"balance to the table" and what it actually entails [Archive]

King of Nowhere

2019-11-18, 05:09 PM

Balance is about finding out what works for your playgroup and your playstyle.

You can play D&D as is, with no houserules at all, with bog-standard Fighters alongside CodZillas and Wizards, and it can work just fine. As long as everyone is having a good time.

You can houserule a lot, ban several classes/feats/spells/items for being too powerful or not powerful enough, and it can still work just fine. As long as everyone is having a good time.

There isn't really an objective "balance" to D&D. You need to find what works for you and yours, and what makes the game fun for you.

"Balance to the table" isn't an actual concept with anything resembling a definition. It's a meme more than anything else. It's certainly not something people actually agree on. Some people will tell you to houserule, others that players should coordinate to create similarly-powerful characters

those are very informative. I assumed balancing to the table to have a specific meaning, but it's actually very broad. it encompasses what i do at my table, and much more.

Your question is included in "Balnace to the table", but its way down in the order/Magnitude of what the expression means.

Balancing to the table, as we practice it, goes soemthing like this:

DM state4s what level of Optimization he is comfortable with.
DM and Players decide to what, if at all, Power Level of classes they want to limit the game.
Then the more experienced players/the DM come up with single abilities or spells that they think endanger the aforementioned ppower level.

As a result, you have a game that is very well balanced to the table, and hence will likely cause much less problems/impede the fun as little as possible.

But only after quite a bit of work.

Very generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with a group playing at any particular level of optimization. If everybody is playing Commoners, or everybody's playing Spheres Of Might/Power builds, or everybody's playing Zeroficers, then everybody has fun. If somebody is playing a bad class super-optimized, while somebody else is playing a pretty laid-back wizard, and somebody else is playing a competent bard build, everybody can still have fun.
and this is what we actually wanted to achieve. however, inexperience and slow drifts on a term campaign got in the way.
the wizard player started quite unexperienced, and that's why we thought we could handle a poorly optimized wizard with more optimized weaker classes.
but the wizard player got very interested and he started to go through the internet. he is not a bad player and he does not actively want to outshine the others, but he gets "ohhhh, shiny!" for every new toy he finds. he can recognize and steer away from the most broken stuff, but there's all those strong spells that are not broken by themselves, but they are very strong and if you allow all of them then a wizard can really do everything... and the dm lacked the mechanical skill to know where to veto, while I (as the most skilled player, I could have suggested the dm to veto stuff) had run a successful campaign with very restrictive vetos on casters and wanted to try to loosen it up a little, so

(and God help you if you make a mistake along the way).
we did made a mistake along the way.

but we've been playing a long time, and we got attached to our characters, so changing them is not an issue. increasing the power level of everyone is not an issue, because the dm and two more players wouldn't be able to handle it. we care enough for the story that retconning stuff (with all the inevitable immersion-breaking) is not an option.
so all we have left is restricting new spells, or nerf them.
And the wizard is the first who says "no, i don't want to become broken and outclass you guys too much. Feel free to ban stuff as you - hey, look at this nice spell! can i have it?"

and that's the story of why we were trying to nerf a spell - and not even one of the most broken - to achieve "balance to the table" when we were all perfectly aware that the problem was stemming from much bigger issues.

we still have plenty of fun, though, and we make it work just enough that the wizard is clearly the star of the team, but doesn't outshine the rest of the party too badly.

Fizban

2019-11-18, 05:30 PM

It backfired because it turns out people on the internet often don't agree about things. As has been mentioned, "balance to the table" doesn't have any real definition, and various posters all thought there were different primary problems that were different people's faults. I'll tend to blame things on the DM myself, but an Actual DM isn't perfect and an Actual Game will start with the group knowing a certain amount and having a certain playstyle that can probably will change over time, which means that even things the DM could have seen coming aren't some horrible sin, because the game changed partway through.

Like I said in that thread, you'd already identified the problem your group had and come up with basically the best possible solution before starting the thread. Your only mistake was expecting the internet to trust your evaluation and agree on their recommended solution.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-11-18, 07:44 PM

"Balance to the table" doesn't mean anything specifically. I've always taken the phrase, or something like it, to mean you should eyeball the power other PCs and the DM like to play at and aim for roughly the same area.

If the players and GM like to play a kick-in-the-door style dungeon-crawling campaign where you're flying by the seat of your pants from one in-game day to the next, it's inappropriate to bring in a diviner/seer/cerebremancer that essentially knows -everything- before it happens and sets things up to rofl-stomp every encounter. Not only is it a style mismatch but you're coming in at a -way- higher level of effectiveness than the other PCs and the making the GM's life harder by both making encounters more difficult to plan and by forcing him to come up with the high-magic counters that only come with a -huge- body of knowledge both about the game and about various IRL security and strategic matters.

On the other hand, if they like playing 5-dimensional, cloak-and-dagger, ultra-caster chess then it's just as inappropriate to roll up a VoP, single-class monk. Less disruptive, perhaps, as they only have to worry about carrying the deadweight and introducing your character's inevitable replacement but still in bad form.

Most groups will land somewhere between those two and there's nothing for it but to use your eyes and your head to figure out where the actual balance point of your group is then to try and match it.

rrwoods

2019-11-18, 09:34 PM

It is the nature of asking for and receiving advice that sometimes you don’t want the thing you think you want. It’s prudent to both recognize when this is true, and recognize when the advice givers are being unnecessarily dogmatic.

That said — and I didn’t read past the first page of the original thread so I have no idea what mud was thrown after that — Incantatrix class features are way way more problematic than any individual damaging spell, period. That’s why you got responses that were not about what the letter of what you asked: because the actual goal you have (I think) would not be served by answering the letter of what you asked.

False God

2019-11-18, 10:04 PM

but isn't that what balance to the table means? you evaluate every feat, every spell, and ban those that are above the power level decided for the table? Or maybe I misunderstood the concept?
....
Thanks

Frankly, that sounds insane.

I'd always taken "balance to the table" to be that much like Session Zero agreement to play a certain style of game, you have also agreed to voluntarily limit yourselves to a certain power level. Not that powerful spells are banned, but that players choose not to use them, or they use powerful spells for lower-power uses.

Doctor Awkward

2019-11-18, 10:57 PM

Fizban

2019-11-19, 05:03 AM

but isn't that what balance to the table means? you evaluate every feat, every spell, and ban those that are above the power level decided for the table? Or maybe I misunderstood the concept?Frankly, that sounds insane.
The trick is that none of that has to be frontloaded. It is impossible to actually play the game with every element at once. Only the stuff people are using is being used. So you only need to evaluate stuff that they want to use. And most of that is basic functionality you don't actually need to review.

So all you really need to do is check over the new stuff they're taking each time they level up, which is only a handful of things. If you actually do so regularly you will be ready to make those decisions quickly because you already put in the work spread out in little bits over time, and with every game your backlog of known issues grows. It is only if you dive straight into the deep end of high level forum builds that you have a giant wall of stuff to either learn immediately or throw up your hands at.

Quertus

2019-11-19, 05:14 AM

So, everyone says the game is not balanced but you can do fine if you "balance to the table".
Which i always intended as "you decide which power level is appropriate, and then you ban stuff to prevent people becoming too powerful, and you help the weaker ones to improve, but special emphasis on banning stuff that's above the table's power level"
But it seems perhaps I may have gotten the wrong concept.

So, when I coined the phrase¹ years ago, it meant approximately the exact opposite of what you describe. It's an admonition to the players to bring balanced playing pieces², and to the GM to allow them to do so. Let me step through the thought process.

0) The baseline is for the GM to understand the adventure content, know the module. Most trivially because, for example, a political campaign will produce different results from a hack & slash dungeon crawl or a horror game. But knowledge of the module also matters because the specifics of the content (such as the prevalence of undead in Necrophilia on Bone Hill) can skew the effectiveness of certain concepts (the Diplomacer or DPS rogue will be disadvantaged in that example).

1) The first step is to determine what, exactly, you are balancing. This may seem silly, but not all groups measure balance the same way. My classic example is groups that only measure DPS, where a Tainted Sorcerer BFC God Wizard would be considered not just UP, but actually not contributing at all.

2) The second step is for the GM to determine the baseline character(s), the one(s) who roughly hit stride with the content's expected difficulty.

3) Next, determine the group's balance range. How far from this baseline - and from each other - is the group comfortable with characters being?

4) Finally, ban nothing. That is, ban no individual components. Allow any final product that lies within the group's balance range of the baseline character(s), only "banning" at the character level.

4b) Technically, the players could and generally should handle the "banning" phase in most cases. "Self-banning" and "choosing to fix a broken build" should suffice to cover most issues.

4c) Individually "broken" components can be combined in ways that produce a valid final product. For example, my first Tainted Sorcerer cast such amazing spells as Doom and… Iron Needles maybe? (imagine Magic Missile, but requires an attack roll, allows a saving throw, and only deals 1 damage per missile. As a 2nd level spell. The upside? It keeps dealing damage in subsequent rounds, forcing concentration checks for spellcasters) Or Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named? Very powerful, but limited by his personality and severe lack of tactical acumen to underperform².

4d) And, as long as you're allowing everything, why not allow homebrew, so long as the final product is balanced?

So, for example, let's say you've got a group with a balance range of around 50% variance, with characters to play polo on motorized vehicles, where you know that speed, maneuverability, reach, and hitting power are your big balancing factors. You show a sample character of a guy on a golf cart with a 2-by-four. Somebody brings a riding lawnmower and a baseball bat? Probably good. Somebody brings a sports car and a cybernetic kicking leg, or a boxcar and a pool noodle? They have failed to balance to the table. Somebody brings a nuclear-powered moped, and an animatronic Thunder-Punch He-Man figure? Um… maybe? If those perform within the group's balance range, they're good. But them being good does not give carte blanche to use their components in any build - the nuclear moped being allowed in the game does not mean that the guy with the sports car can convert it to nuclear power and be good - it's the final product, not the individual components, that determine balance. Someone brings a submarine and an electromagnet, or a greenhouse and a pistol? Maybe they didn't quite grasp the concept of the game³.

It's the same thing with RPGs. If I'm running Necrophilia on Bone Hill, I'll show a few sample characters that I think will about hit par. Then people can decide where in the range of, say, "challenge mode" to "BDH" they want to play, and choose characters accordingly. And if, as is the case with Necrophilia on Bone Hill, I know that there are certain considerations (all undead all the time) that skew what would normally be balanced characters, and someone wants to bring such a character (Diplomacer, DPS Rogue, Undead Hunter), then that will need to be addressed.

So, in short, "balance to the table" is a statement to the players to bring characters whose level of contribution (as measured by the table) is similar to that of the other PCs.

¹ evidence of prior use by anyone else notwithstanding; in the case where such evidence exists, "independently began using the phrase", perhaps?
² clearly, given that Quertus is an OP playing piece but a UP character, I should be saying that it is an admonition to the players to bring balanced characters.
³ technically, unlike "thing to sit it" + "weapon", "vehicle" + "move things" is correct at the high level…

Quertus

2019-11-19, 05:58 AM

The only balance that matters at any table in any game is the balance between the capabilities of the party members.

If all party members are equally capable and effective at their chosen role within the group, then you have balance.

If everyone is equally overpowered for their level, then you can simply up the challenge factor of the encounters you design to compensate for this. If everyone is equally underpowered then you similarly lower the difficulty of encounters to match them.

It's as simple as that.

Or you could not modify the difficulty of the encounters, giving the players the agency to choose their preferred playstyle. One of my groups had 3 consecutive parties that ranged from "challenge mode" to "BDHs", with a Goldilocks-approved "just right" for good measure. Because the GM(s) did not modify the content, the parties actually felt different. And it was great!

The trick is that none of that has to be frontloaded. It is impossible to actually play the game with every element at once. Only the stuff people are using is being used. So you only need to evaluate stuff that they want to use. And most of that is basic functionality you don't actually need to review.

So all you really need to do is check over the new stuff they're taking each time they level up, which is only a handful of things. If you actually do so regularly you will be ready to make those decisions quickly because you already put in the work spread out in little bits over time, and with every game your backlog of known issues grows. It is only if you dive straight into the deep end of high level forum builds that you have a giant wall of stuff to either learn immediately or throw up your hands at.

Three issues.

1) how many new spells does a Cleric or Druid get when they hit a new spell level? More than I'd care to review, personally - especially if it were my first time playing the system.

2) what if I've taken Power Attack and Cleave, which were fine, but Great Cleave proves to be OP at this table? And I only took those feats because i wanted Great Cleave (or, worse, something (like a prestige class) that requires Great Cleave as a prerequisite). Can I get those first two feats back (and everything else I've put into the build to get to the now impossible prestige class)?

3) suppose two characters have had toys since 1st level, like Power Attack and True Strike, that they use all the time, and they're fine. Then, at 10th level, they think to put them together, and get something OP (for that table). What do they do then?

King of Nowhere

2019-11-19, 09:20 AM

Frankly, that sounds insane.

I'd always taken "balance to the table" to be that much like Session Zero agreement to play a certain style of game, you have also agreed to voluntarily limit yourselves to a certain power level. Not that powerful spells are banned, but that players choose not to use them, or they use powerful spells for lower-power uses.

So, in short, "balance to the table" is a statement to the players to bring characters whose level of contribution (as measured by the table) is similar to that of the other PCs.

yes, I fully expected some to bring this up.

the problem is, what if the players can't or won't limit themselves? what if they lack the system mastery to tell apart the broken stuff from the good one when they surf stuff on the internet? what if they lack the objectivity to actually recognize when they are over- or under- performing?1
what if somebody started with a non-broken character concept but then gradually deviates from it?

quertus theoretical model is very pretty. however, it rarely works in the practice. you talk from the point of view of very experienced players knowing very well what they do; it's a theory working under ideal assumptions2. but most players aren't like that. hence why i developed king of nowhere's empyrical model, that, like any respectable empyrical laws, introduces an empyrical correction factor to account for all the stuff that doesn't neatly fit into the theory. and that factor is the DM banning stuff.

a more common table has different players of different skill and objectivity. people will have some rough idea for a build, but still with a lot of moving pieces. you can't trust people to build accurately because they lack the system mastery to do so. on one hand, you need to have the more skilled players help the others with their builds. not too much, as that would be akin to handing down premade characters, but suggesting some feats and items is definitely on order. on the other, you need to review people's builds to make sure they actually fit the power level. and whenever they modify the build because they see something new, you have to check again.
I agree that ideally you should not ban any single piece of content. but once you have a 15th level character that wants to take something new that would break the table, you can't ban the concept. you would have vetoed it at level 1, but you didn't plan for it at level 1. neither the player nor you even knew this concept existed when you started. so, to stop this concept you now have to ban that specific new thing.
So, I argue that my concept of "balance to the table" is what happens when a group has quertus' idealized concept but lacks the skill to make it work.

Finally, I don't like the idea of "i could do this broken stuff, but choose not to". It's hard to justify in-character3. And what if you are in a close fight and saving the day may require you doing the broken stuff? and after you've done it this once, justifying that you won't do it again becomes much harder.
I'd much rather decide that this thing can't be done, period, and everything saying otherwise is authomatically subject to errata corrige.

1and really, our wizard player is terrible at this. "I can't reliably blow up any foe that's 5 ecl above the party:smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh:! I'm so limited, and I need some new toy to deal with this!" "yeah, this thing is very strong, but i can only do it once per day. and this other thing is very strong, but i can only do it in a specific condition. and this other thing is also very strong, but...". I can attest that he does so without malice; that's not the only case where he's shown to be pretty bad at being objective

2 it's worth noting that we started with a concept very similar to what quertus or false god describes. I was the best optimizer and intentionally went for a tier 5 class and a defensive build to avoid overshadowing the rest of the party. then the rest of the party learned some optimization and gradually started getting more powerful, but at different rates. some stuff we discovered would also break the campaign world, for how it was structured. so we started banning stuff.
3the concept of the character quertus, who could do broken stuff but is tactically inept, is pretty much the only good in-character explanation I can conceive. and that one only works until there is someone else in the party with enough ranks in spellcraft (or enough practice of hanging around spellcasters) to suggest something better. and choosing to be tactically inept when it's a close fight with a risk of tpk... well, i won't say it can't be done well, but I can see many problems.

Fizban

2019-11-19, 10:07 AM

Three issues.

1) how many new spells does a Cleric or Druid get when they hit a new spell level? More than I'd care to review, personally - especially if it were my first time playing the system.
Not actually that many. A couple dozen at most in the PHB, except half of them are status removal and otherwise super obvious effects. And even that is an exaggeration when they can only prepare 2-3 of those spells.

Though in fact, the Cleric's list is one of the things you should be studying, and you'll have time to do so because the arcanist only gets 2 spells and the other characters maybe one new feat or class ability. But if you don't you can just look up the spells at the same rate the players are, or tell them to notify you before the session what spells they intend to prepare.

2) what if I've taken Power Attack and Cleave, which were fine, but Great Cleave proves to be OP at this table? And I only took those feats because i wanted Great Cleave (or, worse, something (like a prestige class) that requires Great Cleave as a prerequisite). Can I get those first two feats back (and everything else I've put into the build to get to the now impossible prestige class)?
Yes, obviously. What other answer would there be? The only question is how quickly you might do it vs the credulity strain of suddenly backpedaling. Of course, now that you've mentioned the prestige class the DM can go look it up, and maybe they'll just let you take it without Great Cleave anyway.

3) suppose two characters have had toys since 1st level, like Power Attack and True Strike, that they use all the time, and they're fine. Then, at 10th level, they think to put them together, and get something OP (for that table). What do they do then?
Then they don't do that. Or if it must be codified as a house rule, the DM rules that for balance purposes you cannot use Power Attack while under the effect of True Strike.

There is no one-line problem that will require more than a one-line solution, and usually there are multiple options for that one-line solution. These aren't mysterious intractable issues. See problem, make ruling, done. The only intractable thing about it is so many DMs flatly refusing to do so, players whining about it if they do, and yes- forumites that try to pretend there is an ironclad RAW and any simple houserule is a failure etc. Rulings are the DM's job, not a failure. You can't "gotcha" your way out of a DM who recognizes this.

ExLibrisMortis

2019-11-19, 10:19 AM

So, I argue that my concept of "balance to the table" is what happens when a group has quertus' idealized concept but lacks the skill to make it work.
Only in the sense that not "balancing to the table" means you need some other way of achieving a balanced party, and banning overpowered options is probably the most common approach to that problem.

Just as a matter of terminology, I would use "balance to the table" only for when it (i.e. Quertus' signature model, for which his account is named--waaait...) does work, though. If it fails, you get something else, which is not "balance to the table" but more "homebrew as you go" (or "banhammer as you go"). "Balance to the table" really is a player-driven thing, in my opinion.

Lans

2019-11-19, 12:07 PM

False God

2019-11-19, 04:25 PM

The trick is that none of that has to be frontloaded. It is impossible to actually play the game with every element at once. Only the stuff people are using is being used. So you only need to evaluate stuff that they want to use. And most of that is basic functionality you don't actually need to review.

So all you really need to do is check over the new stuff they're taking each time they level up, which is only a handful of things. If you actually do so regularly you will be ready to make those decisions quickly because you already put in the work spread out in little bits over time, and with every game your backlog of known issues grows. It is only if you dive straight into the deep end of high level forum builds that you have a giant wall of stuff to either learn immediately or throw up your hands at.

That still sounds insane. And time consuming. And a lot like an overbearing teacher grading you down on the basis of their personal opinion of your source material and not the paper you actually wrote.

I'm also incredibly wary of DMs and games with laundry lists of banned material, house-rules and adjustments from "prior experience". I've found the game runs pretty good out of the box, and troublesome players who seek to break the game are best addressed as players, rather than through changes to the game. If one player is repeatedly causing an issue and cannot abide a simple "please don't be a powergaming jerk" request, it's easier to remove the player, which serves as an example to deter others, than to remove content from the game.

yes, I fully expected some to bring this up.

the problem is, what if the players can't or won't limit themselves? what if they lack the system mastery to tell apart the broken stuff from the good one when they surf stuff on the internet? what if they lack the objectivity to actually recognize when they are over- or under- performing?1
what if somebody started with a non-broken character concept but then gradually deviates from it?

quertus theoretical model is very pretty. however, it rarely works in the practice. you talk from the point of view of very experienced players knowing very well what they do; it's a theory working under ideal assumptions2. but most players aren't like that. hence why i developed king of nowhere's empyrical model, that, like any respectable empyrical laws, introduces an empyrical correction factor to account for all the stuff that doesn't neatly fit into the theory. and that factor is the DM banning stuff.
It sounds a lot like you've got a way you like doing things and I'm not here to engage in an argument or debate the subject, just to present the way I've understood the phrase in question. So, carry on.

King of Nowhere

2019-11-19, 04:34 PM

One trick is to not step on other peoples toes. If your DMM cleric is doing its best to be the best healer it can be then its not going to step as much on a fighters toes like one that is buffing itself

easily done at low tiers, but with tier 1 classes it's hard to not step in other people's turf, as they can - by definition of the tier - do anything.

AvatarVecna

2019-11-19, 05:01 PM

easily done at low tiers, but with tier 1 classes it's hard to not step in other people's turf, as they can - by definition of the tier - do anything.

Probably my favorite way of turning high-tier classes into background characters is to play Enabler. Just...buff my allies into demigods and sit back and relax. It's not the best strategy, but it's among the best, and of the best strategies it's the least likely to be noticed by certain kinds of players unfamiliar with higher-op tactics.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-11-19, 07:46 PM

yes, I fully expected some to bring this up.

It -is- what people generally mean by the phrase. Or something like it, anyway.

the problem is, what if the players can't or won't limit themselves?

Can't: help them. It's a difficult excuse to believe in the first place but if they simply don't know the game and stumble into powerful things regularly then you can simply explain why they're potentially too powerful and ask them to avoid that powerful use or to pick another option.

If they -won't- actively limit themselves to the level of the group then they got to go. That's them declaring their idea of fun is more important than the social dynamic of the game and that's pure poison. Don't tolerate it.

what if they lack the system mastery to tell apart the broken stuff from the good one when they surf stuff on the internet?

"Broken" is a subjective term in colloquial use anyway since it's not used to exclusively refer to options whose rules are impossibly vague or self-contradictory.

That aside, it's pretty rare for a group to spontaneously form around 3e anymore. Odds are -very- good that new players are joining existing groups and someone in the group should know enough to spot problem stuff on sight. If you're not familiar enough with the system to warrant some kind of degree, mistakes are gonna happen and you just have to roll with it and make spot-changes as necessary.

what if they lack the objectivity to actually recognize when they are over- or under- performing?1

Fun aspect of a social game; you're not the only one sitting in judgement of your choices. You -will- be told by others in the group if your go either way unless everyone at the table is stunningly bad at social interaction even amongst their friends.

what if somebody started with a non-broken character concept but then gradually deviates from it?

Concepts aren't broken or not broken, generally. Worst-case, your character becomes a warped enough kind of person that they have to be NPCed and you reroll.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess what you're actually asking about is if they start with a an acceptable build plan and they deviate from it in a way that's more powerful than expected. Who goes over their players' entire build plan though? I expect most people deviate from their initial intentions somewhat pretty regularly. This is why you're supposed to get GM approval for stuff in the first place.

Communication is king. Don't just try to spring stuff on the GM and you should be fine.

quertus theoretical model is very pretty. however, it rarely works in the practice. you talk from the point of view of very experienced players knowing very well what they do; it's a theory working under ideal assumptions2. but most players aren't like that. hence why i developed king of nowhere's empyrical model, that, like any respectable empyrical laws, introduces an empyrical correction factor to account for all the stuff that doesn't neatly fit into the theory. and that factor is the DM banning stuff.

You can say that but it's the only practical option. The alternative is to become professor 3e D&D and that's just more effort than 95%+ of people are willing to go to for a hobby.

a more common table has different players of different skill and objectivity. people will have some rough idea for a build, but still with a lot of moving pieces. you can't trust people to build accurately because they lack the system mastery to do so. on one hand, you need to have the more skilled players help the others with their builds. not too much, as that would be akin to handing down premade characters, but suggesting some feats and items is definitely on order. on the other, you need to review people's builds to make sure they actually fit the power level. and whenever they modify the build because they see something new, you have to check again.

Well obviously. You can't expect any approach to the matter to be perfect and you -should- be looking over everyone's characters as they develop to make sure they don't blind-side you with something you weren't expecting. All you really need to know about someone's build plan is what is the key element that makes the whole thing appealing and whether -that- is a deal-breaker.

I agree that ideally you should not ban any single piece of content. but once you have a 15th level character that wants to take something new that would break the table, you can't ban the concept. you would have vetoed it at level 1, but you didn't plan for it at level 1. neither the player nor you even knew this concept existed when you started. so, to stop this concept you now have to ban that specific new thing.

Why would you have a problem with banning an individual thing? Your whole thesis is based on banning whole swathes of things. If it was the core of the build then they should've told you up front. If they get a "no" from trying to blind-side you then they got what they deserved for trying to slip under the radar. If it's not the core of their build then you've hardly invalidated their character concept with a spot-ban and you should illicit little more than a shrug and "that sucks. Can I take this instead?"

So, I argue that my concept of "balance to the table" is what happens when a group has quertus' idealized concept but lacks the skill to make it work.

I'd be -incredibly- leery of anyone claiming to have looked over -every- piece of content for this game and having evaluated them for "brokeness" and made their laundry-list of bans accordiingly. There's simply too much and "broken" is an inherently subjective matter. I've seen way too many houserul sets that broke way more than they "fixed" to believe such grandiose claims.

On the other hand I -expect- a GM to acknowledge that they're human and capable of making mistakes. If I pick something that's just over the line and the GM says "that's a bit much, could you not?" I might grumble a bit but I'd drop the thing. If it was the core of my character, I'd ask him if he's sure he can't deal and, upon confirmation, retire the character.

Finally, I don't like the idea of "i could do this broken stuff, but choose not to". It's hard to justify in-character3. And what if you are in a close fight and saving the day may require you doing the broken stuff? and after you've done it this once, justifying that you won't do it again becomes much harder.

Not even a little. As a player we have a tremendously more informed position from which to make decisions than our characters do.

For example, you and I know that it would be incredibly foolhardy to be a specialist wizard that's banned both transmutation and conjuration but that's because we know -all- of the things we can do with those and all the other schools along with how common their strengths and weaknesses are in the game system.

The wizard himself, who's choosing to focus his studies in one direction to the exclusion of two others only knows that transmutation is generally used to change thing and conjuration is used to move things from one place to another or turn magic into material. With only those vague ideas, it can easily be justified that confounding the mind and the senses (illusion and enchantment), commanding the forces of life and death (necro), blowing things to smithereens (evocation), or using your magic to bend the magic of others (abjuration) are all more important and useful. He has no idea how common immunity to [mind-affecting] or various elemental resitances are in the overall, much less how often he might run into either. We, as players, don't even know how frequently we'll run into such immunities or resistances or how common they are in the game world, since the GM decides what creatures to use.

Similar observations can be made about any number of character options. The justification -out of character- is incredibly simple: it'll break the game so don't do it.

I'd much rather decide that this thing can't be done, period, and everything saying otherwise is authomatically subject to errata corrige.

If you're the GM, that's fine. Expected even. It's just completely unreasonable to expect every GM to have already done so for everything in the sytem. You even tacitly acknowledge that you haven't done so with your "subject to" caveat.

easily done at low tiers, but with tier 1 classes it's hard to not step in other people's turf, as they can - by definition of the tier - do anything.

Just because they theoretically can do anything doen't mean you have to take the options that enable it. DMM cleric won't step on the fighter's toes if he never prepares divine power and a wizard only knows the spells you choose. Even the artificer need time to make solutions he doesn't have to hand already possible. Just don't put the solution that invalidate other PCs in easy reach.

Fizban

2019-11-20, 12:47 AM

That still sounds insane. And time consuming. And a lot like an overbearing teacher grading you down on the basis of their personal opinion of your source material and not the paper you actually wrote.
I suggest you go re-read the forum rules about calling people's ideas insane.

I'm also incredibly wary of DMs and games with laundry lists of banned material, house-rules and adjustments from "prior experience". I've found the game runs pretty good out of the box,
And oddly enough, if you don't have any problems, you won't have a laundry list of "bans" now will you?

and troublesome players who seek to break the game are best addressed as players, rather than through changes to the game. If one player is repeatedly causing an issue and cannot abide a simple "please don't be a powergaming jerk" request, it's easier to remove the player, which serves as an example to deter others, than to remove content from the game.
So the DM added content to the game, and that content plus one of their players is now a problem. Your first response is that the player is a jerk and should be kicked, rather than that the DM should have considered that content more carefully or made a new ruling to fix it? The DMG disagrees. A player is not a problem until they are actually a problem: if they weren't being a problem before, then it is more likely the DM and/or the new rule is the actual problem, simple logic. Unless you're expecting people to suddenly reveal they're jerks that need to be purged at any moment, in which case you shouldn't have invited them in the first place.

And what is different about your "please don't be a powergaming jerk" request? You're asking them to not use a thing, under penalty of being kicked, which is the same thing as telling them not to use the thing, which is the same thing as. . . "banning" the thing. You're just skipping the middle ground where you could have potentially modified the thing so they could keep a version of it or admitted it shouldn't have been allowed, in order to pretend you're not "removing content from the game." Which will backfire spectacularly if you let someone else use the thing, making the player who is not allowed to feel even worse.

Quertus

2019-11-20, 04:43 AM

yes, I fully expected some to bring this up.

Well, that's good. If you didn't expect people to bring up the meaning of the phrase when your thread title and OP explicitly ask what it means, I'd be worried. :smallamused:

And that's about the only reply (EDIT - I mean the only part to reply to) that's actually relevant to the thread as created. If you need help understanding how to implement it, and want to develop your GM skills, of course I'll be happy to help. Or if it's just a completely foreign concept to you, or incompatible with your particular gaming style, and you just want to increase your academic understanding of how it can work, of course I'll be happy to help. Although several posters have given good responses in those directions already.

Yes, obviously. What other answer would there be? The only question is how quickly you might do it vs the credulity strain of suddenly backpedaling. Of course, now that you've mentioned the prestige class the DM can go look it up, and maybe they'll just let you take it without Great Cleave anyway.

Then they don't do that. Or if it must be codified as a house rule, the DM rules that for balance purposes you cannot use Power Attack while under the effect of True Strike.

There is no one-line problem that will require more than a one-line solution, and usually there are multiple options for that one-line solution. These aren't mysterious intractable issues. See problem, make ruling, done. The only intractable thing about it is so many DMs flatly refusing to do so, players whining about it if they do, and yes- forumites that try to pretend there is an ironclad RAW and any simple houserule is a failure etc. Rulings are the DM's job, not a failure. You can't "gotcha" your way out of a DM who recognizes this.

I don't disagree. I just wanted to hear you say it. Because I've had several GMs who weren't smart enough to see what you (and I) call obvious. So, without these obvious clarifications, there were potential (and, at some tables I've experienced, actual) problems to solve.

Just as a matter of terminology, I would use "balance to the table" only for when it (i.e. Quertus' signature model, for which his account is named--waaait...) does work, though. If it fails, you get something else, which is not "balance to the table" but more "homebrew as you go" (or "banhammer as you go"). "Balance to the table" really is a player-driven thing, in my opinion.

Ah, that was a good one! Thanks for the laugh!

And, yeah, I agree, "run across the finish line" should only apply when the runner is actually running, and not when they've tripped and broken something, are unable to get up, and the ambulance is driving them to the hospital.

Fizban

2019-11-20, 05:55 AM

I don't disagree. I just wanted to hear you say it. Because I've had several GMs who weren't smart enough to see what you (and I) call obvious. So, without these obvious clarifications, there were potential (and, at some tables I've experienced, actual) problems to solve.
There's also the matter of confidence. Though the DMG tells you be confident, do your best, and it'll work out because you and your friends are there to have fun and mistakes are okay, that only goes so far. Staring down the barrel of two dozen or more splatbooks sure looks like the books are in charge, and it takes a pretty dang long time to fight your way through to being confident in your calls if you get intimidated. I think it helps immensely if you actually start off with a starter set before moving to PHB and then looking at splats- or the 3.0 set at least. Wish I hadn't lost mine somewhere.

Quertus

2019-11-20, 06:45 AM

There's also the matter of confidence. Though the DMG tells you be confident, do your best, and it'll work out because you and your friends are there to have fun and mistakes are okay, that only goes so far. Staring down the barrel of two dozen or more splatbooks sure looks like the books are in charge, and it takes a pretty dang long time to fight your way through to being confident in your calls if you get intimidated. I think it helps immensely if you actually start off with a starter set before moving to PHB and then looking at splats- or the 3.0 set at least. Wish I hadn't lost mine somewhere.

I guess what you call "confidence", I'm more likely to label in the field as "stupidity" (or worse).

Blasting is generally considered bad, right? Whereas Tainted Sorcerer is OP. With a little finesse, some knowledge of the expected performance level & the group's balance range, and a few other tools, I can put the two together to create a balanced character.

But most "confident" GMs are too dumb to look at the final product, only seeing that they've had trouble with one or the other component, and have therefore laid down the ban hammer, and unnecessarily prohibited a balanced PC.

-----

Really, if you look at all the "help, I don't know how to deal with this op build" threads, you'll see a lot of things, but what really stands out to me are all the idiot/noob GMs who present very samey content, who are complaining that paper covers rock when they're ignorant of scissors, Spock, lizard, and dozens to hundreds of other flavors of content.

Those GMs are what I worry about. If they approach the game with "confidence", then, rather than building their skills, and learning to make a better, richer, more diverse game, they learn to keep throwing rock, and ban paper.

There's more to life than rock. And paper is a perfectly valid, balanced option. Give me the under-confident GM, who will learn and improve his game, over the confident GM who is a box of rocks, any day.

King of Nowhere

2019-11-21, 09:44 AM

Why would you have a problem with banning an individual thing? Your whole thesis is based on banning whole swathes of things.

I'd be -incredibly- leery of anyone claiming to have looked over -every- piece of content for this game and having evaluated them for "brokeness" and made their laundry-list of bans accordiingly.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't have a list of banned things, and I do not advocate having one. I'm not even DMing in this game.
I advocate banning a build or a specific piece of build on a case-by-case basis.

Well, that's good. If you didn't expect people to bring up the meaning of the phrase when your thread title and OP explicitly ask what it means, I'd be worried. :smallamused:

And that's about the only reply (EDIT - I mean the only part to reply to) that's actually relevant to the thread as created. If you need help understanding how to implement it, and want to develop your GM skills, of course I'll be happy to help. Or if it's just a completely foreign concept to you, or incompatible with your particular gaming style, and you just want to increase your academic understanding of how it can work, of course I'll be happy to help. Although several posters have given good responses in those directions already.

Well, it's both academic and implementation. I was open to see if there was a better implementation, but I maintain that the ideal way to implement it only works in a few groups of highly competent players. I did suspect, after seeing many people having a hard time accepting the idea that the dm should ban stuff as appropriate, that there is the expectation that players limit themselves, so basically this thread confirmed my suspicions.
But I still prefer that there is a DM who draws the line. And I prefer it not only as a DM, but also as a player, because it's hard to say no to some borderline content.
I'm building for battlefield control and attacks of opportunity, and I already have defensive throw and karmik strike, and I see that with robilar's gambit i could make 2 attacks of opportunity every time i receive an attack. which is a bit too much for my table, we try to avoid the high-power builds, but it's not SO strong, especially as I avoid getting reach; and I feel like I shouldn't take it, but maybe i can, really. There is the temptation.
Instead, I asked the DM, and he said no, and I'm happier this way than having to figure out myself if i should take it or not. I trust more to give the decision to someone who is impartial and not involved directly.

Finally, I am quite happy about the answers, as they satisfied my curiosity in full.

I guess what you call "confidence", I'm more likely to label in the field as "stupidity" (or worse).

Blasting is generally considered bad, right? Whereas Tainted Sorcerer is OP. With a little finesse, some knowledge of the expected performance level & the group's balance range, and a few other tools, I can put the two together to create a balanced character.

But most "confident" GMs are too dumb to look at the final product, only seeing that they've had trouble with one or the other component, and have therefore laid down the ban hammer, and unnecessarily prohibited a balanced PC.

It is my experience that the wisest or most knowledgeable are rarely confident, as they know that things are rarely so clear-cut. but it is our instinct as a pack animal to follow someone who is acting, and on a survival level it pays better than sitting down to deliberate for weeks.
Showing confidence is basically a trick. you trick people into following you. and it's often necessary to produce something, as lack of leadership generally results in nothing being done. but a gaming group is a small group of peers, so there should be no need for posturing there. A wise DM should listen to the players and talk to them before wielding the ban hammer.

however, the player may be wrong just as much as the DM. if the dm is wrong to ban a build, the player will have to make a different build. but if the player is wrong on the build being balanced, then it will worsen the experience of everyone at the table. and while some people speak so casually of retiring characters, what the hell! this guy I've been playing for a while is a persona, an alter ego, almost a friend. Certainly it is much more than a disposable class-race-alignment combo. You can't just casually ask me to ditch a character and make a new one.

So, the dm should use his better judgment, and should wield the ban hammer when he thinks it necessary. failure to ban something that should have been banned is often more dire than banning what should have been allowed.

And ultimately, whether you ask the dm or you leave the decision to the player, there's always someone who has to decide if a build is acceptable or not. So I'd rather the final decision is taken by the same person who doesn't have a direct emotional involvment with the characters.

False God

2019-11-21, 04:28 PM

I suggest you go re-read the forum rules about calling people's ideas insane.
Report me or don't. Don't backseat moderate and continue to engage me.

"Insane" as in "completely unreasonable considering that it is clear the entire staff of WotC did not review every element and its interactions with every other element as is being suggested that a single individual do for one table of players."

And oddly enough, if you don't have any problems, you won't have a laundry list of "bans" now will you?
Uh, yeah? That was my point?

So the DM added content to the game, and that content plus one of their players is now a problem. Your first response is that the player is a jerk and should be kicked, rather than that the DM should have considered that content more carefully or made a new ruling to fix it? The DMG disagrees. A player is not a problem until they are actually a problem: if they weren't being a problem before, then it is more likely the DM and/or the new rule is the actual problem, simple logic. Unless you're expecting people to suddenly reveal they're jerks that need to be purged at any moment, in which case you shouldn't have invited them in the first place.
I don't know what any other table does so I can only speak for myself. At My Table (AMT) I tell folks everything official is acceptable, including Dragon Mag content. All 3rd-party material is subject to review upon request but otherwise not acceptable. I then place the onus on the players not to "be a powergaming jerk" with this freedom. Though frankly if everyone is a powergamer then it's just "don't be a jerk".

I'm not going to review a specific rule or a specific build. I'm going to address people and their behaviours. People with unacceptable behaviour patterns will be removed from the game. There are far fewer of them and far less of them than there are rules to be reviewed/edited/removed.

And what is different about your "please don't be a powergaming jerk" request? You're asking them to not use a thing, under penalty of being kicked, which is the same thing as telling them not to use the thing, which is the same thing as. . . "banning" the thing. You're just skipping the middle ground where you could have potentially modified the thing so they could keep a version of it or admitted it shouldn't have been allowed, in order to pretend you're not "removing content from the game." Which will backfire spectacularly if you let someone else use the thing, making the player who is not allowed to feel even worse.
Er....no. I'm asking them not to be a powergaming jerk. Key word "jerk". I'm plenty fine with powergaming. I'm asking them not to use the freedom I've allowed and the power they've designed to be a jerk. I have a similar polite request to not be a roleplay jerk either, it falls under my general "don't be a jerk" rule. Some people just need some specificity.

It's not about what they have it's about how they use it. (no innuendo intended)

aerilon

2019-11-22, 02:47 AM

I can only share my personal experience. I will try to offer some examples to help demonstrate my perspective.

On a larger scale, balance issues tend to be addressed either in design, or when developers respond to feedback by re-evaluating design choices. In home games, the question of balance at the table, in my experience, comes up in only two circumstances.

Circumstance 1: You have a character who is intentionally trying to break the game/game world in some way. Example: a Pathfinder game where a player took the Leadership feat and attempted to use his Followers to create a business empire of craftsmen. This SHOULD be struck down by the GM before it can become a problem. IF it is not, it grows out of control. It effectively wrecked the economy of the game world, such that money was no longer a concern, and if his cohort or followers did not have someone capable of crafting a particular item, they were capable of generating sufficient gold that most purchases became trivial. The problem here is never the feat or ability itself (though there are MANY GMs, myself included, who simply do not want the headache of dealing with the many ways Leadership can be abused, who will outright prohibit certain options from their table), but rather how it is being used (abused) by a particular player, or possibly the player themselves. In an ideal world, we would deal with this by dealing with the player. The world is not ideal. If a certain mechanic is abused too often, as is the case with Leadership, many GMs will simply ban it outright.

Circumstance 2: You have a player or players who are upset that a particular mechanic is allowing another player to shine in specific scenarios, and who are salty about it. Often, this is due to characters who are focused on being good in combat being, well, GOOD IN COMBAT when playing to their strengths, and GMs who are not creative enough to think of ways to address this and give the other players a chance to shine. Example: Let's take a save-or-suck caster. Whether they're casting Disintegrate, or Evard's Black Tentacles, or Mass Charm Person, these characters' crowd/area control abilities can determine the course of entire battles with a single spell. But they're very susceptible to a highly mobile enemy who can get into melee and disrupt their casting, or to ongoing damage that can make it difficult to get a spell off, and many other issues. Your party mage loves blasting with AoE spells? Make their enemies stop grouping up in tight formations and spread out. Utilize stealthy opponents. If THIS circumstance is the reason why "balance at the table" is a problem - and it sometimes is when running pre-made adventures with tactics as written, because players and characters can make smarter choices than NPCs and designers did at times - then responding by nerfing the "offending" character is the worst possible reaction. The best possible reaction is to utilize the rest of the rules, to challenge the players with tactical combat and intelligent enemies, etc. The next best reaction, if you don't think that's good enough, is to discuss with the particular player what you think is "too much" and what out of what they have built for they really want, and if it is possible to get that without the "game-breaking" aspect, or to utilize the ability in a less disruptive manner.

But that's just my 2 copper.

Psychoalpha

2019-11-22, 04:29 AM

I don't know what any other table does so I can only speak for myself. At My Table (AMT) I tell folks everything official is acceptable, including Dragon Mag content. All 3rd-party material is subject to review upon request but otherwise not acceptable. I then place the onus on the players not to "be a powergaming jerk" with this freedom. Though frankly if everyone is a powergamer then it's just "don't be a jerk".

I'm not going to review a specific rule or a specific build. I'm going to address people and their behaviours. People with unacceptable behaviour patterns will be removed from the game. There are far fewer of them and far less of them than there are rules to be reviewed/edited/removed.

Seconded. Or thirded or whatever, if anybody else spoke up. My tables, and I'm involved in four different game with more or less three more or less different groups, runs the gamut from experienced optimizers to people who barely even look at the rules except at the actual game and either pick and choose whatever looks good or ask others to build their character for them and then forget how it works half the time (only one of that last, thankfully).

'Balance to the table' means to balance fun at the table, nothing more. If somebody's got a character who can solve every problem because they're a highly optimized Cleric, the only real question is 'how does the rest of the table feel about that? are they still having fun?' and if not, then the DM works with that player to tone **** down through whatever means lets that player continue to have fun. If the only way for them to have fun is at the expense of everyone else at the table, then... yeah, they're a jerk and can gtfo. Likewise if at my table of five people only one person has a problem with it and the others are having a grand old time, I'll work with that one person and the other player to see if we can find a middle ground, then work out what to do about it in whatever way makes sense at the time. If that one person just refuses to be okay with anything despite the rest of the table being cool with it, then they're also welcome to leave the group.

If Bob is playing a Fighter with crappy feat selections but having fun with it and Janet is playing an UberWizard who can slay dragons with a flick of her finger and both Bob and Janet are having fun with it then the only real question is whether the DM will have fun running a game for people with two such widely disparate characters even knowing they're both fine with it. If not, then talk to them, and if you're the problem... don't be the DM. I don't say that derisively, I say it because I think that's an extension of the idea that the rules aren't the problem, people are the problem. Everyone is there to have fun, everyone will almost always have to compromise on what that means at some point, and 'balance to the table' just means figuring out where everyone else at the table stands in wanting to have fun and what you and everyone else can do to help each other get there.

For my part, seeing a DM who thinks that banning a bunch of stuff from the game just makes me feel like they can't be trusted to understand that, and I'm probably not going to have fun at their table. In which case, hey, I'm the problem and I'll go find another game.

That said, this version of the rule means that I may very well be the wrong one: If banning a bunch of stuff from your game makes you and your players have more fun, then congratulations you've balanced to the table. :p

Psychoalpha

2019-11-22, 04:30 AM

Doublepost: This is also why I hate it when DMs just want people to blindly bring characters to the table instead of talking about the campaign and who wants to play what before hand. SO many problems can be avoided just by giving people a chance to settle some of this stuff and work out expectations of what will and won't be fun for other people before the game starts.

Quertus

2019-11-22, 08:07 AM

There are just so many good amazing posts in this thread! Kudos, Playground!

I don't know what any other table does so I can only speak for myself. At My Table (AMT) I tell folks everything official is acceptable, including Dragon Mag content. All 3rd-party material is subject to review upon request but otherwise not acceptable. I then place the onus on the players not to "be a powergaming jerk" with this freedom. Though frankly if everyone is a powergamer then it's just "don't be a jerk".

I'm not going to review a specific rule or a specific build. I'm going to address people and their behaviours. People with unacceptable behaviour patterns will be removed from the game. There are far fewer of them and far less of them than there are rules to be reviewed/edited/removed.

Er....no. I'm asking them not to be a powergaming jerk. Key word "jerk". I'm plenty fine with powergaming. I'm asking them not to use the freedom I've allowed and the power they've designed to be a jerk. I have a similar polite request to not be a roleplay jerk either, it falls under my general "don't be a jerk" rule. Some people just need some specificity.

It's not about what they have it's about how they use it. (no innuendo intended)

Yeah, at my tables, I've only ever needed two rules: "balance to the table", and "don't be a ****".

Ultimately, everything you said was gold. Kudos!

I think you misunderstood me. I don't have a list of banned things, and I do not advocate having one. I'm not even DMing in this game.
I advocate banning a build or a specific piece of build on a case-by-case basis.

That… sounds a lot like "balance to the table", but from the GM side. So, your motto would be… "(en)force balance at the table", maybe?

Well, it's both academic and implementation. I was open to see if there was a better implementation, but I maintain that the ideal way to implement it only works in a few groups of highly competent players.

Curiously, I've never gamed in a group without myself, so there's always been at least one competent player.

Except… I'm not a "competent player" at all systems, so, if this weren't a 3e thread (for some reason), then that logic wouldn't follow.

Point is, it is questionable whether I can answer whether "balance to the table" can be accomplished with 0 competent players; I can only attest that it works in 3e with as few as 1.

I did suspect, after seeing many people having a hard time accepting the idea that the dm should ban stuff as appropriate, that there is the expectation that players limit themselves, so basically this thread confirmed my suspicions.

Yup, "balance to the table" is an admonition to the players. I'm glad we could clarify that for you.

But I still prefer that there is a DM who draws the line. And I prefer it not only as a DM, but also as a player, because it's hard to say no to some borderline content.
I'm building for battlefield control and attacks of opportunity, and I already have defensive throw and karmik strike, and I see that with robilar's gambit i could make 2 attacks of opportunity every time i receive an attack. which is a bit too much for my table, we try to avoid the high-power builds, but it's not SO strong, especially as I avoid getting reach; and I feel like I shouldn't take it, but maybe i can, really. There is the temptation.
Instead, I asked the DM, and he said no, and I'm happier this way than having to figure out myself if i should take it or not. I trust more to give the decision to someone who is impartial and not involved directly.

Finally, I am quite happy about the answers, as they satisfied my curiosity in full.

It is my experience that the wisest or most knowledgeable are rarely confident, as they know that things are rarely so clear-cut. but it is our instinct as a pack animal to follow someone who is acting, and on a survival level it pays better than sitting down to deliberate for weeks.
Showing confidence is basically a trick. you trick people into following you. and it's often necessary to produce something, as lack of leadership generally results in nothing being done. but a gaming group is a small group of peers, so there should be no need for posturing there. A wise DM should listen to the players and talk to them before wielding the ban hammer.

however, the player may be wrong just as much as the DM. if the dm is wrong to ban a build, the player will have to make a different build. but if the player is wrong on the build being balanced, then it will worsen the experience of everyone at the table. and while some people speak so casually of retiring characters, what the hell! this guy I've been playing for a while is a persona, an alter ego, almost a friend. Certainly it is much more than a disposable class-race-alignment combo. You can't just casually ask me to ditch a character and make a new one.

So, the dm should use his better judgment, and should wield the ban hammer when he thinks it necessary. failure to ban something that should have been banned is often more dire than banning what should have been allowed.

And ultimately, whether you ask the dm or you leave the decision to the player, there's always someone who has to decide if a build is acceptable or not. So I'd rather the final decision is taken by the same person who doesn't have a direct emotional involvment with the characters.

My love affair with "balance to the table" started in 2e, where it was a spectator sport for me to one-up (or three- or four-up) players who didn't get the concept, then ask them if they'd care to scale back to the table.

People are flawed. You recognize that failure can happen. That's your good.

But where we disagree is, you think that the GM is in a better position than the player. IME, that's not the case. There's a lot of bad GMing out there, with desire to enforce their rails, or even simile favoritism clouding the GM's judgement.

And there's the issue of people not measuring "balance" the same way. That's a huge topic, but the most relevant bit is, every other player looks at things fun a player PoV, while the GM sees the game from an omniscient narrator's PoV. They are in the worst position to know what the game feels like from a player PoV. Or, as Psychoalpha says (below), what matters is whether the players are having fun. It's the players who are in the position to answer that question.

It's the other players' right and responsibility to say "your character is causing me to not have fun", and the player's responsibility to fix it.

Balance to the table.

Seconded. Or thirded or whatever, if anybody else spoke up. My tables, and I'm involved in four different game with more or less three more or less different groups, runs the gamut from experienced optimizers to people who barely even look at the rules except at the actual game and either pick and choose whatever looks good or ask others to build their character for them and then forget how it works half the time (only one of that last, thankfully).

'Balance to the table' means to balance fun at the table, nothing more. If somebody's got a character who can solve every problem because they're a highly optimized Cleric, the only real question is 'how does the rest of the table feel about that? are they still having fun?' and if not, then the DM works with that player to tone **** down through whatever means lets that player continue to have fun. If the only way for them to have fun is at the expense of everyone else at the table, then... yeah, they're a jerk and can gtfo. Likewise if at my table of five people only one person has a problem with it and the others are having a grand old time, I'll work with that one person and the other player to see if we can find a middle ground, then work out what to do about it in whatever way makes sense at the time. If that one person just refuses to be okay with anything despite the rest of the table being cool with it, then they're also welcome to leave the group.

If Bob is playing a Fighter with crappy feat selections but having fun with it and Janet is playing an UberWizard who can slay dragons with a flick of her finger and both Bob and Janet are having fun with it then the only real question is whether the DM will have fun running a game for people with two such widely disparate characters even knowing they're both fine with it. If not, then talk to them, and if you're the problem... don't be the DM. I don't say that derisively, I say it because I think that's an extension of the idea that the rules aren't the problem, people are the problem. Everyone is there to have fun, everyone will almost always have to compromise on what that means at some point, and 'balance to the table' just means figuring out where everyone else at the table stands in wanting to have fun and what you and everyone else can do to help each other get there.

That is a brilliant way to explain what i refer to as the group's "balance range". Kudos!

For my part, seeing a DM who thinks that banning a bunch of stuff from the game just makes me feel like they can't be trusted to understand that, and I'm probably not going to have fun at their table. In which case, hey, I'm the problem and I'll go find another game.

Agreed.

That said, this version of the rule means that I may very well be the wrong one: If banning a bunch of stuff from your game makes you and your players have more fun, then congratulations you've balanced to the table. :p

We should probably make a new phase for that. "Modding the game to the table", maybe? But, yeah, if the group is having fun, then you're doing something right.

Doublepost: This is also why I hate it when DMs just want people to blindly bring characters to the table instead of talking about the campaign and who wants to play what before hand. SO many problems can be avoided just by giving people a chance to settle some of this stuff and work out expectations of what will and won't be fun for other people before the game starts.

… this is tricky.

So, I think that "best practices" is to run a series of one-shots, where players and GMs show their range, and the group discusses what combination sounds like it would be fun to play.

But I also think that being given very specific instructions, then bringing PCs blind, is an enjoyable method.

King of Nowhere

2019-11-22, 11:42 AM

If somebody's got a character who can solve every problem because they're a highly optimized Cleric, the only real question is 'how does the rest of the table feel about that? are they still having fun?' and if not, then the DM works with that player to tone **** down through whatever means lets that player continue to have fun.

isn't that a convoluted way to say that some of their stuff should be banned?:smallconfused:

Because we may have the players limit themselves on the build, the players choose to not use a specific spell or spell combo, or the group get together and decide to not do some stuff, or we kindly ask the player to not do the stuff, or we ban the player that keep doing the stuff...
but the key point is always the same: some things that would be allowed by RAW are not allowed at the table. and that's what i'd call a ban. soft, hard, democratically decided by the group, enforced by the master, self-chosen by the player, but still i call it a ban.

I'm thinking "ban" is one of those words that are not liked by some forumites here, just like "railroading" or "dmpc", words that took on a derogatory meaning because of specific ways in which they can be used. even though those concepts need not to be bad, and they are generally ok if not abused.

So, I think that when I say "ban" many people here think of the DM on his throne made of railroads, with his scepter made of rolled-up character sheets of characters that were killed by deus-ex-machina, dispensing arbitrary judgment to satisfy his power addiction.
While when I say "ban" I think "it is decided that some content - or some combinations of content - is not used in this campaign". We mostly have discussions among us to decide, and we generally agree, but when there is a disagreement the DM has the last word, so i say "the DM decides what is allowed".
upon reading those words, those with the tyrant dm in mind are instead picturing the dm handing down premades of single-classed gnome monks who spent all their feats in armor proficiency

Curiously, I've never gamed in a group without myself, so there's always been at least one competent player.

so, you were an expert since the day you were born? the day gigax wrote the first player handbook, you could already recite it backwards from memory?

perhaps. it is clear you've been a long time player since 2e. you were probably playing d&d before i was born - and i myself was playing d&d before some people who are now playing were born.

but one-upping power players like you did requires having the mechanical skill, the patience to set out and use it, the willingness to potentially derail an entire campaign, and agreement from the rest of the table, who may as well see you as the problem player now.

False God

2019-11-22, 05:17 PM

isn't that a convoluted way to say that some of their stuff should be banned?:smallconfused:
No. It means they're abusing their power. Like, if one person abuses their dog, we don't remove dog ownership, we remove abusive owners.

We expect people who own tigers and wolves to exert greater control and security over them yeah? Same thing. We expect players who build more powerful characters to demonstrate greater discretion when playing them to know when it's wise to use their semi-phenomenal-cosmic-power to help the party and when it would just be showing off and annoying.

Quertus

2019-11-22, 06:07 PM

3) isn't that a convoluted way to say that some of their stuff should be banned?:smallconfused:

Because we may have the players limit themselves on the build, the players choose to not use a specific spell or spell combo, or the group get together and decide to not do some stuff, or we kindly ask the player to not do the stuff, or we ban the player that keep doing the stuff...
but the key point is always the same: some things that would be allowed by RAW are not allowed at the table. and that's what i'd call a ban. soft, hard, democratically decided by the group, enforced by the master, self-chosen by the player, but still i call it a ban.

I'm thinking "ban" is one of those words that are not liked by some forumites here, just like "railroading" or "dmpc", words that took on a derogatory meaning because of specific ways in which they can be used. even though those concepts need not to be bad, and they are generally ok if not abused.

So, I think that when I say "ban" many people here think of the DM on his throne made of railroads, with his scepter made of rolled-up character sheets of characters that were killed by deus-ex-machina, dispensing arbitrary judgment to satisfy his power addiction.
While when I say "ban" I think "it is decided that some content - or some combinations of content - is not used in this campaign". We mostly have discussions among us to decide, and we generally agree, but when there is a disagreement the DM has the last word, so i say "the DM decides what is allowed".
upon reading those words, those with the tyrant dm in mind are instead picturing the dm handing down premades of single-classed gnome monks who spent all their feats in armor proficiency

1) so, you were an expert since the day you were born? the day gigax wrote the first player handbook, you could already recite it backwards from memory?

perhaps. it is clear you've been a long time player since 2e. you were probably playing d&d before i was born - and i myself was playing d&d before some people who are now playing were born.

2) but one-upping power players like you did requires having the mechanical skill, the patience to set out and use it, the willingness to potentially derail an entire campaign, and agreement from the rest of the table, who may as well see you as the problem player now.

Numbered for convenience.

1) I was better at 3e in 2000 than some Playgrounders are today. Which, given my senility, doesn't say much - I was better at 3e in 2000 than *I* am today.

2) Derail? De-rail? Given my stance on railroading, one should be surprised if I wasn't actively trying to de-rail all games :smallwink:.

But, no, it didn't really require any significant effort (I just ran one of several existing characters who were way too powerful for the local meta, choosing one whose capabilities overlapped with and sidelined the offending PC), and actually protected the campaign from being detailed by the ignorant / idiotic / **** of a foreign element.

Of course, maybe me calling that trivial says more about me than it does about the difficulty of the procedure. Shrug.

3) "be nice" and "be positive" are admonitions to myself, to not call other posters "****-****ing ****s" (not that I actually would, as that bears no semblance to my opinion of anyone here), and to point out things others did and said well, and things I agree with, rather than just disagreeing with people all the time. That last is actually really hard for me, because what I care about is learning. There's nothing for me to learn in an echo chamber of people who agree with me (or so I subconsciously believe), and so, unless I put fourth the conscious effort, I'll generally only respond to things I disagree with.

Anyway, point is, "be nice" is not a fancy way to say "ban people". Yes, they can have similar results regarding the quality of the forum conversations, but they stem from completely different mindsets. "Balance to the table" works just fine in GM-less games, for example. In fact, the GM getting involved is as outside "balance to the table" as the moderators getting involved is outside "be nice".

King of Nowhere

2019-11-23, 05:34 PM

No. It means they're abusing their power. Like, if one person abuses their dog, we don't remove dog ownership, we remove abusive owners.

We expect people who own tigers and wolves to exert greater control and security over them yeah? Same thing. We expect players who build more powerful characters to demonstrate greater discretion when playing them to know when it's wise to use their semi-phenomenal-cosmic-power to help the party and when it would just be showing off and annoying.

Anyway, point is, "be nice" is not a fancy way to say "ban people". Yes, they can have similar results regarding the quality of the forum conversations, but they stem from completely different mindsets. "Balance to the table" works just fine in GM-less games, for example. In fact, the GM getting involved is as outside "balance to the table" as the moderators getting involved is outside "be nice".

Oh. Now I see the underlying philosophy, and why so much emphasis is placed on "it's the player's job to limit himself". Just like it's his job to be nice and polite.

Then again, Being nice and polite is something that every responsible adult should manage. Limiting one's power level instead requires much more skill. there's people who played for many years and can't do it very well.
And if you accidentally say something offensive, it is easy to apologize, but if you accidentally make a character that steps on someone's toes, it's much harder to fix it.

Perhaps at my table we also have the "perfect storm", in that the wizard player
- would like to optimize much more than anyone else at the table
- is significantly a better optimizer than anyone else except me, (and if he keeps reading stuff he'll surpass me eventually)
- likes to play high tier classes, while most of us prefer to play weaker concepts
- likes to be able to solve any problem
- feels it's his responsibility to help the party overcome obstacles at the best of his capacities
- tends to significantly underestimate his own power and contribution
- has a hard time limiting himself.

I've been close with him since he was 8, and I can guarantee he's not a toxic player. But he cannot effectively limit himself.

we also have a dm who's fairly weak mechanically, as he never reached past level 3 before, and he is hard-pressed to challenge us. I mean, I'm playing a monk focused on defence and I'm already limiting myself in some things and he's having a hard time dealing with my character. And again, I've played with him for years and he's a good dm and a good player and he has great ideas and put effort into them, but he's nowhere near as competent as the people here saying "people should be able to balance themselves". Heck, I'm the most competent at my table and I'm nowhere near that level either. And i'm not sure I'd be able to balance to the table if I had to. I made a low-power specialized build just to ensure that I wouldn't invade someone's turf, and yet I did1. What if I wanted to play a problem-solver wizard?

So, expecting that people at my table to self-balance won't work, even if none of us is a toxic player.

On the plus side, since we're all good friends (not all of us knew each other before we started, but everyone was a good friend of someone else) and we know we're not toxic players, we can entrust the master with banning stuff. And I repeat, we always discuss things before deciding on a ban, and we generally agree.

1I accidentally stepped on the rogue's toes for scouting and trapfinding. while the rogue has skills for it, he once rolled low and missed a poisoned trap that almost killed him. I have no trapfinding skills, but with my saving throws and evasion and poison immunity i can just walk down the corridor and spring them with impunity. I am less stealthy, but if I am discovered I can survive and escape easily, while the rogue cannot.

But, no, it didn't really require any significant effort (I just ran one of several existing characters who were way too powerful for the local meta, choosing one whose capabilities overlapped with and sidelined the offending PC), and actually protected the campaign from being detailed by the ignorant / idiotic / **** of a foreign element. that's all well and good if the offending character is a fighter or a rogue. but if the offending character is a wizard who can do everything and makes the other characters irrelevant, how can you overlap and surpass him without making the other characters even more irrelevant?

EDIT: I'm now sensing gamer's pride (not in a negative light) in your disdain for bans. "we are perfectly capable of managing ourselves, we don't need no nosy dm telling us how we have to pee"; you are offended that a dm would not trust you to police yourselves. at least, i get this vibe because i talk about my higher-ups at work giving me directions on how i should perform my job in a similar way, with a similar attitude.
in the same way, my table has no problems with bans because we don't think we're good enough that we can make a great job ourselves. just like i didn't have problems with my higher-ups giving directions when i was new to the job and inexperienced

Quertus

2019-11-23, 07:51 PM

that's all well and good if the offending character is a fighter or a rogue. but if the offending character is a wizard who can do everything and makes the other characters irrelevant, how can you overlap and surpass him without making the other characters even more irrelevant?

Oh, usually, the entire rest of the table just popped some popcorn, sat back, and watched my character solo the adventure, while the offending noob struggled (and failed) to contribute. I called it a "spectator sport", didn't I? :smallamused:

Once they had experienced what they were doing to the other PCs, I'd ask if they'd care to (stop ignoring the GM / stop dismissing his request, and) scale back to match the rest of the party.

The whole table was in on it. It was a riot. Some players just didn't get the concept until they saw it from the other side.

EDIT: I'm now sensing gamer's pride (not in a negative light) in your disdain for bans. "we are perfectly capable of managing ourselves, we don't need no nosy dm telling us how we have to pee"; you are offended that a dm would not trust you to police yourselves. at least, i get this vibe because i talk about my higher-ups at work giving me directions on how i should perform my job in a similar way, with a similar attitude.
in the same way, my table has no problems with bans because we don't think we're good enough that we can make a great job ourselves. just like i didn't have problems with my higher-ups giving directions when i was new to the job and inexperienced

Eh, let's try a different metaphor - one that more closely matches my "feels". GMs that believe in bans are like Amazons who chop off one breast - sure, it may work (unless the potential Archer turns out to be opposite-handed), but, even if they're "right", they are imposing unnecessary penalties to other activities, when there are better ways to solve the problem.

So, it's not ire directed at people telling us the correct answer - it is ire directed the stupidity of people preventing some correct answers, and hindering others.

Don't get me wrong - I think that people are idiots, and question whether 99% of the population should be allowed to drive cars or have babies - but character creation shouldn't be baby-proofed for those of us who know what we're doing.

Further, players who only play in such baby-proofed zones are much less likely to ever learn how to play (the character-creation minigame) well. So it's just stupidity breeding ignorance - which really irks me.

Now, if it's not a ban list, but a "recommended balance list", where everyone can build whatever they want, but those who need the help have a GM-approved list of safe choices? That's fine.

But don't sit me in a fully-stocked kitchen, and then tell me I have to make a tofu burger, with exactly 3 dill chips.

Now that that's out of the way…

Oh. Now I see the underlying philosophy, and why so much emphasis is placed on "it's the player's job to limit himself". Just like it's his job to be nice and polite.

Then again, Being nice and polite is something that every responsible adult should manage. Limiting one's power level instead requires much more skill. there's people who played for many years and can't do it very well.
And if you accidentally say something offensive, it is easy to apologize, but if you accidentally make a character that steps on someone's toes, it's much harder to fix it.

Perhaps at my table we also have the "perfect storm", in that the wizard player
- would like to optimize much more than anyone else at the table
- is significantly a better optimizer than anyone else except me, (and if he keeps reading stuff he'll surpass me eventually)
- likes to play high tier classes, while most of us prefer to play weaker concepts
- likes to be able to solve any problem
- feels it's his responsibility to help the party overcome obstacles at the best of his capacities
- tends to significantly underestimate his own power and contribution
- has a hard time limiting himself.

I've been close with him since he was 8, and I can guarantee he's not a toxic player. But he cannot effectively limit himself.

we also have a dm who's fairly weak mechanically, as he never reached past level 3 before, and he is hard-pressed to challenge us. I mean, I'm playing a monk focused on defence and I'm already limiting myself in some things and he's having a hard time dealing with my character. And again, I've played with him for years and he's a good dm and a good player and he has great ideas and put effort into them, but he's nowhere near as competent as the people here saying "people should be able to balance themselves". Heck, I'm the most competent at my table and I'm nowhere near that level either. And i'm not sure I'd be able to balance to the table if I had to. I made a low-power specialized build just to ensure that I wouldn't invade someone's turf, and yet I did1. What if I wanted to play a problem-solver wizard?

So, expecting that people at my table to self-balance won't work, even if none of us is a toxic player.

On the plus side, since we're all good friends (not all of us knew each other before we started, but everyone was a good friend of someone else) and we know we're not toxic players, we can entrust the master with banning stuff. And I repeat, we always discuss things before deciding on a ban, and we generally agree.

1I accidentally stepped on the rogue's toes for scouting and trapfinding. while the rogue has skills for it, he once rolled low and missed a poisoned trap that almost killed him. I have no trapfinding skills, but with my saving throws and evasion and poison immunity i can just walk down the corridor and spring them with impunity. I am less stealthy, but if I am discovered I can survive and escape easily, while the rogue cannot.

So, from my personal aptitudes and proclivities, I disagree.

I'm a ****. And I think you humans are weird. Y'all get offended by the strangest things. Which, if you look at what various cultures find "offensive", you'll see that, in the aggregate, everyone agrees with me. Some say that doing a thing is rude; others say that not doing that thing is rude.

Myself? I find excessive politeness rude. It feels like you're telling me that you think I'm too weak to handle being told things. :smallfurious:

Building - and, more importantly (and this may be what you're missing) fixing - characters? That's child's play in comparison. Someone says that you're hurting their fun, you discuss how to fix that.

Someone thinks you're rude for not burping after a meal? Even if you're lucky enough that they'll tell you, you're not really likely to get a good conversation out of them regarding the nature of how that's rude, and what alternative actions you could take to produce the same results.

False God

2019-11-23, 08:16 PM

Eh, let's try a better metaphor. GMs that believe in bans are like Amazons who chop off one breast - sure, it may work (unless the potential Archer turns out to be opposite-handed), but, even if they're "right", they are imposing unnecessary penalties to other activities, when there are better ways to solve the problem.

So, it's not ire directed at people telling us the correct answer - it is ire directed the stupidity of people preventing some correct answers, and hindering others.

Don't get me wrong - I think that people are idiots, and over 99% of the population shouldn't be allowed to drive cars or have babies - but character creation shouldn't be baby-proofed for those of us who know what we're doing.

Further, players who only play in such baby-proofed zones are much less likely to ever learn how to play (the character-creation minigame) well. So it's just stupidity breeding ignorance - which really irks me.

Now, if it's not a ban list, but a "recommended balance list", where everyone can build whatever they want, bit those who need the help have a GM-approved list of safe choices? That's fine.

But don't sit me in a fully-stocked kitchen, and then tell me I have to make a tofu burger, with exactly 3 dill chips.

Now that that's out of the way…

I second the cooking metaphor, as cooking is one of my favorite hobbies and in many ways character creation is much like cooking. Combining interesting elements, particularly on top of less-than-interesting materials, or learning how to properly cook a certain meal you've never done before!

But when the DM starts saying you can only be X and Y is now Q and Z is -10 it gets dull, and samey. It's like, I love cooking fish, and there are lots of fish to experiment with cooking, even if I often find I enjoy a specific type cooked a specific way. But when you start saying I can only cook tilapia, and it has only lightly be seasoned, and I'm only allowed to pan fry it, it's like...okay, what do you need me for in this equation? You clearly know how you want characters built, what power levels, what's spells and abilities are OK and which aren't, why am I involved in this process?

And for me, when I start asking "Why am I involved in this process if the outcome is essentially predetermined?" I start asking myself "Why am I playing this game?"

Like, I have a DM who just started to implement polymorph bans, mostly because of me doing silly things with them. And I get that. But what this DM fails to grasp (no matter how many times we yell it at him) is that he is also at fault because he quite literally hands us the magical equivalent of nuclear weapons. And at the end of the day the realization I've come to is that he's not banning me from doing these things because he wants to maintain the status of his game. He's doing this because he wants to remain in control. HE wants to be in charge of if I can do cool things. HE wants to be in charge of when I can do cool things. Because frankly, we've done far worse things with the "toys" he's given us, than any shapeshifting shenanigans I ever took part in.

And that's what it really comes down to for me: bans feel like the DM trying to exert authorial control over the little bit of space they're not supposed to be in control of: the characters.

I don't mind a railroad of "go here", "fight that", "save the princess" but at least let me ride the ride with the character I want to play.

Psychoalpha

2019-11-23, 11:43 PM

isn't that a convoluted way to say that some of their stuff should be banned?

No? I mean, if that was what I was trying to say I would have just said that, instead of pushing the opposite.

Because we may have the players limit themselves on the build, the players choose to not use a specific spell or spell combo, or the group get together and decide to not do some stuff, or we kindly ask the player to not do the stuff, or we ban the player that keep doing the stuff...
but the key point is always the same: some things that would be allowed by RAW are not allowed at the table. and that's what i'd call a ban. soft, hard, democratically decided by the group, enforced by the master, self-chosen by the player, but still i call it a ban.

You can call it whatever you like, but I suspect you can probably tell the difference between self-moderation and someone telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do, and that the difference between those things can be pretty substantial.

Choosing not to abuse options is very different from simply being forbidden those options in the first place. One is someone acting like a responsible adult, the other is someone assuming people can't act like responsible adults and so making the choice for them. This is also usually done in a way that there's splash damage and options that some might have used for non-problematic builds are now off the table because the boogyman of What Might Happen raised it's head.

More to the point, it's always down to the players to self-regulate, because there's just no way that in a game with both Fighters and Clerics that you could possibly ban enough stuff that the latter couldn't utterly trivialize the former, without just banning Clerics or heavily modifying them to begin with. You might ban the most obvious, easily abused ways of doing it, but if someone is determined to be a jerk they'll find a way. Which is why our only real rule is don't be a jerk, and we don't bother with banning a bunch of stuff.

I'm thinking "ban" is one of those words that are not liked by some forumites here, just like "railroading" or "dmpc", words that took on a derogatory meaning because of specific ways in which they can be used. even though those concepts need not to be bad, and they are generally ok if not abused.

>_>

Didn't you just say 'So I'd rather the final decision is taken by the same person who doesn't have a direct emotional involvment with the characters.'? So how would a DMPC ever be okay, when by definition they literally make the final decisions for a 'persona, an alter ego, almost a friend' of their own? :p

While when I say "ban" I think "it is decided that some content - or some combinations of content - is not used in this campaign". We mostly have discussions among us to decide, and we generally agree, but when there is a disagreement the DM has the last word, so i say "the DM decides what is allowed".

That's not the forum misunderstanding something, that's not you being clear. Because 'a group sitting down to come up with some agreed upon rules of play where the DM has final say when there's a disagreement' is not in any sense 'the DM bans stuff'. Like, at all. At all.

Perhaps at my table we also have the "perfect storm", in that the wizard player
- would like to optimize much more than anyone else at the table
- is significantly a better optimizer than anyone else except me, (and if he keeps reading stuff he'll surpass me eventually)
- likes to play high tier classes, while most of us prefer to play weaker concepts
- likes to be able to solve any problem
- feels it's his responsibility to help the party overcome obstacles at the best of his capacities
- tends to significantly underestimate his own power and contribution
- has a hard time limiting himself.

I've been close with him since he was 8, and I can guarantee he's not a toxic player. But he cannot effectively limit himself.

One doesn't have to be toxic to be a jerk. If him doing all of this is actively ruining fun for other people, and he's been informed of this and still won't self-limit, then he's being a jerk. If playing that way is the only way he can have fun, and him playing that way will never be fun for others, then this is an insurmountable problem. It is not, and will never be, a problem solved by banning options. LIFE WILL FIND A WAY. :p

in the same way, my table has no problems with bans because we don't think we're good enough that we can make a great job ourselves.

If your table has no problems with bans, why is this 'perfect storm' player a problem? o.O Like I said before, if everybody at your table agrees that 'bans' are the way they prefer to play, then more power to you, that's balancing to the table as well. But it's far from a universal fix to the issue that 'balance to the table' is supposed to address.

Quertus

2019-11-24, 11:57 AM

I second the cooking metaphor, as cooking is one of my favorite hobbies and in many ways character creation is much like cooking. Combining interesting elements, particularly on top of less-than-interesting materials, or learning how to properly cook a certain meal you've never done before!

But when the DM starts saying you can only be X and Y is now Q and Z is -10 it gets dull, and samey. It's like, I love cooking fish, and there are lots of fish to experiment with cooking, even if I often find I enjoy a specific type cooked a specific way. But when you start saying I can only cook tilapia, and it has only lightly be seasoned, and I'm only allowed to pan fry it, it's like...okay, what do you need me for in this equation? You clearly know how you want characters built, what power levels, what's spells and abilities are OK and which aren't, why am I involved in this process?

And for me, when I start asking "Why am I involved in this process if the outcome is essentially predetermined?" I start asking myself "Why am I playing this game?"

Like, I have a DM who just started to implement polymorph bans, mostly because of me doing silly things with them. And I get that. But what this DM fails to grasp (no matter how many times we yell it at him) is that he is also at fault because he quite literally hands us the magical equivalent of nuclear weapons. And at the end of the day the realization I've come to is that he's not banning me from doing these things because he wants to maintain the status of his game. He's doing this because he wants to remain in control. HE wants to be in charge of if I can do cool things. HE wants to be in charge of when I can do cool things. Because frankly, we've done far worse things with the "toys" he's given us, than any shapeshifting shenanigans I ever took part in.

And that's what it really comes down to for me: bans feel like the DM trying to exert authorial control over the little bit of space they're not supposed to be in control of: the characters.

I don't mind a railroad of "go here", "fight that", "save the princess" but at least let me ride the ride with the character I want to play.

I'm glad you like the cooking metaphor.

I wasn't going to go there, but, yeah, I consider character creation to be the first beach heads of Expression and Player Agency.

Which is why our only real rule is don't be a jerk, and we don't bother with banning a bunch of stuff.

Yeah, my tables only need 2 rules: "balance to the table" and "don't be a ****". But, as you pointed out, that first one could be argued to be a subset of the second.

Didn't you just say 'So I'd rather the final decision is taken by the same person who doesn't have a direct emotional involvment with the characters.'? So how would a DMPC ever be okay, when by definition they literally make the final decisions for a 'persona, an alter ego, almost a friend' of their own? :p

Put together, these sound like a strong argument for the style of play where there are no NPCs - every single being in the game is a PC, and the GM merely adjudicate the rules.

King of Nowhere

2019-11-24, 07:12 PM

sorry for answering sentence-by-sentence, I don't like doing it because it seems I want a fight. but you raise many interesting points, and i want to reply to all of them

You can call it whatever you like, but I suspect you can probably tell the difference between self-moderation and someone telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do, and that the difference between those things can be pretty substantial.

psycologically, yes. I myself have gotten mad because i was forced to do things i would have done for free if asked nicely. and that comes down to pride.
on the other hand, the end result is pretty much the same. you either enforce a restriction, or you don't.

Choosing not to abuse options is very different from simply being forbidden those options in the first place. One is someone acting like a responsible adult, the other is someone assuming people can't act like responsible adults and so making the choice for them. This is also usually done in a way that there's splash damage and options that some might have used for non-problematic builds are now off the table because the boogyman of What Might Happen raised it's head.

if you apply your concept of banning, then of course. with my concept (that you don't consider banning), that's not really the case.
Also, there can be splash damage regardless of bans. just like bans may needlessly restrict options, lack of supervision may lead to a player accidentally making a problematic build. perhaps a build that won't be recognized problematic until later, when everyone is too attached to their characters to just retire them.

I would call the argument a strawman. you (and others) are assuming that banning will be handled in the worst possible way. while you are also at the same time assuming that the players will handle themselves in the best possible way.
You say that a problem build is not a problem because you can kick the player. shouldn't you by the same measure argue that a problem ban is not a problem because you can kick the dm?
Just like you expect that a good player with limited mechanical skill can be reasoned with, shouldn't you similarly assume that a good dm with boogyman bans can be similarly reasoned with?

by your attitude you prove my point: this board has a very specific concept of ban, one that implies a toxic - or at least incompetent - dm.

i could go even farther, and say that your tables are banning bans because of something bad that may happen.

More to the point, it's always down to the players to self-regulate, because there's just no way that in a game with both Fighters and Clerics that you could possibly ban enough stuff that the latter couldn't utterly trivialize the former, without just banning Clerics or heavily modifying them to begin with. You might ban the most obvious, easily abused ways of doing it, but if someone is determined to be a jerk they'll find a way. Which is why our only real rule is don't be a jerk, and we don't bother with banning a bunch of stuff.

oh, i fully agree on that. every time i replied to a "problem player" thread, I always said something along the line of "without trust you can go nowhere".

>_>

Didn't you just say 'So I'd rather the final decision is taken by the same person who doesn't have a direct emotional involvment with the characters.'? So how would a DMPC ever be okay, when by definition they literally make the final decisions for a 'persona, an alter ego, almost a friend' of their own? :p

I only used DMPC as an example of something else that can be a problem, but it may also be done right, but that will always be received in a negative light by this forum

That's not the forum misunderstanding something, that's not you being clear. Because 'a group sitting down to come up with some agreed upon rules of play where the DM has final say when there's a disagreement' is not in any sense 'the DM bans stuff'. Like, at all. At all.

well, in a literal meaning it is the very same thing. the dm is the one who makes the ultimate decision, and he decides that a certain thing is not allowed.
that this forum attaches a lot of other unrelated implications in the sentence is neither here not there. It's a slang of this forum. or perhaps of the larger gaming community, but certainly it is not recognized with those meanings by the people i play with.
Either way, I am glad this misunderstanding is cleared.

One doesn't have to be toxic to be a jerk. If him doing all of this is actively ruining fun for other people, and he's been informed of this and still won't self-limit, then he's being a jerk. If playing that way is the only way he can have fun, and him playing that way will never be fun for others, then this is an insurmountable problem. It is not, and will never be, a problem solved by banning options. LIFE WILL FIND A WAY. :p

the wizard player would like to play a higher optimization game than the rest of us. the difference in preferred playstyle is not so great that we're not having plenty of fun. the player complains sometimes, but accepts that he has to be reined in a bit. I've seen him being a jerk sometimes, but never to his friends.

If your table has no problems with bans, why is this 'perfect storm' player a problem? o.O Like I said before, if everybody at your table agrees that 'bans' are the way they prefer to play, then more power to you, that's balancing to the table as well. But it's far from a universal fix to the issue that 'balance to the table' is supposed to address.
I never said that it's the only way to play, or the best way to play. I only said it's what works for us. The strongest claim I made is that I think it works better in a group without much mechanical skill.

New related question for everyone: how do you feel about bans that exhist solely for worldbuilding reasons?
"this world has no teleportation. that class of magic simply does not exhist"
"this world is technologically backwards, it has primitive smithing. there are no martial weapons and no heavy armors"
"in this world the gods are absent, so there is no divine magic. i added healing spells to the wizard list because adventuring needs healing"
"there is no underdark or anything like it in this world, so there are no drows or duergars or other deep races"
would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

Psychoalpha

2019-11-25, 12:30 AM

psycologically, yes. I myself have gotten mad because i was forced to do things i would have done for free if asked nicely. and that comes down to pride.
on the other hand, the end result is pretty much the same. you either enforce a restriction, or you don't.

It's not about pride. You're still kind of missing the point here: It's about expecting that people will behave like adults, and if there's an unexpected problem, deal with it like adults. Or at least not-jerks.

I maintain that you cannot play whackamole enough with D&D 3.x, Pathfinder, or most games that include the kind of basic power/utility disparity, to keep someone from trivializing others. At best you get rid of the very worst options, but again those options are not the problem. A core rulebook Cleric can trivialize a Fighter beyond the first handful of levels. A Druid in 3.5 can do it even at those levels. If the players in question care about that disparity, there it is. You'd have to rewrite entire classes to 'ban' it out of existence, or just make everyone play Fighters so nobody gets to be 'better' than anybody else.

Also, there can be splash damage regardless of bans. just like bans may needlessly restrict options, lack of supervision may lead to a player accidentally making a problematic build. perhaps a build that won't be recognized problematic until later, when everyone is too attached to their characters to just retire them.

If the player using those options can't come up with a way to not be problematic without retiring the character, that's on them. Having been that person and shifted aspects of my character's style and reasoning to allow them to continue using their toys without trivializing other characters, I have little sympathy for anybody who takes the kind of attitude where their character is some real person with real agency who can't possibly change based on out of character circumstances.

while you are also at the same time assuming that the players will handle themselves in the best possible way.

Expecting that people not be jerks and be cognizant of their impact on their fellow players, and have some basic comprehension that everyone is there to have fun even if that means compromising at times, is not expecting people to handle themselves in the 'best possible way' it's expecting them to not be jerks and play nice with others. If people at your table can't handle that, my condolences.

You say that a problem build is not a problem because you can kick the player. shouldn't you by the same measure argue that a problem ban is not a problem because you can kick the dm?

I did, in fact, say in this very thread that if a DM is unable to run a game without a slew of bans trying to play whack-a-mole with broken ****, and that isn't what's fun for the players at the table, then yes that person shouldn't be DMing if they can't get past that.

Just like you expect that a good player with limited mechanical skill can be reasoned with, shouldn't you similarly assume that a good dm with boogyman bans can be similarly reasoned with?

Since I've already stated more than once that 'balance at the table' is about learning what people are going to have fun with (and what they're going to find Not Fun), sure. I've played at tables where a DM banned certain classes or races due to campaign considerations or because they wanted a particular theme for the party or whatever else. I've had DMs ban a particular feat or class build because it creates a lot of time consuming work that bogs down the table (and then remove that ban when someone came up with an automated tool for their laptop to handle it quickly). Bans aren't inherently good or bad, in that sense.

But 'balance' bans? Outside of very specific stuff that's as often a result of bad editing? Yeah, it's generally coming from a place of either laziness or ignorance.

I only used DMPC as an example of something else that can be a problem, but it may also be done right, but that will always be received in a negative light by this forum

That's a pretty dismissive way of looking at it. While there are things that fall under that umbrella, there's also things where the risk just isn't worth the reward. If I can juggle toddlers with a 99% reliability rate, so there's only a one in a hundred chance I'll drop a small child, should I be allowed to? Most people would probably say no, the buzzkills.

I would instead say that bans for the sake of balance act as a sort of security theater. In that [i]they objectively do not work to prevent the thing they try to prevent, and exist only to make people who worry about that stuff feel better, right up until they don't work.

how do you feel about bans that exhist solely for worldbuilding reasons?

See above. Though some of your examples are meh. If the DM just says 'There's no teleportation in this world.' because they don't like the convenience of teleportation magic and that's the start and end of it, then it's probably not a world I'm interested in playing in.

would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

As long as the world and what it has or doesn't have feels organic and seems to make sense, or as long as I trust that something that doesn't make sense is a mystery that can be unraveled to discover why, cool. If teleportation doesn't work because long ago the gods realized it was poking tiny holes in the stuff of the world and Something(tm) was finding a way through, and so collectively tightened the weave of space and time to prevent any future breaches, that's cool. I'd hope a story related to that Something(tm) would come up in some campaign set in that world.

would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

Not having a class because that class wouldn't exist in the world isn't really a ban. Like, there's no Pilot class in Greyhawk because there's nothing to pilot. Wanting to play a Cleric in a world with no gods or divine magic would be silly, if there's still a way to play a healer type (see: White Mages in Final Fantasy).

Quertus

2019-11-25, 07:54 AM

Also, there can be splash damage regardless of bans. just like bans may needlessly restrict options, lack of supervision may lead to a player accidentally making a problematic build. perhaps a build that won't be recognized problematic until later, when everyone is too attached to their characters to just retire them.

This is true. The difference is, one is fixable. I'm a software developer. I'm unique in my experience, in that I believe in *fixable* code.

I would call the argument a strawman. you (and others) are assuming that banning will be handled in the worst possible way. while you are also at the same time assuming that the players will handle themselves in the best possible way.

Again, it's a matter of fixing problems.

You say that a problem build is not a problem because you can kick the player. shouldn't you by the same measure argue that a problem ban is not a problem because you can kick the dm?

No, I say it's not a problem, because you can fix the build. I've never been able to fix a banning GM.

Just like you expect that a good player with limited mechanical skill can be reasoned with, shouldn't you similarly assume that a good dm with boogyman bans can be similarly reasoned with?

Really hasn't been my experience, no. Even on these forums, when I start talking to people who ban about banning theory, not a one has provided a satisfactory answer (at least as far as I remember - darn senility).

----- Scenario 1 -----

So, for the sake of argument, suppose you've banned Tainted Sorcerer. Then someone comes to your table with a horrible UP heal-bot Bard build. This build would almost be up to snuff if it were a Tainted Sorcerer.

Would you suggest that they take the banner Tainted Sorcerer class? Would you allow them to take Tainted Sorcerer if they suggested it? What - if any - action would you take to fix this problem?

----- Scenario 2 -----

A second player comes to the table with a build that, on paper, seems balanced. Problem is, the way that the player plays the character, they're horribly ineffective. Maybe they have Greenbond Summoning, but never summon. Maybe they Nova every fight, and are useless most of the adventure. Maybe the player is just dumb, or the character is tactically inept. Whatever the cause, the character is severely underperforming.

What - if anything - would you do?

well, in a literal meaning it is the very same thing. the dm is the one who makes the ultimate decision, and he decides that a certain thing is not allowed.

And this is why the balanced Tainted Sorcerer Bard doesn't see play at tables where Tainted Sorcerer is banned. But it does when you balance to the table.

New related question for everyone: how do you feel about bans that exhist solely for worldbuilding reasons?
"this world has no teleportation. that class of magic simply does not exhist"
"this world is technologically backwards, it has primitive smithing. there are no martial weapons and no heavy armors"
"in this world the gods are absent, so there is no divine magic. i added healing spells to the wizard list because adventuring needs healing"
"there is no underdark or anything like it in this world, so there are no drows or duergars or other deep races"
would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

Tricky question. In principle, it's fine; in practice, most world-building is terrible, IME, and the game would have been better without it, as just a random kitchen sink. Mind you, I say this as someone whose greatest source of fun is Exploration - I really appreciate good world-building.

Also, my personal response is "mu" - the question is invalid, as my character is "not from around here", and therefore not subject to what does or does not exist here.

Lastly, so what if there were no X in the world - I guess that makes me the first. Yup, I'm the first Warforged, *and* the first Monk. Unless it is somehow physically impossible for those to exist, that is a valid character concept in a world formerly without either.

Quertus

2019-11-25, 11:14 AM

Expecting that people not be jerks and be cognizant of their impact on their fellow players, and have some basic comprehension that everyone is there to have fun even if that means compromising at times, is not expecting people to handle themselves in the 'best possible way' it's expecting them to not be jerks and play nice with others. If people at your table can't handle that, my condolences.

I did, in fact, say in this very thread that if a DM is unable to run a game without a slew of bans trying to play whack-a-mole with broken ****, and that isn't what's fun for the players at the table, then yes that person shouldn't be DMing if they can't get past that.

Since I've already stated more than once that 'balance at the table' is about learning what people are going to have fun with (and what they're going to find Not Fun), sure. I've played at tables where a DM banned certain classes or races due to campaign considerations or because they wanted a particular theme for the party or whatever else. I've had DMs ban a particular feat or class build because it creates a lot of time consuming work that bogs down the table (and then remove that ban when someone came up with an automated tool for their laptop to handle it quickly). Bans aren't inherently good or bad, in that sense.

But 'balance' bans? Outside of very specific stuff that's as often a result of bad editing? Yeah, it's generally coming from a place of either laziness or ignorance.

That's a pretty dismissive way of looking at it. While there are things that fall under that umbrella, there's also things where the risk just isn't worth the reward. If I can juggle toddlers with a 99% reliability rate, so there's only a one in a hundred chance I'll drop a small child, should I be allowed to? Most people would probably say no, the buzzkills.

I would instead say that bans for the sake of balance act as a sort of security theater. In that [i]they objectively do not work to prevent the thing they try to prevent, and exist only to make people who worry about that stuff feel better, right up until they don't work.

See above. Though some of your examples are meh. If the DM just says 'There's no teleportation in this world.' because they don't like the convenience of teleportation magic and that's the start and end of it, then it's probably not a world I'm interested in playing in.

As long as the world and what it has or doesn't have feels organic and seems to make sense, or as long as I trust that something that doesn't make sense is a mystery that can be unraveled to discover why, cool. If teleportation doesn't work because long ago the gods realized it was poking tiny holes in the stuff of the world and Something(tm) was finding a way through, and so collectively tightened the weave of space and time to prevent any future breaches, that's cool. I'd hope a story related to that Something(tm) would come up in some campaign set in that world.

Not having a class because that class wouldn't exist in the world isn't really a ban. Like, there's no Pilot class in Greyhawk because there's nothing to pilot. Wanting to play a Cleric in a world with no gods or divine magic would be silly, if there's still a way to play a healer type (see: White Mages in Final Fantasy).

So, it sounds like you understand my "balance to the table" and "don't be a ****". Only thing I'd say is, if the GM isn't able to make funny voices, that only means he shouldn't GM for tables where that's a requirement, not that he shouldn't GM at all. And, as they grow as a GM, and develop additional skill sets, the GM should consider whether they should add "learn funny voices" to their to-do list, to add funny voices to their toolkit. However, if the GM is unable to comprehend the very concept of funny voices, it does reflect poorly on their general competence, and acuity to roleplay a diverse cast of NPCs with divergent PoVs.

Same thing with "don't be a ****", or not utilizing ban tech.

Now, what I find really interesting is this notion of banning Teleportation. So, Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) comes to the world, and sees that the local laws of magic don't allow the normal version of Teleportation. That's fine - he has several more. This should immediately put him in an interesting position as the only teleporter the world, and provide good impetus for him to get involved with the underlying Something(tm) plot. Whereas, most of my PCs? I can see it getting very contrived if the Something(tm) plot ever came up in the campaign - it's not the sort of thing most characters - heck, most parties - are designed to Explore.

Lastly, in 3e, you can play a Cleric in a world without gods. Just not an Ur-Priest.

Quertus

2019-11-25, 01:48 PM

New related question for everyone: how do you feel about bans that exhist solely for worldbuilding reasons?
"this world has no teleportation. that class of magic simply does not exhist"
"this world is technologically backwards, it has primitive smithing. there are no martial weapons and no heavy armors"
"in this world the gods are absent, so there is no divine magic. i added healing spells to the wizard list because adventuring needs healing"
"there is no underdark or anything like it in this world, so there are no drows or duergars or other deep races"
would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

A more detailed response may be helpful, so I'll try again.

"Teleportation doesn't exist" isn't interesting. It isn't world-building, either.

ShadowRun magic has that limitation. And it doesn't stem from some underlying metaphysics - it just is the result of the designers wanting to run a certain style of game. Similarly, I played a system where magic couldn't do Mind Control. And this wasn't "world-building", this simply came from the belief that Mind Control wasn't fun. And the developers were honest about it.

No gods? That's world-building. But "therefore no divine magic"? That doesn't follow in 3e. One could, iirc, still play a Cleric of a concept, maybe an Archivist, probably a Druid, but definitely not an Ur-Priest, Paladin (or Ranger?). Or many deity-specific prestige classes. You have to actually follow the logic of the classes to know which can and cannot be played. (And I suspect that some kind, knowledgeable Playgrounder will correct me regarding which classes are actually viable by RAW without deities)

Changing the Wizard class, for balance in a godless world, by adding healing magic, is not terribly interesting. It's acting "because balance", not "because world-building". (Quertus, btw, has been to such worlds. He learned Cure Critical Wounds)

No underdark? That's world-building. Therefore no Drow? No, that doesn't follow. Drow are Dark Elves who worship Lloth; the presence or absence of the underdark is irrelevant to that. Just as the presence or absence of Lloth or the underdark is irrelevant to the question the existence of dark elves. Placia (one of my campaign worlds) has Dark Elves, but no Lloth or underdark. They are forest-dwelling dark-skinned elves - the least populous, and very protected by and of their kin - who would make good Earthdawn Archers.

So, in short, you seem really confused as to what world-building is (EDIT: or, more precisely, what "because world-building" looks like). What you describe generally sounds more like trying to force certain play styles under the fig leaf of "world-building". Note the difference between how I responded to "no teleportation", and "no teleportation, because laws of magic were changed, because of Something(tm)". One builds a world, while the other is a Gamist construct.

How would I respond? A GM who did that - especially one who made extensive use of such tactics - I would summize that the GM is probably passive-aggressive, and probably not a very good GM, and plan accordingly. Hopefully, I'd be able to show them a better way. In practice, I've had… mixed results. Some people want to learn; others are set in their ways. Some people can learn from a **** like me; others cannot. Some people do this type of thing out of ignorance; others, out of Belief; still others, out of malice - and, doubtless, there are other reasons.

RifleAvenger

2019-11-25, 03:01 PM

"Teleportation doesn't exist" isn't interesting. It isn't world building either.

Except that it is. The existance of teleportation, whether a new invention, rare thing in the hands of an elite, or common enough to be part of everyday society, will change any internally consistant and coherent setting drastically. If a GM or players don't want to play in such a setting either there needs to be no teleportation, why teleportation doesn't change the world needs to be explained (and those explanations need to be born out), or everyone admits that the setting is nonsense and doesn't reflect its own mechanics and provided abilities.

Anything as world altering as teleportation is a worldbuilding facet by its very nature to define how the setting and its societies operate, and that includes deciding it doesn't exist so you can keep a coherent setting more akin to the real world in that regard.

As another example, there are urban fantasy tables that only play pre-1990's to avoid mass availibility of cell phones, the internet, and their spawn, the smartphone. Given the incredible and well documented effects these things had, and are having, IRL, choosing to use a setting without them is a worldbuilding choice.

Likewise, no divine magic is worldbuilding; D&Ds bipartitite division IS worldbuilding. That arcane and divine magic are different things says something about its setting (D&D is not the generic fantasy engine it pretends to be). Having only one kind of non-divine magic implies something too, particularly about the gods, if they exist.

I'm running a game now where there is non-magical powered flight via vehicle and short term flight via spell, but no magic items that allow flight w/o having spellcasting ability. Because making personal, long distance, non-mental focus dependant flight availible economically would change the world in ways the other two don't and that I don't want to deal with. Same reason why teleportation in that world is available only to a small number of exceptionally powerful individuals; doing otherwise would result in an utterly different setting.

It's hardly gamist to not want an element because it's too hard to implement w/o either torpedoing verisimilitude or playing in a coherent, but bizarre, world.

King of Nowhere

2019-11-25, 04:28 PM

Really hasn't been my experience, no. Even on these forums, when I start talking to people who ban about banning theory, not a one has provided a satisfactory answer (at least as far as I remember - darn senility).

----- Scenario 1 -----

So, for the sake of argument, suppose you've banned Tainted Sorcerer. Then someone comes to your table with a horrible UP heal-bot Bard build. This build would almost be up to snuff if it were a Tainted Sorcerer.

Would you suggest that they take the banner Tainted Sorcerer class? Would you allow them to take Tainted Sorcerer if they suggested it? What - if any - action would you take to fix this problem?

----- Scenario 2 -----

A second player comes to the table with a build that, on paper, seems balanced. Problem is, the way that the player plays the character, they're horribly ineffective. Maybe they have Greenbond Summoning, but never summon. Maybe they Nova every fight, and are useless most of the adventure. Maybe the player is just dumb, or the character is tactically inept. Whatever the cause, the character is severely underperforming.

What - if anything - would you do?

well, we came to discuss ban theory, so I should give my answers to this - even though what is done at my tables isn't really "ban" by your own definitions.

scenario 1: I would not suggest the class simply because I don't know it:smalltongue:. But if the class was suggested, then sure, i would allow it. with the caveat that the player is not to abuse it.

scenario 2: historically, i had to deal with players with no mechanical competence. in those cases, i mostly found some plot excuse to give them some unique homebrew ability, or perhaps i'd drop them a unique powerful loot tailored for them.
This is because, I repeat, my players (except the wizard player) had no mechanical competence; the rogue couldn't calculate his to-hit bonus, the wizard couldn't tell me the saving throw dc of her spells, and so on. and they weren't interested in learning. so, suggesting prestige classes or feats to them would have been pointless. I don't play anymore with them, except for the wizard player, who helped put together the new group.

now that i have more skilled players, it depends on the player. we have one guy with a horribly ineffective build/strategy. he should be a fighting cleric that fights with buffs, but he never bothers to pre-buff himself, so he starts the fights by casting his buffs, and by the time he's done the fight has ended. it's become a recurring joken by now. and we gave him some tips, like "buff yourself before the fight begins".
then again, the player is happy and never complained that he wants to be more effective, so we leave it there. if he were to complain, we would give more suggestions, including build suggestions.

If I were again to DM, i'd also be open to homebrew content. My general concept is, a player wants to be good at some stuff, I allow him to be good at that stuff. as long as he doesn't ask to be too broken at that stuff, or to be good at everything.

So, in short, you seem really confused as to what world-building is (EDIT: or, more precisely, what "because world-building" looks like). What you describe generally sounds more like trying to force certain play styles under the fig leaf of "world-building".
not really. putting aside that i was striving for brevity in those short examples, but my main goal in doing that is to avoid the feeling of kitchen sink, which i really hate when playing. I prefer the setting to be cohesive and to have well-developed relations between its various parts; the opposite, where new elements are continuously added and conveniently forgotten shortly later, works poorly for my immersion.
Or, to quote Sanderson's laws of magic, expand what you already have before you add something new (https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-third-law-of-magic/).
Especially when i'm scarcely familiar with most settings and content, so perhaps this new race really has its place, but to me it looks like a disjoined stuff whose only purpose is to appeal to some powergamer who wanted a specific set of racial bonuses.
So, my homebrew setting misses most of the content. and it was appreciated because of its strong internal consistency.

that said, I leave enough blank spaces that I can fit something if a player asks for it. there is no underdark and there are no drows, but if a player really wanted to play a drow in my world i could perhaps invent a large system of caves inhabited by a tribe of elves that got warped by the strong natural magic in the area. or perhaps make them an extraplanar race from another dimension. there is no lolth, as there are only a dozen gods out there, but if it's really required i can make one more.

Or, I can take out some specific elements to produce a certain kind of society, as better explained by rifleavenger

Except that it is. The existance of teleportation, whether a new invention, rare thing in the hands of an elite, or common enough to be part of everyday society, will change any internally consistant and coherent setting drastically. If a GM or players don't want to play in such a setting either there needs to be no teleportation, why teleportation doesn't change the world needs to be explained (and those explanations need to be born out), or everyone admits that the setting is nonsense and doesn't reflect its own mechanics and provided abilities.

Anything as world altering as teleportation is a worldbuilding facet by its very nature to define how the setting and its societies operate, and that includes deciding it doesn't exist so you can keep a coherent setting more akin to the real world in that regard.

As another example, there are urban fantasy tables that only play pre-1990's to avoid mass availibility of cell phones, the internet, and their spawn, the smartphone. Given the incredible and well documented effects these things had, and are having, IRL, choosing to use a setting without them is a worldbuilding choice.

Likewise, no divine magic is worldbuilding; D&Ds bipartitite division IS worldbuilding. That arcane and divine magic are different things says something about its setting (D&D is not the generic fantasy engine it pretends to be). Having only one kind of non-divine magic implies something too, particularly about the gods, if they exist.

you made a good job of expanding on my point.

My own example would have been on how if you have permanent teleportation circles you end up in a tippyverse, so if you don't want a tippyverse you have to alter something about the magic. taking out teleportation, or divine magic, or whole subschools of magic, is just doing this in a larger scale to produce certain effects on how society developed.

In general, magic will alter society, and in-depth worldbuilding requires careful consideration of how that could take effect. A society that is not consistent with the magic it posseses is a plot hole. so, sometimes you had an idea for a world with a certain kind of society, but for that society to exhist it needs to not have a certain kind of magic, which would make it moot. And if you say "i'll be the first to discover it", then you have to be ready to play a campaign about the consequences this has on society.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-11-25, 05:20 PM

New related question for everyone: how do you feel about bans that exhist solely for worldbuilding reasons?

I don't have a problem in theory but execution can make or break such decisions pretty quickly.

"this world has no teleportation. that class of magic simply does not exhist"

Trivially acceptable. While teleportation isn't exactly difficult to deal with, choosing not to deal with it and the attendant world-building considereations it entails is perfectly fine.

"this world is technologically backwards, it has primitive smithing. there are no martial weapons and no heavy armors"

This one fails the logic check pretty quickly. Even the most primitive smithing of copper and bronze can still have a guy wrapped up pretty completely and swords came up really fast after metal working became a thing. Metals being very rare makes more sense. Even then you still haven't justified there being no martial -hafted- weapons. Even if metalworking hasn't been discovered at all yet, you still have to explain why a stone handaxe isn't a thing.

So "yes" to no heavy armor but "no" to no martial weapons unless you can come up with a better explanation. Make it only halfted martial weapons and my objection dries up.

"in this world the gods are absent, so there is no divine magic. i added healing spells to the wizard list because adventuring needs healing"

No problem. Don't even need to put the heals on the wizard list since bards already get cures and there's even an alchemy option for healing. Nevermind psionics and its plethora of heals.

"there is no underdark or anything like it in this world, so there are no drows or duergars or other deep races"

Less than no objection. You already have to actively include such creatures in the first place so there's no reason to expect them anyway. So I can't play one. There's a dozen other player races without even having to go to odd sources.

would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

I don't have a problem with limits. Every class and race and item already has limits baked right into them. What's a few more? I just want them to make -some- kind of sense.

RatElemental

2019-11-25, 06:34 PM

Lastly, in 3e, you can play a Cleric in a world without gods. Just not an Ur-Priest.

One could, iirc, still play a Cleric of a concept, maybe an Archivist, probably a Druid, but definitely not an Ur-Priest

I beg to differ, actually. Ur-Priests usually steal their magic from the gods, yes, but they can also siphon the power of dead or forgotten deities. Ur-Priests match excellently to the fluff of a world that the gods have abandoned or that all the gods have died in, and even if there never were gods to begin with they can just piggy-back on the concept clerics and archivists.

King of Nowhere

2019-11-25, 07:52 PM

False God

2019-11-25, 08:58 PM

New related question for everyone: how do you feel about bans that exhist solely for worldbuilding reasons?
"this world has no teleportation. that class of magic simply does not exhist"
"this world is technologically backwards, it has primitive smithing. there are no martial weapons and no heavy armors"
"in this world the gods are absent, so there is no divine magic. i added healing spells to the wizard list because adventuring needs healing"
"there is no underdark or anything like it in this world, so there are no drows or duergars or other deep races"
would you still feel limited because maybe you wanted to play a cleric in the cleric-less world? or would you be okay because it's basically a different system?

Restrictions of this sort should emphasize the theme, and there should be sound reasoning behind it....in order...
Banning teleportation is a stretch IMO because what, no wizard ever thought "There's got to be a way for me to get from A to B faster, but HOW!??" I mean, getting from A to B faster has been one of the driving factors of human expansion throughout history. We need to get from Here to There first in order to get Stuff.
-My current GM has an area where teleportation works weird. Teleportation does not transport you from A to B. It accelerates you from A to B. The greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. You retain the acceleration on the other end.

I'm always sketchy on "primitive settings" aside from the IRL implications, often because it's just a "he look non-magical classes suck even more" without any limitation on the power of clerics, druids, or sorcerers (and sometimes wizards are limited). Humans, if not elves, orcs, dwarves and other races are really good at making pointy things and blowing stuff up. The "pointy metal stick" was a fairly early creation of smithing. Perhaps not plate, but working a piece of iron into a pointy piece of iron was a fairly early invention.
-This is also to say: a lot of DMs like to say "the world doesn't have XYZ" without actually doing any research on XYZ, leading a world that seems weird because it's constantly dancing around XYZ and has all the elements to have XYZ but it just doesn't.

Gut response: Because wizards need to be more powerful? Personally, I've run these settings. Replace "Clerics" with "White Wizards" and "Druids" with "Nature Wizards" and call it good. If you're going to remove primary healers, you need to adjust the entire game to compensate for the lack of healing. Removing Clerics only to give Wizards clerical healing doesn't actually remove clerics. It just means you can make a wizard-cleric now without multiclassing.

I'm generally fine with race removal. Provided there aren't IRL implications for the reason.

It's not "basically a different system" if you want to run a system without clerics, there are other RPGs for that. World-building is not easy, and if you want to remove clerics, the easy answer is the wrong one.

RifleAvenger

2019-11-25, 09:54 PM

It's not "basically a different system" if you want to run a system without clerics, there are other RPGs for that. World-building is not easy, and if you want to remove clerics, the easy answer is the wrong one.
If we're being entirely honest with ourselves, the only way to solve the incoherence of D&D's setting is to play Planescape and just embrace the madness.

But so long as we're trying to retain drama in D&D on a consistent basis (and not just at crucial junctions, like Dragonball or Planescape), and people insist on playing D&D as the generic fantasy it is not, I don't see the harm in making these sorts of setting changes and asking the players to disregard the man behind the curtain like they do with D&D in general.

Unless they'd rather accept the incoherence, reasonable players should consent to this or realize it isn't the table for them.

A lot of protracted disputes on this forum come down to people who don't belong at the same table trying to argue that the other person shouldn't be at any table, in my opinion at least.

False God

2019-11-25, 10:06 PM

If we're being entirely honest with ourselves, the only way to solve the incoherence of D&D's setting is to play Planescape and just embrace the madness.

But so long as we're trying to retain drama in D&D on a consistent basis (and not just at crucial junctions, like Dragonball or Planescape), and people insist on playing D&D as the generic fantasy it is not, I don't see the harm in making these sorts of setting changes and asking the players to disregard the man behind the curtain like they do with D&D in general.

Unless they'd rather accept the incoherence, reasonable players should consent to this or realize it isn't the table for them.

A lot of protracted disputes on this forum come down to people who don't belong at the same table trying to argue that the other person shouldn't be at any table, in my opinion at least.

D&D presents a reasonable level of "suspension of disbelief" and it's gotten better at that over the years with each edition. Just because we suspend our disbelief for the inconsistency of readily affordable ball bearings, does not mean that we should accept any inconsistency at all.

Quertus

2019-11-25, 10:56 PM

I beg to differ, actually. Ur-Priests usually steal their magic from the gods, yes, but they can also siphon the power of dead or forgotten deities. Ur-Priests match excellently to the fluff of a world that the gods have abandoned or that all the gods have died in, and even if there never were gods to begin with they can just piggy-back on the concept clerics and archivists.

So, if the world once had gods, the Ur-Priest could get their power from the dead gods. I'll buy that. But I'm less certain that they could steal power from nebulous concepts, like "fairness" or "Ennui". I guess it depends on how Cleric spell recovery actually works.

for that matter, you can do anything with the power of refluff. you can make a cleric, say that his magic is arcane magic, have him prepare spells from a book instead of from praying, and call him an arcane fighter-healer.

I'm not much for refluffing, usually… but isn't changing "divine" to "arcane" an actual *substance* change, not just a fluff one?

That said, I'm lacking any memory of "teeth" to that "substance".

well, we came to discuss ban theory, so I should give my answers to this - even though what is done at my tables isn't really "ban" by your own definitions.

scenario 1: I would not suggest the class simply because I don't know it:smalltongue:. But if the class was suggested, then sure, i would allow it. with the caveat that the player is not to abuse it.

scenario 2: historically, i had to deal with players with no mechanical competence. in those cases, i mostly found some plot excuse to give them some unique homebrew ability, or perhaps i'd drop them a unique powerful loot tailored for them.
This is because, I repeat, my players (except the wizard player) had no mechanical competence; the rogue couldn't calculate his to-hit bonus, the wizard couldn't tell me the saving throw dc of her spells, and so on. and they weren't interested in learning. so, suggesting prestige classes or feats to them would have been pointless. I don't play anymore with them, except for the wizard player, who helped put together the new group.

now that i have more skilled players, it depends on the player. we have one guy with a horribly ineffective build/strategy. he should be a fighting cleric that fights with buffs, but he never bothers to pre-buff himself, so he starts the fights by casting his buffs, and by the time he's done the fight has ended. it's become a recurring joken by now. and we gave him some tips, like "buff yourself before the fight begins".
then again, the player is happy and never complained that he wants to be more effective, so we leave it there. if he were to complain, we would give more suggestions, including build suggestions.

If I were again to DM, i'd also be open to homebrew content. My general concept is, a player wants to be good at some stuff, I allow him to be good at that stuff. as long as he doesn't ask to be too broken at that stuff, or to be good at everything.

Yes, you certainly have a different mindset than the "ban" crowd. Good answers. Kudos!

not really. putting aside that i was striving for brevity in those short examples, but my main goal in doing that is to avoid the feeling of kitchen sink, which i really hate when playing. I prefer the setting to be cohesive and to have well-developed relations between its various parts; the opposite, where new elements are continuously added and conveniently forgotten shortly later, works poorly for my immersion.
Or, to quote Sanderson's laws of magic, expand what you already have before you add something new (https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-third-law-of-magic/).
Especially when i'm scarcely familiar with most settings and content, so perhaps this new race really has its place, but to me it looks like a disjoined stuff whose only purpose is to appeal to some powergamer who wanted a specific set of racial bonuses.
So, my homebrew setting misses most of the content. and it was appreciated because of its strong internal consistency.

I can see another difference: here, you're talking about adding things to build your setting; in your examples, you're talking as though you're removing things.

Yes, when GMs build something cohesive by putting things together, that's generally fine. When, instead, GMs go around removing things (usually like a bull in a China shop, with no concept of why they were there in the first place), it generally produces a worse mess then the kitchen sink that they started with (*cough* low magic, no magic item shops, etc *cough*).

that said, I leave enough blank spaces that I can fit something if a player asks for it. there is no underdark and there are no drows, but if a player really wanted to play a drow in my world i could perhaps invent a large system of caves inhabited by a tribe of elves that got warped by the strong natural magic in the area. or perhaps make them an extraplanar race from another dimension. there is no lolth, as there are only a dozen gods out there, but if it's really required i can make one more.

That's your good. I struggle with that, personally.

My own example would have been on how if you have permanent teleportation circles you end up in a tippyverse, so if you don't want a tippyverse you have to alter something about the magic. taking out teleportation, or divine magic, or whole subschools of magic, is just doing this in a larger scale to produce certain effects on how society developed.

In general, magic will alter society, and in-depth worldbuilding requires careful consideration of how that could take effect. A society that is not consistent with the magic it posseses is a plot hole. so, sometimes you had an idea for a world with a certain kind of society, but for that society to exhist it needs to not have a certain kind of magic, which would make it moot.

How long did… China?… have gunpowder, without really using it beyond fireworks? I have no problem imagining that societies might under-utilize their resources - and even do so long-term. (Although, personally, I think that fireworks may well actually be the *optimal* use for gunpowder…)

And if you say "i'll be the first to discover it", then you have to be ready to play a campaign about the consequences this has on society.

Yes, please!

RifleAvenger

2019-11-25, 10:56 PM

D&D presents a reasonable level of "suspension of disbelief" and it's gotten better at that over the years with each edition. Just because we suspend our disbelief for the inconsistency of readily affordable ball bearings, does not mean that we should accept any inconsistency at all.

I will have to dispute heavily that it just comes down to the availability of ball bearings. A world with people who can do what D&D PC's do every day (and the players are hardly unique given the villains shown off in modules alone) and logically builds upon the rules and capabilities those rules provide will not look at all like Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms, or even Eberron (though it does slightly better). Examine it too hard, especially in games with a wide view and where the PC's and the antagonists are able or trying to use every capability the rules offer to prevail, and the pseudo-historical aspects of the worlds begin to fall apart and change into something fantastic and bizarre very quickly. A high powered game like 3.5e would likely devolve into something closer to Exalted in terms of a few phenomenally powerful individuals ruling the world than the "mundane kings in mundane castles" we so frequently see as D&D baseline.

Even ignoring spells and supernatural abilities (not just referring to the mechanical designation in 3e here), things like how people seem to just having some sort of innate healing factor in 5e exist and would have setting implications if acknowledged as real and not convenience for gaming. At least bounded accuracy in 5e serves to make high level characters and creatures not functionally army-proof (assuming you can pin them down to get 1000 archers to shoot at them to begin with). 3e doesn't even have that - by mid level and certainly by high characters could dismantle any nation that does not itself have mid to high level characters (which beggars why they're not in charge if they aren't). Then again, 5e has unlimited use cantrips, of which a few are potentially instantaneous setting definers (Mold Earth's civil and military engineering impacts being the easiest one I can think of).

Agreeing as a group to not investigate behind the curtain is just another form of admitting that the setting isn't coherent. It leads to different games than gonzo "embrace the madness" ones, but it's the same principle: "none of us are really here to pretend we're playing in a world that could be real as a first priority, but for the heroic tales we'll build or the interpersonal interactions we'll have."

-----------------------------------------------

Besides, my original point you responded to was that if the most players can accept the D&D world as is at baseline, there shouldn't be any issue accepting a world that removes a few of the potentially troublesome aspects (e.g. teleportation). I was not saying that every D&D game needs to be Looney Tunes (not even Planescape is that - Torment shows such pretty clearly).

Kelb_Panthera

2019-11-25, 10:58 PM

Taken as a whole 3e actually did eventually coalesce into something shockingly coherent, given that it was made by dozens of people accross 8 years.

False God

2019-11-25, 11:51 PM

I will have to dispute heavily that it just comes down to the availability of ball bearings.

Your dispute is noted, but I have no interest in engaging in this argument beyond my previous post. It has been noted you disagree with my statement. No further discussion of this particular point will occur on my end.

Doctor Awkward

2019-11-26, 10:27 PM