|
2 years ago ::
May 18, 2011 - 7:46PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
You could plug various types of powers into Pathfinder though via feats or alternate class features and new races. A new class could be similar to an AEDU class in the PF system. Also monsters similar to the 4th ed ones could also be designed. As I said elements of PF and 4th could flow both ways. You could plug the 4th ed PHB elf into PF easily enough after slapping on a -2 con.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 18, 2011 - 7:53PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Great post, Mand. I would add one more thing to the list of good game design:
Easy for players to make it their own. A good RPG should make it very easy for the players (and DMs) to change things in order to make the game suit their own individual needs. I think 4E does this very well.
Take the Vampire, for example. You were very disappointed in the extreme lack of choice, and implied that you have some ideas for how the class could have encompassed more. It is very easy to make your own options or ask others on the forum for help in making more options. Say, for example, that you wanted a choice at each level of power between a melee power (for your feral vampires) and a ranged power (for your charming vampires). You can very easily do just that. The power structure of 4E makes such homebrew work very easy.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 18, 2011 - 8:58PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
So, it's impossible to make rational choices about game design? Glad you're not a game designer.
It is possible to make rational choices, insofar as the choices will be based on reason. However, ultimately, that reason will boil down to subjective personal opinion. If you like gritty games in which the "heroes" are downtrodden men/women put through the proverbial blender of life, you are going to want a very different set of mechanics than someone who comes to the table with the assumption that "everyone should be awesome." In the end, while a game should have a coherent/unified set of mechanics, what informs the direction those mechanics should take is based on the arbitrary tastes of the game designer. In other words, a good game needs to: 1) have mechanics that must meet objectives set by the designer; 2) must evoke the mood and or setting that the designer intends; 3) the prose must effectively communicate those elements to a consumer market. Everything beyond that boils down to arbitrary taste.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 18, 2011 - 10:06PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
The problem with that is that there is a wide range of what people like. Take 3ed and 4ed. Both have very large followings that think their game is fun and have issues with the other version of the game. Each side feels their game is better designed. Which side is right?
The side that like the better-designed, better-balanced, more modern ed, obviously. It's OK to enjoy something inferior. I love 1st Ed Gamma World, it's a nostalgia trip for me, and it's like watching an Ed Wood movie, it's bad, but it's so bad, it's fun. I would never try to argue that 1st ed Gamma World was 'better designed' than 2nd or 4th or the current ed, though. I could only just barely manage an argument against 3rd, which, though absolutely aweful in a lot of ways, was only really abysmally designed becaue /they forgot the freak'n artifacts!/ (I mean, seriously, that's like revising D&D and forgetting to revise the magic.. er... items... nevermind).
Um, anyway, in closing well-designed games can be unapealing - GURPS was beautifully researched, reality-checked, playtested, and continuously revised to make it better, but I still couldn't stand it. And bad games can be fun - but still be bad.
Waving the whole issue away as 'subjective' is lazy and pointless.
Who said to wave the whole issue away as "subjective"? I was only saying that it's tough to pin down good game design. Frankly, there are multiple ways to design a good game and ideas such as "balance" and "modern" don't always = good game design. 3ed wasn't nearly as balanced as 4ed is, but it was still designed well in many ways. Yes it had its flaws, but so does 4ed.
I also strongly disagree with you that bad games can be fun. Bad games are unfun. That's what makes them bad. Fun games are good games. Fun is what makes them good.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 18, 2011 - 10:18PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Having the flavour of the game you present match the experience the players share.
Promise a balanced system where every PC can be equal, but only a few choices really matter? FAIL!
Promise a system where any kind of PC can be created at the cost of balance, and the result is a horribly unbalanced but fun experience? WINNING!
'I have had players complain about having extra rares in a pack. I’ve had players complain about getting free things. I have had players complain because they liked something “too much”.' - Mark Rosewater's Twitter, May 7th, 2013
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 18, 2011 - 11:38PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
Not blowing to smithereens a class that worked fine despite itself for three full years would be a start.
D&DN Paladin: Half-Fighter, half-Cleric, all useless. D&DN Ranger: Third-Fighter, third-Rogue, third-Druid, all useless. With one interesting concept that has its execution botched. My 4e Character Op work:Character guides
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 19, 2011 - 2:22AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
I suppose the OP means what is good for the player.
However, sadly the design also needs to cater to economic realities.
Because of this, any system with longevity (like d&d) needs to have a constant flow of content and also it needs to renew itself occasionally (new editions) to stay afloat.
For this reason, the overflow part can't really be avoided if you also want the game to be on the market for more than a couple of years. This also creates severe problems for the balance issues, as a constant flow of content will make the system so large that evaluating any changes in playtesting is only a scratch on the surface.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 19, 2011 - 4:08AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
Any generalised statement about what makes good RPG design should at least be checked to see whether it applies to Call of Cthulhu. (I'm tempted to add 'and Paranoia', but Paranoia is a little bit of a special case.)
Are Call of Cthulhu PCs awesome? Not in any straightforward sense: they're poor saps who are going to be sucked down into a spiral of madness and death. But that doesn't mean CoC isn't a good RPG.
Now as a criterion for heroic fantasy, then yes, the characters should all be achieving feats of heroism and so on.
I would replace it by a claim that the characters should all be capable of taking part in the campaign goals. You should never have a situation where a player feels that their character is the load: just sitting back and watching one or other characters do their thing.
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 19, 2011 - 5:56AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Feats of heroism isn't quite what I mean when I say "feeling of awesome." Going down the spiral of madness and death, itself, is awesome. Your character doesn't have to stand triumphantly victorious as the only sane person left upon Cthulhu's rotting corpse in order to be awesome. If you manage to survive slightly longer, that might be enough to make you awesome.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 19, 2011 - 5:59AM
#40
|
|
|
Feats of heroism isn't quite what I mean when I say "feeling of awesome." Going down the spiral of madness and death, itself, is awesome. Your character doesn't have to stand triumphantly victorious as the only sane person left upon Cthulhu's rotting corpse in order to be awesome. If you manage to survive slightly longer, that might be enough to make you awesome.
check your pms chuckles
|
|
|
