Derailing the Tippyverse; or how to make DnD look as expected

[SorO_Lost]

Nice work Gavin, I'll have to give it a better read through later but a quick skim for informative.

[Samwise]

By that chart ECL20 characters may never max their weapons (+5 enhancement bonus plus 5 +1 WSAs) until they go five levels into epic! The only use of that chart is for equiping NPCs or making sure characters don't buy weapons with 90% of their WBL.

Yes on the weapon maxing. I suspect that is due to a basic math error in the original system design.
Generally, yes on the second. Which is something I saw constantly in organized play, and found to be insanely destructive. For that matter, dumping 50%, or even 25%, into a single item will rapidly cycle out of control.

I'm definitely open to alternative suggestions on how to "fix" that, as the campaign I ran up to 18th level required me to hand design everyone's enhanced items level by level. (Based on their requests - I didn't make them use what I wanted them to have.) The time requirement on that was way too much.

That's sort of like saying you can do -fun mode in DotA AI as long as you limit everyone's farm with -om and -noneutrals without -em ... which, nevermind, is actually really fun. But it still it doesn't show that the -fun items are balanced.

Well, if I'm reading that comparison right - pretty much.
I'm doing my best with a system that is inherently flawed, but I'm not going to be as pretentious as WotC got in some of their 4E hype and tell anyone else this is THE way to play the game, especially given how outrageous the math fallacies/errors for game balance in 4E are.
It is working for my group so far, and that's the most important thing for me.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Gavin I like that your document is open. Traps is really the only one that is 'spam-able' for cheap and hence the only one that is really a low-cost problem. Sure you could make one spell clock to help the peasants, but it would become a big target for some evil artificer who loves free XP. Also you forgot runecasters, but it is more of a hassle than eternal wands unless you can find an aoe spell that takes effect every round.

Sam, I'm glad you followed my analogy (add -fr and play pudge or silencer for each fed goodness). On the WBL at once restrictions, I often find that WBL is the only way to bring lower level tiers partially up to where higher level casters are, so I am wary of DMs that deviate from normal spending freedom.

[Captnq]

A) Tippy assumes custom craftable automatic spell reset traps can be used to remove all barriers to societal growth. This makes those traps that are not based off same magical device (spells) custom magic items and DM dependent.

Anything that can return more then you give will always become explotable. Unfortunately, being a simulation it will ALWAYS have room for explotation. I don't want to spam you, but my thesis on how the D&D universe is actually just a series of 5 foot cubes is a perfect example of that. Buy a toadfamiliar a set of 3' stilts and take enough Balance that he can automake his balance check, and the toad will have the high ground advantage on all attackers.

There will always be abuse in the margins, hense why the game REQUIRES the DM to exist. If the game was perfect, the players wouldn't need the DM. The game could run itself. That's the problem with Tippyverse. It assumes the DM ISN'T needed, when in fact, he's the FOUNDATION of the game. 3.5 made the DM as removed from needed as is possible, but he's still needed. 4th and 5th have been progressively dragging the game back to rest more and more heavily on the DM. Which for people who don't understand how the game works think is great, btu people who actually study the game and learn its inner workuings actually would understand its a great leap backwords.

Whil you can NEVER completely eliminate the need for the DM, reducing the burden on him is a noble goal that should be sought.

B) Catgirls die when vacuum tubes and antimatter are thought to exist in Greyhawk. Think of the catgirls.

No. Actually what this is called is HOUSE RULES. All house rules depend on the DM. There is nothing wrong with house rules. There are wrong DMs, however.

C) Evil outsiders don't pose enough of a systemic threat to such a society. **rollseyes**

Again, This is something that Depends on the DM and requires his time and attension. The strength and effectiveness of outsiders is not determined by the rules, but on the DM's view of those rules. They may, or may not be a threat. It comes down to the talent and skill on the DM.

D) Teleportation isn't that big a deal due to: forbiddance, wierdstones, dead magic planar breaches, and ...

It can be, and can't be, depending on how the DM views things. My viewpoint of the view of the flow of magic and the overall cosmology of my game makes abuse of teleportation a non-problem. I should show you my write up on a Post-Magical Crash society.

Now I'd like to ask what happens to RAW campaigns when you house rule:

E) No 9th level spells. You can't sneak teleportation circles or otherwise create portals. No wish economy or ice assassins. 0th-2nd, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th spells are fine.

I often thought that the Tier system should have been applied from day one to all aspects of the game. For example, You could play a high magic campaign with all spells raiting 1 to 5. But if another DM wanted to make the players struggle more, he could deny players access to anything level 5 or 4. There are spells, feats, classes, equipment that could be abused at every level.

Imagine if everyone had to play a tier 3 class. It would be WORK to Min/Max, but because everyone would be on the same level field, it'd be fair. Balance is a subjective quality.

If the game had a built in tier system, then it would be much easier for players to make characters (you'd easily know what were the best powers) and make it easier for DMs (knowing what to watch, or flat out Ban.)

F) What if XP wasn't a river and spending x XP meant that you were always behind by x (maybe more with weighted averages on part ECL xp distribution)? Magic items would only slowly, but steadily build.

I cannot say. I would not mind seeing this play tested. I can say if you make magic items more of a penalty, what happens is your players become much more savvy about making customized equipment. I don't play with magic mart. I have magic items hard to come by. My players STILL bitch about how it took 6 levels to get a handy haversack in this last campaign. but BOY, once the Cleric/Wizard learned how to craft stuff, he made me PAY for it. They have the most munchkined set of equipment, customized, everything is reduced cost by alignment and class.

The result of what you propose will simply encourage a player to become the party armorer. Instead of it being a half-assed tack on to a Concept, someone will focus on making the BEST and most cost effective crafter the party can have.

Is that good or bad? I cannot say. It's just my experience.

[Raineh Daze]

A) Tippy assumes custom craftable automatic spell reset traps can be used to remove all barriers to societal growth. This makes those traps that are not based off same magical device (spells) custom magic items and DM dependent.

Anything that can return more then you give will always become explotable. Unfortunately, being a simulation it will ALWAYS have room for explotation. I don't want to spam you, but my thesis on how the D&D universe is actually just a series of 5 foot cubes is a perfect example of that. Buy a toadfamiliar a set of 3' stilts and take enough Balance that he can automake his balance check, and the toad will have the high ground advantage on all attackers.

There will always be abuse in the margins, hense why the game REQUIRES the DM to exist. If the game was perfect, the players wouldn't need the DM. The game could run itself. That's the problem with Tippyverse. It assumes the DM ISN'T needed, when in fact, he's the FOUNDATION of the game. 3.5 made the DM as removed from needed as is possible, but he's still needed. 4th and 5th have been progressively dragging the game back to rest more and more heavily on the DM. Which for people who don't understand how the game works think is great, btu people who actually study the game and learn its inner workuings actually would understand its a great leap backwords.

Whil you can NEVER completely eliminate the need for the DM, reducing the burden on him is a noble goal that should be sought.

That's debatable, whether it's a positive outcome or not--making the game more a set of mathematical rules means that being able to exploit the rules is ever more broken. And that the DM is essentially required to have a greater level of rules mastery lest they be all-but-forced to accept whatever exploit someone is found.

It's a nice goal to have 'the GM finds things easier' as a goal, but not necessarily a step backwards to have less mathematical dictation. That whole thing is what bores me about games, in the end.

[Captnq]

That's debatable, whether it's a positive outcome or not--making the game more a set of mathematical rules means that being able to exploit the rules is ever more broken. And that the DM is essentially required to have a greater level of rules mastery lest they be all-but-forced to accept whatever exploit someone is found.

It's a nice goal to have 'the GM finds things easier' as a goal, but not necessarily a step backwards to have less mathematical dictation. That whole thing is what bores me about games, in the end.

Do not equate complexity of math = makes things easier.

For example, there's a weird feat, I forget the name, but basically your Caster Level changes with the phase of the moon.

While that adds a certain amount of theme and reason to the game and gives players a new choice, it also increases the work load of the DM, having to keep track of the phase of the moon.


Rules on how to design your own magic item are good.
Rules that make magic items more complex and time consuming to use are bad.

Rules on how to customize your Character are good.
Rules that force the DM to keep track of a million different conditions because CF bonuses are too specific are bad.

I would have loved standardize rules on Armor and weapon construction clearly laid out and explained so that a player could make a customizable suit of non-magical equipment. Why? Because it adds a layer to the game that takes place OUTSIDE the game.

You design your item, then you use it. Yay!

4th and the more I read 5th requires me the DM, to make up new crap out of Whole Cloth. There are few rules. Few guidelines. It's basically, Eyeball it. Does it look right?

I like the players making up X then me APPROVING it. I like to know it followed a set of rules that I can go back and double check the math. That's the point.

[Raineh Daze]

That's debatable, whether it's a positive outcome or not--making the game more a set of mathematical rules means that being able to exploit the rules is ever more broken. And that the DM is essentially required to have a greater level of rules mastery lest they be all-but-forced to accept whatever exploit someone is found.

It's a nice goal to have 'the GM finds things easier' as a goal, but not necessarily a step backwards to have less mathematical dictation. That whole thing is what bores me about games, in the end.

Do not equate complexity of math = makes things easier.

For example, there's a weird feat, I forget the name, but basically your Caster Level changes with the phase of the moon.

While that adds a certain amount of theme and reason to the game and gives players a new choice, it also increases the work load of the DM, having to keep track of the phase of the moon.


Rules on how to design your own magic item are good.
Rules that make magic items more complex and time consuming to use are bad.

Rules on how to customize your Character are good.
Rules that force the DM to keep track of a million different conditions because CF bonuses are too specific are bad.

I would have loved standardize rules on Armor and weapon construction clearly laid out and explained so that a player could make a customizable suit of non-magical equipment. Why? Because it adds a layer to the game that takes place OUTSIDE the game.

You design your item, then you use it. Yay!

4th and the more I read 5th requires me the DM, to make up new crap out of Whole Cloth. There are few rules. Few guidelines. It's basically, Eyeball it. Does it look right?

I like the players making up X then me APPROVING it. I like to know it followed a set of rules that I can go back and double check the math. That's the point.

Clear rules are good. But a ruleset where the rules are essentially binding, and the DM has to OVERRIDE them for balance, is just a bad. 3.5 is full of exploits, which makes the job easier on the GM provided nobody finds the holes in the system. I like specific rules. But when GMing, I'd rather have to make stuff up than be stuck with all the rules supporting a player doing something that breaks the game.

[TuggyNE]

That's debatable, whether it's a positive outcome or not--making the game more a set of mathematical rules means that being able to exploit the rules is ever more broken. And that the DM is essentially required to have a greater level of rules mastery lest they be all-but-forced to accept whatever exploit someone is found.

It's a nice goal to have 'the GM finds things easier' as a goal, but not necessarily a step backwards to have less mathematical dictation. That whole thing is what bores me about games, in the end.

Do not equate complexity of math = makes things easier.

For example, there's a weird feat, I forget the name, but basically your Caster Level changes with the phase of the moon.

While that adds a certain amount of theme and reason to the game and gives players a new choice, it also increases the work load of the DM, having to keep track of the phase of the moon.


Rules on how to design your own magic item are good.
Rules that make magic items more complex and time consuming to use are bad.

Rules on how to customize your Character are good.
Rules that force the DM to keep track of a million different conditions because CF bonuses are too specific are bad.

I would have loved standardize rules on Armor and weapon construction clearly laid out and explained so that a player could make a customizable suit of non-magical equipment. Why? Because it adds a layer to the game that takes place OUTSIDE the game.

You design your item, then you use it. Yay!

4th and the more I read 5th requires me the DM, to make up new crap out of Whole Cloth. There are few rules. Few guidelines. It's basically, Eyeball it. Does it look right?

I like the players making up X then me APPROVING it. I like to know it followed a set of rules that I can go back and double check the math. That's the point.

Clear rules are good. But a ruleset where the rules are essentially binding, and the DM has to OVERRIDE them for balance, is just a bad. 3.5 is full of exploits, which makes the job easier on the GM provided nobody finds the holes in the system. I like specific rules. But when GMing, I'd rather have to make stuff up than be stuck with all the rules supporting a player doing something that breaks the game.

Basically, the philosophy of 3.x rules was well-meant and generally sound; the execution, however, was sorely lacking. 4e and 5e, on the other hand, execute (somewhat) better on a substantially inferior philosophy.

[Raineh Daze]

That's debatable, whether it's a positive outcome or not--making the game more a set of mathematical rules means that being able to exploit the rules is ever more broken. And that the DM is essentially required to have a greater level of rules mastery lest they be all-but-forced to accept whatever exploit someone is found.

It's a nice goal to have 'the GM finds things easier' as a goal, but not necessarily a step backwards to have less mathematical dictation. That whole thing is what bores me about games, in the end.

Do not equate complexity of math = makes things easier.

For example, there's a weird feat, I forget the name, but basically your Caster Level changes with the phase of the moon.

While that adds a certain amount of theme and reason to the game and gives players a new choice, it also increases the work load of the DM, having to keep track of the phase of the moon.


Rules on how to design your own magic item are good.
Rules that make magic items more complex and time consuming to use are bad.

Rules on how to customize your Character are good.
Rules that force the DM to keep track of a million different conditions because CF bonuses are too specific are bad.

I would have loved standardize rules on Armor and weapon construction clearly laid out and explained so that a player could make a customizable suit of non-magical equipment. Why? Because it adds a layer to the game that takes place OUTSIDE the game.

You design your item, then you use it. Yay!

4th and the more I read 5th requires me the DM, to make up new crap out of Whole Cloth. There are few rules. Few guidelines. It's basically, Eyeball it. Does it look right?

I like the players making up X then me APPROVING it. I like to know it followed a set of rules that I can go back and double check the math. That's the point.

Clear rules are good. But a ruleset where the rules are essentially binding, and the DM has to OVERRIDE them for balance, is just a bad. 3.5 is full of exploits, which makes the job easier on the GM provided nobody finds the holes in the system. I like specific rules. But when GMing, I'd rather have to make stuff up than be stuck with all the rules supporting a player doing something that breaks the game.

Basically, the philosophy of 3.x rules was well-meant and generally sound; the execution, however, was sorely lacking. 4e and 5e, on the other hand, execute (somewhat) better on a substantially inferior philosophy.

And the philosophy itself is a rules nightmare.

[oslecamo]

Hear, hear! Every system of "design it yourself!" in a game I've seen is stupidly exploitable. Because no matter how hard you try to balance the different pieces, there's combinations that are gonna be more synergetic than others. As the number of pieces increases, the risk of uber exploits increases much faster as well. Not to mention as a GM, you just don't have the time to properly "design it yourself!" every aspect of the NPCs and monsters you're gonna throw at the party. So ready-to-go items/spells makes running the game a lot easier, and when you want something more exotic for the BBEG or whatever, you can use rule 0 from your experience with the base items to make up something on the spot.

[linklord231]

These two design principals are not mutually exclusive.  You can have "DIY" options for both DMs and players to use, as long as they're subject to clear guidelines for what is "too powerful" and the DM has the right and responsibility to veto anything that doesn't fit. 

You can have clear rules that a DM can use without making too much stuff up himself, that also aid the DM when he does want to make stuff up. 

I'm somewhat reminded of that whole GNS theory from the late 90's/early 00's.  Sounds good on paper, but the options being presented here are not actually contradictory. 

[Raineh Daze]

These two design principals are not mutually exclusive.  You can have "DIY" options for both DMs and players to use, as long as they're subject to clear guidelines for what is "too powerful" and the DM has the right and responsibility to veto anything that doesn't fit. 

You can have clear rules that a DM can use without making too much stuff up himself, that also aid the DM when he does want to make stuff up. 

I'm somewhat reminded of that whole GNS theory from the late 90's/early 00's.  Sounds good on paper, but the options being presented here are not actually contradictory. 

Oh, yeah, I'm not saying anything about exclusivity, my problem's more with the idea that it's better to have explicit rules on everything when the rules are likely as hell to be inherently unbalanced.

[Samwise]

It should be noted that one of the intentions of 3.5 was to make it organized play "friendly".

Theoretically, that was one of the intentions of AD&D, but it failed because there wasn't a sufficient organized play environment for it, it remained too wargame based for new players, and people really liked their wild options - especially the designers.

3.5 also collapsed under the weight of that designer love of wild options, but also suffered from constant editing issues, from the expectation that players who had failed to be awesome wargamers would somehow be awesome rules optimizers like they were in M:tG, and worst of all from assuming the players would want all the same wild options the designers did.

4E tried to "fix" the balance issues with an ultimate mathematical equation and refluffable fluff text. Unfortunately the equation was broken and filled with fallacies, fluff text that is so easily refluffable means that it is weak to begin with, the wargame complexity was even worse than before, and the designer-knows-best arrogance was pushed to 11.

5E looks to be trying to call a mulligan on 3.5 and 4E and just go back to being a cleaned version of AD&D. The question is whether players will accept it without all the wild options and just how many wild options the designers will shove back in via the Splat Book of the Month Club marketing plan they are committed to.

[Captnq]

5E looks to be trying to call a mulligan on 3.5 and 4E and just go back to being a cleaned version of AD&D. The question is whether players will accept it without all the wild options and just how many wild options the designers will shove back in via the Splat Book of the Month Club marketing plan they are committed to.

I fear you are too accurate in your prediction.

[Unbeliever]

I somehow seem to recall AD&D being rife with wild, imbalanced options.

[Captnq]

Well, you see, it's sort of like hero system. That's a well balanced system. Everything is thought out, they have it boiled down fairly well and... it... is... boring.

I'm sorry. I just find it boring as hell. I just can't play hero system. I can't. Wish I could. Love the ideas. It's nice as far as application but it's just not fun. It's TOO mechanical. Same thing with GURPS. Nice system but... I don't know. It's just... Meh. Can't stand it.

[linklord231]

5E looks to be trying to call a mulligan on 3.5 and 4E and just go back to being a cleaned version of AD&D. The question is whether players will accept it without all the wild options and just how many wild options the designers will shove back in via the Splat Book of the Month Club marketing plan they are committed to.

I fear you are too accurate in your prediction.

Everything I've seen so far points to this not being the case.  Their stated plans are about one book per fiscal quarter, with the next book being released in April.  Looks like all of the player content (races, subclasses, spells, etc) will be made available for free, so they're clearly not trying to make their money off selling that kind of thing.  My guess is their monetizing through licensing deals and stuff rather than selling a ton of books like they did with the last few editions. 

[SorO_Lost]

Everything I've seen so far points to this not being the case.  Their stated plans are about one book per fiscal quarter, with the next book being released in April ¹.  Looks like all of the player content (races, subclasses, spells, etc) will be made available for free², so they're clearly not trying to make their money off selling that kind of thing.  My guess is their monetizing through licensing deals and stuff rather than selling a ton of books like they did with the last few editions ³.

1. So 3 books plus an adventure to start with, plus one splat per three months with Faerun/Eberron intolerable fans demanding more than that is supposed to be a "slow" rate?

2. I'm going to ask for a citation on that. Because contrary to everything you just said Racial Variants are not in 5th's SRD, nor are most of the Spells and about half the Classes so literally as a matter of fact, they done the exact opposite of what you claim they will.

3. You are aware that "licensing deals" is a euphemism for "2nd party splat" right? *sighs*

[Ice9]

Well, you see, it's sort of like hero system. That's a well balanced system. Everything is thought out, they have it boiled down fairly well and... it... is... boring.

It's funny, I find that Hero is balanced in a significantly different (looser) way than D&D, and while it does mean it's easy to make a completely broken character, I like it better in a lot of ways.

For example, summoning and shapeshifting.  In D&D 4E, those kind of abilities are balanced not to be broken when someone squeezes the most out of them, which means they can be quite underwhelming when used non-optimally.  Even in 3E, while huge loopholes of power exist, a lot of the "default" usage is still pretty tame. 

In Hero, they're balanced to be decent for their cost in the average case.  Which means that if you try to break them, you easily will.  Some voluntary agreement on power levels is required.  But it also means that when using them "casually", you get an ability that's awesome instead of underwhelming.

Which is not to say it's a perfect system - there are reasons I end up playing 3.x/PF much more often than it.  But "too tightly balanced" is not a problem I've ever run into.

[Samwise]

I somehow seem to recall AD&D being rife with wild, imbalanced options.

Originally, far from it.
It got a little quirky when Unearthed Arcana was rushed out the door, but the real chaos didn't begin until after "2nd edition" was a few years old and TSR started spamming the shelves, first with an endless stream of Forgotten Realms, then an endless stream of  splat books, and finally with an endless stream of settings.
When all three were in full swing and they had an average of 2.5 full books coming out per month, plus adventures . . . well, actually, they went bankrupt.