gatorized2 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:46 am
Why do developers put shitty options in their games?
Sometimes it's a design goal. I'm not talking about Spike and Timmy, but I've heard that thrown out as a justification. But really! You see, people remember how much they loved playing 1st edition D&D, so they're committed to making the same mistakes that have already been made. They can call it tradition, or a sacred cow, but if someone else did it they can say that they're committed to the OSR sensibility that it represents.
More often, it's a failure to do adequate root cause analysis. Reaper Miniatures is releasing a game called Dungeon Dweller RPG principally designed and written by Joseph Wolf. They just finished a KickStarter, and their $100 pledge includes at least 4 hard-bound books plus $100 of minis, so to me it's like getting the books for free! Like Pathfinder, they have a good art budget, so I actually think this could make a splash. In any case, the design is not complete and I'm active on the Reaper Discord. I'm not trying to make anyone bow to my superior play preferences or anything, but I do enjoy talking about rules. I'm not characterizing the designer's position - just some I see in conversations with people interested in DDRPG. In any case, a series of recent discussion elements could be summed up as follows:
1) Wizards feel bad when they cast a high level spell and nothing happens. I'm thinking of making sure that SOMETHING happens even if they make their save. Maybe a 1 round auto-stun.
2) A 1 round auto-stun can lead to a stun-lock where a PC or a major NPC never has a chance to take any actions at all.
3) Well, casters can be interrupted while casting a spell, so that might not happen.
4) Wait, won't casters feel even WORSE when their spell gets interrupted and they don't do anything in a round?
5) Well, TRADITION!
Third and finally, a lot of time it's really just a matter of their own mental blocks about what reality they're modeling leading to incoherent design and bad options.
I see people say things like 'PCs should be afraid of a goblin no matter what level they are'. 'At high levels, PCs should be able to threaten the gods'. But are gods afraid of a goblin with a spear? Well, no, they're GODS!. No matter how much you want to avoid super-powers or keep the game gritty and characters always worried about death, there really isn't a good way to support PCs as near-gods and afraid of a goblin with a spear at all levels of play.
Another one is saying 'a wizard that travels with an adventuring party is going to pick up some elements of sword-play and martial combat, so it makes sense that a high level wizard is better at combat than a low-level wizard; they just shouldn't be better than a high level martial character'. But if you reverse that and say, 'a fighter that travels with a wizard is going to pick up some elements of magical combat, so it makes sense that a high level fighter is better at magic than a low-level wizard; they just shouldn't be better than a high level wizard', you'll get shot down immediately. They'll probably say something like 'if a fighter has spells, then he's not really a FIGHTER, is he'.