Now, it's easy to imagine what #1 and #8 look like, because that's basically how the old-school classes operate. What's the best way to allow for the others, though? What would they even look like?
Thoughts?
First of all, very well-thought-out and on the money.
Putting this all together, we've got eight basic possibilities:
I wonder if we need something between down-to-earth & mythic? There is, for instance, a big difference in power between the 3.5 caster and the 4e caster, yet the 4e casters are in no way 'down to earth.' Is there an 'utterly broken beyond description' /beyond/ mythic, or an 'Heroic' between down-to-earth and mythic?
What would they even look like?
1. The low-mechanical-engagement, down-to-Earth-scale fighter.
The 1e AD&D, pre-UA Fighter.
2. The low-mechanical-engagement, down-or-Earth-scale wizard.
Never been done. No, even the 3.5 Warlock was not on this scale. Something like it or the 4E Elemental Sorcerer, maybe, but toned down in power and versatilty.
3. The low-mechanical-engagement, mythic-scale fighter.
A sufficiently magic-item-dripping post-UA/2e TWF quisinart of doom fighter, maybe a little short of the mythic-scale, but in that direction.
4. The low-mechanical-engagement, mythic-scale wizard.
Warlock.
5. The high-mechanical-engagement, down-to-Earth-scale fighter.
3.x Fighter
6. The high-mechanical-engagement, down-to-Earth-scale wizard.
Never been done.
7. The high-mechanical-engagement, mythic-scale fighter.
4e martial classes come close.
8. The high-mechanical-engagement, mythic-scale wizard.
True, but that's a separate problem. Throwing down-to-Earth-scale parties up against mythic-scale opponents is going to require some finagling no matter how you slice it, but that's an issue distinct from that of accommodating the types of characters that would allow for such a matchup to happen in the first place. Note that nowhere in the topic post did I mention making sure that all the variations are "balanced" (whatever that means).
I've had two very different ideas about that. One, if you want to mix characters of different power levels it should be done up-front so everyone knows what they're getting: Who's the Hero of this Piece. The other idea was to put radically different power levels in different 'Tiers of Play,' while the could be mixed - the mechanics would work - the disparity would be pretty extreme, and the assumption would be either having a whole campaign in one Tier, or progress from one Tier to the next.
(Note: I am aware that some of us object to the notion of mythic-scale fighters and such on general principle. Please consider your objections pre-emptively noted. )
Nice post. Would you also note that some of us object to the notion of down-to-Earth Wizards. I find it interesting that a being that can use magic, at any level, would not be considered supernatural.
Tolkien was able to convince us that a group of 1s could hang out with the 8s. I am good with that.
I wonder the destiny of D&D had Aragorn faced the Balrog instead of Gandalf. Or Gandalf taken out Smaug instead of Bard the Bowman and his Black Arrow. Nah, I don't feel like I can trade in the epic tale for the bag of balance.
Something that every 8 should worry about. Overconfidence. Some 8s just can't see the little 1s carrying their ring.
Making sure the fighter can fight a flying creature (ie, putting in a magic longbow, or a dagger of flying, or something similar) is part of the DM's -job description-. If you can't be bothered to make up a couple magic items for the fighter to find, please...stop ruining the game for players. It's not 'design'.
A magic longbow doesn't assure that the fighter has something interesting to do. If I'm playing the fighter, here's what I can do:
1) Highlight the "ranged attacks" section of my character sheet. 2) Give my character sheet to another player. 3) Leave the room. 4) Make a drink. 5) Consume the drink from (4).
And guess what? My fighter does exactly as well in my absence as he would have otherwise. I don't have an interest in that simple of a game. I want a game in which knowing something about one's character matters nearly all of the time, or else I may as well stay home and drink in wretched solitude, without the distracting clatter of dice in the background. The more we define "contributing to an encounter" as "being able to roll to hit every round," the farther we get from my goal of a game in which player decisions matter.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Eh..I don't like the term "anime-ish Fighter", because it's usually used by people who insist that real-world combat is anime.
Even worse, it usually is used by people who think anime is a genre.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Sure, but so what? If D&D Next is serious about the whole modularity thing, we really can have the best of both worlds. No GM running a truly modular game is going to be using every module all at once, so it's totally acceptable for some options to be incompatible or mutually exclusive.
The problem is that this is utterly impossible. Its not a matter just of balance; its also a matter of time and cannibalism.
The whole modularity idea that they have is just not going to happen. It sounds pretty - oh so pretty - but in reality you have to make decisions. Monster design is dependent on character design, and balance is dependent on what characters can do. Throwing a 2nd edition goblin at a 4th edition character is boring and doesn't work well. So either they write two monster manuals, or half the monster manual isn't going to work for one module or another.
Moreover, for those who remember TSR, when TSR tried this sort of thing - making a million campaign settings, trying to make specific products for tons of different competing lines - TSR died.
Its not a viable business strategy and its not a viable design strategy.
I have a few thoughts on it (and sorry if I repeat anybody, but I haven't read all the responses).
First off, the mythic-scale Wizard is an intrinsic balance problem with the system since essentially NOBODY else measures up. In earlier versions, that was due to a variety of things, but most commonly because no other combination of abilities at a class's disposal could match the sheer versatility of what a high level Wizard could accomplish. More than that, the right set of spells would typically make any high level Wizard better at any specific task than any other class, even those who's supposed focus was to be the best at that task. What typically set a wizard apart most wasn't the Fwakoom-boom spells, it was those that offered control over their target, their environment, or other utility.
Now, I'm not saying that for the game to be good the above must be changed. It's a matter of perspective there. I'm just recognizing it for what it is.
A very big step toward making the Fighter more comparable to the mage in terms of complexity of options in a fight would be to offer them a combat maneuver mastery perk, similar to what the rogue has in regard to kill checks.
I don't remember exactly how it worked in 4e (only played it a few times, wasn't a fan), but in 3e, a fighter needed a separate feat to either make each possible maneuver effective, or in some cases to do it at all.
Instead, let Fighters default to attempts to trip, disarm, grapple, and so on without penalty (and in some cases maybe with added bonuses) without having to sink significant portions of your level-up budget into being competent at them.
In heavily mechanic oriented games, I've found that those types of maneuvers are often of limited value in very high end games, but letting a fighter perform them without investment does two thing:
#1) offers greater mechanical complexity early game, without significantly increasing damage throughput.
#2) Leaves room for a great deal more maneuvers, abilities, and powers that scale better, without leaving the character short on combat options in the meantime.
The problem is that this is utterly impossible. Its not a matter just of balance; its also a matter of time and cannibalism.
I don't really agree. I won't deny that it does make it more difficult, and no I don't think it's generally advisable to design a game with rules that are either mutually exclusive or incompatible, but they don't have to be.
Case in point, GURPS has tons of "optional rules" that don't invalidate other game content, but add further complexity if it's wanted by the GM/Players.
With a set of simple character creation and advancement rules and a complex set, there is no reason for the two to be incompatible.
We're not talking about a 2e character and a 3e character. The simple and complex rules would be mechanically identical. The only difference is that with the simple rules, the majority of the decisions and options the advanced rules present are chosen for you instead of by you. An advanced rules character should have the option to build identically to a simple rule character, thus they're perfectly compatible and technically balanced. Custom characters will excel in certain situations and likely have weaknesses in others, compared to the simple version, but that's all.
Consequently, there's no reason for two sets of monsters.
Now, whether or not it will happen I can't say for sure, but there's no reason why the "complex" rules can't be included in the two or three core books like they say. There will of course be more books later with extra content, extra options, extra rules, etc (it's the nature of every game), but if they keep everything you need in the basic books, then those also become equally optional.
I'm not saying that it WILL happen, or even that it's likely to (I haven't been real impressed with what the D&D team has cranked out in the last 15 years or so, compared to many other design teams), but for the first time in about 15 years, it sounds to me like they're at least TRYING to go in the right direction, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer.
The problem is that this is utterly impossible. Its not a matter just of balance; its also a matter of time and cannibalism.
I don't really agree. I won't deny that it does make it more difficult, and no I don't think it's generally advisable to design a game with rules that are either mutually exclusive or incompatible, but they don't have to be.
Case in point, GURPS has tons of "optional rules" that don't invalidate other game content, but add further complexity if it's wanted by the GM/Players.
This is a great case in point. GURPS is a mess. GURPS tries to do everything, but as a result, it does nothing well. It is the best system for running really weird crossovers, but that's about it. Its a niche system.
GURPS also isn't much like D&D.
With a set of simple character creation and advancement rules and a complex set, there is no reason for the two to be incompatible.
I explained why in the above post.
We're not talking about a 2e character and a 3e character. The simple and complex rules would be mechanically identical. The only difference is that with the simple rules, the majority of the decisions and options the advanced rules present are chosen for you instead of by you. An advanced rules character should have the option to build identically to a simple rule character, thus they're perfectly compatible and technically balanced. Custom characters will excel in certain situations and likely have weaknesses in others, compared to the simple version, but that's all.
The problem is that this doesn't really work at all, because the first example isn't actually simpler characters, and one major problem is complexity.
Moreover, the custom characters will inevitably be orders of magnitude stronger.
I'm not saying that it WILL happen, or even that it's likely to (I haven't been real impressed with what the D&D team has cranked out in the last 15 years or so, compared to many other design teams), but for the first time in about 15 years, it sounds to me like they're at least TRYING to go in the right direction, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer.
The sad thing is that D&D's team is the most talented in the RPG business. White Wolf is good for what they do, but they're not really even trying to directly compete with D&D, which is wise. They focus on their strengths and their strengths are quite interesting, but I don't really feel a burning desire to play their games at all.
GURPS is a mess. I like the idea but it just isn't focused enough to work.
Some of the random indie RPGs like Poison'd are pretty neat, but they're kind of... different. Admittedly I haven't played a lot of these, so maybe there's some gems I'm missing.
Paizo has done nothing original, and Pathfinder is just an example of what is wrong with the OGL - basically someone just taking D&D, reskinning it, and selling it, without making any real improvements and not understanding the issues 3.x faced.
So who exactly are you talking about? I'm actually interested.
Based on what? I'll absolutely agree with you that just about every system does at least one thing better than GURPS does, but that's kind of the point of it being the Generic Universal game. None of them (that I know of) do everything as well as it does. The biggest problem with it (in my mind) isn't any specific shortcomings, so much as the fact that the game is so expansive that you have to get really, really familiar with the character creation rules in order to build the character you want to play without getting totally overwhelmed. It's not a problem for me, but it's really not kind to new players in that respect.
That and the game has no Style of it's own. It's just sort of inherently boring. A quality system, but boring. Back to the Generic thing I suppose.
Monster design is dependent on character design...
That's a concept fairly unique to D&D actually. Yes, all prebuilt adversaries in other games must be on a power scale similar to the players (if they're intended to be fought with chance of victory, which oddly enough isn't always the case), but that's a very broad brush. I'm having a hard time thinking of another game which proposes enemies with any kind of challenge rating like D&D does, intended only to fight characters in a very narrow portion of their campaign-lifespan.
D&D exclusive gamers and designers (in my experience) seem to be a little myopic regarding how to deal with enemies. Hit it until it's hit points go down to zero. In a lot of other games, when confronted with something much more powerful than the players, they either do their best NOT to fight it, or figure out some way to kill it other than poking it with a sword. A lack of Challenge Rating is not the end of the world.
The problem is that this doesn't really work at all, because the first example isn't actually simpler characters, and one major problem is complexity.
Moreover, the custom characters will inevitably be orders of magnitude stronger.
I don't entirely follow the first bit... are you saying that the problem is that they're TOO complex, or not complex enough?
On your second statement there, I agree to a point. If the designers do a good job, then they can make the simply packaged character competitive. Yes the players will ALWAYS find that one or two or three combinations of abilities that set a character head and shoulders above the majority, and the more options the designers present the more difficult it is to keep that from happening. That said, part of the point of the large scale play testing we're doing (once we have those options to test) is to find those combinations and restrict them in some way. It won't get all of them and it's not perfect, but personally, I'm ok with those who know the system really well being able to milk a little more out of it, so long as it's not game breaking.
White Wolf is good for what they do, but they're not really even trying to directly compete with D&D, which is wise.
Nobody tries to directly compete with D&D (except pazio, and if you believe the claims then pathfinder has overtaken 4e in sales recently, which is exceptionally ironic since you're completely right about it being 99% WotC's own product). It's still a good product, regardless of personal taste or opinion, but there are other reasons as well. Part of that is because D&D has the name. It's synonymous with tabletop roleplaying, and as any market analyst will tell you, that's the most powerful thing there is.
Another reason for this is because different games fill different niches and play styles and thus attract different portions of the roleplaying fanbase. It's common sense. When there's a really popular product, why try and compete with it directly when you can instead invest your time and money appealing to a slightly different demographic.
None of the other RPG's out there that are coming readily to mind are designed first and foremost as a scenario driven skirmish level tactical combat game, which D&D has been for quite some time. The others don't compete directly because they're selling different types of games. If they tried to build a game just like D&D, then D&D would win out because it's still D&D (except in the case of pathfinder, in which they re-made D&D under another name because so many players didn't view 4e as D&D in anything but name).
And to sum up, there's aren't too many games that put a heavy emphasis on optional rules for two reasons. First because some are built on a more flexible set of mechanics, which often times accommodate more in the first place without additional rules and thus don't need as many optional mechanics to cover different situations. They're not inherently superior, but flexibility is it's own advantage. The second reason has to do with D&D more than the other companies themselves: No other game has as broad (and therefore diverse) a fanbase as D&D does, and so it need not attempt to appeal to as many play styles.
What was saw with 4e was a game who's merits we can debate all day, but which unarguably appealed only to a (realatively speaking) small portion of the playerbase. If that were not the case, pathfinder could never have garnered the following that it has.
I feel that it isn't the inherent nature of optional rules that keep them from being more prevalent. Almost every group I've every played with has their own house rules, which amount to the same. They just aren't published. There are situational reasons why they're not more common in print.
As far as games that offered a fairly hefty list of optional rules that still functioned well, in addition to GURPS, I can think of Cyberpunk (the old version, not the new one), and a heck of a lot of houserules, which several different groups I played 3e and 3.5 with put into place, which still functioned quite nicely. They may not have been officially recognized by the publisher (though I believe some were) but the worked well all the same. Although it's apples and oranges, there are a lot of other tabletop games like Warhammer's various iterations and some of it's roleplaying spinoffs that make liberal use of optional rules as well, and without disastrous effect, and while many of them aren't actual RPG's they share an awful lot of mechanical similarities.
Hope I more or less answered most of it there, with this wall of text... man my fingers are tired.
)
