There is a range of variables within which most D&D games are run, and for this range of variables the tier system holds true. If you don't run D&D within that range of variables, cool. Don't worry about the tier system. But don't tell the rest of the world that the tier system sucks because I made my game world outside the typical parameters in order to invalidate it. That's just silly.
What he is saying is that he has seen this take place, which means that, mechanically, the tier system exists.The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.
There are too many variable for it to in any way accurately portray the game.
You can' realistically expect it to cover every possible situation. That is why it gives examples or many situations a caster could overcome more easily than another class. Tier does not = Guide to the Perfect game.
It requires ideal conditions that can't be observed, and therefore any conclusions it reaches are flawed.
Read my previous response, and remember nobody is saying the wizard can do everything all the time.
The variables it measures aren't the most important.
explain
The method of assessing classes doesn't reflect actual play.
This sounds just like your second sentence that I quoted, but you happened to use different words.
While many say it should not be used for balance, it often is pointed to in arguments to nerf classes or make changes that are unsupported by actual play. The data it presents is easily taken of context.
You can't control how people interpret things. This thread is an example of that.
It doesn't measure how different classes contribute to a party or the game as a whole, only claims that the higher teirs will dominate play more.
It states how they can, not will dominate and gives examples so people will be prepared. This feels like Deja-vu.
So does anyone has any idea of a good 2 sentence premise for an adventuring day?
A band of ___ has kidnapped my daughter, and they have information that could be used to blackmail me. I need my daughter and the documents back.
That is off the top of my head. Feel free to add more I guess.
|
Could you rank assault weapons of different types? Like the M16A2, AK47 AKM, and FAMAS G2? Wouldn't that ranking change dramatically depending of the battlefield conditions and training of the soldiers? Wouldn't you re-rank when changing theater of operations?
I personally couldn't, not being a combat-arms soldier with intimate knowledge of the weapon systems.
But if I did the research possibly, and definately one of the aforementioned combat-arms soldiers could especially if he did the research. The ranking would take into consideration the capabilities of each weapon and how it interacts in the different battlefield conditions.
Training of soldiers and general battlefield conditions would be assumed at an average baseline. Rate of fire, maximum effective range for point targets and area targets, these things are comparable.
Changing theater of operations would have a negligable effect IMO. Someone who has been in combat may be able to prove me otherwise.
All of this is irrelevant to my comparison of the tiers to the iron sights of a M16A2. Using the tiers without adjustment is like two people firing at mechanical zero instead of battlesight zero. Their results will be different. Because the tiers assume all other factors are equal, the same as mechanical zero using the 25m target equalizes the firing of the M16A2. You then have to adjust for individual soldier marksmanship skills, training, and so on. Just as you have to adjust for individual player knowledge and skill.
Not liking the tiers is just as fine as not liking the iron sights. Get a scope system and move on with your life. Raging over it accomplishes nothing.
No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.
Again, this is like you telling a zookeeper that lions don't exist because you haven't seen one. The fact that people have witnessed this (and the fact that it can be argued for based on the system alone, absent of play experience) means that the system makes it both possible and attractive. As a rule, when designing a game, you should strive to make all of the choices that are both possible and attractive also improve the game experience. This is a failing of 3.5 design - a possible, attractive choice (creating a very powerful, very versatile spellcaster) does not improve the game experience reliably. More often than not, it harms the game experience by becoming difficult for the DM to anticipate, and by sidelining the non-spellcasting members of the party past a certain level.
Most people in the Army do not use mechanical zero on the M16A2 rifle when firing. They have to adjust their sights to their own sight picture. This does not make mechanical zero a bad thing. It is merely the agreed upon starting point to adjust from.Could you rank assault weapons of different types? Like the M16A2, AK47 AKM, and FAMAS G2? Wouldn't that ranking change dramatically depending of the battlefield conditions and training of the soldiers? Wouldn't you re-rank when changing theater of operations?
If you had a wizard m16A2 it could change into an AK if it had too or just ignore cast ignore sand and keep right on going. :)
OMG. You just changed part of Friday's adventure!So does anyone has any idea of a good 2 sentence premise for an adventuring day?Rocks fall. Everyone dies.It's the ultimate campaign climax!
"Rocks fall. Everyone dies."
"But we're outsi-"
"EVERYONE DIES."
well, we have faced Wail of the Banshee trap, everyone dies before. This wont be too different.
If you had a wizard m16A2 it could change into an AK if it had too or just ignore cast ignore sand and keep right on going. :)Most people in the Army do not use mechanical zero on the M16A2 rifle when firing. They have to adjust their sights to their own sight picture. This does not make mechanical zero a bad thing. It is merely the agreed upon starting point to adjust from.Could you rank assault weapons of different types? Like the M16A2, AK47 AKM, and FAMAS G2? Wouldn't that ranking change dramatically depending of the battlefield conditions and training of the soldiers? Wouldn't you re-rank when changing theater of operations?
but it would need time it may not have :)
No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.What he is saying is that he has seen this take place, which means that, mechanically, the tier system exists.The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
The theory assumes X conditions. You can not deny that under X conditions the tier is accurate. Well you can deny it, but you can't prove it by invoking Y(your game play). The tiers only account for X. The DM is the one responsible for Y.
So does anyone has any idea of a good 2 sentence premise for an adventuring day?A band of ___ has kidnapped my daughter, and they have information that could be used to blackmail me. I need my daughter and the documents back.
That is off the top of my head. Feel free to add more I guess.
You forgot: the drop off for the money is tonight
The theory assumes X conditions. You can not deny that under X conditions the tier is accurate. Well you can deny it, but you can't prove it by invoking Y(your game play). The tiers only account for X. The DM is the one responsible for Y.No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.What he is saying is that he has seen this take place, which means that, mechanically, the tier system exists.The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
And my claim is that X conditions are so restrictive and rare that the exercise is mute and useless.
No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.Again, this is like you telling a zookeeper that lions don't exist because you haven't seen one. The fact that people have witnessed this (and the fact that it can be argued for based on the system alone, absent of play experience) means that the system makes it both possible and attractive. As a rule, when designing a game, you should strive to make all of the choices that are both possible and attractive also improve the game experience. This is a failing of 3.5 design - a possible, attractive choice (creating a very powerful, very versatile spellcaster) does not improve the game experience reliably. More often than not, it harms the game experience by becoming difficult for the DM to anticipate, and by sidelining the non-spellcasting members of the party past a certain level.
A lion is tangible. You can prove it exists. The tier system is intangible. It's an idea, and you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't without a shadow of a doubt prove that an idea is correct. There's a huge difference between something tangible and an idea. The analogy doesn't really work.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's starting to seem as though there is a group of people who simply does not want the tier system to have any sort of validity.
"Starting"? Scott, there's a reason I haven't posted since page 6.
Life would have been simpler, and the world a less stressful place, if Loopy had placed his original post, and everyone had chimed in "Right, then. Good for you."
but it would need time it may not have :)If you had a wizard m16A2 it could change into an AK if it had too or just ignore cast ignore sand and keep right on going. :)Most people in the Army do not use mechanical zero on the M16A2 rifle when firing. They have to adjust their sights to their own sight picture. This does not make mechanical zero a bad thing. It is merely the agreed upon starting point to adjust from.Could you rank assault weapons of different types? Like the M16A2, AK47 AKM, and FAMAS G2? Wouldn't that ranking change dramatically depending of the battlefield conditions and training of the soldiers? Wouldn't you re-rank when changing theater of operations?
Then it changes the landscapes, or it gives the soldier x3 magnification, or the soldier that holds it is now invisible. The point is there is normally more than one way to solve an issue, and I have yet to see a caster that can't access at least one. It may not be the wizard every time, but if not him, one of the other one should have a solution. We have been focusing one the wizard more than the tier system, but focus should be on the tier system as whole and not the wizard. It seems to be stealing the show again, and we are not even playing a game. :)
Seriously though, the druid and the cleric are not the classes they were in 3.5, but they do seem to have answers for a lot of things still.
And my claim is that X conditions are so restrictive and rare that the exercise is mute and useless.The theory assumes X conditions. You can not deny that under X conditions the tier is accurate. Well you can deny it, but you can't prove it by invoking Y(your game play). The tiers only account for X. The DM is the one responsible for Y.No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.What he is saying is that he has seen this take place, which means that, mechanically, the tier system exists.The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
X are the conditions upon which the game is designed. What else should the tier be based on?
|
|
"Starting"? Scott, there's a reason I haven't posted since page 6.
Life would have been simpler, and the world a less stressful place, if Loopy had placed his original post, and everyone had chimed in "Right, then. Good for you."
My excuse is I'm on 30 days of vacation and beating Super Mario World again got boring. And my gaming group doesn't get together until the 9th.
I mean, Zombie-Jesus-on-a-Pogo-Stick, I just nerded out about zeroing the M16A2! *facepalm*
A lion is tangible. You can prove it exists. The tier system is intangible. It's an idea, and you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't without a shadow of a doubt prove that an idea is correct. There's a huge difference between something tangible and an idea. The analogy doesn't really work.No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.Again, this is like you telling a zookeeper that lions don't exist because you haven't seen one. The fact that people have witnessed this (and the fact that it can be argued for based on the system alone, absent of play experience) means that the system makes it both possible and attractive. As a rule, when designing a game, you should strive to make all of the choices that are both possible and attractive also improve the game experience. This is a failing of 3.5 design - a possible, attractive choice (creating a very powerful, very versatile spellcaster) does not improve the game experience reliably. More often than not, it harms the game experience by becoming difficult for the DM to anticipate, and by sidelining the non-spellcasting members of the party past a certain level.
Yes you can. You can set up default situations, assumed under X(core design of the game).
You know, tiering systems are very good at analyzing video game classes in an environment that is fairly static and the same for all playing. Now, that system would fall apart on dedicated server with different builds and programming.
It's my contention that every home campaign is the equivalent of a dedicated server so any type of tiering system simply falls apart outside of its virtual environment.
...And my claim is that X conditions are so restrictive and rare that the exercise is mute and useless.The theory assumes X conditions. You can not deny that under X conditions the tier is accurate. Well you can deny it, but you can't prove it by invoking Y(your game play). The tiers only account for X. The DM is the one responsible for Y.No, all that means is that in -his experience- the tier system exists. His experience is not worth any more than mine or anyone else's, and that's my point. The tier system is not anything tangible, therefore it can't be concretely argued that it definitely exists (it's a theory). Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I was merely suggesting that he could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound quite so condescending. If that wasn't his intention, that's cool... I just wanted to let him know how it sounded on my end.What he is saying is that he has seen this take place, which means that, mechanically, the tier system exists.The tier system is built around the 3.5 ruleset. If you alter it heavily, you're literally no longer playing the same game.So no tiers in Pathfinder then? Pathfinder is not 3.5, despite Paizo's claims.
2) I've never seen these problems in MY game!
Answer: I have never seen an air molecule. Nonetheless, they continue to exist.
You do realize that sounds pretty arrogant... and I don't believe the analogy holds water here. What you seem to be saying is "I don't care what all your personal experiences have been, because they don't mean a thing in the face of my opinion, which is that you're wrong".
A lot of folks have said they've never noticed a power discrepancy between Wizards and Fighter types in their games. To say that they're all wrong for those experiences just because they don't support your theory isn't right imo.
The problem is that X doesn't account for live people
So:
Could you describe this "assumed playstyle"?
Sure. The game assumes a number of things - the size of the party (hovering around 4), the number of encounters per day (also hovering around 4), the number of encounters per level (somewhere on the order of a dozen), the number of combat encounters per level (a solid majority), the amount of treasure dispensed per level (see: wealth by level), that the classes appearing in the PHB are viable, that the game will be run as written, with perhaps a handful of house-rule tweaks (any more than that and the game can no longer make useful assumptions)...
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. The game of D&D makes assumptions about how the game will be run, because these assumptions make it easier to provide a system that is useful to the gaming group.
Would everyone else agree with your assumptions?
If there's one thing the internet has taught me, it's there is always someone willing to disagree with me.
Bear in mind, though, that these aren't my assumptions. I am not assuming these things about D&D. These are assumptions that the game designers wrote the system around. That difference is very important. I have actually seen many of the designers speak of these assumptions, so I know that they exist.
Are these assumptions present in the written material?
Yes, a good number of them are.
Are these assumptions only part of the gameworld, or does it also encompass the players?
Some of the assumptions focus on the gameworld (the assumption of "Antimagic zones are the exception rather than the rule," is one such case), while others are assumptions that focus on the players ("The party will be comprised of a mix of classes in order to include defending, healing and skill capabilities.").
Are you assuming things that are only true for YOUR games, and not others?
Nope. I have seen all of these things in many games.
Are all these assumptions controlled for in the tier system?
The tier system isn't about controlling anything. The tier system is a useful metric under these assumptions.
Will the changing of these assumptions dramatically change the tier system?
It depends on the change.
To what degree can the assumptions be changed before the tier system is dramatically changed?
You'd have to develop an arbitrary line, which would ultimately be a colossal waste of time.
Are these assumptions held within a variance that does not change the tier system for most games?
It's impossible to say exactly how many people who purport to play 3.5 D&D are playing within the range of variables where the tier system holds true. It is nearly certain, however, that if there were to be a "standardized" way of playing D&D (whether it was the 3.5 RPGA, or official published adventures, or whatever) that the tier system would function pretty reliably.
Would you say that 95% of games would adhere to the tier system (2 standard deviations)?
I can't make any sort of prediction like that. I would guess that the majority of games operate under a set of conditions that makes the tier system accurate, but I'm not willing to be any more precise than that.
What sort of analysis has been done to ensure that the variables being controlled for are statistically significant compared to the variables not being controlled for?
None, because we are not using statistical analysis for the tier system. If you would like to make that leap, you're welcome to, but no one explaining the tier system has said that they are basing their argument on statistical evidence.
This would be a good start, and since you seem to know all about the tier system, I assume you are the person to ask. You write so authoritatively about it, after all...
I am aware of the tier system's purpose, and have observed its effects. That doesn't make me any more of an authority on it than any of the others who have made concerted efforts to explain it here.
"Starting"? Scott, there's a reason I haven't posted since page 6.
Life would have been simpler, and the world a less stressful place, if Loopy had placed his original post, and everyone had chimed in "Right, then. Good for you."
You know, of all of the threads I've seen go on for pages and pages on this site, I've got to say this one is probably one of the most . . . perplexing ones to have this kind of legs.
It's starting to seem as though there is a group of people who simply does not want the tier system to have any sort of validity.
"Starting"? Scott, there's a reason I haven't posted since page 6.
Life would have been simpler, and the world a less stressful place, if Loopy had placed his original post, and everyone had chimed in "Right, then. Good for you."
It's astounding how often, despite constant cries to the contrary, people actually prefer complicated, stressful lives.
And my claim is that X conditions are so restrictive and rare that the exercise is mute and useless.
This isn't true, though. The conditions under which the tier system operates are actually pretty common. For instance, the entire RPGA operated under them (though you have to ignore the placement of classes which were not allowed under RPGA play, but that doesn't make it less accurate). Published adventures run "as-is" operate under the tier system most of the time.
You know, tiering systems are very good at analyzing video game classes in an environment that is fairly static and the same for all playing. Now, that system would fall apart on dedicated server with different builds and programming.
It's my contention that every home campaign is the equivalent of a dedicated server so any type of tiering system simply falls apart outside of its virtual environment.
Except for those many, many dedicated servers who simply run with the stock build and code.
Except for those many, many dedicated servers who simply run with the stock build and code.You know, tiering systems are very good at analyzing video game classes in an environment that is fairly static and the same for all playing. Now, that system would fall apart on dedicated server with different builds and programming.
It's my contention that every home campaign is the equivalent of a dedicated server so any type of tiering system simply falls apart outside of its virtual environment.
We had 4 of those at work. I went to print something. Depending on which server I was on I had different results.
The problem is that X doesn't account for live people
It's like this is the go-to argument for any theory that might have anything to do with behavior that someone doesn't like: "You can't predict live people!"
Yeah, actually, much of the time you can. No one's saying that it holds up in all cases. You can design your game so that it doesn't. It's arguable, of course, whether you are still playing 3.5 D&D at that point, but it remains possible. What we are saying is that there are a huge number of games where this does hold up, that the system encourages the tier system's effects, and that this has significant consequences that merit discussion as to how to best address them.
You know, of all of the threads I've seen go on for pages and pages on this site, I've got to say this one is probably one of the most . . . perplexing ones to have this kind of legs.
"Starting"? Scott, there's a reason I haven't posted since page 6.
Life would have been simpler, and the world a less stressful place, if Loopy had placed his original post, and everyone had chimed in "Right, then. Good for you."
Its been over a couple holiday weeks. People are bored at work when everyone else has the time off.
We had 4 of those at work. I went to print something. Depending on which server I was on I had different results.Except for those many, many dedicated servers who simply run with the stock build and code.You know, tiering systems are very good at analyzing video game classes in an environment that is fairly static and the same for all playing. Now, that system would fall apart on dedicated server with different builds and programming.
It's my contention that every home campaign is the equivalent of a dedicated server so any type of tiering system simply falls apart outside of its virtual environment.
Then I'm afraid you have run into a logical contradiction. When you have the exact same series of events leading to different results, either your series of events weren't the same after all, or your results were not different.
D&D has an assumed playstyle. When this assumed playstyle is utilized, the tier system is a very accurate descriptor of gameplay. If you run your game in Antimagic-Zone-Everywhere-World, clearly the tier system is no longer accurate, but then again you're no longer playing D&D as the designers optimized the game for - you are obviating a huge number of classes, abilities, and items.There is a range of variables within which most D&D games are run, and for this range of variables the tier system holds true. If you don't run D&D within that range of variables, cool. Don't worry about the tier system. But don't tell the rest of the world that the tier system sucks because I made my game world outside the typical parameters in order to invalidate it. That's just silly.
The amount of different sorts of games you can have under the RAW is pretty wide, and some of them are far more conductive to the power of spellcasters than others. Sandbox games will play directly into the planning strength and versatility of spellcasters with open spell limits, much more so than straight dungeon crawls, for example. It's a funny bit of irony to me that if anything RAW assumes the latter sort of campaign than the first.
Could you rank assault weapons of different types? Like the M16A2, AK47 AKM, and FAMAS G2? Wouldn't that ranking change dramatically depending of the battlefield conditions and training of the soldiers? Wouldn't you re-rank when changing theater of operations?
I've been reading the back and forth on this and I'm not seeing where the disagreement is. You are in control of the theatre of operations as the GM. The uncontrolled variables you bring up are not controlled for because it's impossible to guess how each GM will run the game, but you as the GM certainly do have access to that knowledge, be you sufficiently introspective. All else being equal teases out the effect. It's up to you to figure out the strength within the context of your game.
I don't know how useful I find this whole enterprise either, though I will say it seems to be an accurate enough description of the sort of sandbox games I run.
The amount of different sorts of games you can have under the RAW is pretty wide, and some of them are far more conductive to the power of spellcasters than others. Sandbox games will play directly into the planning strength and versatility of spellcasters with open spell limits, much more so than straight dungeon crawls, for example. It's a funny bit of irony to me that if anything RAW assumes the latter sort of campaign than the first.
D&D has an assumed playstyle. When this assumed playstyle is utilized, the tier system is a very accurate descriptor of gameplay. If you run your game in Antimagic-Zone-Everywhere-World, clearly the tier system is no longer accurate, but then again you're no longer playing D&D as the designers optimized the game for - you are obviating a huge number of classes, abilities, and items.There is a range of variables within which most D&D games are run, and for this range of variables the tier system holds true. If you don't run D&D within that range of variables, cool. Don't worry about the tier system. But don't tell the rest of the world that the tier system sucks because I made my game world outside the typical parameters in order to invalidate it. That's just silly.
One may favor spellcasters more than the other, but the difference between the two is not large enough to invalidate the tier system. Wizards, clerics and druids remain at the top regardless of whether you are playing a sandbox-style campaign, or a series of dungeon crawls.
The problem is that X doesn't account for live people
That is the DM's job(to account for live people), assuming any of the tier problems come up in his game.
To use another example previously stated if you give a bad player a Tier 1 or 2 class, and give the veteran player a lower tier class the my money is on the veteran to be more valuable.
It's starting to seem as though there is a group of people who simply does not want the tier system to have any sort of validity.
"Starting"? Scott, there's a reason I haven't posted since page 6.
Life would have been simpler, and the world a less stressful place, if Loopy had placed his original post, and everyone had chimed in "Right, then. Good for you."
YES YES YES! I cannot sleep until EVERYONE is right!!!!! ;)
EDIT: switched to a WINKY emoticon so as to not confuse us all like I did a while back when replying to someone else who didn't necessarily mean something the way I re-interpreted it.