What is the Point?

[Captain_Bleach]

So, I have been asking and trying to make threads discussing the game balance of the d20 system. A lot of you people talk about how broken several aspects of the D&D/d20 games are. When I ask around to try and "fix" D&D, several of you say that I should not.
So then, what is the point? What are we trying to do? If several aspects suck out loud, but several of you say that it shouldn't be changed, then why complain? If some game rule does not agree with you, then why not fix it?

I am just trying to figure out what exactly several of you guys are trying to accomplish.

[Chuckles]

Dude, this sight exists to justify powergaming and bitch about how much people hate d20. It's where I go to get my dose of crazy (also RPGPundit is good for that.)

[Rob_Knotts]

It's the classic past-time of nerds, bitching about what they love most. It goes back at least as far back as comic shops in the 70s, and probably even further back through to sci-fi conventions of the 40s.

It doesn't help that WotC has taken a similar approach to D&D 3e that it uses for M:TG. I don't know how far back it goes, but for the years I've been exposed to M:TG (some friends play, I don't), WotC takes it for granted that everytime they publish a new set of cards or rulings, there will some unintended conflict or potential for abuse when combined with older cards/rulings. D&D 3x reached that critical mass within just a few years of it's introduction, and its apparent that WotC stopped worrying about unintended consequences of new D&D material early on. My guess is that WotC considered the amount of review necessary to prevent new material from creating problems would effectively prevent the development of new material. In the long run the company figured it was simpler to handle it the way they do with Magic: publish now, erratta later.

Basically it's my opinion that once you start using material from outside the 3 core books, you're accepting the fact that doing so will make the game significantly more complicated. Seems to be the whole reason for having core books in the first place is to create a stable, internally-consistent* set of rules that are seperate from the optional rulebooks that can (and probably will) deviate from the balance and internal consistency of the core books.

*While I think this is the intention, I don't think D&D 3x has ever been as internally-consistent as other, non-d20 games on the shelves.

I see it as nerd-pornography. Fans buy into D&D, or Star Trek, or DC Comics, or whataver not only expecting flaws by perversely hoping to find them so they can spend hours, days, months, even years bitching about it to anyone willing to listen to or read what they have to say. Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino have made carreers out of it.

I'd say that RPGs are hardly an exact science, but it would be insulting to the concept of science to compare it with RPGs in any way. Complex or simple, expensive or cheap, all RPGs boil down writing down the rules for a game of Cops & Robbers so the kids can spend more of the afternoon playing and less arguing about who's playing along and who isn't.

[Catharz]

1) By pointing out flaws in a current system, one may mark and avoid them in the future. D&D (at least in the past) simply forged ahead with no knowledge of the territory, and so fell into many traps. A new system has no need to do the same.

2) Sometimes even things that work perfectly can be bad design. Don't bother changing them in the current system, but don't try using them either. A good analogue is spaghetti code. It may work perfectly, but don't fuck with it because the slightest change might invalidate it, and you won't know. If you were to re-write it, using the same technique would be stupid (and instead you'd use some paradigm like Object Oriented, Data Directed, Functional, Quaject, or even just Structured).

[Captain_Bleach]

But what is the point of complaining about a rules system when you have the power/effort to change it around to what you like?

[bitnine]

1187287716[/unixtime]]But what is the point of complaining about a rules system when you have the power/effort to change it around to what you like?

So if I literally took a poop on a piece of paper and then sold that to you as a game supplement, would you think that it was pointless to complain about the content of that material because any given person has the option to ignore or change things, as well as perhaps even identify flawed elements before they introduced problematic aspects into a game?

[Rob_Knotts]

1187289330[/unixtime]]So if I literally took a poop on a piece of paper and then sold that to you as a game supplement, would you think that it was pointless to complain about the content of that material because any given person has the option to ignore or change things, as well as perhaps even identify flawed elements before they introduced problematic aspects into a game?

Y'know, if someone can convince you a piece of paper with poop on it is a game supplement, the quality of the supplement is the least of your problems.

[bitnine]

1187289917[/unixtime]]Y'know, if someone can convince you a piece of paper with poop on it is a game supplement, the quality of the supplement is the least of your problems.

Heh, you see that hyperbole as ridiculously worse, while I take it to be somewhat better than the real effect of bad material. Even accidentally pre-ordering such an item wouldn't lead give a naive kid advice like, "Instead of something that makes sense, ruin your friend's fun by having a rust monster break his stuff in a bland and frustrating enterprise for everyone."

That's seriously the sort of horseshit that bad game material runs towards. Who cares if I can figure out and ad-hoc adapt material seamlessly? I mean, I actually do care, because I sort of shouldn't have to and would rather read something that has an additive inspirational effect rather than requiring patchwork, but beyond that, shoddy game material is still bad. I mean, I could show up on a bunch of threads with new and less-than-stellar GMs and players talking about their game problems that flow from flawed systemic aspects and yell, "Fuck y'all! You coulda seen those problems ahead of time and fixed 'em, so stop bitching and suck it down!"

Besides, there's a difference between criticism and complaining. A reviewer who writes a scathing review of a play isn't actually necessarily trying to change the play or rewrite their memory of what happened. They are giving their response and sharing it with others. Some of this may be to highlight what went wrong with the play, some of this could be to warn others not to waste their money, and maybe or not some of it could be in the hopes that other playwrights learn from the mistakes that were made.

And at least one episode of such "complaining" right here lead towards at the very least a slightly less sucktackular version of the Swiftblade and increased insight into how the WotC editors evaluate classes.

[Neeek]

1187284485[/unixtime]]So, I have been asking and trying to make threads discussing the game balance of the d20 system. A lot of you people talk about how broken several aspects of the D&D/d20 games are. When I ask around to try and "fix" D&D, several of you say that I should not.

Could you be more specific? Usually, there are individual reason why changing certain things without changing other things is problematic.

But, since you asked, here's my take:
The basic unit of DnD (the level) is already broken before you even start, because a 1st level character is supposed to be equivalent in power to a CR 1 monster (on the whole, each character should have bad match-ups). Now, 1st level isn't such a huge problem, since you don't have to deal with inane ECL BS, but even at that level, a Druid can get an animal companion that is roughly the equivalent of a 1st level fighter, for free. The balance problem in DnD is so big that there is no place to start fixing it, you'd really have to start over.

We generally bitch and don't do anything about it, because fixing the system is a full time job for a dozen highly intelligent and talented people. If WotC wants to pay us to do that for them, that would be different. But I don't have time to rewrite (or even to read) every monster even printed, every feat ever printed, every spell ever printed, or every class ever printed unless doing so could pay off my preposterously huge student loans. And even if WotC offered to pay us to fix things for them, we'd be fired in a month, because they'd hate what we came up with, and us, for insulting their previous work so harshly.

[Captain_Bleach]

1187304707[/unixtime]]

1187284485[/unixtime]]So, I have been asking and trying to make threads discussing the game balance of the d20 system. A lot of you people talk about how broken several aspects of the D&D/d20 games are. When I ask around to try and "fix" D&D, several of you say that I should not.

Could you be more specific? Usually, there are individual reason why changing certain things without changing other things is problematic.

But, since you asked, here's my take:
The basic unit of DnD (the level) is already broken before you even start, because a 1st level character is supposed to be equivalent in power to a CR 1 monster (on the whole, each character should have bad match-ups). Now, 1st level isn't such a huge problem, since you don't have to deal with inane ECL BS, but even at that level, a Druid can get an animal companion that is roughly the equivalent of a 1st level fighter, for free. The balance problem in DnD is so big that there is no place to start fixing it, you'd really have to start over.

We generally bitch and don't do anything about it, because fixing the system is a full time job for a dozen highly intelligent and talented people. If WotC wants to pay us to do that for them, that would be different. But I don't have time to rewrite (or even to read) every monster even printed, every feat ever printed, every spell ever printed, or every class ever printed unless doing so could pay off my preposterously huge student loans. And even if WotC offered to pay us to fix things for them, we'd be fired in a month, because they'd hate what we came up with, and us, for insulting their previous work so harshly.

You guys would qualify for it, as many of you are very rules savvy. What if we corrected the game problems in our free time? Oh wait, we already are!

[Leress]

1187308698[/unixtime]]
You guys would qualify for it, as many of you are very rules savvy. What if we corrected the game problems in our free time? Oh wait, we already are!

Well, the thing is...unlike the saying "two heads are better than one" in reality having more people will most likely cause problems and it would take a lot of effort just to quell those before they even start to fix the problems* with DnD or D20

Since many people have different balance gauges for what they use to determine how good something is in their game.



*some people have different things that they consider problems with Dnd or D20. Even though most of them overlap.

[K]

Here is my advice:

Fix the problems, be open with your balance points, and make it awesome flavorwise.

Do that, and you might actually get paid to write DnD. Heck, I've known guys who could only do one out of those three things and they ARE writing for DnD.

But, at the end of the day, DnD can't be fixed by committee (though it should be playtested that way). Some people want Perseus and some want Arthur and some want Wheel of Time and some want Gilgamesh and some want those bad Conan-clone fantasies from the 80's (my pick), and some bastards even want Pokemon or Brothers Grim.

I've toyed with ideas for presenting DnD at the differing magic levels, with balance points for each kind of setting, but until I'm out of law school or paid to write it, this dude is not putting in the effort. I've done all the free DnD I can do.

[Username17]

We generally bitch and don't do anything about it, because fixing the system is a full time job for a dozen highly intelligent and talented people

This is the key. I already have a full time job. I spent 11 hours today riding around in an ambulance carrying old people in and out of homes and offices and I write Shadowrun material on top of that and I've got to prepare for my med-school admission test in Prague.

I literally can't write a complete D&D replacement in my free-time. I don't have the time.

-Username17

[erik]

1187313620[/unixtime]] and some bastards even want Pokemon or Brothers Grim.

Pokémon, yes!

[Crissa]

I just want a spell list that doesn't make me cry. Of course, I'm unemployed and Frank usually says my writing needs heavy edits. ;-;

-Crissa

[the_taken]

1187322715[/unixtime]]

1187313620[/unixtime]] and some bastards even want Pokemon or Brothers Grim.

Pokémon, yes!

It's in the works!

http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewth ... t=89528[br]

[Immortius]

1187379113[/unixtime]]I just want a spell list that doesn't make me cry. Of course, I'm unemployed and Frank usually says my writing needs heavy edits. ;-;

-Crissa

Personally I think the individual spells should be dropped completely and replaced with some sort of spell framework instead.

[Username17]

1187391112[/unixtime]]

1187379113[/unixtime]]I just want a spell list that doesn't make me cry. Of course, I'm unemployed and Frank usually says my writing needs heavy edits. ;-;

-Crissa

Personally I think the individual spells should be dropped completely and replaced with some sort of spell framework instead.

Because that's worked so well every other time it has been tried? Honestly, I can't think of a single "design a spell system" that isn't horribly, horribly broken. Not even one.

Iron Kingdoms? Broken!
True Sorcery? Broken!
Fantasy Hero? Broken!

And so on. There are always breakpoints, and surprising ommisions. Who cares if your spell knocks you out if it also knocks out every enemy? You have friends. Who cares if a spell is limited in color and can't do any damage if it stuns your opponents for longer than the battle would last anyway as a side effect? Why throw fire when you can turn peoples' armor into lava?

-Username17

[Crissa]

Fantasy Hero is the best of the bunch, but you end up having spells that don't do much in that system...

Still, you need a framework to hang you spells upon. And it needs to be aware of the breakpoints. If we had a framework, it'd be more obvious when a spell was out of alignment, and we could more easily tell when a spell was appropriately out of alignment.

But honestly, if they're going to release spells with every book, I'd rather have one book be Edvard's and another book be Tasha's, etc. If you're going to make flavour, make it consistent!

*sigh*

-Crissa