One thing that I've been thinking on recently is on a lot of game supplements that were what I would call magnificent failures. These are games or supplements that while they never quite managed to catch or really get a big level of focus or were somehow flawed still had a really good concept, idea or system that was lurking under the problems. One of my favorite examples for this was a D&D game for 3rd edition called Magic of Incarnum, it was a supplement that offered a new kind of magic system to the game.
Thematically Incarnum was the calling and binding of souls, you called on the essence of all who lived and all yet to be born, you channeled this energy into objects that symbolized heroes, villains, warriors, thieves, etc. It was a very interesting system conceptually, you could mix and match powers and features to either gain new abilities or augment existing ones. There were also a few options for someone wanting to dabble in it a bit the real problem with the system however is that...well it was very poorly implemented.
Using the powers to their fullest extent meant giving up item slots, doable and there were options for sharing slots and the like but it was still kind of iffy. Also a lot of it involved juggling a second resource called 'essentia' that you got from being an incarnum using class or by taking incarnum feats that granted you essentia in 1 per feat. You had to track how much essentia you invested in the feats, the soulmelds, etc. and you couldn't change it during the day so you had to make sure you knew what you wanted to do and what was supposed to go where. It was clunky and it added a lot of extra book keeping.
The secondary issue was this, the classes themselves that were meant to be the central incarnum users were for lack of a better term questionably designed. The Totemist was probably the best designed of the three but the problem I have with it is that it depends heavily on the natural weapons that some of its soulmelds offer without bothering to explain how they interact and essentially 'locking' certain slots automatically during game progression, it's overall still pretty good but it was a pet peeve. The Soulborn was the second creation, this one was more a problem of there not really being enough of the actual class feature available. What I mean is this, the class itself didn't get much to actually use the soulmelds and abilities this was particularly bothersome because it made it feel like they, a class BUILT for using the new system, were little more than dabblers.
The third class needs a lot of explanation, the Incarnate was sort of the flagship for the Incarnum classes in my view. It had the most essentia, most access to soulmelds and gained them the fastest. It had full armor proficiency and full weapon proficiency, decent saves as well, in fact there was only one problem, it had the base attack bonus of a primary caster, IE the wizards. The first problem here is simply that looking at it was a little confusing, most of the stuff shown, and the description they gave said that this was a combatant that harnessed Incarnum to augment themselves and their allies, but the wizard BaB said that they were going to have trouble hitting and that their main focus would apparently be elsewhere.
I think that there were two reasons that this happened, and it probably also explains why the Soulborn actually got so few Incarnum soulmelds. The first is that because of how a lot of the soulmelds worked you could actually get a really good bonus to hit, probably edging out the fighter or at least getting close even on the poor base attack bonus. The second one is more that the soulmelds were really versatile, it wasn't just combat bonuses. They offered bonuses for just about every skill, if your group woke up locked in jail cells stripped of gear you could simply summon up the hands of the thief, the rogues vest and a few others and suddenly the jail cells might as well be made of paper.
I think the fear was that due to potential versatility they were afraid of the Incarnate becoming too powerful, the same with the Soulborn. This is one of the areas where the designers might have botched things a bit, it's kind of where theory and practice veer in different directions. The amount of versatility was hypothetically a major power for the Incarnate, but due to elements of design much of the vaunted versatility would sit unused. The reason was simply this, with everything but the base attack bonus proclaiming that it was meant to fight in melee or at least in ranged, most points and abilities were likely to veer in that direction, the other abilities were likely to sit unused unless say the person playing the rogue couldn't make it to that session or something similar.
It's not that the versatility idea was bad, just that given the nature of the class that had it it was unlikely to really be very often used. I view it in ways similar to high level wizard or sorcerer spells that were designed to turn them into melee powerhouses. While the spells themselves may have been impressive they weren't really all that likely to be used, or if they were something had likely gone wrong somewhere or things had changed rather radically.
What made Incarnum such a magnificent failure in my view is that while there were a lot of things that went wrong with Incarnum there was actually a lot of really great stuff here. The concept of essentially harnessing the raw spiritual energy of all the universes souls, shaped my archetypes of heroism or villainy, is a pretty neat idea. The sheer number of options that you could mix and match from was pretty cool too. The other thing is simply that the idea was unique, it was very different and very dynamic, I applaud innovation in game design and while this experiment might have been problematic it was still quite an interesting one.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
The Right Way to play pt. 3
In my last few posts I've tried to talk about the concept of a right way to play games and this last post is somewhat of a tricky one, in part because I want to finish it here and this question is the root of a lot of bigger arguments in gaming. The biggest issue with the idea of a right way to play, at least in my mind, is that it's sort of a mask for either a bigger question or idea that the person is trying to state.
It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.
In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.
Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.
It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.
In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.
Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.
Friday, July 1, 2011
The right way to play pt. 2 (sorry this took so long)
Sorry to any readers out there, real life got in the way of things for a while, I guess I'm back and will hopefully be able to put out more posts and make something enjoyable.
When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.
In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.
This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.
The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.
At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.
When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.
In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.
This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.
The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.
At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Right way to play? Pt. 1
I'm going to try to address each question as a blog post and be as concise and coherent as possible, and hopefully interesting. Let's look at the first one, where a person new to a game posts on a forum about the game asking for advice on their character. The responses are varied and each one seems to give an idea of a 'right' way to play, or the reactions to said posts. The concept of a right way to play is varied, to some people there is no real wrong way to play but there are ways that are better and worse.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Is there a right way to play?
This is something that comes up every now and again in games, and it's in both online and tabletop games, is there a right or wrong way to play? I think this one is going to be somewhat piecemeal because it's kind of a big question or at least one that isn't easy to answer. Part of the idea of there being a right or wrong way to play is the concept that there are better and worse ways of playing a game. The idea on this is somewhat dependent on who is asking and why, and it's part of what causes all kinds of arguments at game tables, forums, and blogs.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
When Roles Go Bad Pt. 2
Here I am for a belated part two. I apologize for taking so long but I hope it will be worth the wait. I mentioned that one issue that comes up in the role system is simply that the roles themselves can get in the way and screw things up trying to keep everything balanced. This area is a bit more subjective but can do a lot to impact fun as well as being common in video games as well as tabletop games. In essence it's a matter of things feeling overly similar, or 'samey'. IE two classes that are supposed to be different and distinct end up feeling identical in results and play.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
Monday, April 11, 2011
When Roles go Bad pt 1.
I mentioned before that in 4th edition one of the better ideas that they had was putting forward a solid role system, IE the classes would be set to certain types and their functions would be set around that. Defending the group, healing party members, raw damage, or AoE/Debuffing. The role system is used in other games and there are a lot of advantages to it. For one thing designing classes is a bit easier when there is a clear idea of what the class is supposed to do as well as helping figure out if something is marked too high or low in terms of damage, hit rating, etc. The problem is that roles can also lead to stagnation and can, if used incorrectly, lead to a game that is frustrating, samey, or just plain bad. I am going to try to do this in shorter bursts, I realize a lot of my posts are kind of text walls and it might be easier for someone to follow the posts with shorter posts and maybe my stuff will improve if I'm more focused.
One common problem in role based games comes from a problem in division of labor, especially in the area of the damage dealer. In most of these games everyone is able to deal a certain amount of damage, it isn't impossible for the people healing, debuffing or tanking to also lay a pretty good smackdown. However this leads to a problem, if their damage is comparable to that of the 'dedicated' damage dealer then three questions arise.
1) Why bother playing a dedicated damage dealer if a class in another role can crank out about the same amount of damage and have other options and features besides?
2) What was the point of the pure damage class in question, or even the pure damage role if the other classes in these roles can get near the damage output or perhaps even outpace it?
3) If the pure damage role is able to put out an incredibly high amount of damage, high enough that the other roles can't match it at all, then how do you avoid the idea of everyone simply going for raw damage and trying to overwhelm the targets with speed and a few hard blows.
In fourth edition D&D there were quite a few, for lack of a better term, errata storms that would hit because the Fighter was apparently outdamaging strikers, and then they would dial back the strikers to keep them from doing too much. It got frustrating but it also showed a basic problem, damage isn't exactly a complicated thing compared to what a lot of other classes do but it can still be easy to screw up, and when it goes wrong here it can get worse in other areas. I'll get into the problem of things feeling identical and some of the other issues from the role system in later posts.
One common problem in role based games comes from a problem in division of labor, especially in the area of the damage dealer. In most of these games everyone is able to deal a certain amount of damage, it isn't impossible for the people healing, debuffing or tanking to also lay a pretty good smackdown. However this leads to a problem, if their damage is comparable to that of the 'dedicated' damage dealer then three questions arise.
1) Why bother playing a dedicated damage dealer if a class in another role can crank out about the same amount of damage and have other options and features besides?
2) What was the point of the pure damage class in question, or even the pure damage role if the other classes in these roles can get near the damage output or perhaps even outpace it?
3) If the pure damage role is able to put out an incredibly high amount of damage, high enough that the other roles can't match it at all, then how do you avoid the idea of everyone simply going for raw damage and trying to overwhelm the targets with speed and a few hard blows.
In fourth edition D&D there were quite a few, for lack of a better term, errata storms that would hit because the Fighter was apparently outdamaging strikers, and then they would dial back the strikers to keep them from doing too much. It got frustrating but it also showed a basic problem, damage isn't exactly a complicated thing compared to what a lot of other classes do but it can still be easy to screw up, and when it goes wrong here it can get worse in other areas. I'll get into the problem of things feeling identical and some of the other issues from the role system in later posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
