Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 04, 2022, 09:56:19 AM
At low levels, the wizard in early D&D is not much of a tactical option, at least not with their memorized spells.  Wands and scrolls are supposed to open up that window.  Instead, the wizard is an operational asset for the party as a whole.  I get that some players don't enjoy playing an operational asset, but that's more about a mismatch in expectations than a problem with the design as it was conceived. 

Where it really went off the rails was the focus on smaller and smaller parties, dropping henchmen, etc.  With 6, 7, 8 players, several henchmen, multiple hirelings, the player of a wizard has a lot more to do.  Not coincidentally, there was also mapping going on, tracking equipment, etc.  We usually found that in operational play, there was more than enough activity to go around.  Typically, the wizard player would likely be the mapper (who is someone you don't want on the front line anyway) and run the toughest fighter henchmen or hireling. 

So yeah, take all that stuff out, and it is not surprising that having a few operational spells is boring.  Then consider the naive fix of tacking on more and more spells without adjusting how they work--also not surprising that it has its own problems.

When the default mode of play changed, they really needed to take a top down look at the spell list and re-do it.

But because many of the current devs never played in the old style they do not really understand why they are having the issues that they do.

So instead of taking a step back and addressing the underlying issues, all we've gotten has been a series of 'patches'...

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 07, 2022, 03:21:59 PM
I mentioned in the OP that savings throws were my least favorite rule in the game.  I can say that learning to RP using other RPGs is what soured me to the D&D style rules. 

I've also got issues with hit points that run out of control as you level up, but your defenses stay put.  That's just upside down to me.  Palladium you get more actions per round, and higher strike, parry/dodge bonuses.  Yes, you get some hit points, but we're talking peanuts.  You probably start with 10 HP & 30 SDC (the other hit points, just non-life threatening), and by max level you may have 20 HP & still just 30 SDC.  What has happened is your strike and parry bonuses went from +3 to +8.

Mongoose d20 Conan did something similar.

They had dodge and parry "AC's". With armor as damage reduction.

A PC's ability to attack and defend themselves went up as they gained experience. Which was good - but then they had to mess up the works by having HP go up every level too...

They more I read the rules of different D&D editions, I'm convinced that continual HP bloat is a just bad game design.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:40 PM
When the default mode of play changed, they really needed to take a top down look at the spell list and re-do it.

But because many of the current devs never played in the old style they do not really understand why they are having the issues that they do.

So instead of taking a step back and addressing the underlying issues, all we've gotten has been a series of 'patches'...

  Well, 4E tried ... and the backlash they caught from that is probably why 5E fled back to the monstrous bloat of the spell lists as fast as it could.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on November 08, 2022, 07:32:24 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:40 PM
When the default mode of play changed, they really needed to take a top down look at the spell list and re-do it.

But because many of the current devs never played in the old style they do not really understand why they are having the issues that they do.

So instead of taking a step back and addressing the underlying issues, all we've gotten has been a series of 'patches'...

  Well, 4E tried ... and the backlash they caught from that is probably why 5E fled back to the monstrous bloat of the spell lists as fast as it could.

I was just going to comment something like this. Whatever 4e's flaws in execution, I suspect that it had the right idea about the way most of the players had been approaching the game since at least 2nd edition.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:40 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 07, 2022, 03:21:59 PM
I mentioned in the OP that savings throws were my least favorite rule in the game.  I can say that learning to RP using other RPGs is what soured me to the D&D style rules. 

I've also got issues with hit points that run out of control as you level up, but your defenses stay put.  That's just upside down to me.  Palladium you get more actions per round, and higher strike, parry/dodge bonuses.  Yes, you get some hit points, but we're talking peanuts.  You probably start with 10 HP & 30 SDC (the other hit points, just non-life threatening), and by max level you may have 20 HP & still just 30 SDC.  What has happened is your strike and parry bonuses went from +3 to +8.

Mongoose d20 Conan did something similar.

They had dodge and parry "AC's". With armor as damage reduction.

A PC's ability to attack and defend themselves went up as they gained experience. Which was good - but then they had to mess up the works by having HP go up every level too...

They more I read the rules of different D&D editions, I'm convinced that continual HP bloat is a just bad game design.

I don't know the D20 Conan system very well, so this is more a general comment. I don't think HP increases are the issue in a vacuum, so much as HP being out of balance with the rest of the game. When setting out to modify D&D, a depressingly large number of designers seem to forget that attack bonus, defenses, HP and damage are all interrelated systems. Any tweaks made to one will always have knock-on effects on all the others. I've argued elsewhere and I stand by the contention that HP has to spiral upward in D&D because innate defenses don't increase by enough.

There's an additional problem in D&D though, which is the severe mismatch between magic and weapons when it comes to damage scaling. By 5th or 6th level the game has to account for the wizard's 6d6 damage (to multiple enemies) lightning bolt, and the thief's single weapon attack at 1d6+2. The HP bloat wouldn't matter if weapon damage scaled up with character level (or if enchantments added more additional dice rather than linear bonuses), or you could get rid of the exploding HP numbers if you heavily nerfed the spell damage.

Interestingly, the system I'm running at present (Dragon Warriors) illustrates what happens when you fail to account for all those systems at the same time. HP in that game scales extremely slowly (+1HP per level or less), which is mostly fine, because both weapon and magic defenses increase consistently for most classes, there are armor saves which nullify a lot of incoming attacks, and weapons do fairly consistent damage at any level.

The problem is that spell damage scales more like the way D&D spells do. The standard attack spell available to a 4th level sorcerer does 2d6+10 damage, when the average 4th level character has around 9-15 HP. There are also no armor saves against spells (though wearing armor grants you a small amount of damage reduction). This has the potential to produce a game wherein once mid-level spells get involved, whoever hits first automatically wins. Arguably a bigger issue than the stereotypical D&D HP slog.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 09, 2022, 02:12:24 PM

I don't know the D20 Conan system very well, so this is more a general comment. I don't think HP increases are the issue in a vacuum, so much as HP being out of balance with the rest of the game. When setting out to modify D&D, a depressingly large number of designers seem to forget that attack bonus, defenses, HP and damage are all interrelated systems. Any tweaks made to one will always have knock-on effects on all the others. I've argued elsewhere and I stand by the contention that HP has to spiral upward in D&D because innate defenses don't increase by enough.

There's an additional problem in D&D though, which is the severe mismatch between magic and weapons when it comes to damage scaling. By 5th or 6th level the game has to account for the wizard's 6d6 damage (to multiple enemies) lightning bolt, and the thief's single weapon attack at 1d6+2. The HP bloat wouldn't matter if weapon damage scaled up with character level (or if enchantments added more additional dice rather than linear bonuses), or you could get rid of the exploding HP numbers if you heavily nerfed the spell damage.

Interestingly, the system I'm running at present (Dragon Warriors) illustrates what happens when you fail to account for all those systems at the same time. HP in that game scales extremely slowly (+1HP per level or less), which is mostly fine, because both weapon and magic defenses increase consistently for most classes, there are armor saves which nullify a lot of incoming attacks, and weapons do fairly consistent damage at any level.

The problem is that spell damage scales more like the way D&D spells do. The standard attack spell available to a 4th level sorcerer does 2d6+10 damage, when the average 4th level character has around 9-15 HP. There are also no armor saves against spells (though wearing armor grants you a small amount of damage reduction). This has the potential to produce a game wherein once mid-level spells get involved, whoever hits first automatically wins. Arguably a bigger issue than the stereotypical D&D HP slog.

Agree.  I think this is where the problems come in with later versions written by different people.  Which is the same problem I addressed before, only from a different angle.  Simply, a good game has a balance of all those elements that work together, within the confines of what it was designed to do, because someone thought about it and played it a lot.  Then someone else comes along, doesn't like how one of those things works, and changes it without regard to the rest of the system.  It might even work OK in some cases, but it won't work as well as the original did for its design space.  Likewise, if you want to change the intent and scope of the design, then you have to go back and address how all the mechanics work together.

This is, of course, hard to prove empirically.  It has to be learned the hard way by changing things, determining what they do and do not improve, what they do and do not break, and then testing them over a wide variety of situations.  Don't get me wrong.  It's not rocket science.  Any moderately thoughtful person willing to do the work can do it.  However, there aren't a lot of shortcuts, and there certainly isn't a valid shortcut that involves just going with feel.

One of the things that I continually struggle with is parsing out exactly what the role of the six attributes are, specifically finding a divide between Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related. I'm always coming back to the idea that five (not six) attributes is the optimal number. Intuition and intelligence can be covered by a "Smarts" attribute, while self-determination, confidence, and force of personality can be covered by "Willpower" (or any similarly named terms).

This isn't my "least favorite" part of the system, but it is one that I think survived only because of legacy, not because it made a whole lot of sense. I'm sure there will be those that support having six attributes and will justify it somehow, but my argument is merely that the game can function perfectly fine (perhaps even better!) with just five.

Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.

The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 09, 2022, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.

The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.

Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).

Willpower, confidence, and a strong sense of "self" share a lot with what the game considers Charisma, which is pretty much just charm and force of personality. There are plenty of realworld examples where girls flock to the douchebag asshole simply because he exudes confidence and self worth.

The thing I struggle with is why D&D (and its clones) decided that these nuances warranted separation, but things like reaction speed and manual dexterity got lumped together. I just think the system doesn't need to make any of these minor distinctions to function.

Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
One of the things that I continually struggle with is parsing out exactly what the role of the six attributes are, specifically finding a divide between Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.

This is why my system uses Strength, Endurance, Reflexes, Wits, Intellect and Presence with your Dodge defense based off the better of Reflexes or Wits and your Willpower defense on the better of your Intellect or Presence (and better of STR or END determining your Fortitude defense.

Your other comment about perception is also correct; you see what you see and hear what you hear and no amount of training will improve those functions. What can be trained and improved is your ability to process the information you are receiving.

Which is why the skill for that in my system is called Insight (based off Wits) which is how quickly and correctly you can understand what you're perceiving.

Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 10:32:22 PM
Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).

Brilliant people often wear glasses, wise old men might be hard of hearing, absent minded-professor types  might not notice things because their mind is elsewhere. I don't t think Intelligence is a good fit for perception. Your example sounds like a perception skill which could be based on either attribute depending upon the situation which might work.

The original six are timeless. I do not have an issue with them.

I told my kids Intelligence is "could" and Wisdom is "should". They took to it right away, and let's face it, half their generation are actual morons.

Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.

Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 10:32:22 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 09, 2022, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.

The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.

Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).

Willpower, confidence, and a strong sense of "self" share a lot with what the game considers Charisma, which is pretty much just charm and force of personality. There are plenty of realworld examples where girls flock to the douchebag asshole simply because he exudes confidence and self worth.

The thing I struggle with is why D&D (and its clones) decided that these nuances warranted separation, but things like reaction speed and manual dexterity got lumped together. I just think the system doesn't need to make any of these minor distinctions to function.

I sometimes suspect that the reason why wisdom and charisma have hung on in their current forms for so long is just to prevent Intelligence from becoming a super-stat, which in the real world it kind of is.

We think on similar lines, here. My own system uses Intellect, Insight and Will as its mental stats. Insight governs perception, much like it does in D&D, but it also includes the ability to read people and social situations. Will, just like you said, includes force of personality, as well as discipline and spell resistance. Intellect is for analytical thinking and memory, again much like D&D, but it's also reasoning ability, so all three of the stats have social skills associated with them.

In the same vein, I've always found the separation between strength and constitution to be a bit weird. In the real world, you do occasionally meet someone who is very strong but has terrible cardio, but it isn't common. You could easily put them together into a single stat and call it "fitness". Hell, you could probably toss dexterity in as well and call it "athleticism". Of course, if you're going that route, you could probably just boil it down to two stats and call them "mind" and "body", though I get that there are good game design reasons for not doing so.

EDIT: I would rather have called "Insight" as "Intuition", but I didn't want it to have the same first three letters as "Intellect".

Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2022, 08:28:55 AM

Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.

How often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player, instead of being decided by roll, and for good reason. All the things wisdom is supposed to govern (outside or perception) are also the things that come under the heading of "player skill". Intelligence and Charisma do have the same problem, but to a much lesser extent, because the character's in universe knowledge and force of personality are more separate from the player's.

As a GM, I've used all three of the mental stats on both sides of the equation to either boost a character or hold them back when the player is weaker or better than the character is.  One quick trick is to just ask the players what are the character's dump stats and make note of that.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:55:39 AMHow often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player.

But the players didn't live in the setting for however long. People who live in X place know how to be street smart in X place. People outside it do not.
I have used rolls for 'common sense rolls' for things logical in-setting that the players may not be aware of.