PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] How do you feel about needing a gentleman's agreement not to break 3.P?



Endarire
2010-11-01, 05:15 PM
Definition
A gentleman's agreement is an explicit or an implicit arrangement between two or more parties to do something. For example, a GM and a player may form a gentleman's agreement to use abilities available to tier 3 and below characters.

Forming a gentleman's agreement has the connotations of avoiding mutually assured destruction and self-nerfing.

Discussion
It's expected that a GM would nix infinite loops and nearly infinite loops. There is material, ambiguously written, that the GM should interpret in the way that most helps the game.

Then there's clear material which, when used as written, may turn the game into something the group did not intend or did not want to play. For example, a Sorcerer who starts as a blaster may learn invisibility (because it's cool) then realize his boom spells make him visible. He then focuses on crowd control, buff, and summon spells that let him remain invisible, and suddenly the group and the Sorcerer are significantly more powerful.

[i}Evard's black tentacles[/i] is quite potent for a level 4 spell. If the party Wizard starts using it in a typical dungeon crawl setting, it means enemies are close to guaranteed to be grabbed then squeezed to death, or close.

A higher tier example: The GM allows players to do 'crazy' things like Xoriat Planar Shepherds and Beholder Mages, but promises that he'll include these or perhaps even more powerful options if anyone does such things.

Why Ask?
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

Psyren
2010-11-01, 05:21 PM
Why Ask?
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

But if you play anything other than Pun-Pun you are self-nerfing. You must have a reason for not playing pun-pun in every game.

ErrantX
2010-11-01, 05:23 PM
I've made those in games before for the polymorph spell lines. Too much hassle, and besides, almost every player I know doesn't have the stats they need right there immediately, they slow the game down to look them up. :smallmad:

-X

Sir Giacomo
2010-11-01, 05:27 PM
I guess keeping in mind at all times that it is a group game is gentlemen's agreement enough.

- Giacomo

Callista
2010-11-01, 05:35 PM
But if you play anything other than Pun-Pun you are self-nerfing. You must have a reason for not playing pun-pun in every game.How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-11-01, 05:50 PM
How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

Plus, you can still optimize weaker classes. Some people play Truenamers just for the challenge.

Knaight
2010-11-01, 05:51 PM
The gentleman's agreement is fine, the fact that the system has to be known well and flaws gingerly tiptoed around so it doesn't break accidentally obnoxious. Its part of the reason I don't play 3.x, everything I do play self balances as much as it needs to, which is usually a lesser extent anyways.

Susano-wo
2010-11-01, 05:52 PM
Really, I think its safe to assume "self nerf" means nerfed for this or that build, not that he *needs* to play Tier 1 chars constantly/Pun Pun.

That being said, I don't really understand someone objecting to a self nerf, but not objecting to DM nerfing. ASking the DM to nerf you is basically the same as nerfing yourself, though I guess I can see the psychology behind asking someone to bind your arm, rather than simply not using it to fight.

I like mehcanical fixes. I prefer to not have people have to worry "is this over the line?." But I accept it as necessary in some cases.

EDIT: and I second what Knaight said, except I deal with the occasiaonal obnoxiousness and still play 3.X ^ ^

JaronK
2010-11-01, 05:56 PM
How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

So true. I want to actually have fun in the game and participate in a story. If I can solve the entire story arc by casting a couple spells, nothing fun happens!

JaronK

Saph
2010-11-01, 06:05 PM
Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

This. Tabletop RPGs can function with heavy optimisation if the DM's good, but it's not really what they're designed for. A pen-and-paper RPG is basically a cooperative game, not a competitive one; there has to be some kind of gentleman's agreement or the game doesn't work!

The games best suited to extreme optimisation are the highly competitive ones where winning is pretty much everything; something like chess, or Starcraft. I don't know of any tabletop RPG that really does it well.

Psyren
2010-11-01, 06:08 PM
How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

That was sort of my point.

dsmiles
2010-11-01, 06:10 PM
Definition
Why Ask?
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

Not everyone feels the same. I like low-to medium-op games. High-op games bother me. My group has an unwritten rule that uber-optimization is right out. None of us like one-shotting the bbeg. We enjoy the drama of a close-to-the-vest battle. To each their own.

shadow_archmagi
2010-11-01, 06:13 PM
All games are already ultimately a gentleman's agreement.

There are so many ways to break a game without optimizing that one more unspoken rule doesn't really hurt it.

For instance, my group had an unspoken rule that honestly, gender wasn't going to come up, because that was going to get weird fast. We also turned off everything electronic when the game started, and so on.

JaronK
2010-11-01, 06:14 PM
I think Self Nerfing only really comes up once the character is in play. It feels wrong for an uber powerful Wizard to just say "well, sure, I could stop this world ending threat right now and go home, but instead I'll tag along and buff the Fighter so it's nice and fun for everything." That ruins verisimilitude... and it's why I don't like playing uber powerful Wizards anymore. But I don't think it's self nerfing to come up with a character that isn't as powerful as another one you could have come up with... one that actually fits in the story.

JaronK

Saph
2010-11-01, 06:19 PM
But I don't think it's self nerfing to come up with a character that isn't as powerful as another one you could have come up with...

And as Psyren pointed out, unless you're playing a character who's infinitely powerful, your character will always be less powerful than another one you could have come up with.

Rixx
2010-11-01, 06:34 PM
Optimal != fun

Psyren
2010-11-01, 06:35 PM
Optimal != fun

There are many kinds of optimal.

cfalcon
2010-11-01, 07:08 PM
I think Self Nerfing only really comes up once the character is in play. It feels wrong for an uber powerful Wizard to just say "well, sure, I could stop this world ending threat right now and go home, but instead I'll tag along and buff the Fighter so it's nice and fun for everything."

Buff spells are low risk activities. If you focus your efforts on making your allies stronger you don't always have the most efficient way to defeat every encounter- but you DO have a reliable and CONSISTENT method of handling a wide variety of encounters, and the total spell load out of such a strategy is smaller than a blaster wizard (obviously), or even a heavy controller or a big player in the save-or-die game. If the battle with the BBEG was a sham and then he reveals his TRUE FORM, like some Final Fantasy battle, then would you rather have expended all your spell slots and be going 'wut', or would you like to have a team of hasted, greater heroismed dudes ready to tear that jerkface apart?

Granted, that's an unlikely situation, but a buffing is still a safe activity until you have discerned exactly how best to handle any given situation, and it's hardly ever very wrong. I feel it's very in character for some wizards to run that way.

JaronK
2010-11-01, 07:29 PM
I don't think you understood what I meant at all. I wasn't talking about the Wizard deciding to buff someone instead of novaing his spells away. I was more thinking about the Wizard deciding not to just scry and die the BBEG from the safety of his own home (CoP + Mindrape on a Commoner + Love's Pain in a flowing time/timeless plain for the insta-gib), and instead going on an epic journey with the Fighter and his comic relief pal, buffing the Fighter the whole way, and spending a year doing so.

JaronK

Endarire
2010-11-01, 07:55 PM
I made a Conjurer focused on crowd control. After a GM nerfed my other options by almost always passing saves, I stopped using spells with saves. I focused on summoning awhile until group buffing became viable. The group enjoyed haste, draconic polymorph, fly, and so on, but I was disappointed that this wasn't the original point of this build.

Were I a less versatile character, then if the GM denied my shtick (like tripping people), I'd be stuck with lots of useless baggage and may need a different character to be viable.

Crow
2010-11-01, 09:38 PM
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

So, I assume that you are either a highly acclaimed professor, extremely successful business professional, or top-tier elite athlete?

If not, maybe you could focus your temperment into things outside of the game so as not to (inadvertantly?) cause imbalance issues in-game?

Grommen
2010-11-01, 10:24 PM
I always DM with these types of agreements.

Like when I run a Shadowrun game. They agree to not make me angry by killing my bad guys too fast and making Gun Bunnies with .001 essence.

And I don't kill them all with Panther Assault Cannons.

I think D&D games are a bit more complex. With 3.5 and Pathfinder you have to keep a heaver hand on the balance or the players will accidentally or deleberty run away with the power curve.

Psyx
2010-11-02, 05:46 AM
And I don't kill them all with Panther Assault Cannons.

This. I've never needed to actually formalise a gentleman's agreement with players or GMs. I can restrain myself. If players were to over-optimise, I'm pretty sure I can drop enough pianos to kill them regardless. And as a player, I won't over-optimise, so long as GMs don't start playing silly!

Jacque
2010-11-02, 09:48 AM
In my game we use the agreement that whatever the players use, I am allowed to use as the GM. This usually puts an end to all game-breaking issues.

Feliks878
2010-11-02, 10:25 AM
I'll echo what a lot of people have already said: All PnP RPGs are basically some form of social contract between the DM and the Players, as well as the Players among themselves. Breaking the contract is what causes problems, and it can come in many forms: (A player wants to be Evil in a generally Good/Neutral game, a player who only really enjoys Hack 'n' Slash ends up in some High Political Intrigue and tries to solve every problem with sharp bits of metal)

If you mean more specific, spelled out agreements, these are good too, but they're not always perfect. A major issue is the level of understanding within a group. Many people have different understandings of optimization. In my own group, for example, while a few players are familiar with the concept of Cleric/Wizard/Druid being powerful classes, none of them have actually seen a Tier list, and wouldn't know what an Incantrix is if it bit them in the leg. (Side note, glorious mental image right there).

This means that I need to build characters who are more balanced within the party, and if I'm DMing I should probably avoid throwing a Troll who has picked up fire and acid immunity at the party, and if I'm a player I probably should shy away from wish loops and a few spells/builds that are a little high on the optimization line to stay in step with the Fighter who only takes core feats because he only owns a PHB or the guy who really likes Monk because of all the attacks she gets and thinks tripping is a waste of an action because it doesn't deal hitpoint damage.

However, the problem occurs when players interpret things differently. Within a group, especially a group that doesn't adhere to strict guidelines such as the Tier System. One person's view of "overpowered" is vastly different then another, and you may end up accomplishing nothing but annoying people by trying to set arbitrary limits on what they can do, from their point of view. Especially if you ban something - let's say Alter Self - because of what it CAN do, when all the player was going to do was use it like a powered up Disguise Self.

In general, it's understood that people can be rational if approached in a rational manner. It's hard to have a fiat against certain problems from the get go - with a few exceptions (the polymorph tree is a popular target here), you don't know what's going to be a problem. When something is though, and a player perhaps doesn't realize how much spotlight he or she is stealing, talking to him or her is usually a really good start.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-02, 10:36 AM
So, I assume that you are either a highly acclaimed professor, extremely successful business professional, or top-tier elite athlete?

If not, maybe you could focus your temperment into things outside of the game so as not to (inadvertantly?) cause imbalance issues in-game?

No need to get personal. I happen to be quite successful in my professional life and also enjoy high-op games, but I doubt that's anything more than a coincidence. I also doubt that the desire to play a specific way will be filled by working more/harder.

A gentlemans agreement isn't the only way to fix 3.x, but its certainly the easiest.

Jolly
2010-11-02, 10:40 AM
DnD is a collaborative game, if you cvan't have fun without making your character the most powerfullest being ever then you're playing the wrong game. It's like crying that the quarterback on a football team or the lead singer in a band get all the attention. It's supposed to be a group effort, not a "I'm gonna do what I want and who cares about anyone else" game.

Lev
2010-11-02, 10:43 AM
http://www.infamouskidd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gandalf.jpg

Gandalf: What? Yeah I'm higher level and I'm T1, but I give you my word that I'll act as if I'm lower level.

DM: Well, won't you just use that as leverage socially to make you seem more important even if you hold back on the mechanical side?

Gandalf: Nope, won't happen.



Moments Later

http://images.elfwood.com/art/k/a/katkowski/balor_scan300_600x800.jpeg


DM: Soloing a balor huh, what happened to that self nerf?

Gandalf: BEHOLD, I HAVE RETURNED AS GANDALF THE OPTIMIZED!
http://www.council-of-elrond.com/castdb/gandalfwhite/gandalfwhite6.jpg

Feliks878
2010-11-02, 11:45 AM
http://www.infamouskidd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gandalf.jpg

Gandalf: What? Yeah I'm higher level and I'm T1, but I give you my word that I'll act as if I'm lower level.

DM: Well, won't you just use that as leverage socially to make you seem more important even if you hold back on the mechanical side?

Gandalf: Nope, won't happen.



Moments Later

http://images.elfwood.com/art/k/a/katkowski/balor_scan300_600x800.jpeg


DM: Soloing a balor huh, what happened to that self nerf?

Gandalf: BEHOLD, I HAVE RETURNED AS GANDALF THE OPTIMIZED!
http://www.council-of-elrond.com/castdb/gandalfwhite/gandalfwhite6.jpg



Oh wow. I laughed. That was amazing.

ithildur
2010-11-02, 12:31 PM
Oh wow. I laughed. That was amazing.


Priceless. Best post on these forums yet I've seen. :smallsmile:

Gametime
2010-11-02, 01:09 PM
Optimal != fun

What if you're optimized for fun? DIVIDED BY ZERO OSH-

Susano-wo
2010-11-02, 01:48 PM
http://www.infamouskidd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gandalf.jpg

Gandalf: What? Yeah I'm higher level and I'm T1, but I give you my word that I'll act as if I'm lower level.

DM: Well, won't you just use that as leverage socially to make you seem more important even if you hold back on the mechanical side?

Gandalf: Nope, won't happen.



Moments Later

http://images.elfwood.com/art/k/a/katkowski/balor_scan300_600x800.jpeg


DM: Soloing a balor huh, what happened to that self nerf?

Gandalf: BEHOLD, I HAVE RETURNED AS GANDALF THE OPTIMIZED!
http://www.council-of-elrond.com/castdb/gandalfwhite/gandalfwhite6.jpg

Thank you. I needed that laugh. Damn, that was funny!

Crow
2010-11-02, 02:26 PM
No need to get personal. I happen to be quite successful in my professional life and also enjoy high-op games, but I doubt that's anything more than a coincidence. I also doubt that the desire to play a specific way will be filled by working more/harder.

I won't lie, it was a bit of a personal jab. More aimed at the "always taking things to extremes" comment.

I am sure there are a lot of successful people on this board. The thing is, I get my competitive, extreme, driven side (and I have a big one...work, athletics, anything really) satisfied in the real world. When I sit down to play D&D though, I know that it is a cooperative experience, and that competition (within reason, you still gotta beat the bad guys!) and extemism are not really beneficial. I can separate it from that competitive, extreme side because I already have enough RL outlets for it.

It would take an almost fanatical devotion (or illness) to extremes to apply them to every aspect of someone's life.

Besides, we all know the gentlemen's agreement is vital to D&D otherwise the DM would crush everyone with Balors at level 1 every game.

Roderick_BR
2010-11-02, 02:45 PM
"How do you feel about needing a gentleman's agreement not to break 3.P?"

I feel that the need for it represents the awful balance problems 3.P has. You shouldn't need it. An "optimized" character should be a bit stronger than the casually character, not overthrow and replace it doing his job better than everyone else, nor should players need to "self-nerf".

In my group, we tend to do the "optmized within your area". Like, if you are the tank, you otpmize on hitting and resisting being hit. If you are the caster, you specialize in one area, not all at once. And so on. No need to nerf, no need to break the game an ruin it for everyone.

In short: It just points out the system's glaring flaws.

Lev's comic made me chuckle too.

Jolly
2010-11-02, 03:01 PM
"How do you feel about needing a gentleman's agreement not to break 3.P?"

I feel that the need for it represents the awful balance problems 3.P has. You shouldn't need it. An "optimized" character should be a bit stronger than the casually character, not overthrow and replace it doing his job better than everyone else, nor should players need to "self-nerf".

In my group, we tend to do the "optmized within your area". Like, if you are the tank, you otpmize on hitting and resisting being hit. If you are the caster, you specialize in one area, not all at once. And so on. No need to nerf, no need to break the game an ruin it for everyone.

In short: It just points out the system's glaring flaws.

Lev's comic made me chuckle too.

/rollseyes

3.x is based around co-operative play. If you hate the necessity of playing co-operatively, you're playing the wrong game. It's like someone playing chess then complaining that it's too unbalanced because the queen is so much more powerful, and sexist because the king is so weak yet important.

Lapak
2010-11-02, 03:40 PM
/rollseyes

3.x is based around co-operative play. If you hate the necessity of playing co-operatively, you're playing the wrong game. It's like someone playing chess then complaining that it's too unbalanced because the queen is so much more powerful, and sexist because the king is so weak yet important.Roderick_BR, was, I think, attempting to point out the glaring weakness that it is supposed to be a cooperative game, but through weak design allows a single player to provide everything. If a wizard needed a fighter-type, mechanically, to succeed, then the system would be reinforcing cooperative play. A good thing! But the wizard (if created a certain way) doesn't. Which Roderick_BR is calling out as a flaw, because he does like cooperative play.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-02, 03:46 PM
Roderick_BR, was, I think, attempting to point out the glaring weakness that it is supposed to be a cooperative game, but through weak design allows a single player to provide everything. If a wizard needed a fighter-type, mechanically, to succeed, then the system would be reinforcing cooperative play. A good thing! But the wizard (if created a certain way) doesn't. Which Roderick_BR is calling out as a flaw, because he does like cooperative play.
The shorter answer is that, even in Core, any class can be replaced with a straight Druid or Cleric of the same level -- excepting those that are better replaced with a Wizard :smalltongue:

Of course, this is all pretty tangential to the point of this thread, but I felt compelled by dark forces to jump in :smallbiggrin:

Thiyr
2010-11-02, 04:27 PM
Within my local playgroup, I have made a statement on this subject which I feel is somewhat relevant.

"A game system is only balanced by a mature playgroup".

By that, I meant that game systems by their nature have imbalance. There are thing which will be superior to other choices. Thereby, within groups that are aware of these choices, the only means of having a "balanced" game (that is, a game in which people are roughly equally needed) is through the people involved agreeing to do so. The gentleman's agreement is something I see as being a needed part of tabletop gaming as a whole, and so I have no issues with such an agreement overall.

JaronK
2010-11-02, 05:49 PM
I always DM with these types of agreements.

Like when I run a Shadowrun game. They agree to not make me angry by killing my bad guys too fast and making Gun Bunnies with .001 essence.

And I don't kill them all with Panther Assault Cannons.

We run the inverse in Shadowrun. Our team started with a medic, an electronics warfare specialist rigger, and a shaman that could cast high force Fashion. The DM opened by throwing a cyberzombie at us... who promptly got stunbolted, stolen, jammed to avoid them following us, and scrapped for parts, with his heavy security armor fashioned into something that fit our gunbunny. The DM rapidly learned not to send overly expensive crap at us because we'd just steal the security.

It improved the game actually. Now the security makes sense considering what we're stealing. No more million dollars worth of security protecting a thousand dollars worth of loot.

If our DM was foolish enough to try and kill us with Panther Assault Cannons... well that would be awesome. Then we'd have Panther Assault Cannons!

JaronK

Psyren
2010-11-02, 06:06 PM
Roderick_BR, was, I think, attempting to point out the glaring weakness that it is supposed to be a cooperative game, but through weak design allows a single player to provide everything. If a wizard needed a fighter-type, mechanically, to succeed, then the system would be reinforcing cooperative play. A good thing! But the wizard (if created a certain way) doesn't. Which Roderick_BR is calling out as a flaw, because he does like cooperative play.

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Most fantasy games include a Mario that can do everything (usually, the druid.)

Lapak
2010-11-02, 08:50 PM
It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Most fantasy games include a Mario that can do everything (usually, the druid.)Other than 3e-D&D-based games and World of Warcraft, I can't think of another example, so I'm not sure that 'most' is accurate. And even in WoW the druids need to specialize to perform a role well.

All of which ignores that while it's fine in solo games, it's not good in a game that's about teamwork.

Psyren
2010-11-02, 09:11 PM
Other than 3e-D&D-based games and World of Warcraft, I can't think of another example, so I'm not sure that 'most' is accurate. And even in WoW the druids need to specialize to perform a role well.

In RPGs where class is selectable (and there are more options than Fighter-Mage-Thief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief)), then yes, there usually is a Mario. Final Fantasy has the Red Mage, Diablo 2 has the Druid (and Amazon before him), Elder Scrolls has the Spellsword, both Mass Effects have the Sentinel (not strictly fantasy but still) etc.

Grommen
2010-11-02, 09:29 PM
We run the inverse in Shadowrun. Our team started with a medic, an electronics warfare specialist rigger, and a shaman that could cast high force Fashion. The DM opened by throwing a cyberzombie at us... who promptly got stunbolted, stolen, jammed to avoid them following us, and scrapped for parts, with his heavy security armor fashioned into something that fit our gunbunny. The DM rapidly learned not to send overly expensive crap at us because we'd just steal the security.

It improved the game actually. Now the security makes sense considering what we're stealing. No more million dollars worth of security protecting a thousand dollars worth of loot.

If our DM was foolish enough to try and kill us with Panther Assault Cannons... well that would be awesome. Then we'd have Panther Assault Cannons!

JaronK

Allright, send me his e-mail. I'll straighten it all out. Silly GM. He is giving you a chance :smallbiggrin:

Gametime
2010-11-02, 10:47 PM
It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Most fantasy games include a Mario that can do everything (usually, the druid.)

The difference being that the Mario isn't supposed to be able to do everything effectively enough that it obsoletes other classes.

A wizard can't fight as well as a fighter, but a buffed-up cleric or druid can. Skillmonkeying is a bit tougher, but at least as far as trapfinding goes, throwing summoned monkeys at it works just as well.

Jolly
2010-11-03, 01:31 AM
Roderick_BR, was, I think, attempting to point out the glaring weakness that it is supposed to be a cooperative game, but through weak design allows a single player to provide everything. If a wizard needed a fighter-type, mechanically, to succeed, then the system would be reinforcing cooperative play. A good thing! But the wizard (if created a certain way) doesn't. Which Roderick_BR is calling out as a flaw, because he does like cooperative play.

The fact that unbalancing things have been printed in a book does not mean they are either available in the game world or must be taken if allowed. Seriously, it's a self-regulating system. We're people, not humanoid goldfishes with no choice but to gulp down every broken option until our proverbial stomachs pop, all while cursing Wizards for giving us the free dom to choose. It's ridiculous. "Well honey, I didn't want to cheat on you, but she offered and if the possibility is there I have no choice in the matter."

Crow
2010-11-03, 08:15 AM
"Well honey, I didn't want to cheat on you, but she offered and if the possibility is there I have no choice in the matter."

LOL. That's Probably been used by some guy.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 08:16 AM
LOL. That's Probably been used by some guy.

More than one, probably.

Mastikator
2010-11-03, 08:40 AM
If you stop investing your own ego into the success of your character then it's remarkably easy to not feel bad about not being the best.
Once you get rid of that distraction you can begin focusing on roleplaying more accurately. However, once you do that you'll start thinking "gee, from a metagame perspective action A makes sense, but my character doesn't know about fact X, Y and Z, so he'll have to take action B, which makes sense from his perspective but I personally know it'll be bad for him". If you've truly stopped investing your ego into your character then action B will feel better than A.

At least in my experience.

Also I agree with Jolly.

Teq Sun
2010-11-03, 09:03 AM
I dislike needing to self nerf.
Me too.

Which is one reason I mostly play 4e. Yeah, it still has cheesy combos, but an optimizer has to try harder to really break the game--especially with errata regularly nerfing the worst offenders.

All true optimizers in any game have to self nerf to some degree, but ideally doing so should eliminate as few options as possible.

Lapak
2010-11-03, 09:09 AM
In RPGs where class is selectable (and there are more options than Fighter-Mage-Thief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief)), then yes, there usually is a Mario. Final Fantasy has the Red Mage, Diablo 2 has the Druid (and Amazon before him), Elder Scrolls has the Spellsword, both Mass Effects have the Sentinel (not strictly fantasy but still) etc.Final Fantasy has the Red MAge, I'll grant you. The Spellsword is not a stealth-focused character, the Sentinel doesn't do weapon combat well, and the Diablo Druid is much like the WoW druid - they can choose to do any ONE thing well, but when they try to cover multiple bases they are poor at all of them. A 3e D&D Cleric can fight, use stealth, bypass skill-based challenges, and cast both offensively and defensively. He can do all of these things well, and changing focus doesn't require much more than changing his spell selection for the day.

(Also, two of the games you mention are single-character-party games by design, which puts them in a different category anyway.)

Gametime
2010-11-03, 12:12 PM
The fact that unbalancing things have been printed in a book does not mean they are either available in the game world or must be taken if allowed. Seriously, it's a self-regulating system. We're people, not humanoid goldfishes with no choice but to gulp down every broken option until our proverbial stomachs pop, all while cursing Wizards for giving us the free dom to choose. It's ridiculous. "Well honey, I didn't want to cheat on you, but she offered and if the possibility is there I have no choice in the matter."

What about when allegedly balanced options aren't? What about when it's easy to "accidentally" break the game? I mean, if you're a druid, "turn into a bear" is about the simplest tactic you could possibly think up, and a druid who is a bear with an animal companion who is also a bear is a potent melee combatant before even using any of his other class features.

The druid, in two class features, can perform the same as the fighter with all his class features. That isn't people going out of their way to break the system. That isn't weak-willed munchkins raining on everyone's fun. That's the system coming pre-borked.

D&D is a fun game, and you can definitely have fun playing it. I know I do. But trying to blame the game's imbalances on the players is ludicrous. Of course an informed player can - and should! - make a decision that doesn't ruin the game, but there are problems that can just as easily impact uniformed players, be they just discovering "Wait, Divine Power is awesome!" or "Wait, Weapon Focus sucks!"


If you stop investing your own ego into the success of your character then it's remarkably easy to not feel bad about not being the best.
Once you get rid of that distraction you can begin focusing on roleplaying more accurately. However, once you do that you'll start thinking "gee, from a metagame perspective action A makes sense, but my character doesn't know about fact X, Y and Z, so he'll have to take action B, which makes sense from his perspective but I personally know it'll be bad for him". If you've truly stopped investing your ego into your character then action B will feel better than A.



What about "Gee, from an in-game perspective it makes perfect sense to scry on the bad guy's hideout, teleport inside, fight him, and save the kingdom in one quick 'n' easy encounter, but from a metagame perspective that would eliminate a huge amount of drama and fun so I won't do it."

There are plenty of instances where the most powerful option is also the most in-character - especially for wizards, who usually have several Knowledge skills and the absurdly high Intelligence scores to justify highly rational thinking. Metagaming isn't always ruinous to a game; it can also be necessary to keep the game going even at the expense of realistic role-playing.

Grommen
2010-11-03, 12:33 PM
The fact that unbalancing things have been printed in a book does not mean they are either available in the game world or must be taken if allowed. Seriously, it's a self-regulating system. We're people, not humanoid goldfishes with no choice but to gulp down every broken option until our proverbial stomachs pop, all while cursing Wizards for giving us the free dom to choose. It's ridiculous. "Well honey, I didn't want to cheat on you, but she offered and if the possibility is there I have no choice in the matter."

Careful. That looks remarkably a lot like logic and responsibility. We can have none of that here.

Seems to be a trend though. Older gamers, those who have been around for a wile anyway. Seem to grasp this. Younger ones don't.

Susano-wo
2010-11-03, 12:45 PM
Just gotta say: Elder Scrols has the Elder Scrolls. Every character is the mario...(or do people actually pick the premade classes...?:smallbiggrin:)

though to actually contribute. I can deinitely see where JaronK (and I think some others) are coming from after rereading his post. HAving to do out of character things to prevent the game from being un-fun is not fun in and of itself.

So yeah, I can see where simply saying well I have this spell/class feature which could totally save us all and not result in any casualties, and no more peasants would have to be dragged to hell by pit fiends...but that would ruin the story," is not satiusfying. I guess it comes down for me to is doing this: I know this feature is unbalancing, so I will, explicitly, in coolaboration to the DM deny access to it/ limit my access to the point where it is no longer unbalancing

Or doing what Jaron suggested and simply not playing those classes ^ ^

Saph
2010-11-03, 12:48 PM
D&D is a fun game, and you can definitely have fun playing it. I know I do. But trying to blame the game's imbalances on the players is ludicrous. Of course an informed player can - and should! - make a decision that doesn't ruin the game, but there are problems that can just as easily impact uniformed players."

But we aren't talking about uninformed players. We're talking about players who deliberately pick options which they know to be unbalanced and then complain because the game's unbalanced. Not a week goes by where we don't get someone on these boards asking for something overpowered and broken. Usually they're successful, too.

true_shinken
2010-11-03, 12:51 PM
But we aren't talking about uninformed players. We're talking about players who deliberately pick options which they know to be unbalanced and then complain because the game's unbalanced. Not a week goes by where we don't get someone on these boards asking for something overpowered and broken. Usually they're successful, too.

Well, there is the Oberoni fallacy and all...
Just because we can not use it, it does not mean it's not broken. We just know it's broken and thus shouldn't use it.

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-03, 12:52 PM
{Scrubbed}

Susano-wo
2010-11-03, 12:56 PM
how many unspecific accusations that really don't address a poster's perceived problems because of their vagarity...oh wait, just one:smallcool:
I'm not upset (and don't think you are talking about me, btw), but if you want to have any constuctive dialogue, you really ought to be a bit more specific. At least address comments, if you don't want to appear to be attacking anyone:smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-11-03, 12:57 PM
The game can be broken, if players want to.

Therefore, you need to come to an agreement not to do so. This doesn't have to be explicit...it's often merely understood that everyone is there to cooperate and breaking the game ruins the fun for all. Only when there is a difference of opinion do things need to be made explicit, though tbh, making the boundaries of fair play explicit can be convenient.

Lapak
2010-11-03, 01:01 PM
Careful. That looks remarkably a lot like logic and responsibility. We can have none of that here.

Seems to be a trend though. Older gamers, those who have been around for a wile anyway. Seem to grasp this. Younger ones don't.Logic and responsibility, as player choices, are good things. They have nothing to do with whether or not a game's design is good or bad. I'm not commenting one way or the other about what one should choose to do; I'm talking about what the design of the game unintentionally produces. I started with Basic and have played every version of D&D except the white-book original. D&D did not have this problem. AD&D 1 and 2 did not. 4e doesn't. 3e does. 3e has a lot of other good things that recommend it, but this is a flaw, and it is inherent to the design of that edition. I'm not saying in any way, shape or form that it will be the ruin of every 3e campaign; I've both played and run in campaigns that never ran up against it. I'm saying that the fact that it's possible to create such a one-man-band character is a bad thing in a game that's group-based by design. That's all. The OP covers this; it doesn't say that you can't avoid the problem, just that the problem exists.


But we aren't talking about uninformed players. We're talking about players who deliberately pick options which they know to be unbalanced and then complain because the game's unbalanced. Not a week goes by where we don't get someone on these boards asking for something overpowered and broken. Usually they're successful, too.I thought that the conversation had run in rather a different direction, actually, but my apologies if that's not the case.

Saph
2010-11-03, 01:05 PM
Well, there is the Oberoni fallacy and all...
Just because we can not use it, it does not mean it's not broken. We just know it's broken and thus shouldn't use it.

Pretty much. I've found that the more experience I have with GMing, the more I've moved away from long lists of houserules and the more I've relied on gentleman's agreements instead. I'll let players use pretty much whatever they want, as long as I can trust them to be responsible about it.


I thought that the conversation had run in rather a different direction, actually, but my apologies if that's not the case.

It's fair to say that something is a problem because new players can accidentally fall into it. However, if you know that something is going to disrupt the game, and yet you do it anyway, it's a bit hypocritical to blame it all on the system. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions. That's what I think Jolly was getting at.

Lapak
2010-11-03, 02:10 PM
It's fair to say that something is a problem because new players can accidentally fall into it. However, if you know that something is going to disrupt the game, and yet you do it anyway, it's a bit hypocritical to blame it all on the system. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions. That's what I think Jolly was getting at.And I couldn't agree more. My basic answer to the question put forth in the thread title is 'I think it's a shame that it's a question in the first place.'

true_shinken
2010-11-03, 02:13 PM
Pretty much. I've found that the more experience I have with GMing, the more I've moved away from long lists of houserules and the more I've relied on gentleman's agreements instead. I'll let players use pretty much whatever they want, as long as I can trust them to be responsible about it.
Except Druids. You can never trust a Druid! j/k :smallbiggrin:

Jolly
2010-11-03, 02:29 PM
What about when allegedly balanced options aren't? What about when it's easy to "accidentally" break the game? I mean, if you're a druid, "turn into a bear" is about the simplest tactic you could possibly think up, and a druid who is a bear with an animal companion who is also a bear is a potent melee combatant before even using any of his other class features.

The druid, in two class features, can perform the same as the fighter with all his class features. That isn't people going out of their way to break the system. That isn't weak-willed munchkins raining on everyone's fun. That's the system coming pre-borked.

D&D is a fun game, and you can definitely have fun playing it. I know I do. But trying to blame the game's imbalances on the players is ludicrous. Of course an informed player can - and should! - make a decision that doesn't ruin the game, but there are problems that can just as easily impact uniformed players, be they just discovering "Wait, Divine Power is awesome!" or "Wait, Weapon Focus sucks!"

1. Druids are imho the worst offender with regards to class balance, I agree.

2. The OP is not a clueless noob DM saying "Man, the drood is ruining my game" he is an experienced optimizer saying that DnD is less fun because when you make the most powerful character possible, it breaks the game. I've been addressing this "concern" not the fact that not all 3.5 character choices are equally powerful.

3. Admittedly, if the DM and players are all new, it is easy to take either over powered (druid) or underpowered (bad feat choice fighter) options. But that's part of the learning process, isn't it? And really, we're all on a DnD forum discussing class balance, so I assume a certain amount of experience.




What about "Gee, from an in-game perspective it makes perfect sense to scry on the bad guy's hideout, teleport inside, fight him, and save the kingdom in one quick 'n' easy encounter, but from a metagame perspective that would eliminate a huge amount of drama and fun so I won't do it."

There are plenty of instances where the most powerful option is also the most in-character - especially for wizards, who usually have several Knowledge skills and the absurdly high Intelligence scores to justify highly rational thinking. Metagaming isn't always ruinous to a game; it can also be necessary to keep the game going even at the expense of realistic role-playing.

The flawed assumption behind "scry and die" is that in a world where people who can Scry and Teleport are behind every bush, that a powerful BBEG wouldn't have taken significant counter measures. What happens when your attempt at scrying sets off a reactive spell that dumps 20d6 sonic damage back at the wizard? What happens when the wizard has to make a reflex save to avoid getting sucked through the scrying point into an AMF? And so on... in a world where there are things like Scry, there will be tactics to counter them. Again, a DM looking at the situation in a realistic "What would this world I've designed actually be like" way can solve many so-called problems.



It's fair to say that something is a problem because new players can accidentally fall into it. However, if you know that something is going to disrupt the game, and yet you do it anyway, it's a bit hypocritical to blame it all on the system. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions. That's what I think Jolly was getting at.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Susano-wo
2010-11-03, 03:16 PM
Not to mention the simple, and awesome anticipate teleport. discern the location and delay said teleport? yes please! :smallamused:

Callista
2010-11-03, 03:34 PM
The imbalance is pretty much due entirely to the large number of options available, especially when you get to magic. Wildshape and level 4+ spells all interact with each other, and eventually the power level increases in an exponential fashion with each new book and new group of possible strategies.

This is unavoidable unless you either make all classes basically the same, giving them all access to the same abilities, or unless you keep the system so simple and unvaried that unusual strategies and creativity are no longer possible. You could have a perfectly balanced system if everyone rolled d20+Level to hit with either a sword or a spell and rolled the exact same dice for damage, and didn't have any other options besides "hit the monster", but why would you want that? A very simple system can stay balanced; a more complex one will inevitably grow unbalanced. But the complexity is also the only way you will get interesting strategies and diverse characters. So the "gentleman's agreement" is necessary in D&D, just as it is necessary to agree not to tip over the Monopoly board when your opponent gets a hotel.

Gametime
2010-11-03, 06:29 PM
But we aren't talking about uninformed players. We're talking about players who deliberately pick options which they know to be unbalanced and then complain because the game's unbalanced. Not a week goes by where we don't get someone on these boards asking for something overpowered and broken. Usually they're successful, too.

The post to which I responded was responding to a post about the system encouraging or discouraging cooperative play. What I took from Jolly's post was that cooperation is the responsibility of the players, and what I was trying to emphasize in response was that the system's flaws can create problems even if everyone is playing responsibly.

If the discussion is just about whether a player gets to complain after deliberately picking unbalanced options, then I agree with what Jolly is saying. If the discussion is about whether the system is blameless, then I would argue that the responsibility lies on both players and game designers to make the game what they want it to be.




The flawed assumption behind "scry and die" is that in a world where people who can Scry and Teleport are behind every bush, that a powerful BBEG wouldn't have taken significant counter measures. What happens when your attempt at scrying sets off a reactive spell that dumps 20d6 sonic damage back at the wizard? What happens when the wizard has to make a reflex save to avoid getting sucked through the scrying point into an AMF? And so on... in a world where there are things like Scry, there will be tactics to counter them. Again, a DM looking at the situation in a realistic "What would this world I've designed actually be like" way can solve many so-called problems.



If the world is populated with scry-n-die, and there exist common countermeasures against them, then it wouldn't be in-character for the wizard to try it. I'm assuming that scry-n-die isn't common, and thus it is in-character.

If that bothers you, just replace the scry-n-die example with any other instance of a wizard choosing the mechanically optimal choice also being the correct roleplaying choice. With an intelligence that by mid-levels is higher than almost any person who has ever lived, and a whole load of Knowledge skills, it doesn't make sense for the wizard not to maximize his or her personal power.

Lapak
2010-11-03, 06:34 PM
The imbalance is pretty much due entirely to the large number of options available, especially when you get to magic. Wildshape and level 4+ spells all interact with each other, and eventually the power level increases in an exponential fashion with each new book and new group of possible strategies.

This is unavoidable unless you either make all classes basically the same, giving them all access to the same abilities, or unless you keep the system so simple and unvaried that unusual strategies and creativity are no longer possible. You could have a perfectly balanced system if everyone rolled d20+Level to hit with either a sword or a spell and rolled the exact same dice for damage, and didn't have any other options besides "hit the monster", but why would you want that? A very simple system can stay balanced; a more complex one will inevitably grow unbalanced. But the complexity is also the only way you will get interesting strategies and diverse characters. So the "gentleman's agreement" is necessary in D&D, just as it is necessary to agree not to tip over the Monopoly board when your opponent gets a hotel.There's a difference between slight imbalance and the kind of drastic imbalance we're talking about. 2e had dozens of kits and at least as many official spells as 3e. There was no shortage of options or complications! But even then, a wizard was legitimately vulnerable in a number of ways. A fighter was quite valuable, even at 20th level. A cleric might do a couple of things very well indeed, but not all things.

kyoryu
2010-11-03, 07:11 PM
In short: It just points out the system's glaring flaws.


Any system that lets you build characters can be broken. I've run a ton of GURPS games, for instance, and I've always insisted on GM approval of characters. Champions games I've played in have always had limits on how many points can be dumped in various places, and usually have had hard limits on how much damage/dr whatever is allowed.

Could you make a 'sploit-less system? Maybe. I could make a game called Human Fighter, which is 3.x, except all characters are human fighters, only get PHB abilities, and are limited to melee attacks (no hurler!). Wouldn't be much fun, though. (Yeah, that'd still allow spiked chain cheese, but that's not without its weaknesses, and isn't so powerful as to be totally game-breaking)

JaronK
2010-11-03, 07:21 PM
D&D is FAR more breakable than many popular game systems. The disparity between character concept options is extremely pronounced... worse in core, but still existing with splat books. It's almost impossible in core to make a shapeshifting nature based spellcaster character who's going to be balanced with an unarmed shaolin inspired character if both players know what they're doing and aren't intentionally weakening themselves. It's quite possible for one character to simply spawn a better version of someone else's character (10 headed Zombie Hydra from Animate Dead could easily trump an equivalent level Fighter). That's nuts.

I tend to point to Shadowrun 3e as a good example of a far more balanced system. I can easily make a potent shaman, and then turn around and make a gunbunny or a rigger or a B&E specialist or whatever and have them all be relatively close in power. They're not identical in power, but it's close enough.

So making a (reasonably) balanced system with variety is quite possible. D&D sadly didn't do it. On the bright side, with enough splat books you can pick classes for almost any concept now and have them balanced if you pick the right classes. An Unarmed Variant Swordsage and a Wildshape Variant Ranger can run around in the same party just fine without any of the balance problems a Druid and Monk would have.

JaronK