Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Bounded design, lessons from D&D

    • 3 posts
    May 12, 2019 11:10 AM PDT

    I'm going to start by asserting that Everquest and it's clones are deeply inspired by D&D, and I'll assert further that what makes these games fun are not that different from what makes D&D fun. Everquest launched in 1999 and D&D 3E launched in 2000. D&D from 3E through 4E went down a development path that proved to be more evolutionary dead end than not. D&D 5E has very recently stepped back and reexamined D&D 2E and thought about the pathway to 'fix' the problems with 2E that 3E and 4E took that ended up making a technically 'superior' product that didn't always feel superior. I think it would be a very good idea if Pantheon made sure to reexamine 5E, why 5E is resonating, and examine how games like WoW have fallen into a similar parallel evolution of 3E/4E that has also produced a 'superior' product that people tend not to actually enjoy as much as they think they should.

    One of the primary mistakes that 3E made was explicitly making a mathematical gear treadmill the beating heart of the game under the assumption that balance was an absolute good and the path to a quality product. You had charts for character wealth per level, equipment was exponentially priced to create power tiers mapped to character level, and monster stat blocks assumed everything was slaved to that progression formula. 4E simply took 3E to it's logical conclusion. 4E explicitly documented the system mechanics and polished them further. It produced a mechanically superior game that ultimately feels like highly processed fast food complete with it's scientifically formulated portions of fat and sugar in the optimal amounts to optimally trigger the right reward centers in your brain. The trouble is that hardly anybody has a life long memory about a McDonald's hamburger that is about the hamburger itself, but most people have life long memories about a hamburger you got at a hole in the wall burger joint that one time or another. I'll assert that humans like structured disorganization. They want to recognize that it is a hamburger and not something weird and completely off the wall, yet they won't think it is great afterwards unless something was unpredictable about it. Absolute balance and fairness sound like good and rational arguments that you can't really make a logical argument against. The counter argument is that in practice it induces malaise. Humans are pack animals, and they will not be happy unless they feel like they are in an environment where they have a chance to somehow get an advantage and then use that advantage to bring value to their tribe/group. A flat playing field where everyone is equal is antithetical to this.

    So what did 5E do to solve that problem? They threw the treadmill in the trash, and replaced it with boundaries. Bounded accuracy is a good example. A +5 sword is the most accurate sword you can get in D&D. Under bounded accuracy the goal would be to ask if a first level player with a +5 sword outright broke the game by being too overpowered, and then they asked if a max level character with a +0 sword broke the game by being too weak. If either answer was yes, then they adjusted the game mechanics until both answers were no. They didn't worry about restricting it more than that, because they knew that the experience you remember is the one that is recognizable but deviates from expectations in some way. It isn't that gear doesn't matter. Gear matters a lot. However, it has to matter in a way that produces variance and wonder (knowing that it could happen, seeing someone else that it did happen to, or experiencing it yourself), not prediction and homogony (we are level 10 ipso facto we all have +3 swords or we need to tell the GM they are running the game objectively wrong because all the level 10 monster stat blocks assume a +3 sword).

    They also looked at monsters based on bounds and not treadmills. Instead of a sequence of stat bundles sorted by a challenge rating, color code, or some other grading system that indicated which monsters characters of a particular level can mathematically interface with, they threw that monster treadmill in the trash. Instead they asked boundary questions. Will the math let an orc challenge a first level character? Will the math let an army of orcs challenge a max level character? Will the math let a max level character challenge a red dragon? Will the math let an army of first level characters challenge a red dragon? Again, it isn't about trying to generate the highly processed utopian outcomes where everyone is facing the exact appropriate challenge at all times. Fatalistic absolute prediction is typically a dystopian theme. The goal is to create a world of adventure, not Minority Report or Brave New World the game where everything is managed. If an army of first level characters do decide to defy the odds and fight an epic battle and kill the dragon, then good for them. Allowing for the unintended is working as intended. Banded accuracy based design means that +5 sword from the dragon's horde won't break the game and now that sword represents a legendary story about raising an army to slay a dragon. (Especially since with the MMO version of this you know some other player with a level 1 character is going to pay another player real money for a +5 sword sooner or later anyways, so this is a problem that needed solving on the top end already).

    Bounded design allows for a more organic world. Suppose you walk into the Oasis of Marr on a weekend and you see a beach full of lower level characters all minding their own business while they hunt crocodiles. Along comes a sand giant out for a stroll, and one of those players is still salty from when a sand giant sneaked up and squished them late last night and starts working the zone up in chat and gets a good portion of the players to decide to go for the giant. Bounded accuracy like mechanics means those players can swarm that sand giant and kill it like a raid boss because the mathematics support the interaction. Then, in the aftermath, a group of 6 players might decide that there are too many many people camping crocodiles and so head to a zone with monsters in their low 20s since they can mathematically interface with them despite being only level 10-15ish, they just have to work as a group. It also works in the reverse. Suppose that there was a near max level quest monster in the Oasis of Marr and at 50% health the monster would call out for all the non-engaged crocodiles in the zone to run over and attack their target. A sufficiently large swarm of low level crocodiles would actually be a real and appreciable threat to high level players because bounding design means those crocodiles can mathematically interface with those high level players. Creating a situation where you could see high level players deciding to rely on the beach being camped by crocodile hunters for them to do their quest.

    It also allows for the situation where someone buys the game because their friend plays it, logs in with their first level character and they can meaningfully play together because the bounded design means the first level character can mathematically interface with the monsters their higher level friend is fighting. Sure, they will be super squishy (seems like a great place to put a very stripped down variant version of the guild wars 2 'downed but not dead' system in), and will only do damage similar to a pet or damage over time spell, but that is still useful. Especially if they bring some class utility like perceptions or mobility options like ropes or ladders. EVE Online works exactly like this and it is a big draw for recruiting new players into the game. You can tell your friend to make an EVE online free trial account and that very same day they can join you and meaningfully participate in a fleet fight where they are on the field along side super capital ships firing doomsday weapons. Sure, their contribution may be tiny, but it is a contribution. A sufficiently large swarm of newbies in EVE that have the proper advice can be rather dangerous. This is also very much in line with old school D&D with henchmen and hirelings. Using math to segregate people isn't how people naturally act, you will have senior developers and interns in the same office, you will have nursing students doing their clinicals on the same floor as you have nurse practitioners. Creating an artificial separation with brick walls of math will also force people to feel the need to race through leveling content because they know that the math will not let them interact with other players until they reach the same spot in the math model. The end game is the 'real game' because an under geared max level character can still hit the monster often enough to participate, while an under leveled character cannot hit the monster no matter what they do. Math walls also force people to segregate themselves from their friends when they hop on one of their alt characters they are trying to level up. Choosing between playing a character you don't feel like playing right now and not playing with people you feel like playing with right now isn't a great approach for a social game.  I'd also suggest that having a system that supports meaningful interaction between a wide level range of characters might be an absolute lifesaver for a lower population group focused MMO that simply can't assume that there actually is a group of logged on characters of the appropriate level to allow a character of any given level to even have a chance of doing something with their play session.  That was a big problem in EQ.

    All of this is based on games that not only exist, but are successful. This is less theoretical and more examining some bottles that caught lighting. I'd hazard that the reason WoW killers don't kill WoW is because people in general don't actually like the evolutionary path that WoW took and so won't jump ship to the same ship with a different coat of paint. However, WoW was not wrong in seeing that EQ had real and serious problem. Just like 3E wasn't wrong that 2E had real and serious problems. 5E isn't good because it doubled down on the mechanics of 2E, it is good because it replaced the 2E mechanics with mechanics that supported what was fun about 2E (randomly encountering a red dragon at level 1) while removing what was bad about 2E (that the player of the level 1 character knows that their THAC0 of 20 literally can't hit the -3 AC on the dragon that decided to eat their mule train and so the system is mechanically railroading them into not fighting it). In 5E they know they don't stand a chance by the odds, but they can dream about a possible chain of events where they could defy the odds and slay that dragon because the math leaves the door open to that potential epic dream being true for the right set of players on the right day (at the head of the right army of first level soldiers). EQ delivered on a sense of wonder and possibility, but it also had the start of the treadmill like mechanics that WoW and others expanded upon and took to their logical conclusions. I'll also argue that the acceleration of that treadmill isn't what is wrong with WoW currently, only that the acceleration of that treadmill and the things abandoned in the process of accelerating that treadmill is proving that EQ was good despite the treadmill and not because of it.

    Now, I'm not sure completely throwing out the treadmill will work for an MMO. But I'd suggest that any treadmill ought to exist only in service of a larger bounded system. Maybe a really cool/rare lower level sword might be +5 against lower level creatures, but gets squished down to +4 vs level 10-20 creatures, and +3 vs level 20-30 creatures and so on, but never falls below +0 in a system where +0 by definition can still interact with a monster. Then maybe allow for upgrade paths for the weapon in the content 'tiers'. For example, that rare +5 sword they got at low level but is squished to +3 vs mid level content can be upgraded to +5 against mid level content if they have a crafter reforge it at a special forge in a dungeon and quench it water they got from a rare elemental. Or they find a +4 sword from the current content that isn't squished and bank their +5 sword because nobody on the server has discovered how to upgrade that +5 sword yet.

    • 1033 posts
    May 12, 2019 11:43 AM PDT

    In my opinion, D&D died when TSR was sold. I found most of the new adaptions to D&D to be garbage design often based on marketing fads. If you look at 4th edition, it was a design doc for modern MMO design and so I have to say I gave up on most pen/paper games due to such. That doesn't mean I don't respect the approach some companies made to play (White Wolf went to more of a "play acting" approach to RPGs rather than a gaming one and Warhammer took a balanced approach and homage to Chainmail history), but I prefer more of the Gygax AD&D approach to game design.

    If 5th edition has gone the route of extreme control in as you describe, then I think they have lost the focus of what a RPG is. It isn't about balancing statistics wihtin themselves, it is about emulating a world with statistical constraints and placing the players within it to deal with those obstacles. I find the whole "balancing" specific stats to be yet another MMO design focus that has lost the sense of what a RPG is.

    • 633 posts
    May 12, 2019 1:33 PM PDT

    Not going to argue over which D&D system was better than the others, because that's completely subjective, but after reading all of this, it appears you're advocating being able to just zerg down high level and boss mobs.

     

    • 2756 posts
    May 12, 2019 2:13 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    In my opinion, D&D died when TSR was sold. I found most of the new adaptions to D&D to be garbage design often based on marketing fads. If you look at 4th edition, it was a design doc for modern MMO design and so I have to say I gave up on most pen/paper games due to such. That doesn't mean I don't respect the approach some companies made to play (White Wolf went to more of a "play acting" approach to RPGs rather than a gaming one and Warhammer took a balanced approach and homage to Chainmail history), but I prefer more of the Gygax AD&D approach to game design.

    If 5th edition has gone the route of extreme control in as you describe, then I think they have lost the focus of what a RPG is. It isn't about balancing statistics wihtin themselves, it is about emulating a world with statistical constraints and placing the players within it to deal with those obstacles. I find the whole "balancing" specific stats to be yet another MMO design focus that has lost the sense of what a RPG is.

    I preferred AD&D to D&D, but it's so long ago I can't really remember why and, at the time, I don't suppose I really thought about it, it just seemed 'better' hehe.  Made more sense, but allowed more variety and freedom?  *shrug* Maybe I'm not remembering well.

    I agree, I think, with the sentiment of the OP, though.  The formulaic "strictly regulated fun" approach is largely what lead to MMORPGs becoming rollercoaster theme parks, isn't it?  Only even meeting level-appropriate content (which meant if you were a half competent player, it was too easy).  A carefully defined and controlled route to 'heroic' status, only for the next expansion to require you to follow another carefully controlled route ("No, this time you really will be a superhero!").  At best a glitzy but short-lived romp.  At worst a boring, treadmill of blandness.  Either way unsatisfying and unremarkable.

    Something that allows for more peaks and troughs and weirdnesses would be preferable, even if there are 'undesired' anomolies, it's worth it for the overall improvement.

    • 2756 posts
    May 12, 2019 2:19 PM PDT

    kelenin said:

    Not going to argue over which D&D system was better than the others, because that's completely subjective, but after reading all of this, it appears you're advocating being able to just zerg down high level and boss mobs.

    I'm still not sure what was wrong with zerging or at least with a bit more freedom than "this encounter is restricted to 12 level 20 players".

    Ok, I do know some of the problems, sure, but I also know that I had some amazing fun getting repeatedly slaughtered in the Plane of Growth when a guild 'hired' a load of low level characters as 'connon fodder' to help their raid.

    Some of my best memories of EQ and other games are when players did things in very unconventional manners.

    I don't think it 'trivialised' the encounter for them - it made it possible, where before they were repeatedly failing - but I'm sure it could have been used to effectively 'circumvent' intended difficulties in the encounters.

    *shrug* I guess it's very difficult for game mechanics to cope with a wide range of player levels and numbers, but it sure is more interesting and fun when more approaches are possible.  Surely things could be 'less' formulaic and 'more' bounded and still have enough control?

    I think the OP is just hoping for less rigidity and not a return to encounters that are so lacking in control they can be abused.


    This post was edited by disposalist at May 12, 2019 2:22 PM PDT
    • 3852 posts
    May 12, 2019 4:48 PM PDT

    Personally I liked D&D and AD&D first and second editions. I thought third and fourth each went further downhill. Fifth I know nothing at all about.

    I have no problem with 100 level ones being able to kill a giant - as long as 80 or 90 of them *die* in the effort. 

    • 1479 posts
    May 13, 2019 12:26 AM PDT

    Well, I stated in Ad&d 2nd edition, and played in 3rd up to 3.5 too. I left the "new designs" behind and never touched the 4th or 5th for the sole reason I don't want to spend hundred of bucks buying the same books I already have.

     

    The true answer to a tabletop RPG is simply : the game is what the game master does with it. It's the same answer to the excessive munchkinism that happened in 3.0 with all the new character personnalization that were made to feel like your character was unique both in roleplay and in abilities, only to be tweaked out by players only wanting to stack stronger and stronger benefits disregarding any logic or roleplay.

    A game master has access to character sheets, and thus is free to build a world that is a threat to every munchkin character, by altering either the ennemies, the rules, or the whole setup if needed.

     

    I agree this is not a solution for MMO since it's automatically played, but that's also why everything is much more rigid than the choices we have in tabletop RPG's. Swarming does not sound like a good deal to me, since it allready bring much benefits by itself (more players, more damage, more target to kill before wiping) to the point it already got used in classic EQ to kill the Sleepers, there were so much players they could just get rezzed before the whole force present could be wiped. Making additionnal rules to support swarming does exactly sound like an exponential curve of success : The more you are, not only the more you can do, but also the stronger you are on an individual scale : I don't like it.

    • 2756 posts
    May 13, 2019 1:15 AM PDT

    But it's not about making rules to "support swarming" it's about not making rules to stop swarming and anything else remotely outside 'the norm'.

    It would be easy and more fun to allow more flexibility and to just limit the effects of swarming/zerging rather than put up very hard barriers and narrow the possibilities and tactics.  These kind of weird tactics will come out of alpha and beta and after release and can be mitigated.  It would be nice if the game mechanics weren't so tight in the first place that nothing unusual were possible at all.

    "rezzed before the whole force could be wiped".  So limit the number of quickly concurrent rezzes a character can have - probably a good idea anyway.

    Anyway, the OP wasn't taking about throwing away the limits completely, he was talking about using less rigid bounds, so you perhaps wouldn't have 24 man raids of level 20-25, you'd have 18 to 30 man raids of level 15-30.

    If I'm reading the OP correctly, it's not about throwing away the rules, it's about using flexible and adjustable bounds instead of narrow and precise formulas.  It's a subtle difference that can have a big effect on the feel of the game.

    One that's always annoyed me is the artificial barriers put on level difference encounters even in very narrow ranges.  In some games you attack a 'white' con and it's a challenge - as it should be - but you go for a yellow or orange only 1 or 2 levels above and the resistences have been jacked up exponentially so you have no chance.  You may as well put fences around content saying "level X only" and just stop players moving where they apparently aren't supposed to be.

    I know it can be difficult to cope with these issues, but what the OP is saying, I think, and I agree with, is some freedom is preferable even if it leads to some weirdness.

    • 1033 posts
    May 13, 2019 10:45 AM PDT

    disposalist said:

    I preferred AD&D to D&D, but it's so long ago I can't really remember why and, at the time, I don't suppose I really thought about it, it just seemed 'better' hehe.  Made more sense, but allowed more variety and freedom?  *shrug* Maybe I'm not remembering well.

    I agree, I think, with the sentiment of the OP, though.  The formulaic "strictly regulated fun" approach is largely what lead to MMORPGs becoming rollercoaster theme parks, isn't it?  Only even meeting level-appropriate content (which meant if you were a half competent player, it was too easy).  A carefully defined and controlled route to 'heroic' status, only for the next expansion to require you to follow another carefully controlled route ("No, this time you really will be a superhero!").  At best a glitzy but short-lived romp.  At worst a boring, treadmill of blandness.  Either way unsatisfying and unremarkable.

    Something that allows for more peaks and troughs and weirdnesses would be preferable, even if there are 'undesired' anomolies, it's worth it for the overall improvement.

    Well, AD&D vs D&D is an interesting story. First off, D&D was created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson as a new concept to a board game Gygax had created with another called Chainmail. The idea of D&D was to bring story and depth to what was just a tactical board game. D&D when released as basic in its nature, with a very general and limited rule set. The idea was that GMs would create all the needed aspects of play in order to organize the world to a realisitic structure (ie the physics and systems of a real world). The result was not what Gygax intended as D&D became a free flowing, lacking any structure or direction in play. Arneson was at odds with Gygax, arguing that free form, expanse and no direction to play was the point, that rules, structures, etc.. got in the way of play. Gygax disagreed, and created AD&D to remedy this issue.

    If you look at the AD&D 1st edition DM guide, he prefaces this with an explantion as to why he created AD&D and goes on to explain the need for a structured world, but... also explains there needs to be a balance, that one can get too caught up in the statistics and rules of a reality, which impeded the concept of a fantasy role playing session. This is why the AD&D DM guide is filled with statistical references to physics, mathematical systems, etc... You can see everything from terminal velocity in falling damage to that of the basics of a bell distrubition curve in statistical systems. The advice was that the GM would have all the tools to administer their world without having to create it themselves, picking and choosing such as they needed, but at the same time he also warned of getting too wrapped up in it. It is also why the suggestion is for the players to have no real interaction with the statistics of the game, that the GM was to handle the rolls, the numbers, the physics of game play leaving the player to interact within the bounds of the characters through the guidance of the GM.

    This obviously was a contention depending on what side of the isle you sat on. If you are Gygax fan, you often see the need for the statistical structure, the physics of a world, and normalcy of its reality. If you are an Arneson fan, you think free form play, acting and interaction between players in an open sense is more important with rules being lesser concepts, more reccomendations than restrictions.

    Honestly, this is where I see some deviation between gamers today. In my view, it is the old Gygax vs the Arneson crowd. Some want a structured world, forcing adherance to its realities, while others prefer the idea of free, open form, less restrictions or obstacles in play.

    Needless to say, both groups are certainly valid in thier desires (a subjective expectance to enjoyment isn't an objectively measured means), but... the real problem I have seen in gaming systems is that both can be balanced between. I honestly don't think so, which is why I think Gygax broke off from Arneson in the first place. Some bridges just can't be built as the span of differences are just too great.

     

    • 2756 posts
    May 13, 2019 1:20 PM PDT

    Ineresting.  I don't have my DM guide (or any of them) anymore, I'm afraid or I'd go have a nostagic read :)

    I'm a Gygax fan.  I think if you don't have much structure then it's just not a game at all, it's just themed amateur dramatics and inprov play acting (also, some players will simply take advantage and relentlessly bend the experience to their own ends), but there is a point also where rules can be taken too far and stifle the whole thing, too.

    When I was playing pen-and-paper RPGs *many* years ago, there were those who liked to be 'free' and, so, relied heavily on the GM for what they were allowed or not allowed to do and there were those who were interested in the rules and would even argue with the GM about them.

    Me, I leaned toward the rule-playing, but enjoyed staying in character and immersing myself in the game world.  Those that leaned toward the role-playing at the expense of the rules could be fun, sometimes, but mostly it would end in pointless chaos without a good GM to hold it together.  If it got to feel like the GM was directing a play rather than a game, I would quickly lose interest, though.

    The OP is not suggesting we all go LARPing, just that slightly looser and less prescriptive rules can be beneficial in ways that aren't always directly appreciable up-front.

    I also hope VR aren't *too* controlling in what is possible in game, but I certainly *do* want lots of lovely rules and mechanics to work out and enjoy the intricasies of.


    This post was edited by disposalist at May 13, 2019 1:21 PM PDT
    • 3852 posts
    May 14, 2019 7:03 AM PDT

     

    Obviously a MMO needs to focus on rules more than free form - we don't exactly have an intelligent program monitoring each player and trying to make the experience as good for him or her as possible without hurting anyone else. Maybe in 20 years. Hopefully not one that would pas the Turing test.

    In the early days of D&D and AD&D I was one of those that focused on following and enforcing the rules. And learning them really well to be able to use any loophole for the benfit of my characters.

    But as a GM I tried to never forget that this was a game, and having the party enjoy the experience was really the only important thing. It isn't as if it would hurt some *other* group 2,000 miles away if one of my players got an item she really didn't deserve or a +1 to strength that he really shouldn't have gotten.

    Yet in a MMO fairness is far more important and even on a PVE server people get upset if fellow players get things they shouldn't and have more powerful characters than they should. Plus it can wreck the economy as Tanix often (and accurately) points out.

    • 191 posts
    May 14, 2019 1:15 PM PDT

    disposalist said:

    But it's not about making rules to "support swarming" it's about not making rules to stop swarming and anything else remotely outside 'the norm'.

    Man, this x1000.  Don't over design.

    • 752 posts
    May 15, 2019 2:14 PM PDT

    I feel like this has already been taken into consideration. Bounded variance is quite a common system that has been introduced into many aspects of everyday life. 

     

    TLDR: Less is more with game design. Don't overthink it.

    • 49 posts
    May 15, 2019 11:59 PM PDT

    Good points in here, have always agreed 2nd edition was my favorite just due to the freedom and creativity that was required instead of your 'encounter' powers or whatever lame sht it became.

     

    If you look at original EQ, stats on items were rare and marginal.  Short Sword of Ykesha was one of the best non raid melee weapons at 8/24 and a proc of 36(?) dmg.  +3 INT on that robe from Najena was a huge welcome as most stat items were modest, along with most weapons kept from making a lvl 1 a god. +10 stat increase was super rare and felt incredibly powerful.  Seemed a lot better that way, although melee did feel very weak until the release of Kunark weapons, and I was honestly surprised to see a huge +6 stat glove item from the Pantheon Stream in Black Rose Keep.

    But i think classic was way too stingy, and  Pantheon has taken the 5e approach to find that sweet spot.  

    Used to love the 2e monster manual, each creature felt unique in it's stats and abilities, opposed to 3e where each creature was a template to face a specifical lvl adventurer.



    • 48 posts
    May 16, 2019 3:50 AM PDT

    disposalist said:

    But it's not about making rules to "support swarming" it's about not making rules to stop swarming and anything else remotely outside 'the norm'.

    So, gamers are gamers and gamers always opt for the easy way out. That is why strategies on encounters come from.. It's not to have it harder, but have it easier.
    So does most humans too be honest.. Why jump the fence where it is the highest, when you can jump the fence where it is the lowest?

    If zerging/swarming is not in some way prevent what you will see is huge guilds consisting of several hundred people zerging raid bosses, dungeons and similar. Smaller guilds will have no chance. Forget being a group of friends playing.
    These larger guilds will not be a community. You can never get to know all of these people and/or learn to cooperate together.. Which is the whole point of Pantheon?

    In GW2 this meant that RvR was.. Mostly pointless as the three realms ended up circling each other never actually fighting each other except the rare ocurrence in which they bumped in to each other and FPS drops as well as missing models and animation was an issue.
    In DFO it was the go-to way of securing a successful siege.
    In BDO it is the go-to way of securing a particular region for leveling purposes and/or non-instanced siege. I remember a guild with not 1, not two but 10 different branches that locked down most high-end level zones killing anyone that got remotely near them.

    Most of it, in fact, all of them.. Ended up being a fairly dull experience.


    This post was edited by Ashreon at May 16, 2019 3:52 AM PDT
    • 91 posts
    May 22, 2019 12:53 PM PDT

    Nephron said:

    ....

    Now, I'm not sure completely throwing out the treadmill will work for an MMO. But I'd suggest that any treadmill ought to exist only in service of a larger bounded system. ....

     

    You might have to hire a few GM's to get frustrated about how cheeky we gamers are being and drop a bolt of lightning with a statistically high chance of killing the idiot I'm being...That was balance from the environment ;)


    This post was edited by Baerr at May 22, 2019 1:04 PM PDT
    • 16 posts
    May 31, 2019 4:49 PM PDT

    I don't know man, there was a lot of hate amongst all the DnD fanbase over 5e. It's why there was a mass exodus of players switching to Pathfinder. Bottom line is building something with too much boundary can lead to player's not enjoying the imaginative aspects of the game, it just becomes a board game with tons of rules.

    • 62 posts
    June 12, 2019 5:06 PM PDT

    My experience is that 3E, 3.5E and 4E were becoming mired in rules and pointless "freedom" that made munchkins all too happy. It hindered roleplaying (sometimes quite a bit) because there was a lot going on and missing something would certainly change the outcome, so players were rules lawyering and flipping pages about as often as we were actually doing anything in-game.

    Then along comes 5E, which actually simplified things a bit to streamline gameplay and thus D&D has enjoyed a huge resurgence in players. Speaking of 'stream,' I'm sure that streamed shows like Critical Role and Relics & Rarities have put a red dragon flame under sales because it shows how fun D&D is when done with planning and good improv skills.

    Pathfinder is d20 D&D 3.5E to me with a few house rules. I still like to play, but -as with 3E to 4E- it feels like I'm pushed to multi-class when I've never liked the practice. Splash all the classes you like: It just hamstrings the identity of the character to me. It's not gone from 5E, but we are playing more and not thumbing for answers to what is "best" any longer. I don't find myself as concerned with the rules because they are less left open to interpretation, which bring out those aforementioned rules lawyers.

     

    Yes, players do often go for the low-hanging fruits when they find them. When leveling is painfully slow, any low edge or leg up will do. I don't work that way, but I have been tempted by friends asking if I would like to be powerleveled or handed an item that makes me too powerful for about thirty levels. I did that a couple of times and I felt like I was at a park, but not allowed to explore; instead having to follow the lead of my parent's iron grip and high expectations to "grow up" as quickly as possible. The magic is in the journey with players in the crucible alongside you and the roleplaying, coupled with that "DING!" and treasure you earned. Why cheat yourself of that? Because you can? Because you're bored? Maybe your expectations are misplaced and you're not doing your part to make the journey more fun for you and your friends.

    Max level isn't a goal - it's retirement. Have fun with it. Travel. Meet people. See things you missed. Better yet, give some wisdom and a helping hand to your granddaughter so she will see those things you missed and appreciate them more than you did while perhaps getting hurt a bit less often.

    • 223 posts
    June 12, 2019 5:17 PM PDT

    All AD&D and D&D versions after the 2nd edition are just waterdown versions, it lost a lot of the core play mechanics after it was purchased by TSR.

    • 1281 posts
    June 12, 2019 6:43 PM PDT

    Yaladan said:

    All AD&D and D&D versions after the 2nd edition are just waterdown versions, it lost a lot of the core play mechanics after it was purchased by TSR.

    3rd edition and on was more of a game rule system. Advanced D&D 2nd Ed. and prior were tools to describe living in a real world.

    So yes, 3rd and on was easier to play with more "Quality of Life" fixes, but the previous editions were better for storytelling.


    This post was edited by bigdogchris at June 12, 2019 6:43 PM PDT
    • 95 posts
    July 4, 2019 2:46 PM PDT

    D&D has something that just doesn't exist in an MMO... the Dungeon Master. 

    The dungeon master adjusts the game based on what the players are looking for, shifting the content where they are interested, and provide challenges and story/lore/RP where sought.  They adapt to the tactics of the party if the situation merits it or punish the party if they are overconfident.

    An MMO is something that needs to run semi-autonomous and allow the developers to implement changes/story/tweaks during patches more so than constantly reacting to the players directly like a DM can. 

    • 1095 posts
    July 4, 2019 3:01 PM PDT

    Nephron said:

    I'm going to start by asserting that Everquest and it's clones are deeply inspired by D&D............

    Well I think MUDs played more of a role then D&D. MUDs pre-dated EQ and one of the things that made EQ good was that it was a 3D MUD basically. MUDs automated D&D and EQ made MUDs 3D.

    • 1281 posts
    July 4, 2019 3:05 PM PDT

    Aich said:

    Nephron said:

    I'm going to start by asserting that Everquest and it's clones are deeply inspired by D&D............

    Well I think MUDs played more of a role then D&D. MUDs pre-dated EQ and one of the things that made EQ good was that it was a 3D MUD basically. MUDs automated D&D and EQ made MUDs 3D.

    You are both right. EQ was inspired by muds that were based on D&D. Sojourn, Toril, and Diku specifically.


    This post was edited by bigdogchris at July 4, 2019 3:06 PM PDT
    • 1095 posts
    July 4, 2019 5:05 PM PDT

    Theres MUDs still open if anyone wants to experience it.

     

     


    This post was edited by Aich at July 5, 2019 7:27 AM PDT
    • 74 posts
    July 5, 2019 8:36 AM PDT

    Tanix said:

    In my opinion, D&D died when TSR was sold. I found most of the new adaptions to D&D to be garbage design often based on marketing fads. If you look at 4th edition, it was a design doc for modern MMO design and so I have to say I gave up on most pen/paper games due to such. That doesn't mean I don't respect the approach some companies made to play (White Wolf went to more of a "play acting" approach to RPGs rather than a gaming one and Warhammer took a balanced approach and homage to Chainmail history), but I prefer more of the Gygax AD&D approach to game design.

    If 5th edition has gone the route of extreme control in as you describe, then I think they have lost the focus of what a RPG is. It isn't about balancing statistics wihtin themselves, it is about emulating a world with statistical constraints and placing the players within it to deal with those obstacles. I find the whole "balancing" specific stats to be yet another MMO design focus that has lost the sense of what a RPG is.

     

    Wholeheartedly agree with you Tanix.

     

    A RPG should be about a fantastical world full of adventure, danger, and discovery. I don't like stastical balancing to where it becomes ridiculous. For example, Gandalf is very very powerful. He could easily take on 10 - 20 orcs without any real problem. However, a skilled fighter may not fair so lucky and tbh should not. This is what makes the world fantastical. This is what gives you a reverence for Magic. Cold hard steel is formidable but next to a skillful user of magic who has spent their life honing their craft it probably won't be as powerful in a straight up fight. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

     

    Keep fantasty fantastic but allowing the world to not be balanced. By allowing the world to be harsh and cruel but also glorious and fun.

     

    Long live the glorious DAY!

     ~ CaffeineInjected ~