tussock wrote:schpeelah wrote:sabs wrote:Did Shadzar really just say:
That is by far the most non-sensical sentence I've ever heard. The game should be designed the way it was created. What? WHat came first, the game or the design for the game. WTF.
Keep in mind this is the guy who says "play the game not the rules" so you can apparently create a game before writing any rules. After translating from shadzarese I read it as "design the game to create the desired playstyle, not to fit some bullshit theory from Forge".
The correct parsing is ...
"the way it was created to be played"
sadly the other retards on here arent capable or readin English when the portion was bolded to more easily group the words, and sadder you have been sucking too many barrels of cocks and lost your reading comprehension even though you got the proper word grouping.
OD&D was designed to give one player only one character to control. that player works with the other players to accomplish the adventure.
that is what and how it was created to be played. Hero Quest is similar, but the flip side because it puts D&D on a static board with level you have to go down in to reach the goal of the "adventure" and ride the train of the railroad with no ability to get off the train. it is the closest game there is.
MUDs had some people wanting to fight other players like you could in Street Fighter and games like that, and thus EverQuest offered PvP and non-PvP servers. did any of it ever work? no. did people still play? yes. PvP EverQuest is basically League of Legends on a bigger scale.
taking from EQ, when you have both PvP and monsters in design, someone is getting fucked because you can't properly design around both.
how do you equate a couple players having to fight a group of monsters at the same time as a group other players? well you have to increase player strength, then both groups get stronger, and the monsters need to be bumped up, then you have to increase the players again, wash, rinse, repeat.
the game was created to allow one player to pick a type of character and join a group with their characters (hopefully they have the right groups of abilities combined) to play an adventure.
3.x and other WotC creations are more like a game of Munchkin. single characters just in the vicinity of other people and trying to be more powerful than everything else for their pet-character to get the most spotlight time. this is the PvP player mentality. the kind that wants to brag about this or that, rather than do it for enjoyments sake.
any interparty conflict is the job of the DM to handle, as the rules cant cover it. you cant build for PvP and for monsters at the same time, unless you game is as small as Street Fighter, where your selection of things to fight is a dozen with Bison as the strongest and Blanka as the monst annoying.
how can you design a game if you do not know what its purpose is?
why is PvP one of your design goals, if it is a small and only potential part of your game?
thus why you design the game the way you are creating it to be played.
PC party vs monsters means you design things like that. ignore NPCs, or just people learn that NPCs are NOT Pcs. they have different design rules and don't follow the PC character generation rules. NPCs are special monsters, even though their stats look vastly similar to PCs. it is camoflague. the NPC character sheet means that henhman you had all along is realy the one you are fighting and was spying on you in your journey, or using you to get you somewhere he could not have gotten to alone, etc.
just learn that NPC only has two letters in common with PC, and that is it. an NPC is still a monster and follows the monster rules of play, even though it looks like a PC.
thus why all things in the world are non-Player Character (not for the player, and/or not a character) it just means something under the DMs control during play, a monster/enemy/opponent/competitor/etc.
PC =\= monster
NPC = monster
thus
NPC =\= PC
design with that knowledge and you will do better than Mearls or Wyatt or Tweet, or etc.
