Quote from: StormBringer;533943And that is pretty much the normal definition.  It can certainly be used in a different context, but I think that would be recognized as non-standard.  I don't think anyone would agree with a literal interpretation; ie, there are no other opponents in the entire campaign except orcs.

If that's the case, I don't see the Always Fighting Orcs problem as a difficult one to get around, just a difficult one to get around without introducing complexity. Viewed along this axis, all the arguments about how different classes are designed in different editions of D&D seems kind of silly, since 3e supplements and 4e as a whole just gave all classes an approximate level of complexity.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533980If that's the case, I don't see the Always Fighting Orcs problem as a difficult one to get around, just a difficult one to get around without introducing complexity.

Emergent Complexity is something I don't advocate avoiding.  But if there is a needless busying of the rules to compensate, then Always Fighting Orcs is almost preferable.

QuoteViewed along this axis, all the arguments about how different classes are designed in different editions of D&D seems kind of silly, since 3e supplements and 4e as a whole just gave all classes an approximate level of complexity.

Which ended up being a problem, as earlier editions had the Fighter whoe swung a sword, wore heavy armour, and generally did all the heavy lifting.  Easy peasy, especially for a few levels so the novice can get a better understanding of the rules and how they interact.  After they had some degree of comfort, they could move on to a Cleric or a Thief, and at some point, perhaps even the Magic User.  :jaw-dropping:

While that sounds reasonable enough that the designers may have even planned it that way, like all such things, it never quite goes to plan.  A better idea would have been to design an increasing complexity into each character class.  Fighters could still have a very, very low complexity and Magic Users a very high complexity.  Fighters would just plateau sooner, having perhaps the last half of their game dedicated to ferreting out a weapon proficiency or something to round things out or get that last little bit of bonus.  Perhaps a little too fiddly for some, but a good design would allow that to be safely ignored without impacting the play too much.

Quote from: StormBringer;533995Emergent Complexity is something I don't advocate avoiding.  But if there is a needless busying of the rules to compensate, then Always Fighting Orcs is almost preferable.


Which ended up being a problem, as earlier editions had the Fighter whoe swung a sword, wore heavy armour, and generally did all the heavy lifting.  Easy peasy, especially for a few levels so the novice can get a better understanding of the rules and how they interact.  After they had some degree of comfort, they could move on to a Cleric or a Thief, and at some point, perhaps even the Magic User.  :jaw-dropping:

While that sounds reasonable enough that the designers may have even planned it that way, like all such things, it never quite goes to plan.  A better idea would have been to design an increasing complexity into each character class.  Fighters could still have a very, very low complexity and Magic Users a very high complexity.  Fighters would just plateau sooner, having perhaps the last half of their game dedicated to ferreting out a weapon proficiency or something to round things out or get that last little bit of bonus.  Perhaps a little too fiddly for some, but a good design would allow that to be safely ignored without impacting the play too much.

The problem is, what if you want to play a fighter because you want to play a warrior, not because you want to play a simple class? The 4e slayer is plenty powerful, but I've heard complaints that it's boring.

A problem I have with 4e is with all the options available, many of the most powerful builds still end up doing basically the same thing from turn to turn, and playing the game just consists of figuring out which set of static modifiers apply to your attack and damage this turn. Static modifiers are a big part of the cruft in 4e, which Essentials really didn't solve.

(As an aside, I don't know why people want to brand me as a 4venger who worships 4e. Probably because they're more committed to their anger than to our shared reality, but I digress.)

Quote from: StormBringer;533943And that is pretty much the normal definition.  It can certainly be used in a different context, but I think that would be recognized as non-standard.  I don't think anyone would agree with a literal interpretation; ie, there are no other opponents in the entire campaign except orcs.

The origins of the term arise from a comparison to CRPGs (primarily Bethesda games) which featured the literal interpretation. In those games, the exact same opponents would level up with the PC: Visit a cave full of orcs at 1st level and the orcs would be 1st level; visit the same cave full of orcs at 10th level and the orcs would now be 10th level. The challenge remained completely invariant.

The term generally broadened to a more useful form that applied to tabletop play: No matter where the PCs went or what they were doing, the DM would be customizing the content to be "level appropriate"... resulting in the exact same gameplay at 10th level as was experienced at 1st level.

This concept was somewhat relevant in 3E when the to-hit numbers for CR-appropriate encounters were generally scaled to an appropriate range (providing a roughly 25% to 75% success rate depending on circumstance and the characters involved). But it exploded in 4E when that same philosophy was applied to a much wider and broader swath of the game. (In 3E, gameplay still changed even with My Precious Encounter(TM) design because character abilities radically altered in their characteristics. In 4E, character abilities were significantly more homogeneous in their effect and scope.)

More recently, I've seen people attempting to broaden the term even further to apply to any situation in which a game system attempts to provide a gauge of relative challenge, regardless of how that gauge is used in actually building campaigns. IMO, however, that not only negates the original, useful meaning of the term, but is also needlessly critical of useful tools.

And then there are the real morons who attempt to claim that the only way you can vary gameplay is to cap target numbers. At that point the term has literally come full circle and ended up meaning the exact opposite of itself: These are people arguing that the way to solve the "always fight (1st level) orcs" problem is to always fight 1st level orcs.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534000The problem is, what if you want to play a fighter because you want to play a warrior, not because you want to play a simple class? The 4e slayer is plenty powerful, but I've heard complaints that it's boring.

Certainly, Fighters don't have to be a simple class.  That is the position they have held historically, and I think it is a good idea.  There is nothing to prevent a Fighter from having all kinds of tactically complex options available, but again, if those are imposed or included by the game designers, there will doubtless be immeasurable and nigh limitless problems that arise.  Perhaps all the classes could start really simply, and various choices at 'hallmark' levels would alter the complexity level.  That way everyone more or less gets the game they want.  (I am making the assumption everything else works out agreeably)

QuoteA problem I have with 4e is with all the options available, many of the most powerful builds still end up doing basically the same thing from turn to turn, and playing the game just consists of figuring out which set of static modifiers apply to your attack and damage this turn. Static modifiers are a big part of the cruft in 4e, which Essentials really didn't solve.

But that is kind of the problem all the way up, right?  Granted, you possibly have to take a step further back than most players would in order to see it, but all the powers have a carefully and superbly balanced 'blandness' about them.  A blandness that can be difficult to detect until you have the first seven to ten levels under your belt.

Quote(As an aside, I don't know why people want to brand me as a 4venger who worships 4e. Probably because they're more committed to their anger than to our shared reality, but I digress.)

I may have seen you defend 4e in a manner that is just a shade past seemly, but I am just as sure I have done the same myself without thinking on more than one occasion.  Meaning to correct a minor point about 1st Edition or suchlike, I find myself seven or eight replies in and no hope of extricating myself with a reasonable measure of dignity.  You seem to still have yours intact, so I would run if I were you.  

Quote from: StormBringer;534044Certainly, Fighters don't have to be a simple class.  That is the position they have held historically, and I think it is a good idea.  There is nothing to prevent a Fighter from having all kinds of tactically complex options available, but again, if those are imposed or included by the game designers, there will doubtless be immeasurable and nigh limitless problems that arise.  

What problems are those, that aren't already present in the already complex classes?

QuotePerhaps all the classes could start really simply, and various choices at 'hallmark' levels would alter the complexity level.  That way everyone more or less gets the game they want.  (I am making the assumption everything else works out agreeably)

I think the tier scaling goes a long way to accomplishing this--if you start as a Slayer and you want more complexity, you can take a Paragon path that introduces more fiddly bits, and start taking feats which expand your tactics. Likewise, if you started as a fighter you can take a PP that just gives you some static bonuses.

Honestly, though, I've always been skeptical of the idea that D&D can be made into a modular game that will accommodate everyone from the people playing with the LBBs, to those who think AD&D1e was the apex of game design, to current 4e players. I've been wanting to start up an S&W game because I just don't believe I can get all playstyle elements I like, even within the subset of gaming that is the D&D milieu, in a single game.

QuoteBut that is kind of the problem all the way up, right?  Granted, you possibly have to take a step further back than most players would in order to see it, but all the powers have a carefully and superbly balanced 'blandness' about them.  A blandness that can be difficult to detect until you have the first seven to ten levels under your belt.

No, I don't find that that's the case. It can be with some classes, but the ones I've played longest have used feats and powers to introduce new tactical elements as my characters rose in level. Playing an avenger definitely changes as you start getting shift, then teleport, then zone-generating powers, and fighters get a smorgasbord of things they can do to enemies provoking their Combat Challenge depending on choice of weapons and feats.

Emergent complexity is okay design for newbies.  Played Warhammer Online for a time.  Very similar to WoW.  Played a runepriest named Fjord.  Almost named him Fjordskin but I digress.  Game started and I had one heal and one nuke.  Later levels added DOT, HOT, group buffs, area heals, morale abilities, etc.  If had started game with all of those, would have been completely overwhelmed.

Best way to avoid overwhelming new players is to avoid interlocking mechanics and option paralysis.  Will write more about interlocking mechanics when not on phone.  Is a pet peeve of mine.

Quote from: B.T.;534207Emergent complexity is okay design for newbies.

Chess: a newbie's game. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;534214Chess: a newbie's game. :rolleyes:

Think in this case he means it helps newbies learn the game as the complexity is not front-loaded, but develops over play, when it can be learned progressively, he's not dismissing emergent complexity as n00bsauce.

Quote from: CRKrueger;534217Think in this case he means it helps newbies learn the game as the complexity is not front-loaded, but develops over play, when it can be learned progressively, he's not dismissing emergent complexity as n00bsauce.

The way it's phrased might imply that emergent complexity is for noobs whereas veterans want actual mechanical complexity. I think this is a countersense in regards to what emergent complexity in game design actually means: when done right, it satisfies BOTH the newbie who is not subjected to a shitload of rules to learn upfront, AND the veteran who can play and replay due to the different combinations and properties these simple mechanics create in actual play.

Chess is a perfect example in that regard. Hence my remark.

Quote from: Benoist;534214Chess: a newbie's game. :rolleyes:

Try again.

Quote from: B.T.;534234Try again.

Buy yourself an education and then maybe you'll actually make sense.

Quote from: Benoist;534239Buy yourself an education and then maybe you'll actually make sense.

Snark is no substitute for wit.  Or wits, as the case may be.

Some interesting stuff from todays Rule of Three....http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120501

   Are themes just feat packages or is there more to them? What can we expect from feats for D&D Next—is it going to be what we're used to or are you spicing them up a bit?

The design right now delivers feats through themes—so yes, themes are the delivery device, just as themes in Dark Sun are a delivery device for some powers. Themes also do something great for character creation in that they really flesh out the story of your character and your character's place in the larger world. We've found (during the internal and expanded playtesting we've already done) that even experienced players enjoy that aspect of the themes, including when building their own theme feat-by-feat.

As for feats, we want them to have a significant impact on how your character plays. We also want feats to allow some complexity customization. If you want to play a simple, streamlined character, we want to provide plenty of simple, streamlined feats for you to use. If you want a complex character, take complex feats. Either way, we want you to feel like taking a feat really affects the way your character plays.

   If all characters can pick skills through backgrounds or just by cherry-picking what they want, is being the "skill monkey" no longer the rogue's thing?

We like the idea of rogues and skills being tied together as an aspect of the rogue's identity (but not the totality of that identity). Right now, we're experimenting with giving the rogue extra skills, on top of those that everyone gains, as a way to express that aspect of the class; we may also give the rogue some exclusive skills or skill-like abilities, but that is something we're still working on.

   What other monster advancing ideas are you playing with beyond leveling them up with class levels?

Truthfully, we're not far enough into the game's design cycle to put too much work into monster advancement; up to this point, we've been more focused on creating the base versions of the monsters, making sure they work, etc. That said, I think we'd like to have many methods of advancing and altering monsters. Personally, I loved the idea behind templates from 3rd Edition, and really like the way we handle monster themes in 4E as a method of tinkering. It's also pretty easy to just have rules for scaling up a monster's raw numbers. Ideally, we're going to have a broad spectrum of ways for DMs to modify and scale up monsters, letting the DM choose his or her preferred method.

I liked feats with with 3e and 4e D&D, but I would much rather see that the list of feats was of medium size and finite.  This would avoid the inevitable problem of a proliferation of feats in future product releases that were not balanced against each other.