Where do you design for?

[Talen Lee]

As I design my setting, trying to round it out, trying to clamp down on book-need and spread the power wealth around, it occurred to me that I haven't really seen what any of the stuff I've made would do in the hands of... well, you bastards, or at least those of you bastards who frequent the min-maxing board. I realised I was designing things with a mind towards more casual gamers, gamers who would revel in the opportunity to build out of a total of three books, rather than needing a chorus of splatbooks to make their characters functional.

This put me to thinking... who do you design for? Do you play hardball against min-maxing? Do you bust your ass to keep things 'balanced' even in the face of extremely proactive stackers? Or do you throw caution to the wind and hope it'll shake out in playtesting?

[j0lt]

I design house rules and custom classes, etc.. for two different audiences.  Most of my design is for d20 Modern, which has far fewer balance issues than D&D apparently does, so my Advanced Classes are designed for anyone and everyone who can find a use for it in their game.  That goes with my custom game mechanics, such as my gambling rules.

Other things, such as creatures or NPCs I specifically design for my own personal use.  Those things rarely get posted.  I rarely throw an NPC into my games that isn't custom built unless they're just background characters that the PCs happen to talk to.  Any NPC worth talking to will be handcrafted specifically for the game.  No stock characters ever seem to work satisfyingly for me.

[bkdubs123]

I basically throw caution to the wind and hope things come out in playtesting. That being said, I try to eliminate as many glaring balance issues as I can. I shoot for a target to balance against, and I try to set the power level to that standard, and after that I try to close any loopholes. The fact is, most casual gamers don't look for ways to break the game, or the RNG, or ways even to make their characters unusually strong. They just come up with a concept, look for the options that match it, and go from there. Since this group of people represents the majority of the player pool, I don't usually mind if I left some loose end that horribly unbalances the game (especially if I don't know that I did).

Min-maxing also has its place, and I don't want to completely discourage it when I design classes and tweak rules. If someone wants to take the time to tweak their character's performance to be a little above the curve, that should be fine, but it should have an upper limit, and this limit should be reigned in enough so that such a min-maxed character doesn't completely outshine other PCs who don't have the time or desire for it.

EDIT: You should also maybe change the title of the thread. It's misleading. Sounded to me like, "What company do you design for?"

[RobbyPants]

Well, up until I started my current project, I never had to worry about optimization much.  None of my players were good at building powerful characters.  Some of them just didn't care, and others thought they were good, but weren't.  That being said, I'm used to tailoring encounters and adventures to the group, trying to give each PC a chance to shine, even if they totally suck.

[InnaBinder]

As a DM, I usually tell players they're restricted to Core (including XPH + Spell Compendium), plus one additional WotC sourcebook of their individual choice.  I don't mind higher levels of optimization than that, but a couple of my players are more casual gamers that don't WANT 27,841,356 options to have to sort through, and a third is the sort that has a hard time focusing on a concept without that sort of limiter on his attention.  I then design NPCs both good and bad along those same limited guidelines.  Sometimes, a player chooses a source that automatically lends itself to a secondary source - like Bo9S automatically lends itself to Weapons of Legacy - at which point I open the secondary source to all players.

[MasterVega]

My current project is built for whoever wants it... though I suppose my "core only!" emphasis on said project might give away that most people in my gaming group are power gamers. 

Whenever I create a class, I try to make it safe for use with core and splatbooks... but there is only so much that can be done without playtesting. Sadly, my group doesn't end up using a lot of my stuff unless I'm the GM. >_>

[SiggyDevil]

I design for myself, friends, girlfriend, online comrades for projects.
General audiences tend to ignore my material such as Shee (Sidhe) Lords and universal spellcasters; they like Fighter fixes.

[dman11235]

When I design, I try to make the thing in question as well designed as possible first, then worry about balance.  When I take that step, I try to put it on par with the Rangers and Binders and Warlocks and Warblades and Crusaders of the game, trying to keep them able to contribute at most all times, while not allowing them to utilize plane shattering power.  Every now and then I might design a new class or feat aimed at lower or higher tier characters (I run a PrC contest over on GitP...might bring it here....and the last contest was a NPC based PrC one).

My target audience is all of everyone who reads it.  Some might not like it, some might love it, some might prefer a stronger/weaker class, but everyone's welcome to use my creations.  It should be noted that all of my creations should be sufficiently powerful to work in most campaigns while not overshadowing any other character if done right.  I mean, the CW samurais might have trouble keeping up, but that's to be expected.

[Orion]

I'm pretty conscious that min/maxers exist and that that's a kind of fun in and of itself, but I don't let it bother me too much. It's not my style of play and it's not generally how my brain works. When other people point out massive loop holes, I try to plug them, but I figure that it's ultimately the GM's job to see to their own table. I'm not of a mind off-load my responsibilities to the GM, but I also put an implicit amount of trust in my (hypothetical) GMs to look players in the eye and say "I don't care if that's technically allowed, it's ridiculous and over-powered."

[Callix]

I don't do a lot of homebrewing, but when I do, power is always something I look through. To me, every house rule needed to play with the class is a mark against it, and every rule with an obvious loophole is something I should've written better. I'm aware that this won't stop house-rules being implemented. IMO, though, they shouldn't be necessary, but something done to customise it to a certain campaign, setting or mood. I usually try to land things in tier 3 to tier 4, avoiding earth-shattering power where possible, but I'll make whatever I find myself needing.

[ZeroSum]

With my current campaign, I've started it off with some soft lobs, a lot of RP, a lot of chances for the PCs to have the advantage and I'm trying to steadily push the bar until it looks like the players are on the edge.  I'd love to be running T3 monsters normally with T2 bosses so hopefully I can get there eventually.

[Stratovarius]

I generally aim my material at the competent optimisation model, and will strive to stop most of the worst issues. However, past about level 15, I pay less attention, knowing that if the players wish to break the game above that level, there are so many options that it matters little one way or another. The campaign settings that I've made up for the PbP games, on the other hand, are all more about flavour and style than power level, although they are almost all fluff text and not crunch.

I am to drop classes roughly into the Tier 3 range, with some edging up into the bottom of Tier 2. Seems to be a fairly balanced mid-range for me.

[SiggyDevil]

On further thought, I also aim for design catering to the "lower common denominator".

Namely, if a new player can't understand a concept, find their abilities, or learn how combat works within an hour, it's too complex.

Splat diving for feats, CharOpping for the perfect 10-class combo, and picking through literally over a thousand spells for your 40-spell spellcaster selection is simply unacceptable.

[Fox Lee]

I design for myself; simplicity, strong flavour, scalability, mechanics which are resolute and clear (that is to say, not using "The GM can change anything" as an excuse to leave something undefined) and thematics which are loose and free (you wanna say your psionics is martial arts or your sorceror gets power from the ghost of her dead lover? Knock yourself out!). This is not very popular, however, so I piggyback onto my husband's projects instead ;p

[Talen Lee]

I cannot get over how awesome that avatar is.

[SiggyDevil]

I cannot get over how awesome that avatar is.

He'll last 2 minutes before Galvatron shoots him.

[Talen Lee]

I cannot get over how awesome that avatar is.

He'll last 2 minutes before Galvatron shoots him.

"Yeah, yeah, I know, you used to be a decepticon, right? You couldn't have treated them the way you treat us. When Megs told you to do something you didn't like, you weren't all 'Me Grimlock Badass', were you? What'd you say?"
*CRUNCH* "ME GRIMLOCK BADASS."