... Continued Ramblings...
Another aspect I've considered when it comes to thinking about D&D/RPG preferences is the matter of individual vs. group play. Again, it probably boils down to YMMV experience, but...
In some games, characters are absolutely, positively not balanced with one another. 3E made some effort toward class balance, but you still had more or less linear improvement for mundanes and exponential (starting low) improvement for spellcasters. 2E "balanced" all that with different experience charts, slowing the growth of the more "powerful" classes, though it usually boiled down to a difference of one level. Rifts had some amazingly blatant differences where one character could be an MDC monster with all sorts of super powers and another could be a guy with a medkit.
Meanwhile, a big part of what made 4E so jarring was its rather radical push toward the other end, deliberately trying to balance character classes in terms of combat prowess and options. A lot of people (myself included) described this as MMO-izing D&D. Arguably, that sort of thing is necessary in an MMO because PVP is a common activity. But I think it's also worth noting that the computers behind MMOs can handle all the fiddly details of a power-based system (which seems the most common model) a lot more deftly than your average tabletop gaming group.
Tashiro would argue that it isn't the game's responsibility to balance PCs, it's the GM's responsibility to craft situations so players feel involved and all have a chance to shine. I find it pretty hard to say he's wrong, but at the same time, I have a lot of trouble thinking of campaigns that I've played in that actually accomplished that due to GM design. Far more often, the dynamic I've seen play out is one or two of the more charismatic/interested players grab the spotlight by being involved and motivated, and the others are just sort of there with them. It's difficult to tell if they're all fully satisfied with that.
It may be rose-tinted nostalgia, but I feel like there was a time when individual contribution and capability may have mattered less. It seems like we played a lot of D&D back in the 2E-3E days without much concern for whether the fighter was kicking more ass than the thief or wizard. Were we really more about teamwork and group accomplishment than individual achievement back then?
Yeah, maybe that is nostalgia talking. In those days, I was in a position of GMing more often than not, so maybe I don't have the right perspective to have seen any player issues. The role of party cleric was often relegated to an NPC. And I do remember some specific campaigns where there most definitely were problems, though they had less to do with class balance and more with GM-drive plot focusing on one person's character.
So... yeah... again, I can't say I have much specific point to this. Just sort of thinking "aloud."
-
After enough nudging I've started playing a little bit of Shadow Era this week. It's essentially a simplified version of Magic the Gathering that exists in digital works including a handy android version. It's a little small, but fully playable on my Nexus.
The game is fine, I suppose. It feels stripped down compared to MtG, but at least it works without a huge bundle of timing rules. I don't see anything particularly great about it, though. And starting out there feels like a huge barrier to overcome due to limited cards. Either you pay your way past that hurdle with real money or you play free though lots, and lots of matches to be able to "buy" more cards in game. With limited cards, you're fodder for more experienced players and the computer opponents get pretty boring pretty fast. At level 5, I really can't play more than a match or two before the repetitive feel makes me do something else.
In some games, characters are absolutely, positively not balanced with one another. 3E made some effort toward class balance, but you still had more or less linear improvement for mundanes and exponential (starting low) improvement for spellcasters. 2E "balanced" all that with different experience charts, slowing the growth of the more "powerful" classes, though it usually boiled down to a difference of one level. Rifts had some amazingly blatant differences where one character could be an MDC monster with all sorts of super powers and another could be a guy with a medkit.
Meanwhile, a big part of what made 4E so jarring was its rather radical push toward the other end, deliberately trying to balance character classes in terms of combat prowess and options. A lot of people (myself included) described this as MMO-izing D&D. Arguably, that sort of thing is necessary in an MMO because PVP is a common activity. But I think it's also worth noting that the computers behind MMOs can handle all the fiddly details of a power-based system (which seems the most common model) a lot more deftly than your average tabletop gaming group.
Tashiro would argue that it isn't the game's responsibility to balance PCs, it's the GM's responsibility to craft situations so players feel involved and all have a chance to shine. I find it pretty hard to say he's wrong, but at the same time, I have a lot of trouble thinking of campaigns that I've played in that actually accomplished that due to GM design. Far more often, the dynamic I've seen play out is one or two of the more charismatic/interested players grab the spotlight by being involved and motivated, and the others are just sort of there with them. It's difficult to tell if they're all fully satisfied with that.
It may be rose-tinted nostalgia, but I feel like there was a time when individual contribution and capability may have mattered less. It seems like we played a lot of D&D back in the 2E-3E days without much concern for whether the fighter was kicking more ass than the thief or wizard. Were we really more about teamwork and group accomplishment than individual achievement back then?
Yeah, maybe that is nostalgia talking. In those days, I was in a position of GMing more often than not, so maybe I don't have the right perspective to have seen any player issues. The role of party cleric was often relegated to an NPC. And I do remember some specific campaigns where there most definitely were problems, though they had less to do with class balance and more with GM-drive plot focusing on one person's character.
So... yeah... again, I can't say I have much specific point to this. Just sort of thinking "aloud."
-
After enough nudging I've started playing a little bit of Shadow Era this week. It's essentially a simplified version of Magic the Gathering that exists in digital works including a handy android version. It's a little small, but fully playable on my Nexus.
The game is fine, I suppose. It feels stripped down compared to MtG, but at least it works without a huge bundle of timing rules. I don't see anything particularly great about it, though. And starting out there feels like a huge barrier to overcome due to limited cards. Either you pay your way past that hurdle with real money or you play free though lots, and lots of matches to be able to "buy" more cards in game. With limited cards, you're fodder for more experienced players and the computer opponents get pretty boring pretty fast. At level 5, I really can't play more than a match or two before the repetitive feel makes me do something else.
Re: Shadow Era What I tended to do is buy a booster every four levels, then use that to get more cards for my deck, sell off the cards I didn't want, and use the gold there to round out what I did want.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is the general theory for a free player, yes. Though arguably the decks offer a better value as a starting base since they cost the same as the boosters and include more cards. The cards may be more common, but they're also themed so my first 100 shadow crystals when to the shadow mage deck to help round things out and offer some more potential choices. Though at the current rate, that's about one deck/booster per 4-5 days. And I really don't have any reason to think I'll maintain that pace, given the required XP curve looks to be increasing faster than the rewards and I'm likely to get more bored rather than less with the game during this stretch. I could be wrong, though. I think it's nice to see the AI vary some depending on the hero/deck the computer is playing, but wow. One of the elemental decks went from having me on the ropes and being a few turns from victory to hosing itself all because it played a card that weakened its allies (which I could do nothing against otherwise). That was face-palmingly stupid, but so far isolated.
ReplyDeleteHmm, true, the starter gives a bunch of commons, and you can use that to sell off extras. You only ever can use four of any given card, so anything over 4 can be sold, and for the higher cost cards (cost 4+), you can do well just having only one or two in your deck - I usually go with two for the important cards, and 1 for any others. Attachments and artifacts, you can keep 2, 4 if they're important and cheap. Then you sell everything else, and pick out the cards you really want from the merchant. The thing with boosters, is you can get uncommon, rare, and epic cards, and the epics are worth something close to 400 coins to sell - that's pretty handy if you find one you've no interest in. The cost to level increases over time, that's true. As you gain levels, what you'll be after is gold - and you also get your one free card a day on top of that (which can be any rarity, but won't be a foil).
ReplyDeleteDigital cards and you've not played Hearthstone? Or are you fearing Blizzard's hands in your pockets some more? (Though the game is absolutely free to play, using an in-game currency of gold to buy booster packs, real money can be used to buy bunches of boosters at once. Extra cards are "disenchanted" and the dust can then be used to make other cards)
ReplyDeleteMmm. Last I checked, anyway, Hearthstone wasn't out on Android devices, so... yeah... sort of a sticking point for me.
ReplyDeleteIt's on PC? <.<; I know there's an Android release "Soon(tm)"
ReplyDeletePC and iOS, I believe. And since I generally only play "little" games like that on my Android tablet.... alas. When I'm on my PC, I have other things to do.
ReplyDelete