This thread can't have a title because of PhoneLobster.

[Josh_Kablack]

Oh right.

Also, Tic-Tac-Toe gains strategic depth with GIANT FROG

That might be worth emulating.

[K]

Now if you can't figure out how to use a crowd control ... you are a fucking moron

...

I don't know, but the fact that it works on first-form Belial and most champions and elites does seem pretty impressive.

Long story short. Was able to log in and make a quick check in game on this.

Toad of Hugeness (I would prefer to continue to call Giant Frog), DOES NOT WORK ON ELITES OR HIGHER.

I couldn't even get the bastard to swallow a fallen elite, fallen, like one of the smallest weakest things to be an elite of. It just sat there, tongued them once for no damage and no effect, then continued to sit there doing nothing. Good work Giant Frog, excellent role you are filling there.

So anyway. In your face K. Explain how "I would have to be a moron" for considering THAT to be such a deliberately over nerfy piece of filler crap.

Who the fuck cares? You already killed the thread because I had the gall to actually like a few things about a Blizzard game.

I've totally learned my lesson. I now know that I'm not allowed to like anything about a Blizzard game as long the hero PhoneLobster is around to patrol the Interwebs.

It's a good thing that you were on the job because I might have actually had an enjoyable conversation with peers.

[PhoneLobster]

Oh stop playing the victim, you presented Diablo 3 as the frame work for the discussion of these ideas then declared that no one is allowed to actually discuss these ideas in relation to what Diablo 3 itself does?

I tell you what if you want a grown up thread about say, free ability respecing and you want to exclude discussion of Diablo 3...

DON'T TITLE YOUR THREAD "Diablo III feels like a semi-good RPG model".

And of course then don't proceed to frame your entire discussion as "look at all these cool things Diablo III does doesn't do".

[K]

DON'T TITLE YOUR THREAD "Diablo III feels like a semi-good RPG model".

The hero has spoken!

[Koumei]

I hated D2 enough that I'm not going to try D3 (even pretending it'd run on my lappy), and I particularly hate the "always online lol" and "pay real moneys" aspects, but even if it doesn't present the ideas well I'm pretty sure they can still be utilised.

How about "Here are some things Diablo 3 tried to do that would be awesome in a better game, so maybe D&D could benefit from these ideas (with better execution and a better all-round game to fit into)"?

I like the idea of getting all your abilities-per-level and then having to decide which ones you "lock in" on a given day or whatever. I mean, we all know how they dress the Sorcerer up as a caster class for beginners and then they pick bad spells and are stuck like that for life, whereas the Wizard is actually more forgiving. And honestly, we want to encourage players to research (in-game) what they're coming up against, and going "Okay, so Baron NotAnOrc has hired Fire-Elemental Dire Sea Cucumbers as guards. Let's prepare" (followed by them making sure they have their Fire Resist Abilities, Nausea Resist Abilities and Dehydration/Electrocution attacks).

The "place modifiers to change how powers work" thing? Depends how it works. We don't really need "Choose whether Plasma Twist, The Secret Sword: Shadow Destroyer or Spectral Penile Shape gets the +5 to hit and damage", but it'd be cool perhaps to have:

• Hurricane Slice:
  • Running Whirlwind Attack
  • Sonic Boom Shove-Enemies-Away Hurricane Slice
  • Vacuum Blade Vortex
• Angry Rage:
  • Reactive Rage
  • Mindless Rage
• One-Target-Triple-Chop:
  • Staggering Blows
  • Bloodletting
  • Feel Good About Murdering Dudes With Triple-Chop

And you get the three base abilities and one modifier. That could be cool. And you can swap that around too.

Of course, just the first idea there (the "You know everything but prepare only some") isn't new to Diablo 3. I hear there was a game that did that before, and the Cleric and Druid did it. It was called Draconic Dungeons or something similar.

[Chamomile]

I've totally learned my lesson. I now know that I'm not allowed to like anything about a Blizzard game as long the hero PhoneLobster is around to patrol the Interwebs.

It's a good thing that you were on the job because I might have actually had an enjoyable conversation with peers.

This is why, even though he isn't incoherent and isn't even always wrong, I support PhoneLobster being treated with exactly the same level seriousness as Shadzar. He occupies an uncanny valley where he's coherent enough that people choose to actually talk to him, but constantly derails threads over tiny perceived faults that are barely relevant to the conversation in the first place. We can't push him into the good side of that valley, but we can push him into the Shadzar side by just mass-ignoring him.

[DSMatticus]

Oh stop playing the victim, you presented Diablo 3 as the frame work for the discussion of these ideas then declared that no one is allowed to actually discuss these ideas in relation to what Diablo 3 itself does?

I tell you what if you want a grown up thread about say, free ability respecing and you want to exclude discussion of Diablo 3...

DON'T TITLE YOUR THREAD "Diablo III feels like a semi-good RPG model".

And of course then don't proceed to frame your entire discussion as "look at all these cool things Diablo III does doesn't do".

No. Seriously, no one on Earth would be stupid enough to think half the shit you said was relevant at all to this thread. For fuck's sake, K mentioned "wait a few months to see what other builds people test," in response to someone commenting on Inferno balance and you went on a rant about not having a server in Australia and refunds in South Korea. It boggles the mind. Protip: there is no way servers in Australia or refunds in South Korea relate to a discussion about models for an RPG, so... no. Even if you want to act like the thread title justified your nerd rage there is no concievable way in which it actually does.

Now, I actually don't give a shit that you only managed one on-topic post before flipping your shit about how much D3 pisses you off for totally unrelated reasons, but at least be honest about it. It's not like K shouldn't have expected it; you will never pass up a chance to bitch about things you don't like. That is what you do. We all know that. I was honestly surprised to find out you bought the game at all. You had to know you were going to hate it. I, a person who is not you, knew you were going to hate it. Just save yourself the money, man.

[Red_Rob]

After that brief interlude, we now return you to your scheduled programming...

1. Everyone has an option for combat control, defense, healing, AoE attacks, single target. Everyone can solo things.

This is important for Diablo because it has to be completed by a single player. As RPG's are a group activity, is it important for every character to be able to do everything in combat? I think for RPG's you should aim for every class to have 3 or 4 of these, to allow for spotlight moments and to encourage teamwork. I definitely agree that you shouldn't be limited to one of these as your "schtick" though.

2. Everything uses a mana-like resource that is specific to the class and some attacks add to the pool and some take away. Sadly, they also have timers for some things.

Mana is good for CRPG's where the computer handles the accounting. for TTRPG's i prefer a simpler model - One use, timed refresh, WoF are more appealing to me.

3. Everyone in a class gets all the abilities of that class on a level schedule, but they also get "runes" on a level schedule where you can modify each ability (only one rune active per ability). This makes even two members of the same class often very different since they chose different versions of the same ability.

This is interesting. I like the Beguiler model for D&D casters, however the same spell list means they all play the same. Some way to customise the characters abilites would solve that issue. I can see balance problems though - ensuring that one rune isn't just "the best" and becomes the default. The other problem would be keeping the flavour of the class distinct when there are options that change every ability.

4. Up to three passive runes that give passive abilities, also from a list that expands as you level.

The Diablo rune thing has some verisimilitude issues for me. I get that it should be easy to change your abilities to undo mistakes and to allow players to try new things, however apart from a very limited selection of character types it does feel very "videogamey" which doesn't sit too well with me in the shared storytelling experience of a TTRPG. I think a good trade-off is the Sorceror option - at level-up you can change old abilities when you get a new one. This stops you changing abilities on a whim, but allows bad decisions to be undone.

5. A philosophy that everything should be easy and there should be no wrong choices.

Easy to say, hard to implement. I don't think that many games intentionally implement "wrong" choices (despite what the designers may claim after the fact to preserve their ego), and even fewer games try to make the game hard to play for no other reason. Seems like it would be hard to get right at first blush, and 4e has shown us what constant minor revisions to a ruleset does - fractures the playerbase and confuses the audience.

[Kaelik]

Phone Lobster actually buys games he hates and movies he hates, and then spends all his time watching them and playing them.

He does this because he is actually infested with a demon that feeds on hate, and if he ever stops hating he will starve.

Of course he bought it, he lives for the sole purpose of hating things and getting mad at other people for liking things.

[K]

3. Everyone in a class gets all the abilities of that class on a level schedule, but they also get "runes" on a level schedule where you can modify each ability (only one rune active per ability). This makes even two members of the same class often very different since they chose different versions of the same ability.

This is interesting. I like the Beguiler model for D&D casters, however the same spell list means they all play the same. Some way to customise the characters abilites would solve that issue. I can see balance problems though - ensuring that one rune isn't just "the best" and becomes the default. The other problem would be keeping the flavour of the class distinct when there are options that change every ability.

This is the part I found most interesting.

In 3.X, the most fun that I ever had with feats was taking some power and making it more interesting. For example, the Uttercold Assault Necromancer build I made (which later inspired a PrC made by someone else) had the ability to turn their evocations into healing for undead and themselves. That was a really unique feeling.

For some reason, personalizing a power is a lot more fun that getting a new power, and I just don't know why.

In Diablo III, even something like Magic Missile or Disintegrate on their Wizard has all these options that make the ability more interesting. You can watch two Wizards play and see both the cosmetic difference in the base ability, but also the actual effect differences.

In DnD 3.X, you rarely had enough feats to throw around to personalize anything. I think that's a real shame.

[Username17]

I can see how having 30 options instead of 3 options might seem better - but if all of the options are really equally good, it's probably not an issue. Since you can't possibly get all 30 abilities, the more abilities you CAN'T have, the more likely you are to suffer from buyer's remorse.

But this reminds me of one of my pet peeves about game design. Let's say that you have 30 abilities to choose from, and they're all available from 1st level. That means when you choose your 5th ability, you're choosing an ability that you didn't care enough about to pick the first four times you had a chance. When you get your 10th ability, it's something you either don't care about, or actually DON'T WANT.

It's important to have 'ability tiers'. Because if you're forced to pick up abilities that you skipped at earlier levels, it's a little insulting. Every 'level up' is a point of diminishing returns (but never by deliberate design).

In all the crazy, I think this comment didn't get the attention it deserved. Bluntly: Yes.

Frontloading all the choices sounds like it would be good. Because it's more choices. And choice is good. But in reality it sucks. It sucks because the choices at the start of the game are overwhelming, and it sucks because late in the game you end up picking from abilities you don't even want because you already chose your first, second, and even twelth choice. Giving people a series of choices of one from six or even one from three is actually much more motivating. Each decision is chunked down to something approachable, and each decision is a new field that hasn't been "picked over" for all the good stuff already.

-Username17

[K]

Well, Diablo 3 doesn't front-load.

You only ever get to use six skills at one time and the skills come in at specific level. For example, a Wizard has 25 potential skills that arrive on a level schedule all the way up to 30, but only ever gets a max of 6 skills usuable at a time (and 3 passives slots that also come on a level schedule and eventually have up to 18 choices to put into those three slots).

Even the slots come in a schedule.

So at 21, you get the option for a base Disintegrate to take up one of your six slots. The Disintegrate runes come in at 26, 30, 39, 48, and 59, and you only get to use one rune for the skill.

In that sense, it gives you enough time with each skill to really decide if you like it. The problem is that at 30 you get the problem of option paralysis. If the playthroughs I've been watching are any indication, most people use the same couple of skills that they were using at low level.

[tussock]

That Gary Gygax and his spell levels without prerequisites or dependencies, acting as tiered choices that you could re-allocate every few fights, it's almost like D&D became popular for a reason.

Theory: Diablo 3 would've been better if it'd modelled power allocation and scaling on D&D's classic levelled spell slot system even more closely than it already did. Where you often stop casting Magic Missile even though it is far better than it used to be.

[CatharzGodfoot]

That Gary Gygax and his spell levels without prerequisites or dependencies, acting as tiered choices that you could re-allocate every few fights, it's almost like D&D became popular for a reason.

Theory: Diablo 3 would've been better if it'd modelled power allocation and scaling on D&D's classic levelled spell slot system even more closely than it already did. Where you often stop casting Magic Missile even though it is far better than it used to be.

Unlike D&D, a real-time computer game is limited by how good the key bindings are. Having played D3 with a five button mouse, I think that a ~six skill limit is a really good idea.

[Seerow]

This thread went downhill fast.

[ishy]

I like the idea of getting all your abilities-per-level and then having to decide which ones you "lock in" on a given day or whatever. I mean, we all know how they dress the Sorcerer up as a caster class for beginners and then they pick bad spells and are stuck like that for life, whereas the Wizard is actually more forgiving. And honestly, we want to encourage players to research (in-game) what they're coming up against, and going "Okay, so Baron NotAnOrc has hired Fire-Elemental Dire Sea Cucumbers as guards. Let's prepare" (followed by them making sure they have their Fire Resist Abilities, Nausea Resist Abilities and Dehydration/Electrocution attacks).

That sounds like the Spirit-Shaman from complete Divine.

Unlike D&D, a real-time computer game is limited by how good the key bindings are. Having played D3 with a five button mouse, I think that a ~six skill limit is a really good idea.

I don't, I want at least 10 skills for a game like diablo. I understand that not everyone likes to have more than 10 though, so I would be okay with it if some classes had 6 and others up to 20 or something.
Then I might actually consider buying D3.

[Midnight_v]

There's also nothing inherently wrong with choosing between an ability and a bonus to a number, when those two are balanced.

Hmm.. I have a serious doubt in my mind that such a thing can be "balanced".

Giving someone bigger numbers OR giving them a new power... I can't think of a good example where that is balanced ever. I'm not saying "YOU'RE WRONG"tm, but I am saying that I'd like 2 example of how that works.

Moving on. . . I was wavering about buying diablo, instead I went back to wow. I'd stopped just before cata dropped a friend sent me a scroll of resurection, and I want to agree. They seemed to have moved more towards a "no choice=balance" model.
Moreover, for a few moments in the game people have figured out how to do things they weren't example: Rogue Tanking in the burning Crusade, and apparently Metamophsis Warlock tanking, in the MoP beta.
They come down pretty hard on this. . . blood became the "Official tanking speck for deathknights though when before people got together and started making it so with wise choices.
So now you can be a Blood tank, ONLY. Ice Dps/Unholy Dps... in a game that lacks guess what? Tanks.
I was pretty annoyed with the lack of choice there.
It does push everyone into 1 raid worth build "No exceptions"; and so when my two months is up i'll stop playing... again, I think. Fuck I find these boards more interesting honestly...

[Blicero]

There's also nothing inherently wrong with choosing between an ability and a bonus to a number, when those two are balanced.

Hmm.. I have a serious doubt in my mind that such a thing can be "balanced".

I'd agree with this. In the abstract, it seems like the best strategy in such a configuration would be to grab an ability or two and then put everything else in bonuses to make those few abilities stupidly hardcore. Which is boring and lame.

[hyzmarca]

There's also nothing inherently wrong with choosing between an ability and a bonus to a number, when those two are balanced.

Hmm.. I have a serious doubt in my mind that such a thing can be "balanced".

I'd agree with this. In the abstract, it seems like the best strategy in such a configuration would be to grab an ability or two and then put everything else in bonuses to make those few abilities stupidly hardcore. Which is boring and lame.

It works when your When ability B is effectively the same as ability A with bigger numbers, thus granting you the illusion of choice.

For example, your theoretical fighter might choose between +2 damage to his standard attacks or the Power Attack skill, which lets him make a Power Attack that does +2 damage at will.

There might be some extra differences, like you can't make a power attack while unbalanced but can make one while held/constricted, thus your standard bonus is a better choice against Bargus the Tripper and Mr. Oilslick while Power Attack is the superior choice against Python Grappler and the Wizard Who Just Learned Hold person And Is Very Proud Of Himself.

[Username17]

Passive abilities can be traded fairly easily for numeric bonuses. A conditional damage resistance is very comparable to an increase in defense or some extra hit points, for example.

-Username17

[K]

I've kind of reached a point where I'm against bonuses altogether. I feel like they not only screw the math or make the whole mathematical model more complex, but they also cheat people out of potential abilities.

They are easy as shit to write, so I expect RPGs will be saddled with them forever.

[erik]

Against bonuses altogether seems a bit extreme unless you are sold on dicepools4life and gaining more dice could conceivably be viewed as a bonus anyway. In a d20 type system where you use a RNG that shifts higher to cut off the mooks at the bottom as you advance, you kind of need bonuses to scale it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've kind of reached a point where I'm against bonuses altogether. I feel like they not only screw the math or make the whole mathematical model more complex, but they also cheat people out of potential abilities.

I find this kind of viewpoint incredibly short-sighted. But then again, I've already talked about this before.

[Seerow]

Personally, I think having bonuses is fine, but hit/AC bonuses should mostly be automatic. The second you introduce a sword that gives +5 to hit, that becomes all but necessary, because if the RNG is even remotely balanced, that's going to give you a huge advantage, to the point where it becomes necessary, even if when the item didn't exist you didn't feel like you needed it.

So yeah, items giving plus to hit, bad. Similarly, a feat where your choice is between + to hit and interesting choices is going to be bad, because players end up sacrificing the interesting abilities for their + to hit. Because hitting more often really is that valuable, no matter what you do.

That said, I do believe that vertical scaling is necessary and good. BAB? Great. Increased attributes? Awesome. I'd even say something like giving out a noticeable +hit/ac/save bonus at a tier threshold would be in order (like +3-+5 across the board to anything on the d20 RNG. So when you go back and fight those guys from the last tier, it's extremely noticeable how much more awesome you are than they are, even though it was just a level ago), though that could also come from just better stats at tier jumps or whatever.

Damage rolls, damage reduction, energy resists, etc, I don't care so much about. Those can be given out as bonuses. If you have runes that can modify your abilities that make you choose one ability out of 3 to add +5 damage to, or +1[w] damage to, or whatever, then that's fine. Flat damage bonuses can make for an interesting choice, a noticeable +to hit generally will not.

[K]

I've kind of reached a point where I'm against bonuses altogether. I feel like they not only screw the math or make the whole mathematical model more complex, but they also cheat people out of potential abilities.

I find this kind of viewpoint incredibly short-sighted. But then again, I've already talked about this before.

I still find your arguments to be unconvincing.

The only arguments for bonuses are:

1. They are easy as shit to write.

2. Some people will never be happy if they aren't numerically bigger than other people.

3. Bonuses are generally idiot-proof.

The downsides are:

1. They screw the math. Either difficulties go up to account for some baseline set of bonuses, screwing the non-bonus people, or bonus people aren't challenged any more.

2. They aren't abilities, making your game less fun and interesting.

3. They potentially make things possible that shouldn't be possible. See Grapplemancer and Diplomancer.

4. They add more shit to track in the game and more calculations to make, slowing the game with no pay-off in fun.

Now, you still want things like debuffs and buffs and that will involve some bonuses and penalties, but at no point is your game better if someone gets as a class ability "+3 to some roll" instead of getting something cool like flight.

Number and dice manipulation is just boring as shit. Lame abilities can also be boring as shit, but if Trevor doesn't like the Lyre of Building, the problem is more likely with the Lyre. Make the Lyre capable of casting Earthquakes, Stone Shaping, and Transmuting Rock to Mud and I'm sure that Trevor will use it more often.