Rest in Peace, Blue Mage

[Draco_Argentum]

1182409144[/unixtime]]
If I think the DM sucks and is incompetent, then wtf am I doing there in the first place?

Just because the DM can't make new rules for peanuts dosen't mean he can't run a good game.

As for explaining why the rules are crap taking a long time and being really hard, RC is obviously correct. Anyone who says otherwise has never seen a fighter thread. That class is crap for multiple reasons but every time its 30+ pages of retards claiming it rocks.

[Cielingcat]

There are retards who claim that a feat to eliminate the last 2 penalties from TWF is broken because it's twice as good as Weapon Focus.

[rapanui]

"That class is crap for multiple reasons but every time its 30+ pages of retards claiming it rocks."

That's a fair point, but mostly due to the fact that it's a core class, so people (rightly) believe that it should be balanced.

Most people confuse should with is.

Again, this is not a problem with people but rather with the fact that D&D sucks.

And yeah, I agree... if it's between the average DM using rule 0 to stealth nerf the game to hell and back (and allow people to have some semblance of fun), or making Andy Collins god, I'll take the former.

Actually, I won't since I don't really play anymore.. but in principle, I agree.

[Username17]

That's a fair point, but mostly due to the fact that it's a core class, so people (rightly) believe that it should be balanced.

Most people confuse should with is.

It's a thorny issue.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

Generations of people have been shackled by the is-ought problem and its close compatriot the Naturalistic Fallacy. The fact that something should be does not mean that it is. The fact that something is in no way ensures that it should be.

That's a serious and well established problem. The fact that people on the WotC board don't feel that they should come to grips with this cold unpleasant fact is mostly evidence that discussion there is emmotionally stunted. Because things would be better if the Fighter were balanced, it is balanced is considered an appropriate argument there, despite the rather trivially obvious holes in it.

And let's face it: should someone hold that notion, it is fundamentally cruel to disabuse them of it. If you tell someone point blank that things which should exist quite frequently don't you're being mean. And meanness will get you a warning over there.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1182446257[/unixtime]]
Again, this is not a problem with people but rather with the fact that D&D sucks.

And yeah, I agree... if it's between the average DM using rule 0 to stealth nerf the game to hell and back (and allow people to have some semblance of fun), or making Andy Collins god, I'll take the former.

Actually, I won't since I don't really play anymore.. but in principle, I agree.

The problem is that all RPGs tend to share this problem, not just D&D.

There are some that are slightly better, like Shadowrun and others that are slightly worse, like white wolf. But all in all, you can break almost anything.

[User3]

Frank, while I do understand the reason for the warnings at Wizards Community, did you really just say that ignorance is good (from your own point of view, I mean)?

[PhoneLobster]

I think the point is that if ignorance is bliss then being informative is against the code of conduct.

[Draco_Argentum]

1182446257[/unixtime]]Most people confuse should with is.

Again, this is not a problem with people but rather with the fact that D&D sucks.

I don't see how people confusing something isn't a problem with people. There are people who have decided that D&D is balanced, they're wrong. Its not D&D's fault that they can't or won't see the problems, its their inadequacy. So you will have trouble trying to explain that something is wrong with the rules.

Yelling DM is god sidesteps the problem. Unfortunately its just as likely that the DM is one of the twits and will yell DM is god to declare that polymorph is fine.

I'd say it is a form of argumentum ad consequentiam. Theres a latin name for it because this isn't restricted to RPGs, its a general problem with people.

[rapanui]

Yes, people make logic mistakes all the time.

Somehow, that doesn't stop many other games (chess, board games, video games, CCGs) from not sucking and being properly balanced. This is probably due to the fact that there are competitive tournaments where people are forced to think critically about the game in order to win.

Where RPGs are concerned however, we seem happy to hold the designers and developers to a much lower standard: the product never gets refined and balanced.

Therefore, it ISN'T a problem with people, it's a problem with RPGs.

I'm beginning to think it is mainly attributable to their non-competitive nature. Because they are supposed to be cooperative endeavors one can gloss over the rules and hope that social understanding will lead to enjoyment.

Of course, the inverse often happens when the shoddy rules actually lead to social misunderstandings.

[Neeek]

1182544731[/unixtime]]
Somehow, that doesn't stop many other games (chess, board games, video games, CCGs) from not sucking and being properly balanced.

Hmm. Most of the ones that are balanced have far fewer variables than RPGs, and, moreover, generally involve everyone doing the same things toward the same goal. Balance is much harder to achieve when you place people in opposition to each other. Even chess isn't really balanced, as going first and going second make a significant difference in the game. If you look at CCGs, you'll find that they are rarely particularly well-balanced, especially if you compare RPG archetypes to deck archetypes. You've got the same problems, the difference is in CCGs, they rarely claim every deck is as good as every other deck.

[Draco_Argentum]

1182544731[/unixtime]]Where RPGs are concerned however, we seem happy to hold the designers and developers to a much lower standard: the product never gets refined and balanced.

Right, people pay for and vociferously defend badly balanced stuff. People are doing something stupid that encourages the designers to continue doing stupid things.

Exactly what is so confusing about this, its how capitalism works.

[rapanui]

Most of the ones that are balanced have far fewer variables than RPGs

Perhaps that's a strength. Simplicity doesn't have to be a bad thing. Think about the progression from 1e to 3.5e... with a few exceptions here and there the trend has been towards simplifying and streamlining.

generally involve everyone doing the same things toward the same goal

In most RPGs the goal is to survive while advancing a plot (this is probably excessively general, but it covers most games and characters). The first part and the second part should be handled separately: the first part is the combat crunchy stuff (The game) while the second part is the flavor and campaign-dependent the stuff (the roleplaying). Most systems mix them up with bad result.

even chess isn't really balanced, as going first and going second make a significant difference in the game.

Nothing that's turn-based can be perfectly balanced. But it is well-refined. The number of games won by black and won by white are pretty much a 50-50 split (ok 43 to 57 in favor of white: although no calculation of statistical significance is given in the source I looked at, the sample size was over 1 million). For a fair match, sides can be switched and a victory ratio of 1 to 3 can be used. I would be willing to wager that in Fischer Random Chess the odds are even closer to 50-50.

If you look at CCGs, you'll find that they are rarely particularly well-balanced, especially if you compare RPG archetypes to deck archetypes. You've got the same problems, the difference is in CCGs, they rarely claim every deck is as good as every other deck.

Right! Because of the competitive requirements of CCG play, what's good and what's not is sorted out by tourney wins (and even more interestingly dictated by metagame). Furthermore, when a deck becomes format-warping, its component pieces are often banned or restricted. That doesn't happen with RPGs.. it took them 7 years to finally admit Polymorph was a bit shoddy and then they didn't even really fix it.

Right, people pay for and vociferously defend badly balanced stuff. People are doing something stupid that encourages the designers to continue doing stupid things.

Exactly what is so confusing about this, its how capitalism works.

I'm not confused about anything. All of this comes back to why I think Rule 0 sucks. It's a cover for shoddy design, shoddy editing, and a consumer base that knows nothing better.

The reality of capitalism is that: The less stupid crap there is in your system, the more people will buy it, and the more people will encourage their friends to play it.

Why do people prefer 3e over 2e? No race/class restrictions, no arbitrary demihuman level caps, 3 Saves instead of 10, streamlined and integrated mechanics, etc.

However, examine the mentality of the tards over at WotC:

"...the "code" of a game is the least valuable part of it. The most valuable part of a game is the brand equity that resides inside the brains of the people who play those games. The "Brand" of D&D is worth far more than the rules of D&D."
-Ryan Dancey, (D&D Brand Manager during Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition development, and currently manages the Open Gaming Foundation and Organized Play)

Of course, when people feel the mechanics are worthless then you get crap product.

The worst part is that the core mechanics at the heart of d20 were actually an improvement. I credit the mechanics improvements in 3e over whatever branding shenanigans they did to the popularity and success of d20.

What this indicates to me is that there is a place in the market for a good system. That system may still include something like Rule 0, but not as a cover for shoddy design.

[Draco_Argentum]

Well for someone only interested in money it really is far more important for people to believe your product is good than for it to actually be good. As long as gamers don't analyse the rules like we do they will never discover that their beliefs are wrong. And if that never happens the brand name will be worth more than the rules.

The designers are to blame for writing bad rules. The gamers are to blame for accepting them.

[RandomCasualty]

1182544731[/unixtime]]
Therefore, it ISN'T a problem with people, it's a problem with RPGs.

I'm beginning to think it is mainly attributable to their non-competitive nature. Because they are supposed to be cooperative endeavors one can gloss over the rules and hope that social understanding will lead to enjoyment.

Of course, the inverse often happens when the shoddy rules actually lead to social misunderstandings.

Well, I think it has to do with the open-ended nature of RPGs more so than anything else. In a normal game, you create options in the rules and that's that. You aren't necessarily trying to simulate anything, you're just creating a game.

An RPG tries to simulate a fantasy world, and indirectly fantasy literature and such. So that sometimes you've just got concepts you want to include, and the design goal is such that you can incorporate lots of new ideas. in an RPG, you aren't really at any point saying, "This is it, this is all you can do." Almost any option could potentially be done by rules.

The problem is that you rarely have time to playtest all of that. The best we can hope for is a well playtested core rules and then some expanded rules that the designers have at least given second thought. RPG rules will never be like chess or something.

[rapanui]

I can agree to most of what you said, particularly the part about well playtested core rules.

Here's how I think design should be partitioned and how much "Rule 0ing" should occur at each level.

Core:

-Allow for proper physical and mental description of a character.
-Give some basic and advanced combat options in a straightforward manner.
-Clearly classify all types of bonuses, effects and how they interact.
-Handle skills that would be expected in virtually any campaign setting involving humanoids.
-Allow for level advancement.
-Level advancement should not cause the Core game math to collapse. Ideally this would hold true no matter how high the levels go.
-The number of dice rolled (if any) should be low. (Personal preference, but it's a time thing).
-A system for determining how powerful antagonists should be.

Rule 0 Status: The GM can't touch the Core without explicit player consent. It should work very well, and players and GMs alike should trust it fully.

The Mantle:

-is applied to the core rules and modifies them slightly to suit a certain era, period, or style of game. For example, different Mantles for d20 include: D&D, d20 Modern, d20 Star Wars, d20 CoC.

A well designed mantle can be held to lower standards overall, since it has a higher degree of complexity but should still abide by the following:

-Set absolute minimums and maximums for spell/feat/technique/ability power and follow them closely.
-Keep power discrepancy between builds to a minimum (although some is probably unavoidable and maybe even desirable).
-Minimize power loops, recursion, and general cheesiness.

Rule 0 Status: GMs can be given some amount of authoritarian decree over what will and will not fly in the rules given by the Mantle. Unless something is clearly broken though, there should be player input.

The Crust:

- Campaign setting modification for world, time period or specific geographic location. (Eberron, FR, or Oriental Adventures for D&D; Past, Future, or Cyberscape for d20 Modern).
- Random supplements from web sources, and modules.\
- Splat books.
- Design should be focused on FLAVOR, although some crunch can be included.

Rule 0 Status: GM has complete authoritarian rule about anything in this regard, specially during in-game time. There is simply too much material here for every interaction to be considered, so brokenness will probably occur.


Ideally, this is how things would work. Ideally.


EDIT: Oh Great Fence Builder, I think I've derailed this one all the way to Hades. It would be much appreciated if the Rule 0 discussion could be set apart in a different thread.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Yes, 3e is generally accepted to be better/streamlines compared to 2e. They did good with Base Attack Bonus vs THAC0, Will Save vs "Polymorph was cast from a wand, wtf do I do?".

However, one thing that is frequently overlooked is that in 2nd ed. you started at level 1 and it took YEARS (of real time) to get to level 9, at which point it would be understood that the wizard would be better than the fighter, and both would likely own large tracts of land, a kingdom, or something. It was taken as a given that wizards were better than fighters, that's why fighters gained support for their army with their deeds, while wizards typically ammassed knowledge. The argument was then "I am more powerful" "ah, but I have an army" and everyone was happy.

The current systems sees a level 10 wizard vastly overpowering a fighter when he is not supposed to, primarily because he hasn't suffered long enough for his power at low levels.

[rapanui]

I get tired of parroting this but:

You Can't Balance Out Classes By Making Them Weak Early On.
Why? Because: Not All Games Start at First Level.

It doesn't matter how long wizards "suffer for their power", if there's a level where things get severely unequal, it's bad. It was bad in 2e, and in a way it's even worse in 3e because now the books treat all class levels as equal. At least back in 2e the difference classes required different XP to advance (a bad idea, but hey...)

[Cielingcat]

Also, if you punish someone at any point for playing a certain class then they won't be having fun.

[User3]

Don't forget that the exponential XP system for 1e/2e meant that you could keep playing the Wizard Lottery every time you had a character death. Each new Wizard jumps on the exponential XP gravy train, and gets to level X-1 at the same time the party as a whole reaches level X. So, you can just keep throwing low level Wizards at your DM until one survives.

Note that this takes much less time than leveling up a single level 1 wizard in a level 1 party because you fight bigger monsters and (most important) collect a boatload more gold (each gp is a sweet, sweet XP, so you can do straight up nothing in combat and advance just by collecting shares of the treasure).

[Brobdingnagian]

We can argue about who or what is to blame for rule inconsistencies and poor game management and weak products all day, but it really comes down to one thing.

People are stupid.

If even fifty percent of D&D playing population in just North America, not even the rest of the world, were as intelligent as the majority of members on this board, then WotC would have to make D&D a better game because otherwise, enough of the people who are interested in it would be able to say, 'Hey, no, this is stupid' and force them into improvement.

Hell, even if the people who made the rules would bother to play a real game, they'd see the problem.

[rapanui]

I believe in enlightenment-era egalitarian values, so while most people are indeed stupid, I try and behave as if that were not the case.

(Naiveté or hypocrisy... you decide.)

[Cielingcat]

People aren't innately stupid. However, they are often not taught to look at things critically, and so they don't. And because they don't realize that things are bad, they don't complain, and WotC has no reason to make them better.

[rapanui]

Ah, I like that much better. It while I shouldn't have said that most people are stupid, I don't think it's a stretch to say that most people don't think critically.

[Brobdingnagian]

I stand by my belief that people are stupid. I've met too many stupid people to think otherwise.

...

George Bush was re-elected. C'mon.

[Cielingcat]

Critical thinking and a, what, 30% turnout rate? It's not like the people have any say in elections anyway.