PDA

View Full Version : The Nature of Party Balance



Talakeal
2014-04-16, 04:43 PM
Imagine for the moment the following scenario: You are part of an old school RPG party consisting of a thief, a cleric, a fighter, and a bard.

You are going to slay an evil lich and reclaim the treasure from his dungeon.

While in town everyone needs to prepare for the adventure, doing research, shopping, and taking care of personal affairs. Everyone has something to do, but what the bard does is most important, he negotiates a better deal on the party's gear, talks the king into giving them a reward for the lich's head, researches the location of the lich's dungeon, and finds an old story that tells of the lich's weak spot.

The party sets out and finds the dungeon thanks to the bard's directions. The rogue finds the secret door and picks the lock, without the rogue the others never would have gotten inside. Furthermore, the rogue disarms several traps within that, if undetected, would have left the survivors in no position to continue their journey.

They fight the liche's minions. The fighter does the lion's share of the work, perhaps dealing and taking as much damage as the rest of the group combined, but everyone contributes and without the four of them they would perish.

After the fight the cleric heals the party, without this healing the party would be in no condition to fight the lich.

Approaching the lich the bard reveals his secret weakness, and the cleric blesses the warrior's sword so that it will deal incredible damage to the unholy creature. The rogue finds a secret passage into the liche's chamber, and they attack from hiding. It is a long battle, but eventually they triumph, again the warrior dealt and received the majority of the damage, but everyone contributed and they probably would have failed if anyone had been missing.

The rogue finds the liche's secret vault, and along with a pile of treasure uncovers his phylactery. The cleric is able to perform a ritual to destroy the phylactery ensuring the lich won't return to seek revenge.

The party returns to town and claims their reward, and the bard spreads the story of their great deeds so that they are recognized and rewarded and will likely be picked first when the kingdom needs to hire adventurers in the future.


***
As illustrated, most of the players were able to contribute in every scene, and if any of the characters had been missing the adventure probably would have failed, as would it have if several of the players had been playing the same class and thus depriving the adventure of diversity. However, not everyone got equal "screen time" and when it comes to raw "power" the warrior is clearly superior.


Do you think the above scenario is balanced, fair, and fun to the various players?

Rhynn
2014-04-16, 05:05 PM
Do you think the above scenario is balanced, fair, and fun to the various players?

Yes.

But I also think the idea that every single session needs to meet some platonic ideal of fun, equal contribution, moments to shine, and equal contribution is silly and unrealistic. Indeed, the notion that every party member has to pull an equal amount of weight is, in itself, not automatically valid; in certain types of games it may be important, but in many (most?) other types, it isn't.

For instance, I've run a RuneQuest Heortling campaign where one of the players played a Trickster. He was next to useless in combat (other than occasionally briefly distracting opponents - never tactically chosen - by making them vomit or soil themselves or something equally juvenile and fitting for a Trickster), had to be protected, was usually more of a liability than anything in social situations (with some exceptions), but all the players had a good laugh over the character's antics, and the PCs kept him around because he was a great liar and frequently useful for committing crimes, and in very specific situations (usually of mythomagical significance, i.e. the most important stuff), he was literally irreplaceably valuable, and his role was one of cultural and religious importance.

The Trickster didn't contribute to the party's successes equally, but there were IC reasons to keep him around, and he made the game more fun for everyone.

Edit: Another example. In a GURPS Discworld game, I played an assassin school drop-out who was literally no good at anything (DX 8, when 10 is average and the typical human range is around 6-14), was a terrible klutz, and had awful luck (yet had a weird knack for not getting killed). His adventuring companion was a troll who could pretty much kill anything in one hit. We went on classic D&D-style adventures (in the early Discworld style), and had fun.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-16, 08:03 PM
Honestly? No. I'm not a fan of the oldschool approach of balancing the game between skills and combat, with some characters being very good in combat but useless outside of it, others the opposite, and others in the middle (read: barely useful in a game that prioritites specializing).

What I prefer instead: everyone is good at fighting and can contibute in combat, though they fight in different ways. Everyone is also good at something non-combat, specific to their character. You can choose to be hopeless at combat, or hopeless at non-combat situations, but it won't suddenly turn you into a combat/skill god, just give you a small edge there. And it's an option you can take willingly, not a requirement for playing a character type that's vital to most parties.

VoxRationis
2014-04-16, 08:07 PM
I would say that this is a good adventure, in general, though the rogue could probably do a little more. People focus too much on combat. While combat is fun, and I don't deny that, I don't mind playing characters who are primarily non-combat sorts.

tensai_oni
2014-04-16, 08:16 PM
As illustrated, most of the players were able to contribute in every scene,

Did they? The way you described it, this theoretical adventure looked like outside of combat everyone but one character is twiddling their thumbs while the rogue/bard/cleric does his things.


and if any of the characters had been missing the adventure probably would have failed, as would it have if several of the players had been playing the same class and thus depriving the adventure of diversity.

Why do you say this like it's a good thing? If an adventure requires a character from class X to be present or else the party is screwed, then it's not a good adventure. It forces players into roles - "play a cleric because we don't have one yet".

Also treating two characters of the same class as lacking diversity is fair only when you play a system without any in-class customization AND where all player characters are personality-less cardboard cutouts.

Talakeal
2014-04-16, 09:44 PM
Did they? The way you described it, this theoretical adventure looked like outside of combat everyone but one character is twiddling their thumbs while the rogue/bard/cleric does his things.



I suppose it depends on how you define "scene". In this case I divided it into "being in town", "exploring the dungeon", "fighting the minions," and "fighting the lich". I suppose I could have illustrated a bit more for the fighter to do outside of combat though, maybe assume he is forging weapons in town and forcing open stuck doors in the dungeon if it helps.


Why do you say this like it's a good thing? If an adventure requires a character from class X to be present or else the party is screwed, then it's not a good adventure. It forces players into roles - "play a cleric because we don't have one yet".


The opposite problem, of course, is "You can't play a fighter because you are just wasted space. Just play a druid instead, a druid can do everything a fighter can do only better and a whole lot of things the fighter can't." Obviously there can be a middle ground, and in most modern games characters have enough customization that they can fill in for another roll if need be, but I was presenting a watered down scenario for simplicity's sake.


Also treating two characters of the same class as lacking diversity is fair only when you play a system without any in-class customization AND where all player characters are personality-less cardboard cutouts.

That's quite a different topic. Generally I play games without strict classes. Still, you want a variety of skills, any RL organization is going to have a variety of skills divided between different rolls, and in most RPGs if you are going to have a party missing skills that are vital to your occupation (in this case dungeon crawling) either the player or the Game Master is going to have to do some serious compensating to offset the deficiency.


Honestly? No. I'm not a fan of the oldschool approach of balancing the game between skills and combat, with some characters being very good in combat but useless outside of it, others the opposite, and others in the middle (read: barely useful in a game that prioritizes specializing).

What I prefer instead: everyone is good at fighting and can contribute in combat, though they fight in different ways. Everyone is also good at something non-combat, specific to their character. You can choose to be hopeless at combat, or hopeless at non-combat situations, but it won't suddenly turn you into a combat/skill god, just give you a small edge there. And it's an option you can take willingly, not a requirement for playing a character type that's vital to most parties.

Ok, cool. Let me ask you though, does this only apply in combat, or does everyone have to contribute equally in everything? Does the fighter contribute just as much to social situations as the bard? Does the cleric contribute just as much to disarming traps as the rogue?

Mnemophage
2014-04-16, 10:22 PM
Sort of.

First off, D&D is primarily a combat system. There's other stuff, but the bulk of the rules deal with combat situations, and the characters' skills typically have greater, if not sole use in combat. The social aspect is a part of it, to be sure, but there are other systems that focus more or focus equally on social interaction, and D&D is definitely not one of them. In this case, the character built more for pure combat WILL have more of a chance to shine, simply because there are more options for the DM to present as regards to combat. In terms of screen time, every player got a chance to shine - but in terms of effectiveness, it is entirely feasible that the warrior could have soloed the campaign (by leveraging threats or offering aid in town, kicking down doors in the dungeon, so on and so forth).

I do love the system and love playing and DMing it, but my typical approach is to have a general idea of what kind of story I want to tell, and then tailor the specifics to handle player archetypes and strengths. I've had situations where I had a great, strategic, interesting set of fights planned out in advance, and wound up with a party consisting of two rogues, one beguiler and one necromancer specialist wizard. This also frees the players to roll up an archetype that they WANT, rather than feel the need to fill a forgotten niche, which becomes only more important as you add splatbooks and allow players to make some more varied and interesting class choices. Furthermore, if a player drops out, can't make a session or has their character die, they don't have to roll up an effective clone of their previous guy.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-04-17, 05:30 AM
In a session? Of course one character can shine over the rest - if you, for whatever reason, decide to have a murder-mystery type adventure in a city, the Fighter's probably not going to have that much to do outside of the occasional bit of heavy lifting and the denouement at the end, while the rogue and/or the bard will likely take centre stage.

Over the course of a campaign, then yes, they should all have the opportunity to equally contribute - for instance, the Cleric's not just a walking bandaid box, he's got desires and goals and fears, just like everyone else, and he should have his day in the sun too.

Airk
2014-04-17, 08:53 AM
It's not bad; You've clearly made at least some effort to make sure everyone is relevant. Part of being relevant though, is being creative and interesting and building an interesting character. And by "interesting" I don't mean "mechanically" but in terms of...character.

Doctor Watson is pretty much the equivalent of a "fighter" in the "murder-mystery type adventures" of the Sherlock Holmes stories, and yeah, while his being a doctor is relevant sometimes, more often he's "the muscle" and a sounding board for Holmes to keep him grounded in...people (not exactly Mr. Holmes strong suit.). Okay, so maybe that's a weird example, but what I'm trying to say here is that a character with character doesn't need to fall into the background just because he's not making a skill check right now. Spotlight/attention/roleplaying time is often at least as valuable in terms of making people feel "part of the game" as "Well, there's a lock, get the rogue up here."

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to try to drag D&D's issues with classes (Druid vs Fighter blah blah BS) into this. Those issues are well recognized, and there's not much you can mechanically do to remedy them other than play a less rigid system.

Er. Sorry. What was the original question again? :smalleek:

neonchameleon
2014-04-17, 11:05 AM
You're right at the top level there having given no specifics. Let's take the rogue.

Why does the rogue find the secret door when no one else does? They have no special ability to find anything that isn't a trap by the rules. Likewise why does the rogue find the phylactery? Also why would the rest of the party have not made it into the dungeon without the rogue? What's the door made of that the fighter can't crowbar it? Seriously, the only thing picking locks is normally useful for is disguising the evidence anyone's been there.

And finally the rogue doesn't get a fair shake. They pick the look - single pass/fail die roll. They find things - single pass/fail die rolls. (Or RP investigation where they are no better than anyone else). The bard and fighter get to shine for entire scenes.

The cleric also has a sucky job. They are useful - but creating the ritual doesn't do much. They'd have either used a hammer or brought it back to town otherwise. And the main effect of out of combat healing is to allow the fighter to shine in combat. It's something that you do when the spotlight is off you.

Red Fel
2014-04-17, 12:14 PM
On the one hand, yes, everybody has gotten the chance to do a thing without which the campaign would fall apart. Good on the players for being able to contribute, bad on the DM for making the session so "if X then Y" linear.

I agree with a lot of the complaints above. In particular, here are my two cents: the hypothetical session described in the OP breaks down the classes into basically fundamental roles. The Bard does Gather Information and Diplomacy to get information and good equipment. The Rogue uses Open Lock, Trapfinding and Disable Device. The Cleric uses heal and buff spells. The Fighter fights. (You even lampshade that one, "again the warrior dealt and received the majority of the damage[.]")

That's a fairly accurate and complete description of abilities and roles. Of the Fighter.

Everyone else, that was a horrid oversimplification that does a disservice to the class. A Bard isn't just a Diplomacy check and Gather Information. He's an easily-optimized gish, with effective BFC and useful support buffs. A Rogue isn't just a couple of skill checks and trapfinding; he's a stealth chassis upon which some fairly awesome classes are built. And if you tell me that a Cleric's primary role is healbotting I'm going to find someone who has optimized around Gate who can make you cry. This dated view of classes only does a disservice to the creativity of those who designed them and those who play them.

Take it a step further - your descriptions were not unique. A Bard, Rogue, or Cleric can be as capable a fighter as the Fighter. Assuming the Fighter does most of the fighting is just silly. What the Bard and Rogue did, with the exception of Trapfinding, was all skill-based, and could have been reproduced by anybody. What the Cleric did (buffs, heals) could have been done by the Bard, or even by a Rogue with high enough ranks in UMD and the right wands. In other words, you could have easily called the classes "Bob, Ruth, Carl and Fred," and it would have been just as descriptive - nobody was occupying a truly unique, incomparable, and singularly irreplaceable role.

While your scenario, on its surface, would have been a delightful romp that let players feel appreciated, doing so over and over would do a disservice to the players and the game. Each session would turn into a rote performance. The Bard does some skill checks. The Rogue does some skill checks. The Fighter kills some things and the Cleric heals. If that's all your characters are doing, that ceases to be an adventure and becomes a job. "Okay, everyone. You know the routine. I don't even need to tell you a story. Bob, roll d20 twice. Ruth, three times. Fred, roll a bunch of dice. If any of you roll badly, Carl, roll a few times. Great session, see you next week."

In sum: Is it balanced? No. You have decided that the Fighter will do most of the combat, the Rogue and Bard will do a bunch of skill checks, and the Cleric is a healbot. There's nothing balanced about being told what your job is and being expected to do that and nothing else. Is it fun? It depends on how the players feel about repetitive motion exercises.

Talakeal
2014-04-17, 02:33 PM
It seems to me that most everyone is disagreeing with the nature of the class based system or picking apart the specific scenario.


I suppose I could simply reduce it to its parts rather than using a story.

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

erikun
2014-04-17, 02:45 PM
I think that the important point is that different characters each have a chance to get the spotlight, and that those different chances all need to be somewhat significant.

I'm not saying that all characters should get equal spotlight-time. Some people just don't want to be in the spotlight, or are too shy to jump on it. They should all have the chance, though.

However, it does need to be significant. If one character gets the spotlight for combat, one for social situations, and one for making a research roll before the DM tells more expository, then it would be understandable if the research-focused player would feel left out. The idea is to ensure that everyone gets a chance to do something meaningful, in a way that keeps them engaged.

Airk
2014-04-17, 02:46 PM
It seems to me that most everyone is disagreeing with the nature of the class based system or picking apart the specific scenario.

I attribute this to you doing a poor job asking your question. I read the OP and I wasn't, truthfully, even sure what you were asking.



Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Fair? Yes. Fun? Absolutely. Balanced? For certain definitions.



Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

It's obvious enough that things cannot be precisely balanced. An ability that is "situationally useful" will be better in that situation than out of it, and the more situational it is, the better it should be when it comes up...though taken to its logical extreme, this results in characters who are godlike 1% of the time and useless the other 99%. You should, however, strive to avoid "traps" where one ability/class/thing is just better than another. "This ability gives you +1 to hit when you have combat advantage in melee" vs "this ability gives you +1 to hit when you have combat advantage" to give a mild example.



Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

I think in an ideal world, what you want is a system in which things are fun and interesting regardless of either of these.



Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

This depends on what the game is about.



Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because some people are just like that? Brain chemistry or something?

Rhynn
2014-04-17, 02:54 PM
Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because, unless you've gotten new players, yours are some of the most annoying, infuriating, ungrateful, childish people I've ever heard about. :smallfurious:

Seriously, most normal, well-adjusted people don't have a problem with that.

Also, see the entirety of my earlier post which challenges the very notion that everyone must be constantly getting a chance to shine every session.


Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Yes, absolutely, and to think the opposite is ridiculous and dumb and wrong-headed and just intentionally dense.


Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

No, and yes. If everything's equal, then nothing's different.


Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

Effective, I guess, but even that's not the most desirable thing.


Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

No and no. I generally prefer systems where combat skills are equal to other skills (GURPS, RuneQuest), or where they're entirely separate of other skills (ACKS).

Red Fel
2014-04-17, 03:15 PM
I suppose I could simply reduce it to its parts rather than using a story.

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Yes to all of the above, to varying degrees. Fun is an easy yes. Fair and balanced differ, depending on what they mean.

The thing about words like "fair" and "balanced" is that they are relative. If you use a more literal definition, then every character has to be able to do what every other character can do, to the same degree, in order to achieve fairness and balance. But I don't think that's very fun at all, and certainly it detracts from a character's "special" feel.

Rather, in my mind, "fair" is when each character is able to contribute meaningfully to the adventure as a whole, and each player feels gratified that he was able to contribute, and appreciative of the contributions of others. In the scenario above, I observed that the contributions of the party seemed negligible in places, and less gratifying.

Similarly, "balanced" in my mind means that no single character is entirely dominating contributions, and no single character is utterly unable to contribute. Everyone is able to pull their weight without being overwhelmed by the others.

Is it possible to do this when everyone has a different talent set? Absolutely. Look at many well-written superhero teams. Each person fits in and is able to meaningfully contribute. Admittedly, some superhero teams are less balanced than others - for example, the Justice League has Batman and Superman at one end of the spectrum, and poor, unloved Aquaman at the other end. So it's not easy to balance different skills - but it's possible. And, more importantly, it's rewarding.


Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

I say no, they need not be precisely balanced. Mind you, I'm one of those people - the ones who complain about the fact that casters can basically crack the universe over a knee while non-casters swing a bit of stick about. But even so, not everything needs to be precisely balanced. In fact, as I mentioned above, doing so would make characters feel less special.

The trick isn't to precisely balance things. The trick is to make them situationally appropriate - or, as you say, "everything has its place." There should be a time for divinations, a time for Speak with Dead, a time for Fireball and for Wild Shape; there should also be a time for tanking, for Power Attack and Shock Trooper; there should also be a time for Diplomacy, Gather Information and Bluff. Everything should be useable and useful at the right time; that's what allows unbalanced features to nonetheless provide a fair and fun experience.


Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

If everyone played "the best" class, it would be Wizards and CoDzillas all the way down, and we'd be bored silly. As has been said by others far more eloquent than myself on these forums, even if you could have steak every night, at some point you'd get a craving for a burger. That's just how it is.

Now, I take issue with one assumption you make - that the choices are "balanced party" or "everyone plays the best." There's a third option - play what you want, as long as it contributes and everyone enjoys. It doesn't have to be balanced, it doesn't have to be the best, it can just be useful and fun.


Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

This is a trickier one. D&D is a primarily combat-oriented system. It's hard for an explicitly non-combat character to feel like he's contributing meaningfully. Similarly, combat characters get annoyed when a Diplomancer ends all encounters prematurely.

Do I think it needs to be an even split? No. But it should be based on player wants, not mechanical needs. If players want a more social game, expect less combat. Puzzle game, less combat. Hack'n'slash, more combat. And they should plan their characters accordingly.


Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because it's awesome. It's awesome to be awesome. Some people enjoy providing quiet support from the background, and that's cool. Others like to invisibly move the other players around without being noticed. Also cool. But some of us really want to be the barechested bad boy with the big blades and biceps, or the master of arcane lore surrounded by a storm of magical fury. We want to be stars.

A truly great game allows every player to walk away from a session and think, "Wow, tonight was really all about my character." And a truly exceptional game allows them all to be right.

oxybe
2014-04-17, 03:40 PM
my problem with the scenario you described is that it's HEAVILY reliant on how good the GM is. effectively, if the GM doesn't design around the glaring weaknesses of the characters (that they're really only good at one or two things) that the PC simply will not be capable of participating in the adventure.

"gee if i don't put in something hidden/trapped for Mike to find, the guy will have nothing to do"
"i don't feel like running a combat this session/adventure but if i don't Jack will probably be bored"

this will lead to adventures that generally have the same basic constructs only re-arranged and reflavored for the sake of keeping everyone entertained. to me this isn't bad, necessarily, but not something i am interested in.

in my ideal system, all players can participate in every facet of the adventure. maybe one class has a slight advantage or simply more options on how they deal with some situations but very rarely should i ever present a complication to the party and only one PC has the capabilities to even attempt to succeed.

this would mean that something like the Socially Awkward Fighter is a characterization one does willingly. "My fighter is bad at talking so he's going to shut up and just look stoic during the talky bits" should be a choice rather then assumed default, so you're not punished for making the "fighter" choice.

i guess in essence what i want from classes is that it opens up new venues on how you deal with situations, rather then lock you out of even attempting a resolution.

neonchameleon
2014-04-17, 03:56 PM
Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Of course.


Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

Given that precise balance is impossible unless you have exact symmetry, this question is irrelevant. And by exact symmetry I'm not talking about the symmetry of 4e or even the greater symmetry of Fate. I'm talking about exactly identical stats.


Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

A balanced party should always be more effective. Irrespective of whether the game is class based or not. This means that you aren't playing clones.


Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

What is "The game"? If Call of Cthulhu is spit evenly into combat/not combat I'm worried.


Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because your examples of "being in the spotlight" suck. As several of us have pointed out you haven't got very good balance there. In the example of play you just gave, the rogue was only vital for success for one specific reason. The DM was lobbing softballs to the rogue. Which means that the rogue is likely to have felt patronised. The Cleric was only vital to success for two reasons. They allowed the fighter to continue being awesome and the DM deliberately pitched something straight to them that they could arbitrarily do. Again, that was patronising (why couldn't the bard do the ritual? And the answer is going to come down at a Doylist level to DM Fiat whatever the Watsonian explanation.)

And when you get the spotlight only by grace of the DM having set things up so that you are handed the spotlight it just feels cheap. You aren't getting the spotlight; the DM's canned plot is getting the spotlight and you are merely reading the script you are handed.

Talakeal
2014-04-17, 03:56 PM
Now, I take issue with one assumption you make - that the choices are "balanced party" or "everyone plays the best." There's a third option - play what you want, as long as it contributes and everyone enjoys. It doesn't have to be balanced, it doesn't have to be the best, it can just be useful and fun.



Obviously that is the best choice for a fun game. I meant "best" in the tactical sense, i.e. able to complete the dungeon crawl (or whatever other sort of game you are running) in the most efficient manner possible.





Because your examples of "being in the spotlight" suck. As several of us have pointed out you haven't got very good balance there. In the example of play you just gave, the rogue was only vital for success for one specific reason. The DM was lobbing softballs to the rogue. Which means that the rogue is likely to have felt patronised. The Cleric was only vital to success for two reasons. They allowed the fighter to continue being awesome and the DM deliberately pitched something straight to them that they could arbitrarily do. Again, that was patronising (why couldn't the bard do the ritual? And the answer is going to come down at a Doylist level to DM Fiat whatever the Watsonian explanation.)

And when you get the spotlight only by grace of the DM having set things up so that you are handed the spotlight it just feels cheap. You aren't getting the spotlight; the DM's canned plot is getting the spotlight and you are merely reading the script you are handed.


I'm sorry if my sample adventure wasn't a masterpiece, it was literally something I made up on the spot as an example.

That said, many games, D&D in particular, do have things that require certain classes. Dungeons have secret doors, locks, and traps, all of which the rogue class is specifically designed to get around. Likewise the cleric is specifically made to be a healer, and different classes have different spells on their lists, which in the clerics case include spells to destroy undead and banish souls. Most of the spells dealing with undead and souls are simply not available to the bard, nor can a bard pick locks or disarm traps in most situations / editions.

I never said that a different party couldn't perform any of the tasks, nor did I say that the adventure was tailored for this group, or that the adventure would simply end if they hadn't made any challenges. I am sure you can pick apart my words to find such an implication, but again this was just a brief recap of an adventure where every character contributed to success and had time in the spotlight.

Airk
2014-04-17, 04:17 PM
Obviously that is the best choice for a fun game. I meant "best" in the tactical sense, i.e. able to complete the dungeon crawl (or whatever other sort of game you are running) in the most efficient manner possible.

"Efficient" is for rules, games with victory conditions, and mile per gallon. It has no place in a game session. One should never have to worry about how "efficiently" the party is going to do something. Using the word "best" to mean "most efficient" means we're no longer talking about the same thing.

neonchameleon
2014-04-17, 04:27 PM
my problem with the scenario you described is that it's HEAVILY reliant on how good the GM is. effectively, if the GM doesn't design around the glaring weaknesses of the characters (that they're really only good at one or two things) that the PC simply will not be capable of participating in the adventure.

"gee if i don't put in something hidden/trapped for Mike to find, the guy will have nothing to do"
"i don't feel like running a combat this session/adventure but if i don't Jack will probably be bored"

this will lead to adventures that generally have the same basic constructs only re-arranged and reflavored for the sake of keeping everyone entertained. to me this isn't bad, necessarily, but not something i am interested in.

in my ideal system, all players can participate in every facet of the adventure. maybe one class has a slight advantage or simply more options on how they deal with some situations but very rarely should i ever present a complication to the party and only one PC has the capabilities to even attempt to succeed.

this would mean that something like the Socially Awkward Fighter is a characterization one does willingly. "My fighter is bad at talking so he's going to shut up and just look stoic during the talky bits" should be a choice rather then assumed default, so you're not punished for making the "fighter" choice.

i guess in essence what i want from classes is that it opens up new venues on how you deal with situations, rather then lock you out of even attempting a resolution.

Every part of this is true.

There are also two distinct GMing philosophies that are relevant here: The Storyteller (White Wolf) and the MC (Apocalypse World). A Storyteller is ... a storyteller. They write the adventure from start to finish and the players' job is to read their lines and to provide a little colour. A good one will put the spotlight on everyone for some of the time and engage them all. A MC following the rules turns up to the first session of the game with literally nothing prepared. No planned adventure and not even a setting. The setting is created communally in character creation, and the PCs drive the plot.

Most GMs are a mix of the two or somewhere on the continuum between the two. And both GMing styles contain traps. I'd call pure Storytelling inherently inferior GMing myself - if you are Storytelling the star of the show is never the PCs. It's the GM's plot and worldbuilding. The job of the PCs is to be good little actors and play the parts they are given with very limited agency from start to finish. On the other hand MCs run the risk of making their world entirely too malleable. If the PCs have that much agency you need to make the world fairly unforgiving or the PCs are going to tapdance all over it - or be dealt with by enemies who treat it as just as malleable as they do. Also MCing can lead to players wondering what to do. (Apocalypse World is excellent in the way it makes the world bite back while loading up the PCs with agency - but forcing them to respond).

That example in the OP was Storytelling, pure and simple. First the Bard does the thing that it is scripted that the Bard should do. Then the Rogue does the thing it is scripted that the Rogue does. Then the fighter is given their chance to shine. Then the Rogue is scripted into their second chance. Then the Cleric does the Cleric's other thing. This is Storytelling - the PCs lack agency and are just going through the actions that are scripted to them and handed on a platter.

And in a balanced game although the methods are different any of the characters can get through any of the scenes except the combat that's a team game (the fighter finds a drinking companion, crowbars the door off its hinges, smashes the other door and grinds the phylactery into a paste before eating it - or the thief shadows one of the Lich's servants, opens the door, and whittles the phylactery into kindling - or the cleric's the perception master, listens at windows, and uses Knock and a crowbar to unlock the doors, or the Bard's their normal jack of all trades). And in a balanced game although the PCs would have been running through the scenes set by the GM, at the very least they would have had the opportunity to decide how they completed them rather than following the GM's script that was quite obviously pitched to let each of them do their thing in the way the GM pictured them behaving.

GrayGriffin
2014-04-17, 04:30 PM
I think this might be part of why I love Pokemon Tabletop so much. Everyone has at least one Pokemon, which they can command in combat, so everyone has something to do both in and out of combat.

neonchameleon
2014-04-17, 04:32 PM
I'm sorry if my sample adventure wasn't a masterpiece, it was literally something I made up on the spot as an example.

That said, many games, D&D in particular, do have things that require certain classes.

This is true. This does not make it a good thing.


Dungeons have secret doors, locks, and traps, all of which the rogue class is specifically designed to get around.

The rogue is not the best at finding secret doors - and there are very few locks that can't be forced open with the help of a crowbar or jemmy. As for traps, have you seen the AD&D Thief's disarm trap percentages? The way you are meant to deal with traps is think your way around them.


Likewise the cleric is specifically made to be a healer

The Cleric was invented to be van Helsing to counter an evil Vampire PC called Sir Fang, back in the days of Dave Arneson. They were giving healing abilities - and the healing proved so useful it came to dominate the class.


and different classes have different spells on their lists, which in the clerics case include spells to destroy undead and banish souls. Most of the spells dealing with undead and souls are simply not available to the bard, nor can a bard pick locks or disarm traps in most situations / editions.

Anyone can disarm traps in most editions. You're meant to do it by thinking your way through rather than rolling the dice. And the main use of picking locks is so you can lock the door behind you and make it harder to find out where you've been. And this is the problem with niching the abilities and forgetting or never realising that other people can work out their own ways around the problems.

Thrudd
2014-04-17, 04:45 PM
my problem with the scenario you described is that it's HEAVILY reliant on how good the GM is. effectively, if the GM doesn't design around the glaring weaknesses of the characters (that they're really only good at one or two things) that the PC simply will not be capable of participating in the adventure.

This is the case with every game. The type of adventure/scenario the game is designed for dictates what sorts of characters and abilities will be applicable in that game, and RPGs are always heavily reliant on the GM to design and run good scenarios.

The issue of "party balance" is completely dependent on what specific game you're talking about, assuming the game even has "parties".

Aside point, Socially Awkward Fighter has never been a requirement of the class in D&D. No class has ever been required to be socially awkward. Social situations are generally handled according to the players' own wits and abilities, with charisma scores modifying interactions. Even a low charisma score doesn't mean a character can't handle a social situation, it just means they'll have a penalty to reactions. My guess is, "socially awkward fighter" type comes from players who don't like interacting with the non-combat parts of the game, and might be socially awkward in real life. It has always been something the player does willingly, not dictated by the rules of the game.

Players always can participate in every facet of the game, in D&D at least. Some characters just have special abilities that help them succeed in certain areas where others must find alternative means of dealing with issues. When you have a thief in the party, it is smart to have them look for traps using their special skills. If you don't have a thief, the other characters still look for traps by poking around with poles and throwing stones and being very observant. No class is officially locked out of attempting anything.
It is, indeed, up to the DM to make sure the game is focused on those things the rules are designed to deal with. You don't plan an adventure all about political intrigue and seduction when the game mechanics are all about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-17, 06:11 PM
Ok, cool. Let me ask you though, does this only apply in combat, or does everyone have to contribute equally in everything? Does the fighter contribute just as much to social situations as the bard? Does the cleric contribute just as much to disarming traps as the rogue?

Mostly combat. Did you ever wonder why in most games non-combat situations are resolved by a single roll, while combat takes many rounds full of specific rules?

That's because combat is the form of conflict in which everyone in the party is engaged. Most of the time, while the rogue is picking the lock, everyone else just sits and waits for it to be done, doing nothing, not contributing - that's why it's just a single roll, so it will be over quickly, allowing the game to return to situations where everyone can do something.

If you don't do that, you get Cyberpunk 2020, which had a massively complex set of rules about cyberspace - and only hackers ever used those rules, so when the hacker started hacking, everyone else was just sitting around the table and picked their nose, waiting for it to be over so they can start participating in the game again.

Eisenheim
2014-04-17, 07:20 PM
One of the things that really seems to be coming out of the discussion here is that balance is incredibly difficult to achieve when different sorts of tasks are handled by highly distinct mechanics. Many comments point to the fact that the skill using PCs wind up with much less spotlight than the combat focused fighter because their tasks, while important, are resolved with relatively few roles and don't necessarily take up much real world time. The issue there is really that the mechanics for resolving different types of challenge in D&D are very different, and non-combat is simply much less developed mechanically.

Both the problem of different kinds of system providing different levels of satisfaction and the problem of situational utility are addressed in a system like FATE, which uses the same basic mechanics for challenges in or out of combat, and which gives all characters a much better chance to contribute usefully to a greater percentage of the obstacles the party faces.

I think OP's adventure as initially laid out is honestly a decently laid out scenario for engaging a diverse party in D&D, as much as that can be done without leveraging individual character backgrounds and motivations. It simply shows up the fundamental balance issues that the highly divergent subsystems of D&D unavoidably create.

VoxRationis
2014-04-17, 10:44 PM
More so than the "encouraging everyone to play" idea, what would you do to make, say, Open Lock or Disable Device an in-depth affair? Would you require that the DMs have detailed knowledge of trap or lock mechanisms and you need to roll pseudo-attacks for each armature or cog you want to fiddle with?

neonchameleon
2014-04-18, 08:31 AM
More so than the "encouraging everyone to play" idea, what would you do to make, say, Open Lock or Disable Device an in-depth affair? Would you require that the DMs have detailed knowledge of trap or lock mechanisms and you need to roll pseudo-attacks for each armature or cog you want to fiddle with?

Open Lock you generally don't. It's simple pass/fail - or more accurately the main thing Open Lock does is allows people in without smashing the lock and leaving an obvious trail.

Disable Device goes entirely. Don't make it a skill or a skill roll. Instead describe the trap and ask the PCs what they are doing about it and take things from there. Most traps aren't delicate clockwork things so much as large mechanical things. And the ones that are delicate clockwork can normally simply be smashed.

Rhynn
2014-04-18, 08:51 AM
Would you require that the DMs have detailed knowledge of trap or lock mechanisms and you need to roll pseudo-attacks for each armature or cog you want to fiddle with?

That sounds like a horrible idea!

IMO the purpose of lockpicking skills is to offer options: instead of smashing a chest that may contain fragile treasures, you can open it on the spot (and, finding it to contain 5,000 copper pieces and a 5,000 gp gem, you pocket the gem and save yourself carrying a chest with 5000 copper pieces out); instead of bashing in the door and finding the enemies ready and waiting for you, you can quietly pick it, gently open it to peek inside, and maybe get the jump on them.

Trapfinding and -disarming skills are generally, for me, a bennie that a character has for shortcutting these things with a die roll, instead of doing the thinking. (In a lot of old D&D modules, the text implies, IMO, that Find/Remove Traps isn't intended to be a shortcut where you go "Oh, I FRT" and then roll and succeed and that's all she wrote.)

Making either lockpicking or trap-removing an essential requirement to accomplish some larger primary goal is a terrible idea, generally. Although I also don't see anything wrong with making a dungeon full of traps and locks, so long as the PCs have options and can gather information about the world around them; if they decide to proceed without anyone to pick locks and deal with traps, that's their problem...

These things shouldn't be the main jam of the character doing them, though. (The main jam of all characters should be making choices, taking actions, and seeing results/consequences. Horribly vague, I know...)

This isn't strictly relevant to the OP, anyway, since the example was obviously an example and I'm pretty sure wasn't supposed to be about any edition of D&D specifically (especially given Talakeal has developed his own system).

VoxRationis
2014-04-18, 10:31 AM
That sounds like a horrible idea!


See, that's what I think. The rogue skills come down to single die rolls not because the game wishes to heavily prioritize combat, but because going into great detail, the same detail that goes into the tactics of combat, in areas like lockpicking would be exceptionally dull and too much work for players and DMs alike.
Similarly, the game isn't deemphasizing roleplaying by having most of its pages dedicated to combat. There's just no reason to have a bunch of in-depth rules related to talking, when players are already reasonably fluent at their native languages and know how to talk to one another. Role-playing skills are for when your character is supposed to be much better at talking than you are as a player (i.e., most players aren't fantastic liars, but you could make a character who is). Furthermore, there's no reason to have it such that some characters are really bad at talking inherently, or that you can't make a tangential comment without the NPC making a Rebuttal of Opportunity, because language is infinitely variable and restricting it would just make role-playing less varied.

erikun
2014-04-18, 10:55 AM
It depends a lot of what the skill is actually supposed to do, compared to the rest of the story. Open Lock is the equivalent of opening up a treasure chest. Unless that is somehow intended to be dramatic and exciting in the story, then it will just come down to opening up a box - and be similarly uninteresting for the character.

On the other hand, if they are using their skills for an exciting portion of the game, then it is fine. Using listen or open lock or stealth to move the party into position for ambushes, or bypassing encounters entirely, makes the rogue/thief much more of a practical member of the party. And gives the character a more meaningful time in the spotlight.

Airk
2014-04-18, 11:22 AM
See, that's what I think. The rogue skills come down to single die rolls not because the game wishes to heavily prioritize combat, but because going into great detail, the same detail that goes into the tactics of combat, in areas like lockpicking would be exceptionally dull and too much work for players and DMs alike.

To some extent I disagree. It IS because they want to prioritize combat, because in THEORY (though sometimes not in practice), combat is a form of conflict that involves all the characters. If you make lockpicking a focus, you end up with the Decker Problem. The problem is that many of these systems don't do a good job of making sure that practice matches theory, and that everyone is involved and useful in combat.



Similarly, the game isn't deemphasizing roleplaying by having most of its pages dedicated to combat.

I would beg to differ. When a combat that takes less than 1 minute of game time takes 2 hours of real time, and a conversation that takes 1 minute of game time takes 1 minute of real time (or less, if people start saying things like "I explain to him how we got here."), the game is de-emphasizing roleplaying, simply because the players will end up spending way more time on combat. This might not have been a design goal, it is an effect of design decisions.

Can the players work around this de-emphasis? Somewhat. But the fact that they have to is usually evidence that they are not using the right system.



There's just no reason to have a bunch of in-depth rules related to talking, when players are already reasonably fluent at their native languages and know how to talk to one another. Role-playing skills are for when your character is supposed to be much better at talking than you are as a player (i.e., most players aren't fantastic liars, but you could make a character who is).

This depends entirely on the goals of the system.


Furthermore, there's no reason to have it such that some characters are really bad at talking inherently, or that you can't make a tangential comment without the NPC making a Rebuttal of Opportunity, because language is infinitely variable and restricting it would just make role-playing less varied.

And combat is not infinitely variable and restricting it would not make it less varied?

Rhynn
2014-04-18, 12:04 PM
Similarly, the game isn't deemphasizing roleplaying by having most of its pages dedicated to combat. There's just no reason to have a bunch of in-depth rules related to talking, when players are already reasonably fluent at their native languages and know how to talk to one another.

Well, to be fair, there's plenty of RPGs with (relative to their page-count) a lot of content (including rules) for things that aren't fighting, like Fate, Burning Wheel, Dungeon World, and so on. Usually, this content does more or less focus on the "role-playing" as distinct from combat.


Furthermore, there's no reason to have it such that some characters are really bad at talking inherently, or that you can't make a tangential comment without the NPC making a Rebuttal of Opportunity, because language is infinitely variable and restricting it would just make role-playing less varied.

There are actually RPGs with great rules for social conflict (including Burning Wheel), too! :smallbiggrin:

I think the real issue is that, in any game, you shouldn't make something that only a minority of PCs will engage in a big giant hassle with lots of rules, mechanics, and details, that ends up distracting from everything else during play. (I'm looking at you, Cyberpunk 2013/2020 netrunning and Shadowrun 1-3E Matrix rules!)

Like Airk wrote, "combat is a form of conflict that involves all the characters." (In most games / campaigns.)

Eisenheim
2014-04-18, 01:37 PM
And it is easiest to make different kinds of conflict ones which all party members contribute to when they are all handled by a single mechanical framework. Something like FATE handles social conflicts with the same mechanics as physical combat, and as a result it is much easier to make a character in fate that contributes at and equal level to both, or to make a satisfying character that is much more at home in one or the other, than it is to do so in D&D's highly distinct subsystems.

Rhynn
2014-04-18, 02:14 PM
Same deal in HeroQuest; all conflicts use the same mechanics (the consequences are just different; you're not going to be killed by an argument), so it's much easier to make different kinds conflicts central to a session. An epic mountain-climb might be the main challenge of a session, for instance.

Airk
2014-04-18, 02:23 PM
Same deal in HeroQuest; all conflicts use the same mechanics (the consequences are just different; you're not going to be killed by an argument), so it's much easier to make different kinds conflicts central to a session. An epic mountain-climb might be the main challenge of a session, for instance.

Yup. Unified conflict mechanics are pretty much a staple of 'current generation' RPGs, I think. Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard, Fate, etc. all use a standard 'conflict' mechanic where you just use different stats/advantages and suffer different types of consequences depending on the type.

neonchameleon
2014-04-18, 04:28 PM
Yup. Unified conflict mechanics are pretty much a staple of 'current generation' RPGs, I think. Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard, Fate, etc. all use a standard 'conflict' mechanic where you just use different stats/advantages and suffer different types of consequences depending on the type.

Never mind current generation, I'm trying to recall the last game I read where the main difference between the mechanics for combat actions and those for other skill use wee different that wasn't called D&D. It's been a staple of RPGs since the 1980s (although current generation RPGs tend to make the consequences much more unified as well as the actions)

Talakeal
2014-04-18, 04:33 PM
This isn't strictly relevant to the OP, anyway, since the example was obviously an example and I'm pretty sure wasn't supposed to be about any edition of D&D specifically (especially given Talakeal has developed his own system).

Well, I was using a generic old school game like D&D for the example as it is something simple that most gamers are familiar with and which has clearly defined and iconic party jobs.

It certainly isn't my system (although I suppose you could replicate it) as my game does not have classes, priests don't heal (or cast spells of any sort by default), and dungeon crawling isn't really a thing.


That being said, I was inspired to ask the question based on some feedback for my game. Some people have expressed distress that the secondary skills are not equally useful, that a party with a variety of skills is more "effective" than one with redundant abilities, and that a person can make a "dumb brick" character who has no secondary skills and is as a result slightly more effective in combat, or that one can make a character who specializes in secondary skills at the expense of combat ability. I was wondering how big a problem this actually is for a game, and whether I need to work harder to enforce some concept of balance between characters (and figure out what character balance actually means!).

The Insanity
2014-04-18, 05:21 PM
I would beg to differ. When a combat that takes less than 1 minute of game time takes 2 hours of real time, and a conversation that takes 1 minute of game time takes 1 minute of real time (or less, if people start saying things like "I explain to him how we got here."), the game is de-emphasizing roleplaying, simply because the players will end up spending way more time on combat. This might not have been a design goal, it is an effect of design decisions.
You don't roleplay your combats? :smallconfused:

jedipotter
2014-04-18, 09:23 PM
I was wondering how big a problem this actually is for a game, and whether I need to work harder to enforce some concept of balance between characters (and figure out what character balance actually means!).

It can be a big problem.....for some players. As all the posts have shown. It is so hard to define balance.

Eisenheim
2014-04-18, 09:42 PM
In general, if there are primary and secondary skills/stats, what have you, and it is possible to make a character that specializes in something considered secondary, they will wind up feeling a little left out, if the 'primary' abilities are the ones that everyone needs for the most common challenges of the game. Honestly, the best way to avoid spotlight time issues, and the problem of one PC's specialty not being relevant as often as another's is to treat building the game and the characters as cooperative play, just like the adventures that come later. That way, you wind up with characters who fit as a party in the particular world and adventure as individuals and as a party. I was turned on to this idea by the FATE core pdf, but the game and character building philosophy of it seem relevant to any system.

jedipotter
2014-04-19, 11:59 AM
In general, if there are primary and secondary skills/stats, what have you, and it is possible to make a character that specializes in something considered secondary, they will wind up feeling a little left out, if the 'primary' abilities are the ones that everyone needs for the most common challenges of the game.

A lot of people get hooked on the ''D&D is a combat game''. So for ''balance'' they are hooked on just combat. And more so then just combat it is more ''awesome combat''. It is not enough just to do damage, more effects are needed.

Though if you don't play D&D as a pure combat game, the balance is not like that.

Airk
2014-04-19, 03:20 PM
You don't roleplay your combats? :smallconfused:

Describing what you do is not the same as roleplaying. And even if you have a clever quip for every attack, you're still spending way more time rolling than roleplaying in games that have this kind of 'balance'.

The Insanity
2014-04-19, 04:36 PM
Describing what you do is not the same as roleplaying.
Then don't describe, roleplay. I don't see what's the problem here.

jaydubs
2014-04-19, 04:40 PM
One note about party balance. It's not just about which classes are or aren't necessary for mission success. We also need to consider which classes feel the most important. That is, who gets the most glory, to put it bluntly.

I'm going to bring video games into this discussion, because many multiplayer games have a similar group situation. That is, many multiplayer games are team based, and have different classes or characters filling different roles. And the simple truth is more players enjoy non-support roles than support roles. Most people want to be the star of the show, so to speak.

This is handled in a few different ways. One, is to reduce the amount of support roles needed on a team. Either only a few support characters are needed (and there is a percentage of the population that prefers working in the background), or characters are made mostly self-sufficient.

Alternatively, support characters are made more powerful on the whole, even though they get less "glory." Supports might get nearly the same combat prowess as non-supports, in additional to their team-oriented powers. Or they could just be significantly more influential to the overall outcome.

Thirdly, support characters might be rewarded by some sort of prestige enhancing display. Higher point awards, de facto leadership position, reputation points, etc. (I'd hazard a guess this is one reason many support classes were relabeled "Leaders" in 4th edition D&D.)

As to why people feel this way? There's probably a long and complicated explanation concerning why humans who performed exciting deeds in front of other humans ended up more likely to pass on their genes, which goes beyond the scope of this topic. Better to accept that most of us care about it, and design accordingly.

Rhynn
2014-04-19, 05:01 PM
Then don't describe, roleplay. I don't see what's the problem here.

Can you illustrate the difference?

For reference...
"Not roleplaying":
- I attack the orc, I get a 20.
- You hit.
- I do 11 damage.
- The orc dies.

Describing:
- I bring my sword down in a great arc and cleave at the orc! I get 10.
- The orc gets its shield up just in time and deflects your blow with an almighty crash that causes it to stagger back!

(Or whatever, I don't know. I hate long flowery combat descriptions.)

Thrudd
2014-04-19, 05:14 PM
Well, I was using a generic old school game like D&D for the example as it is something simple that most gamers are familiar with and which has clearly defined and iconic party jobs.

It certainly isn't my system (although I suppose you could replicate it) as my game does not have classes, priests don't heal (or cast spells of any sort by default), and dungeon crawling isn't really a thing.


That being said, I was inspired to ask the question based on some feedback for my game. Some people have expressed distress that the secondary skills are not equally useful, that a party with a variety of skills is more "effective" than one with redundant abilities, and that a person can make a "dumb brick" character who has no secondary skills and is as a result slightly more effective in combat, or that one can make a character who specializes in secondary skills at the expense of combat ability. I was wondering how big a problem this actually is for a game, and whether I need to work harder to enforce some concept of balance between characters (and figure out what character balance actually means!).

It really depends on how your game is meant to be played, what sorts of challenges the players will face. The players shouldn't go into character creation blind. For instance, if the game is all about tactical combat with little or no emphasis on non-combat activities, then taking secondary skills should not force a player to sacrifice combat utility. They could be tacked on in addition to the character creation points spent on abilities useful in combat.

A completely open point-buying system, treating combat and non-combat abilities equally in character creation implies that the game will generally include scenarios where any or all abilities will be useful in fairly balanced amounts. If that is not the case for a specific campaign or adventure, the GM should inform the players up-front, so they can design characters appropriate for the sort of game they will be in. Nothing is worse than having a campaign designed for spies and saboteurs involved in political intrigue and a bunch of players who have completely inappropriate characters for the tasks they are meant to perform. Or a campaign designed for heavy combat and a bunch of characters who are social butterflies and computer hackers with no fighting ability.

The strength of such a game is in its flexibility, but that must be balanced with GM/player communication.
In a campaign where tasks will be varied, of course a party with a variety of skills will be more effective than one that is deficient in some area. That is not a problem of game design, but of player planning. Of course, there is no reason the players could not find alterative means or NPC's to help them fill in their skill gaps in-game (which is fun part of the game, is it not?).

Talakeal
2014-04-19, 10:47 PM
As to why people feel this way? There's probably a long and complicated explanation concerning why humans who performed exciting deeds in front of other humans ended up more likely to pass on their genes, which goes beyond the scope of this topic. Better to accept that most of us care about it, and design accordingly.

I don't know about that; imo it would be the people who stay behind the lines and take all the credit who will pass on their genes, while the front line mooks will probably die prematurely.

It also seems strange that people are saying that "killing bad guys" and "being awesome" are the same thing. To use the cleric vs. fighter example, I would imagine that someone who was a really good soldier would be both far less impressive and have a far smaller impact on human history than someone who could heal wounds with a word.

I wonder how people would feel if the scenario I presented was not killing a monster, but instead protecting a healer on a dangerous journey to save a kingdom ravaged by a plague only he can cure.

erikun
2014-04-19, 10:48 PM
Can you illustrate the difference?

For reference...
"Not roleplaying":
- I attack the orc, I get a 20.
- You hit.
- I do 11 damage.
- The orc dies.

Describing:
- I bring my sword down in a great arc and cleave at the orc! I get 10.
- The orc gets its shield up just in time and deflects your blow with an almighty crash that causes it to stagger back!

(Or whatever, I don't know. I hate long flowery combat descriptions.)

Roleplaying:
Fighter: "While fighting the orc, I get my shield up in his face, partially blocking his view so the rogue can move unseen."
DM: "Well, okay. You get a penalty for fighting it this round, but the rogue move and hide without being seen."
Rogue: "I move and hide behind the bush. When I have a clear shot, I'll blow my bird whistle and fire my crossbow at the orc." (The bird whistle is a signal the Fighter and Rogue had worked out before.)
DM: *rolls* "The orc doesn't recognize the sound's importance until too late. You deal your sneak attack damage, and it dies."

Roleplaying, at least to me, means having your actions be relevant to the situation. This could just mean "I hit the orc," but it also means trying to do something and having that translate into something in-game. It isn't rolling and then I describe what happened; it is describing what I want to do and then rolling to see if it worked.

Eisenheim
2014-04-19, 11:38 PM
I wonder how people would feel if the scenario I presented was not killing a monster, but instead protecting a healer on a dangerous journey to save a kingdom ravaged by a plague only he can cure.

That would be a very different story. It would spotlight the power of cleric as fundamental to the goal of the quest, rather than simply a nice benefit that eases the fighter's way through a difficult combat, just like a story about cleverly sneaking past the lich and his minions to steal the treasure out from under his nose would likely highlight a clever rogue more than the one you initially presented.

Incidentally, that scenario is also one where combat could easily play a much smaller role, with the party facing a variety of non-combat challenges and a quite reasonable chance that they would want to sidestep potential combats to avoid risk and delay. Having goals that don't boil down to kill the badguys and loot the treasure is one of the most important steps on the road to having non-combat skills and the characters who focus on them have the same satisfying effectiveness as their violence loving brethren.

jaydubs
2014-04-19, 11:46 PM
I don't know about that; imo it would be the people who stay behind the lines and take all the credit who will pass on their genes, while the front line mooks will probably die prematurely.

It also seems strange that people are saying that "killing bad guys" and "being awesome" are the same thing. To use the cleric vs. fighter example, I would imagine that someone who was a really good soldier would be both far less impressive and have a far smaller impact on human history than someone who could heal wounds with a word.

I wonder how people would feel if the scenario I presented was not killing a monster, but instead protecting a healer on a dangerous journey to save a kingdom ravaged by a plague only he can cure.

Most of human history involved small groups, not clashes between civilizations. Also, remember that we're looking at two different triggers that help us balance when to take risks and when not to. On the one hand, the drive for recognition. On the other, the threat of death or serious bodily injury. Together, these instincts are meant to balance our decision-making.

In the context of a game, however, there is no real risk to life and limb to balance out the urge for the spotlight. I'm sure if the danger were real, a lot more people would be happy in a more supportive (and safer) role.

jedipotter
2014-04-20, 06:55 AM
It also seems strange that people are saying that "killing bad guys" and "being awesome" are the same thing.

The vast number of people that complain about 'balance' are the combat focus type of players. When they talk about 'balance' they are talking about RAW, and very little else. They want print in front of them that is balanced, as in set game rules. They don't want personal stuff like ''the DM says this''.


The more ''taking a role'' type role player, does not care much about the combat rules. They are too busy having fun role playing a character. When your role-playing Jorn the Cleric who just wants to help others, it does not matter if your attack spell does 1d6+3.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-20, 02:16 PM
I don't know about that; imo it would be the people who stay behind the lines and take all the credit who will pass on their genes, while the front line mooks will probably die prematurely.

It also seems strange that people are saying that "killing bad guys" and "being awesome" are the same thing. To use the cleric vs. fighter example, I would imagine that someone who was a really good soldier would be both far less impressive and have a far smaller impact on human history than someone who could heal wounds with a word.

I wonder how people would feel if the scenario I presented was not killing a monster, but instead protecting a healer on a dangerous journey to save a kingdom ravaged by a plague only he can cure.

Well it's just that killing badguys feels awesome. It doesn't necessarily matter about the long term impact, just knowing you contributed to everyone living to see another day feels good. Support classes get that satisfaction more directly through buffing and healing, while combat classes get it indirectly via attempting to kill the monster before it can do enough damage to kill anyone else.

And in roleplay or non-combat scenarios this just translates to 'everyone doing their part to not screw up' with a minimum of players sitting out because they're just not useful. Now this doesn't mean every class should be useful in every roll. Otherwise you get a five player pile-up of "I want to roll for that!" which has happened to me more than once when a party full of spell casters all want to roll history or arcana to identify a magical object. But it does mean that the other less useful skills might have a role in helping the main skill with its objective.

Maybe the cleric gets to the plague ravaged town and discovers he needs a specific herb to complete his spell. Suddenly the ranger's nature skill is useful since he can quickly identify where the herb is located and how to gather it. Meanwhile the fighter helps carry the afflicted to the town square for healing, his endurance skill making him resistant enough to the disease that he's less at risk than the rest of the party and can therefore safely interact with the ill. Balance just means everyone should be able to contribute to the task at hand. The fewer people who have to sit out the better, but that doesn't mean the party should be crippled if a certain role isn't filled.

That doesn't mean a DM should never give class specific tasks to the party, just that the DM should also plan for failure when the party either can't or won't complete those tasks.

Talakeal
2014-04-20, 04:36 PM
Maybe the cleric gets to the plague ravaged town and discovers he needs a specific herb to complete his spell. Suddenly the ranger's nature skill is useful since he can quickly identify where the herb is located and how to gather it. Meanwhile the fighter helps carry the afflicted to the town square for healing, his endurance skill making him resistant enough to the disease that he's less at risk than the rest of the party and can therefore safely interact with the ill. Balance just means everyone should be able to contribute to the task at hand. The fewer people who have to sit out the better, but that doesn't mean the party should be crippled if a certain role isn't filled.

That doesn't mean a DM should never give class specific tasks to the party, just that the DM should also plan for failure when the party either can't or won't complete those tasks.

Obviously any well designed adventure is going to have a lot of places where every role can shine, or at least has the opportunity to shine, the herb being an example.

I was trying to convey that in my OP, but many people seem to have read that as me either; setting up a scenario where the challenges are specifically tailored to the group, everyone else is just there to make the fighter look good, and putting in all sorts of challenges that have only one solution and otherwise stop the adventure.

What I intended was to show a typical adventure and how people could be useful aside from doing mega damage. For example the rogue has better skills, can disarm traps and open locks, and is not a slouch in combat. If he wasn't there the party could have bashed their way through, put they would have likely raised an alarm, taken some trap damage, and been down a man in combat, which would have likely led to their death. They could have replaced the rogue with a ranger, monk, or barbarian, who has some of the same skills and can simply tank their way through the traps or extra monsters and done just as well, but I wanted to use an example where everyone had a very distinct class role to showcase the advantages of diversity to make the example more clearly.

neonchameleon
2014-04-20, 05:31 PM
Obviously any well designed adventure is going to have a lot of places where every role can shine, or at least has the opportunity to shine, the herb being an example.

I was trying to convey that in my OP, but many people seem to have read that as me either; setting up a scenario where the challenges are specifically tailored to the group, everyone else is just there to make the fighter look good, and putting in all sorts of challenges that have only one solution and otherwise stop the adventure.

That's because you explicitly wrote that you were setting up challenges that had only one solution and would otherwise stop the adventure. To quote the most egregious sentence: "The rogue finds the secret door and picks the lock, without the rogue the others never would have gotten inside." There is no other way I can read that sentence than "You can't progress without a rogue. This has only one solution and will otherwise stop the adventure."

And pandering to the PCs that show up is one form of adventure design - and is one you need when the difference in competence and power is about that of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw). It's one that's seriously advocated by many. And one that is often needed in the absence of balance.

I would be incredibly surprised if anyone on this board isn't aware of how things are useful out of combat. But the question you asked was "Is this balanced?" And balance is a fiddly and elusive issue. And even looking at it isn't a 101 subject - while "Can things be useful that aren't directly useful to combat?" is a remedial question.

Talakeal
2014-04-20, 05:54 PM
That's because you explicitly wrote that you were setting up challenges that had only one solution and would otherwise stop the adventure. To quote the most egregious sentence: "The rogue finds the secret door and picks the lock, without the rogue the others never would have gotten inside." There is no other way I can read that sentence than "You can't progress without a rogue. This has only one solution and will otherwise stop the adventure."


As I said earlier, yes you can twist my wording to make it sound like I was saying that, but I was just giving a casual summary, not writing a technical piece for people to pick apart. Also, even if you are going to go text lawyer on me, I said THAT party WOULD never have gotten inside. Not "without a rogue NO party could get inside" or "without a rogue that party COULD never get inside".

They obviously could have bashed the door down (taking up time and possibly alerting the enemies), bought a wand of knock or bribed a mage (costing time and / or gold), hired an NPC locksmith (again taking time and / or gold), invested skill points into open lock (depending on the edition, and expending valuable skill points on cross class skills), or nearly endless other opportunities that are less efficient than simply having someone in the party with the ability to open locks and perhaps not worth the time, danger, or effort.

Hell, even if you are taking me literally they could still complete the adventure from outside, waiting for the liche to leave his tower and ambushing him, getting a bunch of explosives and bringing the dungeon down on top of him, or calling in a favor / hiring mercenaries and supervising someone else while they stay outside.


Also, applying strict "RAW" to someone's words is not how language works. People talk in generalizations and metaphors, that's how language works. If I said "bears live in the woods" you wouldn't say "A bear can never survive outside a forest, even for a second. There is no other way to read that sentence!" Likewise if I said "Conan fell upon his enemies, a whirlwind of death," that is obviously a metaphor, you wouldn't say "Conan is an air elemental! There is no other way for me to read that sentence!"


Edit: This is a really stupid argument, and I don't want it to degrade further. As I said it was just a quick example I thought up off the top of my head and I didn't think anyone would read so much into it, and it isn't worth arguing about or defending, and I do appreciate the time you took to respond.

Airk
2014-04-20, 06:41 PM
Roleplaying:
Fighter: "While fighting the orc, I get my shield up in his face, partially blocking his view so the rogue can move unseen."
DM: "Well, okay. You get a penalty for fighting it this round, but the rogue move and hide without being seen."
Rogue: "I move and hide behind the bush. When I have a clear shot, I'll blow my bird whistle and fire my crossbow at the orc." (The bird whistle is a signal the Fighter and Rogue had worked out before.)
DM: *rolls* "The orc doesn't recognize the sound's importance until too late. You deal your sneak attack damage, and it dies."

Roleplaying, at least to me, means having your actions be relevant to the situation. This could just mean "I hit the orc," but it also means trying to do something and having that translate into something in-game. It isn't rolling and then I describe what happened; it is describing what I want to do and then rolling to see if it worked.

This is all completely irrelevant; If the tactics and crunch of the combat system draws out battle so that combat takes twenty times as long to play out as it does to HAPPEN, the system is discouraging roleplaying, because even if you DO roleplay EVERYTHING as suggested here, the amount of roleplaying you're doing is still going to get dwarfed by the amount of time you spend using the 'combat system' (whether that's counting squares, calculating attack bonuses, rolling to hit, tracking hitpoints, or whatever.)

Also, I don't know about you, but adding fluff roleplaying to my combat tactics isn't really as satisfying for me as getting into 'meaty' stuff involving what my character actually wants beyond "to not die in this fight."

VoxRationis
2014-04-20, 08:25 PM
Your argument requires that the time spent in combat OOC is comparable to the time spent roleplaying IC, which is not true in many campaigns.
Furthermore, a well-designed adventure and storyline has things that spur on character motivations besides "I don't want to die in this fight." A character may have to make a choice between prioritizing his or her own safety or a valuable item in an unsafe situation. There may be a valuable item threatened in battle. Your own character might value different tactics in an entirely roleplaying way (your Roman Legionary will favor grouping the party together and fighting in a tight, defensive formation, while your early-period Samurai will want to make the most difficult shot possible to show off his prowess). Maybe the fight has objectives besides Deathmatch, to put it in a more video game metaphor. Maybe your hobgoblin character hates elves and prioritizes them first, all else being equal, or even if the choice of opponents is slightly suboptimal.

Airk
2014-04-20, 09:43 PM
Your argument requires that the time spent in combat OOC is comparable to the time spent roleplaying IC, which is not true in many campaigns.

No it doesn't. If you think it does, you've misunderstood the point. The point is that designing combat that way de-emphasizes roleplaying because it alters the amount of time spent on the various activities. The fact that if you want, you can spend whole sessions without a fight is irrelevant.



Furthermore, a well-designed adventure and storyline has things that spur on character motivations besides "I don't want to die in this fight." A character may have to make a choice between prioritizing his or her own safety or a valuable item in an unsafe situation. There may be a valuable item threatened in battle. Your own character might value different tactics in an entirely roleplaying way (your Roman Legionary will favor grouping the party together and fighting in a tight, defensive formation, while your early-period Samurai will want to make the most difficult shot possible to show off his prowess). Maybe the fight has objectives besides Deathmatch, to put it in a more video game metaphor. Maybe your hobgoblin character hates elves and prioritizes them first, all else being equal, or even if the choice of opponents is slightly suboptimal.

Yeah, sure, you can do this. In a good game, you will do this a lot. IT STILL doesn't mean that most of your 'roleplaying' in combat will focus on this. And even if it does, see my earlier point about time consumed "roleplaying" in combat versus time consumed interacting with the combat system.

Basically, you are failing to grasp the point.

Rhynn
2014-04-20, 09:46 PM
Also, I don't know about you, but adding fluff roleplaying to my combat tactics isn't really as satisfying for me as getting into 'meaty' stuff involving what my character actually wants beyond "to not die in this fight."

Same here. I'd much rather have a quick but robust combat system (or, alternatively, a really engrossing one like in The Riddle of Steel) and let my players focus on interacting with the world (which, for us, doesn't involve prose so much as decisions), puzzle over clues and information, and so on.

VoxRationis
2014-04-20, 10:36 PM
No it doesn't. If you think it does, you've misunderstood the point. The point is that designing combat that way de-emphasizes roleplaying because it alters the amount of time spent on the various activities. The fact that if you want, you can spend whole sessions without a fight is irrelevant.

How could the potential amount of role-playing in a role-playing game be irrelevant to how focused it is on role-playing? The fact of the matter is that you don't need mechanics for role-playing and that the designers of the game understand this, and show it by keeping such mechanics minimal and only to resolve cases where disagreement could really bog down the game. That this leaves the majority of the text dealing with combat is not indicative of how the game is intended to focus, merely on how the designers anticipated the need for mechanics, and similarly, that the ratio for in-character to out-of-character time for combat is lower than that for roleplaying is not an indication that you aren't supposed to roleplay.

Airk
2014-04-21, 11:29 AM
How could the potential amount of role-playing in a role-playing game be irrelevant to how focused it is on role-playing? The fact of the matter is that you don't need mechanics for role-playing and that the designers of the game understand this, and show it by keeping such mechanics minimal and only to resolve cases where disagreement could really bog down the game. That this leaves the majority of the text dealing with combat is not indicative of how the game is intended to focus, merely on how the designers anticipated the need for mechanics, and similarly, that the ratio for in-character to out-of-character time for combat is lower than that for roleplaying is not an indication that you aren't supposed to roleplay.

Because it's a ratio and not an absolute number.

erikun
2014-04-21, 12:56 PM
This is all completely irrelevant; If the tactics and crunch of the combat system draws out battle so that combat takes twenty times as long to play out as it does to HAPPEN, the system is discouraging roleplaying, because even if you DO roleplay EVERYTHING as suggested here, the amount of roleplaying you're doing is still going to get dwarfed by the amount of time you spend using the 'combat system' (whether that's counting squares, calculating attack bonuses, rolling to hit, tracking hitpoints, or whatever.)
Yes, that is correct. Throwing out the roleplaying in exchange for the mechanical resolution is an issue. Sometimes it may be mandatory, such as rolling to resolve social situations. Any time the table is required to break out the charts and tables, and get into a situation of "Okay, you may only do this and this, but nothing else," it does hurt the immersion and roleplay. If a game requires it being done for extended periods of time, then it is a problem with the game system.

This is what people mean when they say that D&D's rules and combat are harmful to roleplay.


Also, I don't know about you, but adding fluff roleplaying to my combat tactics isn't really as satisfying for me as getting into 'meaty' stuff involving what my character actually wants beyond "to not die in this fight."
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

Do you mean that lengthy combat (such as with D&D) is a problem, and that you'd rather avoid it and get back to the roleplay? If so, I can agree with you. There are multiple systems that are not as combat-intense as D&D. This is actually a problem with D&D3e and D&D4e, in my opinion, because people generally don't realize how lengthy combat can be before starting a game.

Do you mean that lengthy tactical combat (such as with D&D) is what you are looking for? If so, that's perfectly fine. RPGs are games and about enjoying yourself, and if you're enjoying the tactical gameplay of it, have fun! It sounds like you've found a good RPG for what you want.

Are you confusing flavor descriptions for roleplay? A flavor description is something a player comes up with after rolling the dice and determining the result. Roleplay is a player deciding what action to take, before rolling any dice or determining if it works. I can agree that coming up with flavor descriptions can get boring, because they have no ultimate bearing on the game. But roleplay determines what actually happens in the game, since it is what actions the character takes.

Eisenheim
2014-04-21, 03:14 PM
One of the real issue that makes combat =/= role play well in D&D is that, for all its mechanical density, its doesn't handle combat dynamics beyond a simple fight until one side is incapacitated very well, so it's difficult to explore goals beyond winning the fight during a combat encounter.

In a FATE game last week, I was in a situation that started as trading intimidation, turned into combat when the bad guys tried to kidnap someone, and became a running chase/fight as they drove away and we pursued. This worked well and was interesting and RP filled, because everyone had goals beyond just winning the fight, and there were times when people had to choose, like one PC letting a bad guy escape in order to protect the kidnap victim.

I think that the lack of integration between D&D's combat and non-combat mechanics makes complex, combat involving situations like this harder to do justice to without being fairly clunky.

Airk
2014-04-21, 06:55 PM
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

I mean that when you're 'roleplaying in combat' it tends to be of the "Have you, knave! I will not fall to the likes of you!" or "I duck under his blow and spin to the side, swinging my axe as I go!" (which I guess you would class as 'flavor description' which is apt) - which isn't really very deep. At best, you might have an objective to make for, but in general, this sort of 'RP' going to be tactical rather than emotional. It doesn't really explore the characters.

So even saying "You can RP in a fight!" just means "you'll be spending a bunch of time on inconsequential RP".

The Insanity
2014-04-21, 07:48 PM
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it inconsequential.

Talakeal
2014-04-21, 08:26 PM
I mean that when you're 'roleplaying in combat' it tends to be of the "Have you, knave! I will not fall to the likes of you!" or "I duck under his blow and spin to the side, swinging my axe as I go!" (which I guess you would class as 'flavor description' which is apt) - which isn't really very deep. At best, you might have an objective to make for, but in general, this sort of 'RP' going to be tactical rather than emotional. It doesn't really explore the characters.

So even saying "You can RP in a fight!" just means "you'll be spending a bunch of time on inconsequential RP".

I don't know about you but my players constantly make bad tactical decisions for RP reasons. Several people are playing cowards who will run and hide if they are in danger even if they could easily soak up the damage, and several of them are very protective of certain allys and will go out of their way to punish anyone who harms them.

Airk
2014-04-21, 08:37 PM
I don't know about you but my players constantly make bad tactical decisions for RP reasons. Several people are playing cowards who will run and hide if they are in danger even if they could easily soak up the damage, and several of them are very protective of certain allys and will go out of their way to punish anyone who harms them.

Yeah, great, you can really show off that one aspect of your character for two hours. Great.

Insanity: And just because you like it doesn't make it good. :) Yes, you could argue that all roleplaying is, in fact, subjective, and maybe some people REALLLLLY LIKE in combat "roleplay", but since each of us here is, in fact, an individual, I'll let people make their own judgements on whether "I'm a coward so I run and hide. Again." is more exciting than deciding if say, they would spare their brother's killer because he now runs an orphanage and is trying to make amends.

Anlashok
2014-04-21, 08:39 PM
Insanity: And just because you like it doesn't make it good. :)

And just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

I don't understand the self righteousness here.

Talakeal
2014-04-21, 08:59 PM
Yeah, great, you can really show off that one aspect of your character for two hours. Great.

Insanity: And just because you like it doesn't make it good. :) Yes, you could argue that all roleplaying is, in fact, subjective, and maybe some people REALLLLLY LIKE in combat "roleplay", but since each of us here is, in fact, an individual, I'll let people make their own judgements on whether "I'm a coward so I run and hide. Again." is more exciting than deciding if say, they would spare their brother's killer because he now runs an orphanage and is trying to make amends.

Not sure why you felt the need for such hostility. I was just pointing out that in my experience there is plenty of RP in combat that comes from emotions or character personality rather than tactical, that's all.

erikun
2014-04-21, 11:06 PM
I mean that when you're 'roleplaying in combat' it tends to be of the "Have you, knave! I will not fall to the likes of you!" or "I duck under his blow and spin to the side, swinging my axe as I go!" (which I guess you would class as 'flavor description' which is apt) - which isn't really very deep. At best, you might have an objective to make for, but in general, this sort of 'RP' going to be tactical rather than emotional. It doesn't really explore the characters.
If this is such a problem, then why spend so much time in combat? Make the game less combat-focused, or if not possible, use a system that does not force such focus on combat.

There will be times when RP is weak or trivial. Characters generally do not explore deep, thought-provoking RP while standing in an elevator, for example. As such, most groups do not spend a lot of RP time standing around in elevators. Perhaps applying the same mentality to combat would be worthwhile.

Sartharina
2014-04-22, 12:13 AM
If this is such a problem, then why spend so much time in combat?Because the game system demands the game slow to a crawl as soon as someone draws steel, and you can't shorten the process without breaking from the rules/system and be left without guidelines.


Make the game less combat-focused, or if not possible, use a system that does not force such focus on combat.Sometimes a character needs to make like John McClane and shoot his way out of a terrorist-infested building, but you don't want to spend 30+ minutes of real time on every four mooks in the way.

You can still have a game that runs on ultraviolence and pulp action without bogging the game down in a slow, tedious tactical combat simulator any time a mook looks at a main character funny.

VoxRationis
2014-04-22, 08:24 AM
Your average mook, let's assume, is a low-level warrior; the fighter probably kills him in one hit. If we have a party of 4 mooks and 1 John MacClane:
Initiative: 1 roll for each character plus the DM. 2 rolls.
If the fighter hits 75% of the time, they'll on average have to make 5 attack rolls to kill those four mooks. A mid-level fighter can do that in 2 rounds or less.
2 rounds equals 4 mook attacks for the first round and 2 the second, or perhaps less.
That's 13 rolls in total. Not a huge issue.

Sartharina
2014-04-22, 08:50 AM
Your average mook, let's assume, is a low-level warrior; the fighter probably kills him in one hit. If we have a party of 4 mooks and 1 John MacClane:
Initiative: 1 roll for each character plus the DM. 2 rolls.
If the fighter hits 75% of the time, they'll on average have to make 5 attack rolls to kill those four mooks. A mid-level fighter can do that in 2 rounds or less.
2 rounds equals 4 mook attacks for the first round and 2 the second, or perhaps less.
That's 13 rolls in total. Not a huge issue.That works for the older editions of D&D. The new ones, though, might give John McClane (Who might be a Wizard, not a mere Fighter) more options that take longer to resolve, with slightly tougher mooks that take two hits to kill, have on-death effects, or special abilities that hinder John to make combat more interesting, at the cost of dragging the combat out.

VoxRationis
2014-04-22, 09:25 AM
"Might" being the operative word. If your DM wants a quick fight, he can easily put in foes it takes a couple throws of the dice and no more to kill.

Airk
2014-04-22, 01:31 PM
If this is such a problem, then why spend so much time in combat? Make the game less combat-focused, or if not possible, use a system that does not force such focus on combat.

There will be times when RP is weak or trivial. Characters generally do not explore deep, thought-provoking RP while standing in an elevator, for example. As such, most groups do not spend a lot of RP time standing around in elevators. Perhaps applying the same mentality to combat would be worthwhile.

You appear to be agreeing with me. My original point, which got derailed by all the people saying "Nuh-uh! You can RP in combat! You're just doing it wrong!" is that games which are focused on combat are inherently NOT focused on RP. Because complex combat isn't a good time to RP. Therefore, games which encourage lots of complex combat do not encourage RP. QED. :P



"Might" being the operative word. If your DM wants a quick fight, he can easily put in foes it takes a couple throws of the dice and no more to kill.

In which case, why are you even playing a game with a lot of rules for combat? :)

I find that a LOT of people in gaming circles tend to make arguments that go along the lines of "You can totally do X in system Y! The GM just has to do Q, and ignore Z and you're golden!"; And I always wonder, "Why not just play a system in which the GM -doesn't- have to do Q and ignore Z, so that he can get on with doing things that actually add fun to the game, instead of compensating for the vagaries of the system?"

Or to put it another way - the rules are there to serve and enhance the game. If they are not, and you are ignoring them a lot, then you have a bad set of rules for your purpose and you should be using another one.

Anlashok
2014-04-22, 02:19 PM
You appear to be agreeing with me. My original point, which got derailed by all the people saying "Nuh-uh! You can RP in combat! You're just doing it wrong!" is that games which are focused on combat are inherently NOT focused on RP. Because complex combat isn't a good time to RP. Therefore, games which encourage lots of complex combat do not encourage RP. QED. :P
Which is still inanely circular.

Again. You don't like RPing in combat. You can't RP combat well. That's fine, but trying to slap together these weird logical structurings in an attempt to insist that anyone who doesn't share your experiences is wrong and bad is... silly. Just say "I don't like RPing in combat and I can't RP combat well". That's all you need to do.


I find that a LOT of people in gaming circles tend to make arguments that go along the lines of "You can totally do X in system Y! The GM just has to do Q, and ignore Z and you're golden!"; And I always wonder, "Why not just play a system in which the GM -doesn't- have to do Q and ignore Z, so that he can get on with doing things that actually add fun to the game, instead of compensating for the vagaries of the system?"

Well that's not exactly what was said. The point was to use the rules in such a way to facilitate your playstyle. Such rules already exists. Instead however, we have people slamming their square peg into a round hole for a half an hour then declaring circles to be terrible design as a result rather than using the perfectly sized square hole right beside it.

If you find long tedious combats take away from your ability to play the game... don't do that? Seems pretty straight forward.

VoxRationis
2014-04-22, 02:34 PM
In which case, why are you even playing a game with a lot of rules for combat? :)
Because those combat rules can be used for other things. You gave me the example of wanting to replicate a situation wherein one ambushes a quartet of unimportant mooks and slaughters them more or less automatically, and I told you a way of doing that in D&D. Those rules, however, can be used to make a situation more akin to the long, drawn-out tomb fight scene from Fellowship of the Ring, or a firefight between two forces of spellcasters and crossbowmen in a rickety mineshaft, if you so wish. What the system enables you to do is not necessarily the same as what you MUST do.

Airk
2014-04-22, 04:14 PM
Because those combat rules can be used for other things. You gave me the example of wanting to replicate a situation wherein one ambushes a quartet of unimportant mooks and slaughters them more or less automatically, and I told you a way of doing that in D&D. Those rules, however, can be used to make a situation more akin to the long, drawn-out tomb fight scene from Fellowship of the Ring, or a firefight between two forces of spellcasters and crossbowmen in a rickety mineshaft, if you so wish. What the system enables you to do is not necessarily the same as what you MUST do.

Yes, I already acknowledged this. However, again, a system that enables you do something you want to do is a better choice than one that you have to ignore to do what you want to do.

Also, I happen to think the tomb fight scene in Fellowship was pretty much a waste of my time. ;)



If you find long tedious combats take away from your ability to play the game... don't do that? Seems pretty straight forward.

Since apparently you missed it, that is what I have been saying. Don't use games with long involved combat rules unless you want combat to be the focus of your game. (...rather than roleplaying.)

The whole "you can't RP well in combat, and you're doing it wrong if you don't!" nonsense is a smokescreen for the actual issue.

Anlashok
2014-04-22, 04:43 PM
Since apparently you missed it, that is what I have been saying. Don't use games with long involved combat rules unless you want combat to be the focus of your game. (...rather than roleplaying.)
The problem is your continued (baseless) insistence that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. You not liking roleplay in combat is fine, it's the assertion that anyone who does is wrong that's the point of contention.

Moreover, I was pointing out that even the systems you're insisting are "bad" allow for quick and easy combat, and that it seems a bit disingenuous to complain about half hour to hour long combats when combat being constructed that way is entirely a user issue.


The whole "you can't RP well in combat, and you're doing it wrong if you don't!" nonsense is a smokescreen for the actual issue.
Not a smokescreen, merely denigrating your own point. Because it's quite odd for you to be complaining about all these people insisting that you're "doing it wrong" when you've been the only one in the thread insisting that people who don't agree with your initial premise "don't get it" or are "doing it wrong".

Brookshw
2014-04-22, 07:26 PM
This is a very odd thread. First people are upset that the hypothetical party each solved some challenge using their innate preferred skills, then they got mad that challenges designed to the parties capacity were placed for them to over come. Now were bogged down in combat.

squiggit
2014-04-22, 07:35 PM
This is a very odd thread. First people are upset that the hypothetical party each solved some challenge using their innate preferred skills, then they got mad that challenges designed to the parties capacity were placed for them to over come.

I think the concern there was that, with the way the OP presented it, out sounded more like tokenism and not organic. OP explained that's not how he intended it but at first glance it does look that way and it's easy to see why it might annoy someone.

Airk
2014-04-22, 10:02 PM
The problem is your continued (baseless) insistence that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. You not liking roleplay in combat is fine, it's the assertion that anyone who does is wrong that's the point of contention.

Ah yes, I always roleplay better when I have to stop to move a miniature around on the map, calculate my attack bonus, and roll damage. That really gets me into character. How could anyone possibly argue that RP done in combat is somehow less good?



Moreover, I was pointing out that even the systems you're insisting are "bad" allow for quick and easy combat, and that it seems a bit disingenuous to complain about half hour to hour long combats when combat being constructed that way is entirely a user issue.

And I've already pointed out that you should just use a system where the problem doesn't require you to ignore the rules.



Not a smokescreen, merely denigrating your own point. Because it's quite odd for you to be complaining about all these people insisting that you're "doing it wrong" when you've been the only one in the thread insisting that people who don't agree with your initial premise "don't get it" or are "doing it wrong".

Well, you keep demonstrating that you're not grasping the fundamentals, so I keep trying ways you might understand. :)

VoxRationis
2014-04-22, 11:12 PM
Ah yes, I always roleplay better when I have to stop to move a miniature around on the map, calculate my attack bonus, and roll damage. That really gets me into character. How could anyone possibly argue that RP done in combat is somehow less good?

For one thing, you really shouldn't have to do that much calculating mid-combat if you've done your work properly. A couple +2s from circumstances here and there: basic mental math, really.
Secondly, I play 3.5 more or less exclusively and use miniatures only 1/3 or so of the time.



And I've already pointed out that you should just use a system where the problem doesn't require you to ignore the rules.

Do I suggest that you should switch modes of transportation if you don't use the windshield wipers every time you get into your car? Not using rules when they aren't needed isn't ignoring them in the same way you mean.

Sartharina
2014-04-23, 12:10 AM
Moving miniatures can actually help with roleplaying by providing a visual cue of the action.
The problem is when individual turns take forever.

TuggyNE
2014-04-23, 05:34 AM
This is a very odd thread. First people are upset that the hypothetical party each solved some challenge using their innate preferred skills, then they got mad that challenges designed to the parties capacity were placed for them to over come. Now were bogged down in combat.

That is a) not actually what anyone was upset about and b) not a complete summary of the situation. Per a), the objections were to a set of challenges that seemed artificial, and gated on the absolute necessity of having a character of a particular metagame class present. Per b), while it is necessary to grant every character their own niche of useful skills and to design the game (either the rules or the campaign, or both) to put challenges in the way that are better solved by one useful skill or another, this is not sufficient to achieve good design. These challenges must be reasonable, and generally should be solvable (if at much reduced efficacy) even without whatever metagame role is intended to best solve them.

In short, the lack of a Rogue/Thief/Archeologist should not mean you automatically lose the adventure. Nor should the lack of a Cleric/Healer/Bandaid Box mean you automatically die.

However, since Talakeal has several times said that the example was rather hastily composed, it's probably not a very good topic for continued conversation. Perhaps someone would like to construct a better one?

Amphetryon
2014-04-23, 06:03 AM
My take on an old point by the OP:


That said, many games, D&D in particular, do have things that require certain classes. Dungeons have secret doors, locks, and traps, all of which the rogue class is specifically designed to get around. Likewise the cleric is specifically made to be a healer, and different classes have different spells on their lists, which in the clerics case include spells to destroy undead and banish souls. Most of the spells dealing with undead and souls are simply not available to the bard, nor can a bard pick locks or disarm traps in most situations / editions.

It's generally my experience that most editions of D&D don't actually REQUIRE the things you're saying they require, here. Secret doors, locks, and traps have other methods of allowing the party to bypass them, from the native abilities (in most editions) of Elves and Dwarves, to magic, to ACFs, to merely having creative Players (see also: Mountain Hammer in 3.5, and Teleportation magic in general). Healing can be done in most versions of D&D just fine without the Cleric needing to be a band-aid. . . or needing to be there at all. Spells dealing with the undead are not, strictly speaking, necessary in order to deal with the undead, and in any event, other casters - like Necromancy-focused Wizards (Magic-users, in previous editions) - have access to a number of spells to deal with them.

If, on the other hand, the DM is running the game such that these alternate means of dealing with the adventure are simply not viable, that says more to me about the DM's preferred style of play than it does about the game, or the other Players.

Brookshw
2014-04-23, 09:43 AM
Snip
Actually were were multiple complaints about those very things after clarification was offered. My phone, however is not the most convenient of places from which to quote multiple passages. Even under a pretext of misunderstanding some of the objections, perhaps made in haste, continued to Target game elements generally conceived to be proper and beneficial. That, to my mind at least, certainly makes for an odd conversation.

Agreed that a refined scenario to re-evaluate and provide an improved context would be of benefit.

erikun
2014-04-23, 03:11 PM
You appear to be agreeing with me. My original point, which got derailed by all the people saying "Nuh-uh! You can RP in combat! You're just doing it wrong!" is that games which are focused on combat are inherently NOT focused on RP. Because complex combat isn't a good time to RP. Therefore, games which encourage lots of complex combat do not encourage RP. QED. :P
I wouldn't quite say that.

Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition does not encourage RP in combat, because the combat is overly technical and actively discourages RP in combat. Other systems which use similarly complex combat systems like D&D3e also discourage RP in combat, for the same reason.

But there are systems where RP in combat is not discouraged, and you can even have combat-focused campaigns in those systems without distracting from the RP or bogging down in situations where RP is discouraged. That's the point I'm disagreeing with you on.



This is a very odd thread. First people are upset that the hypothetical party each solved some challenge using their innate preferred skills, then they got mad that challenges designed to the parties capacity were placed for them to over come. Now were bogged down in combat.
I find that happens in D&D a lot. :smallfrown:

Raine_Sage
2014-04-23, 03:48 PM
Obviously any well designed adventure is going to have a lot of places where every role can shine, or at least has the opportunity to shine, the herb being an example.

I was trying to convey that in my OP, but many people seem to have read that as me either; setting up a scenario where the challenges are specifically tailored to the group, everyone else is just there to make the fighter look good, and putting in all sorts of challenges that have only one solution and otherwise stop the adventure.

What I intended was to show a typical adventure and how people could be useful aside from doing mega damage. For example the rogue has better skills, can disarm traps and open locks, and is not a slouch in combat. If he wasn't there the party could have bashed their way through, put they would have likely raised an alarm, taken some trap damage, and been down a man in combat, which would have likely led to their death. They could have replaced the rogue with a ranger, monk, or barbarian, who has some of the same skills and can simply tank their way through the traps or extra monsters and done just as well, but I wanted to use an example where everyone had a very distinct class role to showcase the advantages of diversity to make the example more clearly.

Yeah the thread does seem to have gotten a wee bit derailed huh? I get what you were going for though and personally don't really see anything glaringly wrong with the example encounter as... well an example. But that's the internet for you, like herding cats.

I was trying to highlight Balance from the standpoint of 'everyone contributes in a meaningful way' but really Balance is a nebulous concept. It says something that a Rules Light system and a Rules heavy system can both be wildly different and yet have the same level of balance.

For example I've been playtesting 5th edition which uses a very very simple d20 system. You roll a d20, add your modifier, if you passed the target number you succeed. It's very simple, so all the balance comes from the modifiers. There was a point where our Barbarian needed to wrench an Iron grate out of a wall. The DC wasn't high but he kept rolling poorly, and his modifier wasn't high enough to overcome it. My 9 strength bard waltzes over with a natural 18 and rips the thing off without any trouble. In this instance the game was not very Balanced, because the barbarian was unable to do the thing a barbarian should be best at doing (namely wrecking stuff) while my wimpy scholar apparently had a sudden surge of adrenaline. After that the DM agreed that the Barbarian should have an advantage when it came to breaking down doors or otherwise forcing our way into private property.

Now in 4th edition, the above scenario could not have happened because the Barbarian likely would have had a +12 instead of a +3, the DC would have been 20 and my bard would probably still have had a -1 meaning the highest I could roll would be 19 while the Barbarian only needs to roll above 7 to succeed. Now I am not saying 4th edition is better than 5th! A game being more Balanced does not make it a better or more fun game by default and while I enjoy 4th edition I wouldn't claim it was the better system just because some bards cannot rip metal grates out of walls. But this is what people mean when they talk about balance generally, not "can every party member contribute in every situation" but rather "can a member of the party fulfill their chosen role to their satisfaction."

Because a good DM knows not to throw a metal grate into a party full of bards. A party full of bards would probably face social skill challenges, intrigue, grand performances. Balance isn't about what the party can do because the DM should be tailoring the adventure to that already. It is the ultimate in "life gives you lemons so make lemonade" philosophy. Balance is about "can I do what I want to do, as well as I think I should be doing it."

Thrudd
2014-04-23, 04:32 PM
Because a good DM knows not to throw a metal grate into a party full of bards. A party full of bards would probably face social skill challenges, intrigue, grand performances. Balance isn't about what the party can do because the DM should be tailoring the adventure to that already. It is the ultimate in "life gives you lemons so make lemonade" philosophy. Balance is about "can I do what I want to do, as well as I think I should be doing it."

Conversely, good players know not to all select characters with the same strengths and weaknesses, because they know that they might need a variety of abilities to succeed and don't know exactly what they will be facing.
Balance is about "is the game fair and fun for everyone playing it". It requires a team effort between the game designers, the GMs and the players to be successful.

Talakeal
2014-04-23, 04:44 PM
My take on an old point by the OP:



It's generally my experience that most editions of D&D don't actually REQUIRE the things you're saying they require, here. Secret doors, locks, and traps have other methods of allowing the party to bypass them, from the native abilities (in most editions) of Elves and Dwarves, to magic, to ACFs, to merely having creative Players (see also: Mountain Hammer in 3.5, and Teleportation magic in general). Healing can be done in most versions of D&D just fine without the Cleric needing to be a band-aid. . . or needing to be there at all. Spells dealing with the undead are not, strictly speaking, necessary in order to deal with the undead, and in any event, other casters - like Necromancy-focused Wizards (Magic-users, in previous editions) - have access to a number of spells to deal with them.

If, on the other hand, the DM is running the game such that these alternate means of dealing with the adventure are simply not viable, that says more to me about the DM's preferred style of play than it does about the game, or the other Players.


I suppose a high enough level wizard can do everything, but barring that D&D has a lot of things that are more or less one classes role. For example in 3E no one but a rogue (at least among the core classes) can disarm a trap above a certain difficulty, and in pre 2E no one but a cleric can bring the dead back to life or turn undead. Sure you can bypass these obstacles in other ways, but D&D tried very hard to protect class roles in the past.

And yes, I am aware that necromancers have spells dealing with the undead, but bards, rogues, and fighters do not (at least without spending a lot of time and gold hunting down magic items to replicate the abilities of other classes), and those were the classes in my example. As I said before, I was talking about whether or not the sample party would have been able to solve the challenges some other way, not whether some other party could solve the challenges some other way.




Because a good DM knows not to throw a metal grate into a party full of bards. A party full of bards would probably face social skill challenges, intrigue, grand performances. Balance isn't about what the party can do because the DM should be tailoring the adventure to that already. It is the ultimate in "life gives you lemons so make lemonade" philosophy. Balance is about "can I do what I want to do, as well as I think I should be doing it."


Do they? I have had a lot of people in this very thread criticizing my sample adventure because (among other things) I seemed to be tailoring the challenges to the specific party, which is apparently bad DMing because it is going either on the players and creating an unrealistically contrived adventure.

Personally I go with setting consistency first. The world isn't going to change based on the party and I am not going to change the obstacles that would realistically be there. On the other hand, in character the players aren't going to be asked to go on an adventure which the "quest giver" would know they don't have the skills to complete, and there are very few obstacles that one can't find an alternate for if it means stopping the adventure, although usually it is far less efficient. See my above examples about bypassing a locked door without a rogue type character.

Amphetryon
2014-04-23, 05:29 PM
I suppose a high enough level wizard can do everything, but barring that D&D has a lot of things that are more or less one classes role. For example in 3E no one but a rogue (at least among the core classes) can disarm a trap above a certain difficulty, and in pre 2E no one but a cleric can bring the dead back to life or turn undead. Sure you can bypass these obstacles in other ways, but D&D tried very hard to protect class roles in the past.

And yes, I am aware that necromancers have spells dealing with the undead, but bards, rogues, and fighters do not (at least without spending a lot of time and gold hunting down magic items to replicate the abilities of other classes), and those were the classes in my example. As I said before, I was talking about whether or not the sample party would have been able to solve the challenges some other way, not whether some other party could solve the challenges some other way.

1. Clerics can disarm the traps just fine via Spells and ACFs; I'm sure you'll find other ways to get Trapfinding in 3.5 with a simple search. Arguments to the contrary generally hinge on specific verbiage in the PHb, which did not take into account the various other methods of obtaining Trapfinding because, by and large, they didn't exist in printed form when the 3.0 PHb came out, and nobody bothered to continually update the docs to keep pace with the speed of publishing.

2. Traps that the party can't disarm can by bypassed in other ways.

3. If the trap can only be bypassed via the Rogue disarming it, if nobody else is allowed to even try or come up with an alternate means of bypassing it, AND if the adventure hinges entirely on the party interacting with and disarming that particular trap, that sounds a lot like railroading from here, and what happens if the Rogue - for example - tries to disarm the trap and fails? "Sorry, guys, you lose. The only way to win was to disarm that trap, and you failed, so the bad guys win."

Knaight
2014-04-23, 05:40 PM
I was trying to highlight Balance from the standpoint of 'everyone contributes in a meaningful way' but really Balance is a nebulous concept. It says something that a Rules Light system and a Rules heavy system can both be wildly different and yet have the same level of balance...But this is what people mean when they talk about balance generally, not "can every party member contribute in every situation" but rather "can a member of the party fulfill their chosen role to their satisfaction."

This is a subset of balance. More widely, it's about player engagement. Often this involves character spotlight, wherein the game focuses on the characters evenly, though games with heavier meta game mechanics can often have those involved to some degree instead.

"Everyone contributes in a meaningful way" only comes up because D&D is specifically in the adventuring game niche. It is a game about people accomplishing tasks, and thus their ability to do so is very relevant to balance. In a game like Fiasco, which is about people spiraling towards their own destruction, it's suddenly irrelevant. Things like fulfilling chosen roles enough to contribute are irrelevant, replaced by having a character who's interesting in the scenes they're in and who self destructs in an interesting way (or, occasionally, doesn't and is probably a force in everybody else's destruction).

Raine_Sage
2014-04-23, 05:53 PM
This is a subset of balance. More widely, it's about player engagement. Often this involves character spotlight, wherein the game focuses on the characters evenly, though games with heavier meta game mechanics can often have those involved to some degree instead.

"Everyone contributes in a meaningful way" only comes up because D&D is specifically in the adventuring game niche. It is a game about people accomplishing tasks, and thus their ability to do so is very relevant to balance. In a game like Fiasco, which is about people spiraling towards their own destruction, it's suddenly irrelevant. Things like fulfilling chosen roles enough to contribute are irrelevant, replaced by having a character who's interesting in the scenes they're in and who self destructs in an interesting way (or, occasionally, doesn't and is probably a force in everybody else's destruction).

Hm, I don't know I still hesitate to call that Balance though because it's very dependent on how the DM runs the game as opposed to the rules of the game itself? Of course it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding what you mean here.

But say I tell the players "Ok I am going to run a game where the setting is underwater. So make sure your characters are built for undersea schenanigans" and then one player decides they really want to play a...I don't know a fire elemental or something. Obviously fire elemental player is stuck on dry land and cannot contribute in a meaningful way to the game. That's not the game being unbalanced that's the player being a ****. That's why I would say 'players not being able to contribute' is less a failing of the game and more on human error which is unavoidable no matter what system you play in. Unless the player is unable to contribute in a strictly mechanical sense like for example a barbarian being unable to break down a door, which is definitely a failing of the game and not the DM or players.

Talakeal
2014-04-23, 05:58 PM
1. Clerics can disarm the traps just fine via Spells and ACFs; I'm sure you'll find other ways to get Trapfinding in 3.5 with a simple search. Arguments to the contrary generally hinge on specific verbiage in the PHb, which did not take into account the various other methods of obtaining Trapfinding because, by and large, they didn't exist in printed form when the 3.0 PHb came out, and nobody bothered to continually update the docs to keep pace with the speed of publishing.

2. Traps that the party can't disarm can by bypassed in other ways.

3. If the trap can only be bypassed via the Rogue disarming it, if nobody else is allowed to even try or come up with an alternate means of bypassing it, AND if the adventure hinges entirely on the party interacting with and disarming that particular trap, that sounds a lot like railroading from here, and what happens if the Rogue - for example - tries to disarm the trap and fails? "Sorry, guys, you lose. The only way to win was to disarm that trap, and you failed, so the bad guys win."

I don't know how many times I have to say this:

Yes, all problems can be solved in an alternate manner.

The point remains that simply disarming a trap is usually the fastest and most efficient way to bypass one, and the PHB specifically forbids anyone but a rogue from doing this for complex traps. I have already listed multitudes of ways one could bypass a trap, but almost all of them require the expenditure of resources, time, or risk.

jedipotter
2014-04-23, 10:48 PM
I was trying to highlight Balance from the standpoint of 'everyone contributes in a meaningful way' but really Balance is a nebulous concept. It says something that a Rules Light system and a Rules heavy system can both be wildly different and yet have the same level of balance.

Because a good DM knows not to throw a metal grate into a party full of bards. A party full of bards would probably face social skill challenges, intrigue, grand performances. Balance isn't about what the party can do because the DM should be tailoring the adventure to that already. It is the ultimate in "life gives you lemons so make lemonade" philosophy. Balance is about "can I do what I want to do, as well as I think I should be doing it."

Balance is not ''everyone contributes in a meaningful way'', that is participation.

I don't think that when the DM has a group of bards that they should bard up the world. That is not balance, that unbalances the world. And when every door is ''locked with a song'' or something, you have gone too far.

Knaight
2014-04-23, 11:26 PM
Hm, I don't know I still hesitate to call that Balance though because it's very dependent on how the DM runs the game as opposed to the rules of the game itself? Of course it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding what you mean here.

The way the GM runs the game is highly relevant here, but it's also worth noting that games have mechanics that suggest certain modes of operation. D&D has a bunch of combat, a bunch of dungeoneering, and an anemic skill system plus some spells. It's clearly made in the mode of people going and doing things, where the things meant to be done most involve dungeoneering and combat. Thus, balance is centered around those things.

Fiasco? Fiasco doesn't even have mechanics that deal with the question of "does a character succeed at this task". Fiasco's mechanics are set up in such a way as to design characters, and stick them in scenes together under certain conditions. The focus of the game is different, and thus what needs to be balanced is different. Or, for a more traditional game: Legend of the Five Rings. Yes, it has a well developed combat system. It also has specific rules for tea ceremonies and a number of other social ceremonies, along with all sorts of etiquette things. The game is clearly meant to encompass that side as much as combat, and thus what is balanced changes to accommodate.


I don't think that when the DM has a group of bards that they should bard up the world. That is not balance, that unbalances the world. And when every door is ''locked with a song'' or something, you have gone too far.
It's a group of bards. If we assume troubadours, and assume troubadours consistently above the law* so as to not need lockpicking skills, the obvious question comes up of why they are even dealing with locked doors routinely.

For a better example - say we have a criminal organization. They've got their heavy enforcers, who tend to use as much armor and as big weapons as they can get away with, along with generally being able to beat face. They've also got their thieves, some of whom are more on the acrobatic burglar side and some of whom are con artists. They've got their people who've infiltrated the government. Now, say the party is part of this criminal organization, and they're all either con artists, spies, or burglars. They probably won't be seeing much fighting. Sure, occasionally rival criminal organizations might try to take them out, or they might run up against the law, but those occurrences should be rare. They certainly won't be who the organization turns to when they need someone attacked. Meanwhile the enforcer types will probably be involved in a fair few fights, but probably won't find themselves doing much breaking through second story windows. It's not what they're there for.

Basically, it makes perfect sense for the type of characters in play to affect the nature of the campaign. It affects what opportunities they will seek out, who will look for them, etc. That doesn't mean it will always be something that they're good at. Sometimes the beat sticks end up with an object that absolutely needs to not get to the guard in a locked building that needs infiltrating now, and they're the only ones there. Sometimes the peaceful types end up sucked into violence. Still, there's likely to be a substantial difference, in a completely organic way.

*Which is in blatant violation of numerous fantasy archetypes.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-24, 02:18 AM
Balance is not ''everyone contributes in a meaningful way'', that is participation.

I don't think that when the DM has a group of bards that they should bard up the world. That is not balance, that unbalances the world. And when every door is ''locked with a song'' or something, you have gone too far.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I did not mean to imply that every single challenge should be tailored specifically to bards. Just that the nature of the quests an all bard party will take (and by association the nature of possible roadblocks) will be different from the quests an all barbarian party might undertake. And that a wise DM will not try and cram an all bard party into the story written for a bunch of barbarians and vice versa.

That doesn't mean they'll never come up against obstacles like locked doors. It just means instead of breaking the door down, they need to find a key. Or an open window. Or perhaps one of them has a set of lockpicking tools and some proficiency with thievery skills. It does mean however that they probably will not be the King's first pick to send out after a dragon.

Amphetryon
2014-04-24, 06:06 AM
I don't know how many times I have to say this:

Yes, all problems can be solved in an alternate manner.

The point remains that simply disarming a trap is usually the fastest and most efficient way to bypass one, and the PHB specifically forbids anyone but a rogue from doing this for complex traps. I have already listed multitudes of ways one could bypass a trap, but almost all of them require the expenditure of resources, time, or risk.

I specifically addressed the most rational reason why the PHb makes that particular proscription, too, so 'yelling' about points you don't feel are acknowledged while failing to acknowledge points presented is a curious choice. I also note no commentary on the notion, apparently central to your argument for traps somehow to play a role in party balance, that traps should not be a 'Bob has to solve this or we fail' binary encounter, incidentally. I'm also not at all sure what you think your trap example contributes to a discussion of "everyone needs a time to shine for there to be balance" when - by your own admission, which you bolded above, dealing with traps can be done in a variety of ways, by a variety of Classes, none of which get to do so without some 'expenditure of resources, time, or risk.'

In other words, traps are something that should be able to be solved by anyone in the party who chooses to try, and should not be a show-stopper if nobody succeeds, so holding them up as a way to let a particular party member shine is not reasonable.

Vitruviansquid
2014-04-24, 06:54 AM
Good balance is not about *what* a character can do, but *when* a character can do. That is to say, it doesn't matter what problems a character can solve. What matters is that a character can be relevant and important for different parts of the game.

The reason I would not like to play the hypothetical session in the first post is that, given ideal conditions, each player only feels relevant 25% of the time. And since we're probably talking about DnD, what's actually going on is that the hypothetical effective fighter and the bard feel relevant 90% of the time while the other classes feel relevant 10% of the time because you'd spend a few hours on combat and maybe half an hour on conversation for every couple minutes or even seconds spent researching an enemy (which would be one dice roll) or disarming a trap (again, one dice roll).

A well-balanced game means players are engaged for the majority of the time, and one player's engagement is not mutually exclusive with another player's engagement. DnD 4e *usually* does this very well with its skill challenge system and combat system. Everyone's involved in the skill challenge system because, iirc, it's up to the players to think about how they will use their skills to solve a problem rather than the DM telling them one sort of check is appropriate and having a player try that check. When you have a problem to solve, like trying to find the weakness of a Lich, the Warlord might propose a History check to study up on past adventurers' encounters with liches, the wizard might try an Arcane check to see if he can understand anything about a Lich's spells, and the Rogue might try a Thievery check to spy on the Lich and find a good time to ambush him. Success is always measured by the party's ability as a whole to come up with and succeed on a variety of tasks (there are other flaws to the system, but I'll not go into them for this thread). DnD 4e's combat also has a very high percentage of the time each player is engaged (by design, because it doesn't always work out ideally) because each class is supposedly able to accomplish one role well and one role poorly, but is unable to do anything with the other roles. Since a successful group needs all roles filled (by design, again), you rarely if ever have a situation when a player or multiple players are irrelevant to combat.

Talakeal
2014-04-24, 05:38 PM
I specifically addressed the most rational reason why the PHb makes that particular proscription, too, so 'yelling' about points you don't feel are acknowledged while failing to acknowledge points presented is a curious choice. I also note no commentary on the notion, apparently central to your argument for traps somehow to play a role in party balance, that traps should not be a 'Bob has to solve this or we fail' binary encounter, incidentally. I'm also not at all sure what you think your trap example contributes to a discussion of "everyone needs a time to shine for there to be balance" when - by your own admission, which you bolded above, dealing with traps can be done in a variety of ways, by a variety of Classes, none of which get to do so without some 'expenditure of resources, time, or risk.'

In other words, traps are something that should be able to be solved by anyone in the party who chooses to try, and should not be a show-stopper if nobody succeeds, so holding them up as a way to let a particular party member shine is not reasonable.

I was under the impression that typing in all caps was yelling and bold was for emphasis, if that is not the case I am sorry.

In all editions of D&D rogues have the trap finding ability. They are the best at it* (save a high OP caster who makes everyone irrelevant). While it does not end the adventure if they fail, it is still easier. It takes time and resources (be they gold, spell slots, or HP loss) to get around a trap or a lock in another manner, while a rogue simply rolls a dice and moves on.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that class abilities aren't supposed to make an encounter easier or allow that class to shine? Bardic lore doesn't mean it is useful to have a bard when trying to learn something, spontaneous healing spells doesn't make a cleric handy when the party needs healing, animal empathy doesn't make encountering wild animals easier, etc.? Why are there even abilities in the game then, hell why are there even classes?

* At least among the PHB classes

Talakeal
2014-04-24, 05:54 PM
You know what, let me try two different examples to illustrate my point:

First:


James Bond, Indiana Jones, and Conan the Barbarian decide to go on an adventure.

The adventure is evenly divided between social encounters, combat, and exploration.

All three characters are useful in all three situations and the adventure is balanced so that you need atleast three characters to have a reasonable chance of success.

However, during social encounters the smooth secret agent James Bond is clearly more at home than the other two. Likewise Indiana Jones' knowledge of ancient ruins gives him a larger role during exploration sections, and neither one of them can quite keep up with the mighty barbarian in battle.



Second:

Robin Hood and Little John go on an adventure. They face many encounters, 25% of which Robin Hood is best equipped to deal with an Little John probably couldn't handle on his own; 25% of which Little John is best equipped to deal with and Robin Hood probably couldn't handle on his own, 25% of which either man could handle on his own, and 25% of which neither man could handle alone but a combination of their skills pull through.

Third:

As in number two, but the percentages aren't precisely equal. Although both men are still needed, the particular adventure is more suited to Robin Hood's skills and he has the spotlight slightly more often than Little John.



How do you view party balance in these situations?

Vitruviansquid
2014-04-24, 07:05 PM
The only good balance in any of these scenarios is the time when Robin Hood and Little John have an encounter that neither of them could solve alone.

jaydubs
2014-04-24, 08:03 PM
James Bond, Indiana Jones, and Conan the Barbarian decide to go on an adventure.

The adventure is evenly divided between social encounters, combat, and exploration.

All three characters are useful in all three situations and the adventure is balanced so that you need atleast three characters to have a reasonable chance of success.

However, during social encounters the smooth secret agent James Bond is clearly more at home than the other two. Likewise Indiana Jones' knowledge of ancient ruins gives him a larger role during exploration sections, and neither one of them can keep up with the mighty barbarian in battle.



If you replaced the bolded part with "neither one of them can quite keep up," I'd be generally satisfied with the situation. I'm really not trying to give you grief, as I quite like the example in general. You picked three characters who could all be mistaken for the star of the show, which is important.

I'm just noting that the degree of separation in prowess is important. Having one character be more proficient in combat is perfectly acceptable, and a reasonable trade for lesser competency in other areas. But leaving the other characters in the dust is not, especially in regards to combat.

For whatever cultural or psychological reason, we as human beings often perceive combative capability as one of the most important defining marks of heroes in stories. Even in those stories where the defining element of the hero is something like intellect, leadership, or guile, the hero is usually still an extremely capable fighter. For example, Odysseus, Batman, Orson Scott Card's Ender, every Star Trek captain, etc. Our calculus must reflect that bias, since the purpose of game balance is to manage how important players feel, rather than some objective measurement.

But I quite like your example in general. Especially since the social and exploratory heroes you picked also happen to be the best fighters in their respective series, and would likely not be completely outmatched by Conan.




Second:

Robin Hood and Little John go on an adventure. They face many encounters, 25% of which Robin Hood is best equipped to deal with an Little John probably couldn't handle on his own; 25% of which Little John is best equipped to deal with and Robin Hood probably couldn't handle on his own, 25% of which either man could handle on his own, and 25% of which neither man could handle alone but a combination of their skills pull through.



Sounds good. But, see below.




Third:

As in number two, but the percentages aren't precisely equal. Although both men are still needed, the particular adventure is more suited to Robin Hood's skills and he has the spotlight slightly more often than Little John.



You can never achieve perfect balance, so almost equal balance is actually great. As above, the only thing I would note again is that perceptions are very important. The fact that we know that Robin Hood was the hero of the story and Little John was the supporting character, makes those particular choices unfortunate.

Without that outside knowledge, if two players were playing in the game without a big neon sign saying "this guy is the star," it works.

Talakeal
2014-04-24, 08:39 PM
Ok, Done :)

Knaight
2014-04-24, 11:46 PM
James Bond, Indiana Jones, and Conan the Barbarian decide to go on an adventure.

The adventure is evenly divided between social encounters, combat, and exploration.

All three characters are useful in all three situations and the adventure is balanced so that you need atleast three characters to have a reasonable chance of success.

However, during social encounters the smooth secret agent James Bond is clearly more at home than the other two. Likewise Indiana Jones' knowledge of ancient ruins gives him a larger role during exploration sections, and neither one of them can quite keep up with the mighty barbarian in battle.
This sounds like a pretty solid game to me.

Sartharina
2014-04-26, 03:15 PM
That is a) not actually what anyone was upset about and b) not a complete summary of the situation. Per a), the objections were to a set of challenges that seemed artificial, and gated on the absolute necessity of having a character of a particular metagame class present. Per b), while it is necessary to grant every character their own niche of useful skills and to design the game (either the rules or the campaign, or both) to put challenges in the way that are better solved by one useful skill or another, this is not sufficient to achieve good design. These challenges must be reasonable, and generally should be solvable (if at much reduced efficacy) even without whatever metagame role is intended to best solve them.

In short, the lack of a Rogue/Thief/Archeologist should not mean you automatically lose the adventure. Nor should the lack of a Cleric/Healer/Bandaid Box mean you automatically die.

However, since Talakeal has several times said that the example was rather hastily composed, it's probably not a very good topic for continued conversation. Perhaps someone would like to construct a better one?I actually think that good adventure design SHOULD require different archetypes: Brute/Guardian, Arcane Caster, Divine Caster, and Covert Operator. Not all roles need to be filled by only one person, and one person can fill many roles (Such as a Ranger being a combo of Guardian and Covert Operator).

A better one along the same theme would be An Evil Lich/Cleric/Mummy Lord starting a ritual within his massive catacomic tombs, guarded by patrols of monsters and devious traps. The dungeon has many access points from the wilderness that can bypass significant chunks of the labyrinthine catacombs. The ritual is also keyed to the phases of the moon and alignment of the stars.

In town, a properly-built party can either have the party bard/rogue seek out people to learn about what's going on, such as learning about the secret entrances from hunters, and ritual from scholars. Or, a ranger can scout the area himself, and a party wizard or knowledge-aligned cleric/oracle could study the sky to learn about the ritual (Gaining a timeframe for the mission and way to easily disrupt the ritual when they find it). A party fighter's probably left out in this phase, but can substitute for a social bard/rogue by getting drunk in the tavern and learning about the kidnapped victim, and her heroic brother/fiance who has gone in to find her (Providing more information about the ritual, and also information about a potential ally already in the dungeon). The DM may 'fudge things' to ensure the party finds the heroic fiance if they've heard of him, otherwise they have to get lucky and stumble across him in the dungeon.

Inside the dungeon itself, there are numerous monsters, traps, and pathways to explore and try to reach the ritual. A proficient scout is able to find the most efficient/safest paths through the dungeon, and time the party to avoid monstrous patrols. The support/divine caster like a cleric is invaluable for keeping the party together, whether it's by proactively providing buffs, protections, and control to help the party overcome the challenges ahead, or patching them up again in the aftermath. A Control/Utility caster like a wizard can trivialize a limited number of encounters - but his resources are limited. Combat is best when it's not an "All party show", unless the party lacks a guardian. A proper guardian should be able to handle most direct combat challenges on her own, and have them be resolved swiftly. However, full party support allows her to go further on this front. But she should still be the main damage-dealer in encounters the wizard doesn't one-shot or rogue doesn't neutralize from the shadows (I hate the "Four full-ensemble encounters a day" paradigm - there should be encounters where a rogue can handle the entire thing alone by getting the drop on the opponent at the opportune time, where a fighter can just butcher an encounter on her own, a wizard can spend a spell slot or two to solve, and a cleric can spend a spell slot to say it might as well have never happened.) A guardian also works as a physical wall, allowing the party to escape overwhelming encounters by standing in the way long enough to let her allies get to safety, and still have enough durability to get out herself when the party eventually runs into trouble. Having an arcane and divine caster also ensures the party can use all scrolls they need to fill out gaps they normally can't handle.

When all goes well with optimal, balanced performance, the party slinks into the catacombs from a hidden entrance after quickly learning their timeframe and best time to attack, while the rogue leads them to avoid the worst of the traps and monsters. They link up with the fiance, who provides useful combat or support ability, fun exposition, and greater reward when the mission's over. The party wizard or cleric knows how to disrupt the ritual to make the fight with the mummy lord easier and ensure a happiest ending, and also is used to neutralize tough encounters they can't sneak around. The cleric provides broad support to firepower and defenses to give them more room for mistakes, and a the guardian takes care of any encounters they can't sneak around and aren't worth the wizards' spell slots to neutralize, as well as pulling a significant chunk of the weight in the 'boss fight'. The party rogue manages to also sniff out all the important, hidden-away treasure of note, and the Guardian has the strength to help them haul the loot back. At the end of the day, the mummy is vanquished forever, the ritual is disrupted before it takes hold, the catacombs can be quelled in the future at the party's leisure, all the treasure can be taken, the damsel is saved and reunited with her family/fiance, and the party is richly rewarded by the town for achieving all objectives.

In the end, it's possible for unbalanced parties to still get through, though the results may not be optimal.

An all-rogue party might not get all the information they need, though they have the social ability to get it if they think to pursue it. However, it requires knowing to consult the hunters AND the sages AND the tavern regulars. Without a guardian or support caster, they have almost no room for mistakes in getting through the catacombs, where they lack the firepower to take on the monsters, and bad luck might cost them a few members on the traps - but since they're all accomplished scouts and trap-breakers, they can succeed in getting through as long as they have one survive. They may or may not find the Fiance, who, being a jack-of-all-trades, provides invaluable durability, combat ability, and support abilities to the party, but his lower stealth ability, while not insurmountable, makes keeping him protected and alive much harder, and he's no substitute for a dedicated guardian, control caster, and support caster combo. It's very likely he will get killed over the course of the mission. The party's capable of sniffing out all the treasure, but cannot carry all of it back with them. If/when they finally do make it to the end, it's highly possible they don't have the manpower to take out the Mummy, and may be forced to make a brutal choice between vanquishing the mummy, disrupting the ritual before it completes itself, and rescuing the damsel. At the end of the day, most are dead or crippled (leaving them unable to risk a second venture into the catacombs), the fiance is slain, the catacombs are still dangerous, they have some of the treasure, and the party may have failed to accomplish several of the objectives, meaning the ritual will haunt the town, or the mummy will strike again in the future, or the damsel is dead too.

An all-Guardian party, likewise, will probably come into town, maybe have the cross-class ability to find a secret entrance, maybe not. They can probably learn about the fiance in the tavern, but are unlikely to know about the ritual. They might have a cross-class trapbreaker like a Barbarian, but will struggle to find the traps, and are pretty much hitting the full defenses head-on. Fortunately, they should have the strength to get through, and if they have a backup Paladin or anyone trained in First Aid, they can at least be patched up when **** gets serious. However, they are highly dependent on luck to bust through, and are unlikely to find any of the hidden treasure, or Fiance if they didn't learn about him in town. They're also going in blind, so they may miss the deadline of the ritual if they try to rest and recuperate too often. However, they do have the durability and combat prowess to outright overpower the muscle-wall challenges a 'balanced' party is required to sneak past, ensorcel, or use a "You hold them off while we run" strategy, and have no trouble hauling the treasure they DO find. By the end of the crawl they are seriously hurting, and are at serious risk of losing party members - whether it's them getting eaten one at a time, but leaving the others strong enough to carry on without them, or all taking blows relatively uniformly, to have most of them collapse in quick succession in the final stretch. They should have no more trouble keeping the fiance alive than any of themselves, and he provides valuable skill support, an extra blade, and a bit of recuperative power. They are unlikely to be able to properly disrupt the ritual or permanently vanquish the Mummy. By the time they reach the end of the hall, there's a chance the ritual is already completed and they're too late, leaving them only to vanquish the mummy in a difficult fight and bring the grim news back to town, and deal with the aftermath of the completed ritual. Or, they might get there in time, save the damsel, vanquish the mummy, and have no way to stop the ritual, leaving them to have to continue fighting its fallout for several more adventures. At the end of the day, they have some of the treasure, the catacombs are quelled, the Fiance is safe, the ritual is still haunting the land, the mummy is vanquished, many of the brave warriors are dead, cursed, or crippled, and the damsel may or may not be rescued. Partial, costly victory, or a lucrative defeat.

It gets a bit more interesting in potential results with an All-Caster party. They will easily be able to figure out the ritual, but will likely have to spend spell resources to learn about the hidden entrances or fiance. The sheer number of spell slots they have available brings success down to how well they prepare - With luck and intelligence, they can breeze through the catacombs without issue and vanquish the Mummy and stop the ritual - but they're unlikely to achieve the secondary objectives of meeting/rescuing the fiance, quelling the catacombs, and getting all the treasure. Conversely, bad luck or spell preparation can completely drain and wipe the entire party - and the loss of any single member dramatically removes their ability to handle future encounters because of spell-selection specialization ("He was the one with the Explosive Runes bomb prepared!") - or force them to take so many breaks to regroup and recover that they miss the deadline, lose the damsel, and have to clean up after the ritual. This can end up all over the place depending on luck.

It also shows the ideal balance of at-will abilities vs. spell slots - Yes, a Wizard can spend spell slots to scout, bypass locks and traps or gather information, but doing so reduces their ability to fight monsters and bypass traps, and scout in the future.


And on the Indy, Bond, and Conan - that is a pretty cool blend of characters, though they're capable of overlapping their abilities: Conan's the best in melee combat, but Indy's no slouch with his whip and pistol, and Bond is able to cause some damage in a fight with his own gunplay, gadgets and car-fu. Conan is Combat+Stealth+Muscle, Bond is Stealth+Social+Utility, while Indy is Social+Combat+Sage.

TuggyNE
2014-04-26, 09:40 PM
In the end, it's possible for unbalanced parties to still get through, though the results may not be optimal.

That's all I really need to know, because the main distinction to be made here is between hard and soft niche protection: is it practical for a party lacking Role X to make it through? If yes, then we're good.

And yes, some game designs and designers would answer no to that.

Sartharina
2014-04-26, 09:59 PM
That's all I really need to know, because the main distinction to be made here is between hard and soft niche protection: is it practical for a party lacking Role X to make it through? If yes, then we're good.

And yes, some game designs and designers would answer no to that.

Well, one of the cool things about D&D is that the roles can be broad enough that anyone can fill a niche in a pinch. You can build stealthy scout trap-breaking barbarians as Covert Operators, or blink-tanky, swashbuckling rogues to function as Guardians, or throw two half-powered people with essence of a niche to fill a role.

It's entirely possible to require a game with only four classes to demand that all four roles are needed to succeed. The problem in D&D arises when it takes an extremely specific set of abilities from one class and expects the party to need it. If a magical power is needed to overcome an obstacle, a Wizard will almost always auto-solve it, but a Bard, Cleric with the Magic domain, or even rogue with UMD can do the job in a pinch.

Talakeal
2014-04-26, 10:01 PM
That's all I really need to know, because the main distinction to be made here is between hard and soft niche protection: is it practical for a party lacking Role X to make it through? If yes, then we're good.

And yes, some game designs and designers would answer no to that.

I agree 100%, and if someone took something else from any of my earlier posts that was not my intent. Soft niche protection is, imo, good, hard niche protection is completely stupid and implausible from both a game mechanics perspective and a verisimilitude perspective. I do, however, think that a balanced party should be slightly more efficient than a party which is stacking or lacking a given role, but some people vehemently disagree with that assumption.