Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 04:14:54 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 03:16:56 PMSo they're terrible at what classes do, which is define a role that includes more than combat.

The problem is that is generally terrible. Because 'I hit stuff' will generally not match up to 'I hit stuff, shapeshift, make towers of glass and make it rain figuratively and literally'.

D&D classes are extremly unbalanced and not in a good way.

I don't entirely disagree, but I think it's important to distinguish apples from oranges. Old school D&D classes are not 4e roles. They have very different purposes.

They also exist in very different contexts, when we look at play. 4e seems to be aimed at creating a very tactical type of play, and there have been a lot of comments over the years about how it's a slog. So from that, I assume 4e is very heavily focused on combat. That it makes up a large portion of the game time, and optimization toward combat is very different. That doesn't mean it's old combat, or anything like that. Just that it's a central feature, and a big part of the game both in importance and time.

Old school D&D is more exploration focused. The dungeon and interacting with its features and inhabitants make up the majority of play. Combat is a relatively small part of many games, because combat is typically the failure case when exploring. There's a strong focus on the strategic level, where the decisions you make out of combat, from trivial things like marching order to more strategic things like setting two factions at each other's throats, have more effect than the tactical decisions you make in combat itself. Combat is important, but it tends to be fast and furious.

That's why classes like the thief can exist, albeit sometimes uneasily. The old school thief is not the dual-wielding sneak-attacking dervish of some later editions, but a character that might get one good shot in, but is otherwise a fairly weak combatant. But the thief is designed to contribute in significant ways to exploration and strategic play. (Though again, I have to add some caveats; I don't think the thief class really works, but that's because of poor design not the combat focus or lack thereof).

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 04:27:27 PMThey also exist in very different contexts, when we look at play. 4e seems to be aimed at creating a very tactical type of play, and there have been a lot of comments over the years about how it's a slog. So from that, I assume 4e is very heavily focused on combat.

Il explain what impresses 4e to me as a engine idea. Because 4e has many flaws in implimentation. And il defend the ideas but agree with the flaws in the implimentation.
The combat is very much a slog in places and doesn't work in those cases. But the design goal wasn't 'Create a sloggy game'.

QuoteOld school D&D is more exploration focused.

But your warrior doesn't pick up more skill options or more languages, or more ways to interact with the environment. He picks up more hit points, reduces the chances of dying in one hit to some random unavoidable terrain element, and becomes more accurate with attacks. Levelling up and the catharcis of advancement is based around increasing your potence in combat. The wizard picks up more spells, and while some of them are problem avoiders, allot of them are more ways of killing stuff easier.

I know exploration and dungeon utilization was indeed more of a focus then story focused stuff of modern day, but you don't publish books of treasure, books of monsters, and books of classes focused on combat if the focus was purely on exploration with combat purely as a failure state, where the iconic class based structure is about making the 'failure state' less punishing.

Now to be clear I really like Worlds/Stars without number, and I think it does allot to mitigate things I dislike in 0D&D. And I like Dungeon Crawling (Unexplored/Binding of Isaac) over just kill/looter type video games, but I don't see 0D&D as the optimal experience for this sort of thing.

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 04:27:27 PM

That's why classes like the thief can exist, albeit sometimes uneasily. The old school thief is not the dual-wielding sneak-attacking dervish of some later editions, but a character that might get one good shot in, but is otherwise a fairly weak combatant. But the thief is designed to contribute in significant ways to exploration and strategic play. (Though again, I have to add some caveats; I don't think the thief class really works, but that's because of poor design not the combat focus or lack thereof).

This gets into the only type of game balance I consider important, which I call "spotlight balance."  Everyone gets to shine and be the best sometimes, and everyone gets to contribute meaningfully almost all of the time.  The fighter shines in a slugfest, and the thief shines in stealth and exploration.  I'm good with that as long as neither is sitting on the sidelines in their non-focus activity.

If we are talking about D&D, I'd go with just the four core classes with packages to allow for individualization; warrior with wilderness package for Rangers/barbarians for example. In non-D&D class based system I'd go even further and just use just warriors and mages.
As for non-humans. it would depend to the setting.

QuoteThe problem is that is generally terrible. Because 'I hit stuff' will generally not match up to 'I hit stuff, shapeshift, make towers of glass and make it rain figuratively and literally'.

D&D classes are extremly unbalanced and not in a good way.

Answers to that are clear - add more martial powers/feats/maneuvers and make spellcasting somehow dangerous and not automatic hit.

Quote
Old school D&D is more exploration focused. The dungeon and interacting with its features and inhabitants make up the majority of play. Combat is a relatively small part of many games, because combat is typically the failure case when exploring. There's a strong focus on the strategic level, where the decisions you make out of combat, from trivial things like marching order to more strategic things like setting two factions at each other's throats, have more effect than the tactical decisions you make in combat itself. Combat is important, but it tends to be fast and furious.

QuoteIf we are talking about D&D, I'd go with just the four core classes with packages to allow for individualization; warrior with wilderness package for Rangers/barbarians for example.

I understand... and even kinda like this focus (though maybe not gold for XP which terribly gamey but in not RP way, and this whole ridiculous dungeoning rather than other types of locale as focus - though I get why dungeons were picked - they are easier to project). But if that's the case then even main classes sort of miss the mark. They're taken from very archetypical (well aside of early cleric nonsense) high fantasy concepts... and thrown into some weird gold-digging game

I mean you make dungeon heist games invent classes fitting this theme That also explain why D&D moved away from dungeoning. Because when you put classic archetypes on the front, and their combat abilities are first-front on your character sheet - players gonna expect well... save the dragon, slay the princess, fuck the world kinda game, not Grand Theft Dungeon. And violence... violence for lack of a better word is... good.

And AFAIK this discrepancy existed from very beginning with Gygaxian and Arnensonian Schools of RPG.

I generally like exploration fantasy/sci-fi, but even in this field I don't think it's suitable design. Alas' that's the law of the progenitors. There needs to be The First for whole shtick to advance forward.

QuoteThat's why classes like the thief can exist, albeit sometimes uneasily. The old school thief is not the dual-wielding sneak-attacking dervish of some later editions, but a character that might get one good shot in, but is otherwise a fairly weak combatant. But the thief is designed to contribute in significant ways to exploration and strategic play. (Though again, I have to add some caveats; I don't think the thief class really works, but that's because of poor design not the combat focus or lack thereof).

I must say with those purposes - I'm almost baffled, from my comfortable, 50 years later position, they did not went with skill-based design.

QuoteBut your warrior doesn't pick up more skill options or more languages, or more ways to interact with the environment. He picks up more hit points, reduces the chances of dying in one hit to some random unavoidable terrain element, and becomes more accurate with attacks. Levelling up and the catharcis of advancement is based around increasing your potence in combat. The wizard picks up more spells, and while some of them are problem avoiders, allot of them are more ways of killing stuff easier.

I know exploration and dungeon utilization was indeed more of a focus then story focused stuff of modern day, but you don't publish books of treasure, books of monsters, and books of classes focused on combat if the focus was purely on exploration with combat purely as a failure state, where the iconic class based structure is about making the 'failure state' less punishing.

Now to be clear I really like Worlds/Stars without number, and I think it does allot to mitigate things I dislike in 0D&D. And I like Dungeon Crawling (Unexplored/Binding of Isaac) over just kill/looter type video games, but I don't see 0D&D as the optimal experience for this sort of thing.

This.

QuoteThis gets into the only type of game balance I consider important, which I call "spotlight balance."  Everyone gets to shine and be the best sometimes, and everyone gets to contribute meaningfully almost all of the time.  The fighter shines in a slugfest, and the thief shines in stealth and exploration.  I'm good with that as long as neither is sitting on the sidelines in their non-focus activity.

That can be easily solved with limits of how many skills/talents you can master and making all skills valuable in your exploration. This way no one even with great 3d6 rolled in order attributes cannot overshadow rest of the players. Cooperation in survival become vital.

QuoteIf we are talking about D&D, I'd go with just the four core classes with packages to allow for individualization; warrior with wilderness package for Rangers/barbarians for example. In non-D&D class based system I'd go even further and just use just warriors and mages.
As for non-humans. it would depend to the setting.

Idea. 4 combat roles x 4 exploration skillsets x 4 social backgrounds. Covers 3 main activities, and you get 64 classess for price of 12.

BTW Worlds Without number is both pseudo class and Psuedo Skill.

And it has 3 classes as a core (Martial, Magic, Skilled), and the ability to mix in two together. It also has some mini classes for things that need more focus like shapeshifting.

It also has a underpinning of feats, but much fewer number if them and they are generally better then 3e equivalents.

I find it possibly the most elegant of the D&D class system l.

I like two different approaches to class design, which both Hyperborea 2e/3e and Worlds Without Number both encapsulates well.

Hyperborea has a lot of very focused classes with the right amount of class specificity that really evokes what the classes are all about, and WWN has 4 very broad classes that evokes the traditional core 4 classes with lots of customization options so even if two people make Warriors they won't be the same.

"Needs" got nothing to do with it.  The classes express some mechanical niche, archetype niche, or both--depending on the system.  And they allow a fast way for a player to get started (which in fairness, can be done with "templates" in a skills-based game to some extent).  Any other purpose of "class" as a game widget can probably be done better some other way.

I prefer my "classes" to be mostly mechanical, with archetypes fleshed out with other game elements.  If mechanics is the focus, then it needs to be the mechanics that are useful in the game, not necessarily the mechanics that simulate the archetypes.  With that line of thinking, in my own system, I've got focus on combat, spells, and 16 "knacks" that are outside the normal combat/magic pool in certain ways.  The latter are supplemented with skills.  Given that design goal, I "needed" six classes to hit the valid mechanical niches:

1. Strong combat, solid skills, no magic.  AKA "Fighter"
2. Solid combat, strong skills, no magic.
3. Solid combat, solid skills, moderate magic.
4. Solid combat, weak skills, solid magic.
5. Weak combat, solid skills, solid magic.
6. Weak combat, weak skills, strong magic.  AKA "Wizard"

You'll note that not every possible logical combination is present, because the game doesn't really support, for example, "Incredibly overblown combat, no skills, no magic".

So much of the later D&D "classes" are built to simulate an archetype, and then they try to make the game somehow support that class mechanically.  Not all classes work for all systems, and some classes are mutually exclusive in a well-designed game. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 04:27:27 PMOld school D&D is more exploration focused.

But your warrior doesn't pick up more skill options or more languages, or more ways to interact with the environment. He picks up more hit points, reduces the chances of dying in one hit to some random unavoidable terrain element, and becomes more accurate with attacks. Levelling up and the catharcis of advancement is based around increasing your potence in combat. The wizard picks up more spells, and while some of them are problem avoiders, allot of them are more ways of killing stuff easier.

I know exploration and dungeon utilization was indeed more of a focus then story focused stuff of modern day, but you don't publish books of treasure, books of monsters, and books of classes focused on combat if the focus was purely on exploration with combat purely as a failure state, where the iconic class based structure is about making the 'failure state' less punishing.

Now to be clear I really like Worlds/Stars without number, and I think it does allot to mitigate things I dislike in 0D&D. And I like Dungeon Crawling (Unexplored/Binding of Isaac) over just kill/looter type video games, but I don't see 0D&D as the optimal experience for this sort of thing.

Sure they do.

Leveling up allows you to survive longer in the dungeon, gives you more options, and gives you the power to explore new more dangerous levels. Those are all dungeon-focused, as well as combat focused.

And more importantly than that, of course you do all those things if combat is only a small portion of the game. Because like I said, it's important. In many areas of life, people spend a lot of time avoiding failure states, because the negatives of failing are often more important than the upsides of succeeding. That's true in a dungeon. If you die, you die. You might not come back, and you certainly won't if the entire party is killed. But if you live, even if you failed to bring back any treasure, that means you can adventure another day.

Notice that I emphasized the time spent on combat in each editions. It's high in 4e, and low in old school D&D. But it's important for both. It's just not the same amount of spotlight time.

Edit: Also, remember the old school adage of player skill vs. character skill. Much of the interaction with the environment is freeform and narrative. That's the core of my issue with thief skills. By defining them as class abilities and assigning very low chances to them, with potentially fatal outcomes for many, a thief player should avoid skill checks at all costs. It's another failure state. You're thinking of characters and what they can do in terms of the abilities written on a character sheet.

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 10:49:09 PMLeveling up allows you to survive longer in the dungeon, gives you more options, and gives you the power to explore new more dangerous levels. Those are all dungeon-focused, as well as combat focused.

Il just say I disagree with the premise of your statement completly similarly to your idea that increases in system mastery = system itself becoming easier.

That statement is so universal it can borderline be applied to anything, because increases in survivability increase your options in a game with threats. But thats fricking ANYTHING.

QuoteLeveling up allows you to survive longer in the courtroom, gives you more options, and gives you the power to explore new more dangerous social stratas. Those are all courtroom-focused, as well as combat focused.

Therfore D&D levelling up is focuses on intrigue in the courtroom and combat (avoiding assasins and the like).
Mentioning how combat is a small aspect of the game is ludicrist because beyond maybe magic, Character creation (combat focused ones), and rules for combat have taken up the most space in the manuals since forever!

And I would actually agree with you and say that 4e spotlights combat more, and is indeed more combat focused, I just find all your arguments for why that is to be unfounded.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 22, 2021, 05:02:48 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 04:27:27 PM

That's why classes like the thief can exist, albeit sometimes uneasily. The old school thief is not the dual-wielding sneak-attacking dervish of some later editions, but a character that might get one good shot in, but is otherwise a fairly weak combatant. But the thief is designed to contribute in significant ways to exploration and strategic play. (Though again, I have to add some caveats; I don't think the thief class really works, but that's because of poor design not the combat focus or lack thereof).

This gets into the only type of game balance I consider important, which I call "spotlight balance."  Everyone gets to shine and be the best sometimes, and everyone gets to contribute meaningfully almost all of the time.  The fighter shines in a slugfest, and the thief shines in stealth and exploration.  I'm good with that as long as neither is sitting on the sidelines in their non-focus activity.

Yep. Though it's more than just time, it's about being effective, and about everyone being able to contribute. One problem with thief skills is most of them are solo activities, which means the rest of the players have nothing to do while the thief's player scouts ahead or picks a lock. Conversely, combat is a group activity. It doesn't matter if the magic-user is in the back throwing oil or the cleric has no undead to turn, as long as they can all contribute, the players will stay more engaged.

In fact, the lack of balance is often an important feature. Old school games are more focused on balance over long periods of time -- your first character might roll an 18/00, your next might be a fighter with S 9; your magic-user might find a staff of the magi and 9th level, or your 10th level fighter might be stuck with a plain +1 sword. The characters are unbalanced in different situations -- a cleric with turn undead can be hideously powerful when the dead are walking -- and also unbalanced over time. But all players will eventually roll really well, and really poorly. They'll eventually find some really powerful magic items, and other times they might end up losing them all to a rust monster or a disenchanter. Characters might die, and the new PC is 1st level in a 6th level party. But over many adventures and characters, the players get to experience a lot more variety in power and effectiveness than in a game where all PCs are designed to contribute equally at all times in the mini-game of combat.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 11:14:58 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 10:49:09 PMLeveling up allows you to survive longer in the dungeon, gives you more options, and gives you the power to explore new more dangerous levels. Those are all dungeon-focused, as well as combat focused.

Il just say I disagree with the premise of your statement completly similarly to your idea that increases in system mastery = system itself becoming easier.

That statement is so universal it can borderline be applied to anything, because increases in survivability increase your options in a game with threats. But thats fricking ANYTHING.

QuoteLeveling up allows you to survive longer in the courtroom, gives you more options, and gives you the power to explore new more dangerous social stratas. Those are all courtroom-focused, as well as combat focused.

Therfore D&D levelling up is focuses on intrigue in the courtroom and combat (avoiding assasins and the like).
Mentioning how combat is a small aspect of the game is ludicrist because beyond maybe magic, Character creation (combat focused ones), and rules for combat have taken up the most space in the manuals since forever!

And I would actually agree with you and say that 4e spotlights combat more, and is indeed more combat focused, I just find all your arguments for why that is to be unfounded.

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not even sure what your statement about increases in system mastery means, or the reference to courtroom intrigue. But I strongly disagree that something that makes up a small part of the playtime has to take up an equally small number of pages in the rulebook. As I mentioned, much of the old school game occurs outside the rulebook, in the narrative give and take between the DM and the players. And the reason why combat is given great detail is because the consequences are so severe. It's why we buy fire insurance, even if we never spend any time in a house fire.

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 11:20:45 PMWe seem to be talking past each other. I'm not even sure what your statement about increases in system mastery means, or the reference to courtroom intrigue.

When describing 0D&D to me, you said it gets easier as it goes on because a more experienced player knows what to do. But thats not the game becoming easier. Thats the player becoming more experienced.

The social court point was that you said that character experience progression wasn't based in combat but dungeon exploration because it gave you survivability options. I said - no its clearly combat focused because the arguments you made for progression being dungeon focused could be applied to absolutely anything. As an example - Court Intrigue.

This whole rigamaroll started with the idea that 0D&D classes define you outside of combat....Which they BARELY do (unles its magic which feeds into my unbalancing point), with one class only.

Il say it straight up: RAW, a 4e characters define what you can do outside of combat more then 0D&D ones (and its not because 0D&D had some sanctity against the idea of skills as the thief shows).

At this point, I don't think we're just talking past each other, but we're talking from different universes. Our perspectives are so far apart, I don't think we'll even manage to agree on the basic ground rules. The rest of this is based on the assumption you're interested in trying to bridge and understand the differences.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 11:36:50 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 11:20:45 PMWe seem to be talking past each other. I'm not even sure what your statement about increases in system mastery means, or the reference to courtroom intrigue.

When describing 0D&D to me, you said it gets easier as it goes on because a more experienced player knows what to do. But thats not the game becoming easier. Thats the player becoming more experienced.

Where did I say that? I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I suspect I'd completely disagree with your framing, and I don't remember bringing that up in this discussion.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
The social court point was that you said that character experience progression wasn't based in combat but dungeon exploration because it gave you survivability options. I said - no its clearly combat focused because the arguments you made for progression being dungeon focused could be applied to absolutely anything. As an example - Court Intrigue.

If your court game had regular combat and that was important to advancement, and you were able to explore new intrigues that you couldn't before as a result, maybe. But otherwise, you seem to be missing the point I'm making.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
This whole rigamaroll started with the idea that 0D&D classes define you outside of combat....Which they BARELY do (unles its magic which feeds into my unbalancing point), with one class only.

They absolutely do, they just don't do it mechanically. Which relates to...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 22, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Il say it straight up: RAW, a 4e characters define what you can do outside of combat more then 0D&D ones (and its not because 0D&D had some sanctity against the idea of skills as the thief shows).

Absolutely. I've said that several times in the last couple posts. There are many aspects of old school D&D that aren't defined on a character sheet.

Only if you use a WWN framework where you build the classes through focus (feats). Otherwise the more classes, the better