PDA

View Full Version : does this sum up dnd pretty well?



clockwork warrior
2007-11-22, 05:55 PM
on a private forum i have been discussing dnd with some friends of mine, and in an attempt to exsplain the gaps in balance i wrote this:

"the thing with dnd is that there are 3 ways that its played.
1. the way it was meant to be by the creators. this is your full plate tower sheild fighter tanks, blaster casters, skill monkeys, and heal bots. in this way, every class has a place, and they are all different, and work together.

2. the way its played by the players. people realize that they have more options than " wizard with fireball" so they pick up spells for things other than damage, like rope trick, or phantom steed. clerics hop into full plate and fight along side the fighter due to his buffs he prepared on himself. rogues use 2 weapons and continually work in sneak attack damage by flanking, and fighters start getting feats for combat control like imp. trip and imp. bull rush. the problem here is that classes are starting to weave into each other, as clerics make them selfs into better fighters with spells and such.

3. the way it was not meant to be played. this is where powergaming comes in, where you figure out that all those "essential" feats and things turn out to be crap, and with some creative building, your character comes out much more powerfull that it should have. for some classes this comes easyer than others
fighter: 1 lvl dip in barbarian for pounce, then lvls in fighter with leap attack, power attack, great sword, shock trooper, head long rush
wizard: drop evocation and illusion for conjuration, take prest classes that lose no caster levels
cleric: divine meta magic
rogue: max out use magic devise so you can buy those scrolls with your adventuring wealth and be a wizard in your own right "

is this a good way to sum it up or did i go about doing it all wrong?

Bryn
2007-11-22, 06:00 PM
You might want to avoid using DnD-specific terms, such as the names of spells, with players who don't know what they do. Otherwise, they may be wondering what's so broken about all these abilities, which isn't easy to tell from the name.
A different way to say it might be to avoid specifics but say that combinations of abilities lead to extremely large benefits with little or no drawbacks, which means some players overshadow the others who have not spent the time considering combinations.
You could also mention some of the really cheesy combinations with brief, non-game-specific reasons why they're broken; for example, the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil makes you all but invincible without drawback and the Hulking Hurler can throw massive balls of rock for silly amounts of damage.

Gralamin
2007-11-22, 06:06 PM
You Forgot the Stormwind Fallacy, or the fourth way.

Making your characters worse for the purposes of roleplaying just makes your characters worse, in no way does it increase your roleplaying ability.

clockwork warrior
2007-11-22, 06:09 PM
sorry, i should have put some history of the group up:

the forum is technicly "private" in that its not for us only, but its a small thing we set up mainly for our dagorhir group, and on it, we have a section set up for dnd games.

all of us play the game ( most for at least a few year) and we just like posting upcoming games and house ruleings and what not. this started on a thread about 4th ed.

the kicker is that while a few of us read oots, im probably the only one that reads the forums ( i read a lot, but dont post often) so i guess you could say we are "hick" players. the stuff i read here blows my mind, and i have trouble translating that to the other players. by that what i mean is the stuff you guys talk about here all the time is new for them, and heck even me. they have no idea what a batman wizard is, the how a charging fighter is the only passable fighter. so i wrote that to try and explain it in a simple way to them.

also, i want you all to know that this forum has killed a portion of my soul. until reading it there was never a balance issue in dnd for us, warlocks were good, monkey grip was great, and monks didnt completly suck. it was like learning that santa isnt real : (

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-11-22, 06:27 PM
Well, basically: no. Mostly because the third way is in no way necessarily bad.

(CAN it be? Yes. I consider the first way worse.)

Zincorium
2007-11-22, 06:32 PM
also, i want you all to know that this forum has killed a portion of my soul. until reading it there was never a balance issue in dnd for us, warlocks were good, monkey grip was great, and monks didnt completly suck. it was like learning that santa isnt real : (

Um, if the forum killed a portion of your soul, then you weren't using it anyway.

The things you thought were so good (like monks or *shudders* monkey grip) you probably thought were that way without ever comparing them with an open mind to similar things. All it takes to deduce monkey grip isn't as good as power attack is basic math and a look at monkey grip's restrictions. As soon as you realize that grappling and tripping are based on strength and base attack bonus, the monk doesn't look that good.

"There was never a balance issue in D&D for us" is the only part I have a problem with. If people don't build beyond option 1 out of ignorance of better things, the balance issues are waiting to come to the surface.

If they choose to not go to the level of option three for concern about how the game plays, that actually fixes the problem of game balance for good. If, on the other hand, they all choose to play at option three level, then there's no harm done.

Stormcrow
2007-11-22, 06:38 PM
On the subject of terms to avoid, try to avoid using healbot when you refer to D&D because that is never what the cleric was about really. Theres always been the actual roleplay aspect of them being faithful of a diety more than healers. Its the advantage of this not being the MMORPG where the term was coined. Tank is fine as a descriptor (and one of ours) Blaster caster the same.

*shrugs* Call it a pet peeve.

And really, D&D is played one way, the way the DM (and if he's a good one the players) decide. Balance arises from a conflict there in.

clockwork warrior
2007-11-22, 06:40 PM
Um, if the forum killed a portion of your soul, then you weren't using it anyway.

The things you thought were so good (like monks or *shudders* monkey grip) you probably thought were that way without ever comparing them with an open mind to similar things. All it takes to deduce monkey grip isn't as good as power attack is basic math and a look at monkey grip's restrictions. As soon as you realize that grappling and tripping are based on strength and base attack bonus, the monk doesn't look that good.

"There was never a balance issue in D&D for us" is the only part I have a problem with. If people don't build beyond option 1 out of ignorance of better things, the balance issues are waiting to come to the surface.

If they choose to not go to the level of option three for concern about how the game plays, that actually fixes the problem of game balance for good. If, on the other hand, they all choose to play at option three level, then there's no harm done.

a lot of what i said there was sarcastic. basically it just ended up being that we never found a problem till we looked for it, and now it seems so obvious that we can never go back...... but thats not the point. the major point was that that was ment to be a way to show that the way the creators make a game to be played, and the way its played, and the way it can be played are all vital roles to the game that need to be taken into consideration.

greenknight
2007-11-22, 06:43 PM
they have no idea what a batman wizard is, the how a charging fighter is the only passable fighter. so i wrote that to try and explain it in a simple way to them.

Character builds are a feature of D&D, and always have been. But the ultimate purpose of the game is to have fun, and part of that is to have encounters which challenge the characters but still allow them a good chance of success. Super optimized builds tend to take away a lot of the challenge from the game, unless the DM uses equally optimized foes (and even then it can be difficult if the DM tries to assign CRs in line with published encounters). Likewise, weak builds which have a relatively low chance of success against standard CR encounters also tend to be not much fun, unless the DM tones those encounters down. And the worst scenario is a party where some characters are super optimized and others are weak, since the DM will have a tough job providing a decent challenge to the party as a whole.

It's for that reason I believe game balance is very important. I tend to focus mainly on the Core Rules, not because it's balanced but because it gives me less to learn about. Then I try to find out what are the overpowered options (boards like this one and Wizard's CO boards help enormously with that), and I look for ways to nerf them (which can include simply banning the option entirely). After that, I look for the weak stuff and try to improve it. In the end, I'm hoping to have a variety of characters who are very different to each other and who have complimentary abilities. That doesn't mean strong and weak characters can't happen, but I try to make the difference between the two smaller, and in the case of particularly weak character or party concepts I try to recommend something a bit more robust.

Stormcrow
2007-11-22, 07:30 PM
That raises the debate of character=build or build=character.

Does your fighter have trip because he's a gladiator. Or is your character a gladiator because you wanted trip. :P

JaxGaret
2007-11-23, 03:45 AM
That raises the debate of character=build or build=character.

Does your fighter have trip because he's a gladiator. Or is your character a gladiator because you wanted trip. :P

Your character is a gladiator because he's a gladiator.

Capisce?


warlocks were good, monkey grip was great, and monks didnt completly suck. it was like learning that santa isnt real : (

Warlocks can certainly be good.

Monks don't completely suck - they're just poorly designed and underpowered.

Let me guess - Monkey Grip + Large Fullblade? :smallwink:

SoD
2007-11-23, 03:55 AM
1. the way it was meant to be by the creators. this is your full plate tower sheild fighter tanks, blaster casters, skill monkeys, and heal bots. in this way, every class has a place, and they are all different, and work together.


I think that the creators might've, you know, thought about roleplaying as well.

Stormcrow
2007-11-23, 05:20 AM
Your character is a gladiator because he's a gladiator.

Capisce?

Forgive me for being a little jaded. Seen a lot of players who didn't _have_ a character until asked to explain their sheet. Just numbers on a page.

Kioran
2007-11-23, 06:07 AM
Forgive me for being a little jaded. Seen a lot of players who didn't _have_ a character until asked to explain their sheet. Just numbers on a page.

This is most certainly true - my current DM, by the way, thinks of backstory and character development only as a justification for whatever your character does and why heīs here. The main objective of the game is to complete a challenge of tactics and ressource allocation.
Did I mention heīs a staunch defender of the Stormwind Fallacy (in the sense that he maintains optimizing your character to win the tactical challenge easily does not harm your RP)?

I think seeing the game as a tactical excercise and some weird mental chess, involving the rules as means to an end, is, in the end, harmful to the game experience - not because of the optimization involved, but by the mindset behind it.
I wish from time to time I coul unread some things, and play D&D a little more naive. I canīt now, and besides, the DM has been a strong proponent of twinkage (optimization in excess of the partyīs power, common sense or what is good for the story) until Iīve outtwinked him (with a disgustig Wizard/Fatespinner/Ur-Priest Mystic Theurge).

But playing the game without constantly worrying about the powerlevel seems so nice in retrospect.......Mainly becuase your character is a Gladiator because heīs a Gladiator, not because you need to go the drying fish(with half of the combatants always flopping around on the ground due to Trip-cheese)route to survive in your current Opti-fest.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-23, 06:28 AM
Yes, it sums D&D pretty well. If you want a shorter version: D&D have rules that the designers didn't notice that could be used to unbalance the game. Simple as that.

If you want to keep your games in the 1st example (or maybe the 2nd example, that looks good), you can just talk with your group and decide what style you guys will use.

You could also show them how the 3rd style works, at least to show how it can be broken, so you guys can avoid it. Build a bunch of character sheets with the broken optimization, and make some simulation sessions, just so they can see how it works. After they see a fighter pouncing/leap attacking/shock trooping/two-handed power attacking an enemy for 80+ points of damage before rolling the weapon damage, a cleric fighting even better than that, and a wizard trumping everyone, they'll know the limits, and you can work out which limits to have.

As an example, I'm going to play a campaign directly in epic level with some friends. One of the members in the group, tipically a fighter player, asked me to help him building his old 2nd edition character, that was a smart, tactician fighter. I'm making him a warblade/fighter type, using Shock Trooper, some field control feats (trip, pushback), and no pounce cheese. He'll be a one-shot shock trooper attacker, then go for battlefield control. My own character will be a crusader/paladin, so he can use his abilities more as a support character than going directly into battle, but still strong in his own.
Powerful options, but not game breaking. I could make both characters even more broken with the options found in this forum, but I just ignore the one options that get too ridiculous.

Dairun Cates
2007-11-23, 01:49 PM
You Forgot the Stormwind Fallacy, or the fourth way.

Making your characters worse for the purposes of roleplaying just makes your characters worse, in no way does it increase your roleplaying ability.

Actually, you're misquoting the Stormwind Fallacy there. The Stormwind Fallacy says nothing more than min-maxing DOES NOT necessarily lead to bad role-playing. It only disproves extremist who believe min-maxers can't role-play.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11990222&postcount=2


What the Stormwind Fallacy does NOT say, though, is that one of these is inherently superior to the others. I fully subscribe to the Jell_Moo Principle: Do not tell other people how to play the game. If you're having fun with poorly-min/maxed characters, fine, more power to you! No problems here! ...Unless you start asserting that yours is the ONLY way to play and people who make effective characters are somehow automatically worse at roleplaying than you are.

Some people have fun giving their characters weaknesses. It builds character and tension from always being on the edge of dying. Not all players of unoptimized characters suppose themselves better than those that do optimize.

However, on the subject of power-gaming and "how the game was meant to be played", I will say this.

D&D is a SOCIAL game first and foremost. If you want pure tactics, play Miniatures. People seem to forget this all of the time. What's MOST important about D&D and ALL tabletop games is the group dynamic. Type of play number one is definitely a beginners type of play. It's what D&D was designed around. Create archetypes that each have their own place in the party. The idea is so EVERYONE feels like they're a part of it, and I fully believe this aspect was designed around new people coming into the game having a strong baseline to play as.

Still, it is true that there should be freedom. Guess what though. Freedom of choice is inherently unbalanced. It can get close but it will NEVER be completely balanced. Some options are plain better. It's true. This is where the problem comes up.

The logic seems to be that "I made a powerful character". This splits either of two ways. First, you leave it at that and tell party balance to piss off. This leads to players who hog the spotlight from the other players, step on their toes, and completely destroy the group dynamic. This is the extreme, but I have seen it multiple times. It is not entirely as rare as some people think.

Then there comes the second theory. "I made a powerful character. Now, let's make the rest of the party catch up by making their characters powerful." At first, this seems charitable, but I think to an extent this can be just as bad as before. At this point, it can be construed that you're telling someone HOW to play the game. Given enough time, you're talking people out of decisions that they sometimes made out of roleplaying backstory. Maybe Monkey Grip sucks compared to power attack, but maybe the player just REALLY wants to wield a bigger weapon for comedic effect. At the point where you're convincing them that they should take power-attack so they can be "at your level", you're changing that role-playing rationale. You're changing their character to an extent. You're telling them how to play. This is NOT actually the optimum solution to an optimized character in a party.

As a GM, I have a slightly different outlook on this. I'm used to having to change my ways so that my players can have a better time. Why?

EVERYONE HAVING A GOOD TIME IS PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.

This leads to what I believe is the solution. This isn't always the solution. Sometimes people DO want to play beefy min-maxed characters and just don't know how, but when faced with a party that chooses to pick some slightly lesser feats based around character backstory, you really have two options. The first is to leave the group. Provided you don't want to do this, it is then your responsibility to tone your character down for the sake of group dynamic.

Let me repeat: It is your responsibility to tone your character down for the sake of the group.

I realize what I just said. I officially denounced the batman wizard completely. I have almost completely denounced CoDzilla. They are better than any other build. We've learn that. You can't MAKE an equivalent build with most other classes. Congratulations! You've beaten the game. However, NEITHER of these should be played unless your goal is to completely outshine the party. Despite the fact that you shouldn't tell people how to play, this is INDEED a wrong way to play because it violates rule 0. Everyone should have fun. These builds make the game less fun for most other players.

On a final note, everyone talks about how playing in play type 1 has no freedom. The builds are all the same. You're restricted in your play. Well, the funny thing is that ultimately power-gaming comes down to the ULTIMATE build for one type of character. Provided you're playing that optimized character, you're playing in a template. A Shock-trooper fighter is mechanically the same as another Shock-Trooper Fighter. When the power-struggle gets too high and you're after the ultimate build, there is no distinguishing powerful characters.

Let me sum up that paragraph.

Play type 1 = Play type 3

Sorry. Just had to get that off my chest.

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 01:56 PM
Let me repeat: It is your responsibility to tone your character down for the sake of the group.


So it's not okay for a person to say, "You need to improve your build to keep up with me," but it is okay for you to tell me "You need to nerf your build to stay down with me."

Something of a double standard, that.

Kioran
2007-11-23, 02:02 PM
So it's not okay for a person to say, "You need to improve your build to keep up with me," but it is okay for you to tell me "You need to nerf your build to stay down with me."

Something of a double standard, that.

It is okay for three persons to tell one "Maybe you should tone it down a little", same as the other way. But thereīs no way in hell everyone else should be forced to optimize because one player wants to. In that case, itīs a majority vote.

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 02:11 PM
It is okay for three persons to tell one "Maybe you should tone it down a little", same as the other way. But thereīs no way in hell everyone else should be forced to optimize because one player wants to. In that case, itīs a majority vote.

My statements were singular in nature. I'd agree that a majority vote rules.

I was thinking something along the lines of the wizard and fighter in conflict because the wizard is superior at combat. The rogue is a skillmonkey, and isn't bothered by it. The cleric is a dedicated healer, and doesn't care much either.

Who takes priority, the optimizer or the non-optimizer? Dairun's solution favor the non-optimizer, and I disagree with that.

Optimization/non-optimization conflicts are not always one dude out-optimizing the rest. The number of optimizers/non-optimizers can vary drastically. Dairun's solution has only the slight clarification that it "isn't always the solution." I think a better clarification would be "rarely the solution."

Swordguy
2007-11-23, 02:34 PM
Who takes priority, the optimizer or the non-optimizer? Dairun's solution favor the non-optimizer, and I disagree with that.

Optimization/non-optimization conflicts are not always one dude out-optimizing the rest. The number of optimizers/non-optimizers can vary drastically. Dairun's solution has only the slight clarification that it "isn't always the solution." I think a better clarification would be "rarely the solution."

If it's singular in nature, than it's an impossible question to answer. NEITHER player has the right to tell either player to tone up or tone down the other's character - and the characters can't reasonably exist in the same group without the non-optimized one being killed if challenges are at the optimized character's level of difficulty.

In that case, I'd say it's the GM's call, leaning more towards the option that allows him to throw out adventures that challenge the whole party equally.

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 02:38 PM
If it's singular in nature, than it's an impossible question to answer. NEITHER player has the right to tell either player to tone up or tone down the other's character - and the characters can't reasonably exist in the same group without the non-optimized one being killed if challenges are at the optimized character's level of difficulty.

In that case, I'd say it's the GM's call, leaning more towards the option that allows him to throw out adventures that challenge the whole party equally.

And I don't mind that. That's a thousand times preferable than an arbitrary "the optimizer should nerf himself" edict.

Swordguy
2007-11-23, 02:48 PM
And I don't mind that. That's a thousand times preferable than an arbitrary "the optimizer should nerf himself" edict.

I can tell you, though, that a lot of the time the verdict will go against the optimizer - and that it as it should be. The less powerful the PCs are, the more ability the GM has to throw plots against them that actually challenge them to think instead of compare who has bigger numbers. There's a finite bottom limit to this, of course, but it's no less true.

I mean, who hasn't come up with, say a maze, only to have somebody get buffed beyond all reason and simply smash through adamantium walls with a hammer to the end? At 5th level? It's supposed to be fun for the GM too, and in my experience, nothing kills that fun faster than the party wiping out every encounter through their ability to game the rules, as opposed to thinking through the problem.

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 02:50 PM
I can tell you, though, that a lot of the time the verdict will go against the optimizer - and that it as it should be. The less powerful the PCs are, the more ability the GM has to throw plots against them that actually challenge them to think instead of compare who has bigger numbers. There's a finite bottom limit to this, of course, but it's no less true.

I mean, who hasn't come up with, say a maze, only to have somebody get buffed beyond all reason and simply smash through adamantium walls with a hammer to the end? At 5th level? It's supposed to be fun for the GM too, and in my experience, nothing kills that fun faster than the party wiping out every encounter through their ability to game the rules, as opposed to thinking through the problem.

You can go infinitively higher too, you know.

EDIT: In fact, let me expand on this point. The power of the PCs has no effect on this. A 10 foot jump is no different from a 100 foot jump if the PCs cannot cross it. The numbers are irrelevant whether they can jump 85 or 95 feet, if it isn't 100, they're dead; as the DM, you can always go farther than they can.

Smashing though adamantium? Then don't use adamantium, use something stronger. Unless you're up against Pun-Pun, the DM will win any arms race.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-23, 03:05 PM
At the OP: You may want to remove the language you have in there that implies one way is better than another. Really, they are all fine if that is the way your group wants to play and everyone is enjoying themselves. No one way is better than the others or 'correct'.


You Forgot the Stormwind Fallacy, or the fourth way.

Making your characters worse for the purposes of roleplaying just makes your characters worse, in no way does it increase your roleplaying ability.

I'd leave the stormwind 'fallacy' out of any attempt to summarize the game. It is a bit... controversial and vague and may, or may not, actually mean what you just said. Given a dicsussion on the Wizards boards a while back, which he was part of, the definition of 'optimization' he was using was such that it meant building your character mechanically in a way that most accuratley represents what you want your character to be able to accomplish. Not that 'min/max' = good or that intentionally weak built character = bad.

One can just say:
4. Some players don't really care about power level at all and focus more on the roleplaying aspects of the game. Combat prowess and abilities of their chracters (as a function of game mechanics) simply isn't that important in their games and challenges tend to focus more on PC/NPC interactions.


That raises the debate of character=build or build=character.

Does your fighter have trip because he's a gladiator. Or is your character a gladiator because you wanted trip. :P

Sadly, that very issue is the one that has made discussion of the Stormwind 'fallacy' unintelegible at times.

EDIT: Wanted to reply to this too


The numbers are irrelevant whether they can jump 85 or 95 feet, if it isn't 100, they're dead; as the DM, you can always go farther than they can.

Smashing though adamantium? Then don't use adamantium, use something stronger. Unless you're up against Pun-Pun, the DM will win any arms race.

Have you ever been a DM? Although it's possible, using rule 0 and making homebrew materials, to always make something that ought to challenge your party it is MUCH MUCH harder if the party is not appropriatley powered for their level. Assigning exp and WBL becomes tricky because you don't really have a set watermark anymore. Making encounters CR appropriate rather than a cakewalk (erring on one side) or a TPK (erring the other way) is something of a crapshoot since you really won't know if your homebrewed challenge is going to work until you have already run your party through it.

So, yes, the DM can always win the 'arms race'. The real question is: should the PC's put their DM in a position where it has to be an arms race in the first place?

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 03:39 PM
Have you ever been a DM? Although it's possible, using rule 0 and making homebrew materials, to always make something that ought to challenge your party it is MUCH MUCH harder if the party is not appropriatley powered for their level. Assigning exp and WBL becomes tricky because you don't really have a set watermark anymore. Making encounters CR appropriate rather than a cakewalk (erring on one side) or a TPK (erring the other way) is something of a crapshoot since you really won't know if your homebrewed challenge is going to work until you have already run your party through it.

So, yes, the DM can always win the 'arms race'. The real question is: should the PC's put their DM in a position where it has to be an arms race in the first place?

If your PCs mop up an encounter of their CR, try something one CR higher. Keep going up until you find a nice stopping point. If you have your character's builds, you can even do this as part of your planning.

It takes extra work and a intuition, but it can be done. If you have access to the numbers, you can create desirable results. If I know my PCs can hit a XDC check Y% of the time, or have a Z% chance of hitting a creature with AC V, I can use this to help me challenge them.

CR is kind of pointless anyway. There are dozens of examples of monsters are challenges which are too low or too high for their CR. I prefer to look at the numbers involved and make my deductions from that.

As to if I've ever DM'ed, only in PBP, and quite frankly I think I stink.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-23, 03:56 PM
If your PCs mop up an encounter of their CR, try something one CR higher. Keep going up until you find a nice stopping point. If you have your character's builds, you can even do this as part of your planning.

It takes extra work and a intuition, but it can be done.

[emphasis mine]

So, you agree with me. Making a character that is signifigantly more powerful than expected at their level makes more work for the DM. As both a player and a DM I'm very much of the opinion that the DM has enough friggin work to do, much more than any individual player, and players should recognize that and not make their job any harder than it has to be. I love to DM, but I also don't have time to constantly adjust CR's to an unbalanced party. I will if I have to, sometimes it's my fault by giving them an item too soon, but I'd really rather spend the time I have to devote to planning on plot and ways to keep the players vicerally involved than on adjusting CR's.

Toliudar
2007-11-23, 04:02 PM
I'd also check the very first premise, that the iconic four blasting away is the way the game designers "intended" the game to be played - always dangerous to ascribe intent to someone else. Especially since so much in 3.x bumped the overall power of clerics, and the diversity of skillmonkeys, I'd argue.

I'd argue that if there are three ways of playing DND, it might be more apt to break it down into:

1. My friends and I get together occasionally, share some laughs and some food, and have fun pretending to be other people and killing things.

2. I get together with some other people and play this amazing wargame. My druid is up to level 8!

3. I play this character, Sharnara of the Hill People, and she and some friends are working to overthrow an evil warlord.

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 04:07 PM
So, you agree with me. Making a character that is significantly more powerful than expected at their level makes more work for the DM. As both a player and a DM I'm very much of the opinion that the DM has enough friggin work to do, much more than any individual player, and players should recognize that and not make their job any harder than it has to be. I love to DM, but I also don't have time to constantly adjust CR's to an unbalanced party. I will if I have to, sometimes it's my fault by giving them an item too soon, but I'd really rather spend the time I have to devote to planning on plot and ways to keep the players viscerally involved than on adjusting CR's.

I don't think I, as a DM, have that much work to do. We are really staring to getting into people's personal styles rather than anything we could call universally applicable. For instance, there is this one guy I know running a PBP game with something like 20 people in it. Even accounting for PBP, that's a lot. He has plenty to keep track off, and thus I don't blame him for not wanting more work. I can understand how some DMs could find extra mechanical balancing to be too much work, but I don't think that it would be true of all DMs.

Upon reflection, I think a lot of the things we've said here are pretty subjective; kind makes the whole thing seem pointless.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-23, 04:18 PM
I don't think I, as a DM, have that much work to do. We are really staring to getting into people's personal styles rather than anything we could call universally applicable.

I would suggest that PbP makes the level of work associated with being a DM diminish a little because there is no absolute time crunch. If I'm playing table top, and the game is at 7 pm on a Tuesday, I have to have everything ready before then or the group simply can't game. If I'm doing PbP and I need an extra 3 hours to prep, I can just take it.

Nothing in D&D is univerally applicable, but it is expected that the DM will be doing more work than the players. I don't have my copy of the DMG with me, I'm in the office, but it pretty much comes out and says that several times.

Jayabalard
2007-11-23, 04:43 PM
So it's not okay for a person to say, "You need to improve your build to keep up with me," but it is okay for you to tell me "You need to nerf your build to stay down with me."

Something of a double standard, that.I think that you missed his point. It's ok to say "You need to change your build to stay with the rest of the group"

Neon Knight
2007-11-23, 04:53 PM
I think that you missed his point. It's ok to say "You need to change your build to stay with the rest of the group"

The specific statement I quoted said that it was the burden of the more powerful to weaken himself to met the level of the lesser. That was what he said and that was what the statement was in response too. He made no further points, and I chose not to infer anything else about his stance because inferences are notoriously difficult over the internet. Any inferences are speculation.

Thus, as far as I am concerned, his point was:



Let me repeat: It is your responsibility to tone your character down for the sake of the group.


He also said:


This leads to what I believe is the solution. This isn't always the solution.

However, that qualifier does not satisfy me. I think the situation of one optimizer amongst many non-optimizers is not the most common situation, and "This isn't always the solution." doesn't work. "This is the solution in a specific set of circumstances, those circumstances being one optimizer amongst many non-optimizers," is much better in my opinion.

Jannex
2007-11-23, 05:10 PM
However, that qualifier does not satisfy me. I think the situation of one optimizer amongst many non-optimizers is not the most common situation, and "This isn't always the solution." doesn't work. "This is the solution in a specific set of circumstances, those circumstances being one optimizer amongst many non-optimizers," is much better in my opinion.

Anecdotal evidence certainly isn't everything, I freely admit, but I know I've been in groups with precisely the situation described more than twice.

Dausuul
2007-11-23, 06:50 PM
Anecdotal evidence certainly isn't everything, I freely admit, but I know I've been in groups with precisely the situation described more than twice.

On the other hand, I've recently been in a group with the exact opposite; three skilled optimizers, one moderately skilled optimizer, and one guy who couldn't optimize to save his life.

We tried giving the non-optimizer build advice, but it's not really fun for anybody to make someone else's character for him. Ultimately, I think the best solution in this case is simply to figure out what the non-optimizer's chosen role is (tank, healer, et cetera), and then pick builds that won't step on his toes. If he's the tank, the rest play casters and skill-monkeys. If he's the healer, nobody else plays a divine caster.

Quietus
2007-11-23, 07:11 PM
I don't think I, as a DM, have that much work to do. We are really staring to getting into people's personal styles rather than anything we could call universally applicable. For instance, there is this one guy I know running a PBP game with something like 20 people in it. Even accounting for PBP, that's a lot. He has plenty to keep track off, and thus I don't blame him for not wanting more work. I can understand how some DMs could find extra mechanical balancing to be too much work, but I don't think that it would be true of all DMs.

Upon reflection, I think a lot of the things we've said here are pretty subjective; kind makes the whole thing seem pointless.


I would suggest that PbP makes the level of work associated with being a DM diminish a little because there is no absolute time crunch. If I'm playing table top, and the game is at 7 pm on a Tuesday, I have to have everything ready before then or the group simply can't game. If I'm doing PbP and I need an extra 3 hours to prep, I can just take it.

Nothing in D&D is univerally applicable, but it is expected that the DM will be doing more work than the players. I don't have my copy of the DMG with me, I'm in the office, but it pretty much comes out and says that several times.

I doubt Kasrkin was referring to me with that, but Vethedar certainly does have nearing 20 individual characters running around. And yes, that's a lot of work - it takes longer to create a post, and it has to be crafted much more carefully, to maintain a certain feel. It's easier to create atmosphere in person, since you aren't suddenly fighting with everything else going on around a person when they've stopped for five minutes to write their post.

That said, Bait has a point as well - the prep problem does diminish. If someone throws something entirely unexpected at me, I'm NOT forced to suddenly come up with something on the fly. I can stop, grab some food/a shower/go for a bike ride, and think about it. When I get back, that hour hasn't really affected anyone, and I can provide a more fluid setting.

The thing is, it's a fine balance. While you do gain the advantage of being able to take some prep time, you're also expected to update every single day, if not multiple times a day. So rather than being required to come up with something on the spot, you're instead expected to be always available, and furthermore, it's that much harder to help players who don't understand something, because you have to do it one post at a time, and can't physically point things out. All things considered, I think that being a PbP DM is just as much work, if not more... just spread out over several days instead of packed into one night.

That said, of course, I wouldn't trade it for the world. :smallbiggrin:

Dairun Cates
2007-11-23, 10:54 PM
For the record, my statements assumed one player being strong than the others. In a group of optimized characters, one person that's behind should generally step it up. The general problems I was bringing up is that

1. It's ignorant to think that type 3 gameplay is harmful to a group dynamic only when the player is inherently a ****. If it doesn't fit with the group dynamic, it's possible to ruin everyone's fun unintentionally.

2. The Stormwind Fallacy is misqouted like crazy.

3. Balance is a pain in the ass that if you want freedom is completely impossible without player intervention.

4. Too much optimization is nearly identical to the type 1 gameplay of cookie cutter players.

I was a little unclear because a person decided to show up early to pick me up for an event to pick me up.

As for why I specifically picked on the power-gamers for taking responsibility. Quite frankly, save for possibly the GM, the power gamer in the group is going to have the most knowledge of the system and likely be the most experienced. As the veteran and better player in the group, you have seniority. As with anything else, your seniority and wisdom gives a good amount of prestige but holds the unspoken principle that you take responsibility. Basically, the GM makes the world and setting, but someone in the group has to take responsibility and help keep party unity together. If you don't believe me, then you're not the one doing it.

What I'm proposing is that in most situations, it's going to be a mixed group of power gamers and casual gamers. You can play down to their level, but they can't play up to yours. By insinuating that they have to learn the system up to your level, you're imposing elitism on something that requires multiple people. You must be THIS experienced to play with me. This is unhealthy and violates rule 0. On the other hand, you can clearly tone it down a bit if you're that experienced. You know how to tone it down to EXACTLY their level, and if you're so obsessed with playing the absolute most powerful character you can that you can't enjoy something a little less godly, then maybe you should take a break from D&D or switch systems.

Quite frankly, I'm saying that powergamers are too smart not to take responsibility and get other people to have fun too.

Oh, and for the record, I've dealt with a hell of a lot of groups. More specifically, I've worked with around 30 players over the years. For the most part, I've found that while certain people want to play powerful characters, true power gamers are a vast minority. On top of that, the idea that you actually need to work to gain that kind of knowledge backs up that most gamers haven't studied the systems well enough to be that good. So, yes. I'm insinuating that MOST groups will either be a mix of casual players, role-players, and power-gamers or lean heavily in numbers against them. Mind you a group can grow like that together over time, but since we all start somewhere, it's usually safer to assume the beginning and not the end result. Mind you, this isn't the end all statistic, but I'm coming from what I believe is a diverse background.

Edit: To sum up, if you're the best player, you owe it to the other players to show them a good time.

Double Edit:

Upon reflection, I think a lot of the things we've said here are pretty subjective; kind makes the whole thing seem pointless.

Well, it wouldn't be a very good debate if it was entirely objective. That would insinuate there's a 100% right answer.

Vallart
2007-12-05, 08:32 AM
I just wanted to throw this in here.

I've gamed for about 10 years, with and without power gamers. I've gamed with somewhere around 25 different people, some frequently, some only a handful of times. I've been both a player and a DM at times, so I do feel I've got a reasonable viewpoint here.

The debate of character=build or build=character is arbitrary.

In fact, what you are looking at is Player = character or Player = character.

Some players pick a theme such as gladiator for their characters, and grabbed trip because it fit. Some players want to try the game dynamics of trip, so they picked gladiator. Would you pick a gladiator, and take a metamagic feat? Probably not.

You're trying to compare the virtues of 2+4 versus 4+2. You just want 6, and there's no wrong way to get there.

Also, its wrong to assume that a player has a responsibility to show the other gamers at the table a good time. There is nothing wrong with a person choosing to smooth out player dynamics, but no one player should ever be forced to do so. Each player should contribute to keeping the game satisfactory. However, you shouldn't point at someone and say "You. You've gamed longest. That means you're responsible for keeping them happy. That, in and of itself, can violate the rule of fun. What it comes down to is this.

1. People are different. Some will have conflicts that cannot be resolved.
2. The DM is in charge of running the game, and arbitrating what is acceptable and what is not. Often, limiting certain splat books from the start is enough to keep gamers in line.
3. When two people cannot resolve their conflicts, then one, or the other, will find a new group. One more compatible with their gaming style.

There is no reason to penalize any player for the character they choose to play, unless the DM rules the splat books out.
If player A doesn't play characters with the intent to be the strongest, and then resents another character for playing a more powerful character, then player A is in the wrong. He is attempting to force his opinion of how characters should be built onto another person.
If player B builds characters for power, and roleplays these characters properly, then let him. However, if he chooses not to roleplay his character with his backround in mind, then that is an issue for the DM to take up with him. But either way, he's not telling player A to change. He's happy taking care of the damage.
People will play what they enjoy. If you prefer weaker characters with interesting stories and background opportunities, play them to your heart's desire. But please, don't resent people for doing what you did: Building a character they enjoy playing.

On a side note, its fairly easy to do a web search for an overpowered character build, and the method to play it effectively. You're just as likely for an experienced gamer to play a weak character as you are for a new player to browse for something so he doesn't look so green.