Unless you’re a game designer or a math professor, today’s blog might be boring. As I’m only personally acquainted with one of these, I expect that at least Randy will post a comment on this one…
This optimized game experiment has got me thinking. The question of the day is this: how mathematically sound is the D&D rule system? I mean, Magic: The Gathering, as everyone knows, was designed by a Ph.D. in Math. D&D was designed, even in its most recent incarnation, by… game designers. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m just asking the question, “how reliable is the CR system, or the treasure system, or character balance?”
This brings out another point. If the classes in Dungeons and Dragons are balanced, then what does that say about party composition? In other words, if an average cleric is as useful as an average rogue, does a party need one of each? Could a successful campaign (using only standard designed materials and not DM-designed or modified materials) be made up entirely of fighter types? How about monks? If not, then are the classes really balanced? And which classes are indispensible, and which are optional?
The conventional wisdom says you need a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard to make a good party. But if you are missing one, can you still, mathematically, “beat” the game?
Could it be that the classes are, inherently, unequal, and that we actually like it that way? Could it be that they each have their own equal role to play, but that they truly are divergent in terms of a mathematical comparison?
Could it be that game designers, far from being math guys, really belong in the humanities rather than in the sciences?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
No, I think game designers need to be proficient with math ,but not mathematicians. Just check out some of Sean Reynold’s justifications for using 3.0 keen and improved critical stacking suggestions for his mathematical abilities. But they have to be able to “feel” things as well…the CR system is a but a guideline…good gut feeling…not evenly remotely mathematically sound and formulaic…some CR 7′s are way too tough for your 6th level party ,but some CR9 creature may be a push over…due to varying feats and powers and abilities that certain party compositions may or may not be able to handle…however, it is a pretty good gauge.
NOw, the big 4 ( cleric-fighter-wizrad-rogue) are not al mathematically equivalent…but they do all have a nice niche to fill and role to play…in that as a team they cover all the bases: tank – healer-spell lobber-sneaky dude….just 4 iconice roles that are nicely filled by these classes. With the glut of feats and alternate classes, I think these iconic classes can all be replaced …..say with a half-minotaur monk, soulborn fighter, nomad psion, and goliath psychic warrior….you have a lot of varied abilities in that group same as per the big 4….but
Let’s say, a 4 fighter party can get easily wiped out in a standard dungeon if they run into let’s say, a single spectre and no one has a ghost touch weapon…level drains and slow ,but almost sure annihilation….or at the least severe weakening of the 4 tanks who are then disposed of quickly by the 4 ogres in the next room…or heaven forbid, some wizard who is invisible summons some monsters and then decides to charm or dominate half the dim-witted bashers…..you don’t need all 4 of the classes ,but standard “dungeons” are built assuming you have access to those 4 iconic types of abilities(tank – healer-spell lobber-sneaky dude)…..essentially you can’t really afford to put all your eggs in one basket….now could you roll with everything but a rogue…maybe…standard dungeon with only 3 pcs is tougher(easier to overwhelm…slightly less options…have to compensate for the missing rogue/thus weakening your pcs ability to apply his iconic(using that word a lot a I know)ability to optimal effect…again…some potential snags….
The big 4 are still the ideal ,but not always the best….heck, I will not even pretend to know what the best 4 class combinations would be ,but basically you need some variety…and I think 4 is a magic number.