PDA

View Full Version : When did balance become such a big deal?



Pages : [1] 2

Cuddly
2008-03-08, 06:07 PM
Older play styles expect mages to be more powerful than their smashy counterparts, at higher levels. I was reading some stuff by Gygax (some 3.0 splatbook), and it was expected that magic be mysterious, powerful, and dangerous. Even as late as 3.0, it's implicit that magic should be more powerful than non-magic, given the PrCs and feats out there. I haven't played much of the older editions, but from my experience, the magic users were just as powerful back then, only in a different sort of way.

When was it decided that every class should be equally powerful? Blizzard? The internet? Civil rights?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 06:10 PM
The lulz. Because everything, EVERYTHING, is orchestrated by the lulz.

The Rose Dragon
2008-03-08, 06:10 PM
Fun factor decides that, mostly. We, players of monks and warlocks, would like to feel like we're doing something to have fun, and cannot do that if wizards up-stage us all the time. And fun is why we play the games, right?

Drakron
2008-03-08, 06:15 PM
"Balance" is a quest for people that for some bizarre reason cannot have fun unless everyone have the same damage output.

Even more curious there must be "balance" on a PARTY system.

Balance will never be achieved because nothing is created equal.

Paragon Badger
2008-03-08, 06:22 PM
Oh boy, let's play D&D!

Rogue: I'll handle this!
Wizard: Nah. Knock!
Rogue: :smallfrown:

Fighter: I'll kill this! Great Cleave!
Wizard: Nah. Fireball!
Fighter: :smallmad:

DM: There's a large crevasse, you're forced to fight the plot-centric terrasque!
Wizard: Nah, Overland Flight.
DM: :smallfurious:

Talya
2008-03-08, 06:24 PM
I do believe the concept of power balance in characters started with 989 studios/Verrant/Sony Online Entertainment.

Artanis
2008-03-08, 06:25 PM
"Balance" is a quest for people that for some bizarre reason cannot have fun unless everyone have the same damage output.

Even more curious there must be "balance" on a PARTY system.
Ok, you can have fun poking the goblin with a stick for ten turns without killing it while the rest of us go take out a dragon, then come back and save you from the goblin who has probably dropped you into negatives by that point.

Sound like fun?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 06:28 PM
Wizard: I'll handle this! Finger of Death!
Wizard: Not so fast, Bucko! I activate my trap....I mean, spell turning!
Wizard: Idiot! Now we'll be destroyed and I shall indulge in sesquipedalian loquaciousness to show how I'm better than everyone else, who use smilies to represent their moo....

Zincorium
2008-03-08, 06:31 PM
Balance comes up because no one should automatically suck just because they like a particular type of character.

The 'magic is so much more powerful' thing always bugged the heck out of me, because magic is also so very easy in 3.x. The same amount of training that can make a fighter capable of going toe-to-toe with a giant also gives the wizard the option to simply snuff it's life out. First and second edition had the varied experience gain, but that was, to put it mildly, clumsy. Nobody ever leveled at the same time.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that just because magic can do something, it doesn't mean magic users have to be given that ability. At least not in the normal range of play. You could easily spread a wizard's spell progression out so that they get around 6th level spells by level 20 and just get more of them overall.

Drakron
2008-03-08, 06:37 PM
Balance come before that Talya, its more of a "wargame" term about how each side is balanced despite having strong/weak units and specialization.

The point in having balance is being able to play one side without being crippled in some way, of course there are many layers of "balance" were you can have a side that have bad units at start but end up with powerful units at the end and its forced to "turtle" until he can produce those units and that is usually accepted as balanced.

In RPGs it seems to really come from the "MMORPG generation" that care about how "good" his character is against everyone else, a side effect of PvP but also from solo players (yes, playing a solo Cleric in WoW is harder that say a Hunter).

Drakron
2008-03-08, 06:39 PM
Balance comes up because no one should automatically suck just because they like a particular type of character.


I am sorry but I REFUSE to play in a system were a completely broken character is allowed to "not suck", that is not balance ... its kindergarten.

Artanis
2008-03-08, 06:39 PM
Balance come before that Talya, its more of a "wargame" term about how each side is balanced despite having strong/weak units and specialization.

The point in having balance is being able to play one side without being crippled in some way, of course there are many layers of "balance" were you can have a side that have bad units at start but end up with powerful units at the end and its forced to "turtle" until he can produce those units and that is usually accepted as balanced.

In RPGs it seems to really come from the "MMORPG generation" that care about how "good" his character is against everyone else, a side effect of PvP but also from solo players (yes, playing a solo Cleric in WoW is harder that say a Hunter).
That's a hell of a backpedal from what you said earlier.

Also, WoW doesn't have a Cleric class.


Edit: ninja'd

I am sorry but I REFUSE to play in a system were a completely broken character is allowed to "not suck", that is not balance ... its kindergarten.
Who says a completely broken character still won't suck in 4e? All that people are wanting - which you seem to refuse to understand - is for "playing something other than Wizard" to NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN "completely broken and thus sucks".

Zincorium
2008-03-08, 06:53 PM
I am sorry but I REFUSE to play in a system were a completely broken character is allowed to "not suck", that is not balance ... its kindergarten.

That's absurd. What you're saying is that you want things to be screwed up, so that it prevents anyone who's not paying attention from being any good? What kind of antisocial elitist dogma is that? 'This looks cool, and I'd like to roleplay it' should be the ONLY deciding factor on what people play, and punishing people for doing just that is terrible game design.

Personally, I'm ticked off whenever I've paid for a book and it has pages of stuff that's obviously way underpowered or way overpowered, because that's a waste of my money on stuff I have to change to use.

Drakron
2008-03-08, 06:53 PM
Yes, WoW have Priests ... same thing, I played one before the first expansion come out so I can say I had ... issues with the class since I soled.

Also its not a back pedal, let me put this way ... the argument you are "not having fun" does not apply if you ... say want to use tank rush tactics when your side is a "infantry".

RPG that have a party system require each character to specialize in some field, of course a "merman bard" is going to under perform in a dungeon crawl.

The complain about wizards I think its valid and invalid at the same time, wizards at start are weak and they became godly after the later half of the levels but the notion the wizard is from the start playing in "god mode" is absurd, also what wizard would waste a "knock" spell when there is a rogue around?

The issue I have is the "Kindergarten" notion everyone must have fun and when it means everyone it means EVERYONE, including the Cha 8 half Orc Bard ... the moment the system is catered to never failed to "be fun" its a nanny system.

Artanis
2008-03-08, 06:58 PM
Yes, WoW have Priests ... same thing, I played one before the first expansion come out so I can say I had ... issues with the class since I soled.
I was mostly messing with you on that one, since it's a common mistake :smallwink:

Now, onto the meat of the issue:


Also its not a back pedal, let me put this way ... the argument you are "not having fun" does not apply if you ... say want to use tank rush tactics when your side is a "infantry".

RPG that have a party system require each character to specialize in some field, of course a "merman bard" is going to under perform in a dungeon crawl.

The complain about wizards I think its valid and invalid at the same time, wizards at start are weak and they became godly after the later half of the levels but the notion the wizard is from the start playing in "god mode" is absurd, also what wizard would waste a "knock" spell when there is a rogue around?

The issue I have is the "Kindergarten" notion everyone must have fun and when it means everyone it means EVERYONE, including the Cha 8 half Orc Bard ... the moment the system is catered to never failed to "be fun" its a nanny system.
Well no effing kidding the Mermaid Bard is going to suck in a dry-land campaign, as is a Charisma-based caster with 8 CHA. That much is obvious.

However, you have been arguing that anybody who plays a Fighter deserves to suck. Not a Pixie Fighter, not a Fighter with 4 CON, a Fighter. Any Fighter. Because making a Fighter capable of contributing to the party would be "kindergarden" and "treating you like a child" for making "an obviously broken character not suck".

And the same goes for...well, pretty much every class short of a Wizard or CoDzilla.

And I take exception to the notion that saying "I would like to play something other than a spellcaster this time" somehow makes me deserving of being ground into the dirt until I have no fun playing a game.


Edit: Why would a Wizard waste a Knock spell when a Rogue is around? Because he can. That Rogue is liable to take a hell of a long time opening the door if it's a hard lock, and he's liable to get poisoned or hit by a trap or something. It's much faster and easier for everybody involved if the Wizard waves his hands around for six seconds and expends a spell slot that otherwise would've gone unused anyways.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 06:59 PM
Older play styles expect mages to be more powerful than their smashy counterparts, at higher levels. I was reading some stuff by Gygax (some 3.0 splatbook), and it was expected that magic be mysterious, powerful, and dangerous.

You nailed it down right here. In earlier editions, magic (and in particular, high level magic) could be dangerous. Examples include lightning bolt backlash, haste aging, deafening yourself with shout, and of course the ill-worded wish.

Third edition has made a point of explicitly removing any and all of these drawbacks. It is no wonder that as a result, magic becomes more powerful. 3.5E and 4E follow this idea, that there shall be no repercussions for anything.

Yakk
2008-03-08, 07:00 PM
Balance became a big deal when I was playing RuneQuest the other day. I looked at the system, and tossed together a holy priest warrior type.

Anything that could threaten my character would insta-gib the other party members. The DM either would have to work to rebalance the mechanics, or conspire against my character.

That wasn't good. I'd rather have had a group where everyone was roughly equally challenged and useful by the events, and everyone could be useful. But because the game balance of RQ was so delicate, simply assigning a few skill points better than my fellow players broke the balance of the game.

A system with better balance might have:
A> Made it harder for the other members of my party to suck (have you ever seen a new D&D player want to multiclass Bard and Sorcerer?)

B> Made my small choices not produce as effective a combat result, while

C> Allowing all of us to follow our character concepts.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 07:02 PM
You seem to be under the misapprehension that badly optimized characters are nannied under a balanced system.

Under a balanced system, a given character class can actually contribute.

for example, Soulknife. They spend 4 feats to equal a fighter, but without bonus feats.

You have to optimize like crazy just to reach standard effectiveness, while a wizard can make halfbaked spell choices and still not only contribute, but overpower the rest of the party.

That's balance. Being able to contribute without having to build Pun-Pun because your character class stinks THAT much.

FinalJustice
2008-03-08, 08:34 PM
Answering directly the question: When people realized that playing a balanced system is simply more fun, for the reasons stated above.

You can have lots of fun roleplaying the concept you like, but when a concept gets gimped by a poor implementation in the rule system, the game begins to fail on being fun. On a combat-centric system like D&D, this is even more evident.

And, about kindergartening, utter nonsense. When a system is able to provide playabilty to oddballs and unoptimal concepts, IMHO, it is an awesome system, because it frees the players from the 'it would suck' restrain. An obvious example is the infamous Blind Seer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlindSeer). A blind character is gimped out of the bat, but fiction provides ways to make a blind character rock, why wouldn't a RP-system allow the same?

Rutee
2008-03-08, 08:35 PM
I do believe the concept of power balance in characters started with 989 studios/Verrant/Sony Online Entertainment.
You would be wrong. Welcome to the Wide World of Fighting Games, where characters are tierred somewhat, but an effort is mostly made.


I am sorry but I REFUSE to play in a system were a completely broken character is allowed to "not suck", that is not balance ... its kindergarten.
I refuse to play in a system where everything but the casters is brokenly bad by default.

SofS
2008-03-08, 08:41 PM
The thing about magic users in older D&D is that they did actually have a significant balancing factor in the form of their levels requiring around twice as much XP as a fighter. Fighters were usually several levels higher than their wizardly companions and thus really quite good at giving and taking damage. Now, I'm certainly not saying that those editions were balanced because of this; I'm simply saying that it was a good idea that might have been tossed too quickly.

As for balance being a big deal, I think that happened when it actually started being used as a selling point. Lots of RPGs have no balance and don't care even slightly. The makers of D&D have always cared at least a little, though, and it seems to be a really big concern nowadays. Personally, I find that GURPS is actually more balanced between magic and physical fighting, but that's probably because using magic in combat is basically a different form of fighting on which you have to spend plenty of points.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 08:44 PM
I don't think using GURPS in a comparison works. Because, quite simply, GURPS is to RPG's a Silver Age Superman or Batman, noth in crunch AND fluff.

horseboy
2008-03-08, 08:46 PM
I didn't know balance was so important until I started playing games that were better balanced then came back to D&D. It's funny I really didn't even know it was that important until I had gotten used to it. Guess it's one of those things that once you know you can't go back.
The thing about magic users in older D&D is that they did actually have a significant balancing factor in the form of their levels requiring around twice as much XP as a fighter. Fighters were usually several levels higher than their wizardly companions and thus really quite good at giving and taking damage. Now, I'm certainly not saying that those editions were balanced because of this; I'm simply saying that it was a good idea that might have been tossed too quickly.One of the other things also was that the magic-user's job wasn't to take out the BBEG with a quick Save-or-die. They were pretty crappy against single targets, since everybody could save or had Magic Resistance out their sphincter. A magic-user's job was to clear the path for the fighter to slowly chip away at their BBEG hit points. 3.x screwed up evocation badly, made magic resistance a joke and powered-up too many spells. As has been said, it's not the wizard class, it's the spells.

Project_Mayhem
2008-03-08, 08:48 PM
I UTTERLY fail to understand the arguements against balance. What, so someone should be screwed because they didnt choose a full caster class, or made sub-optimal feat choices. Thats absolute rubbish.

Dnd, and other such games, are first and foremost about fun. If I'm not having fun, then why am I playing? I don't know about other people, but fun tends to suggest that I'm capable of at least making a valid contribution. If my class abilities are rendered irrelevent by another player picking a class supposed to do something entirely different, then I feel at the best superfluous, and at worst, a liability.

Under RAW, there is no point at all to playing a fighter, one of the most iconic characters of heroic fantasy, and that is a sad thing. I, for one, look forward to the day when each class is an equally good choice.

Sucrose
2008-03-08, 08:51 PM
The thing about magic users in older D&D is that they did actually have a significant balancing factor in the form of their levels requiring around twice as much XP as a fighter. Fighters were usually several levels higher than their wizardly companions and thus really quite good at giving and taking damage. Now, I'm certainly not saying that those editions were balanced because of this; I'm simply saying that it was a good idea that might have been tossed too quickly.

As for balance being a big deal, I think that happened when it actually started being used as a selling point. Lots of RPGs have no balance and don't care even slightly. The makers of D&D have always cared at least a little, though, and it seems to be a really big concern nowadays. Personally, I find that GURPS is actually more balanced between magic and physical fighting, but that's probably because using magic in combat is basically a different form of fighting on which you have to spend plenty of points.

I'd add that old editions' ideas could be interpreted as just having parity at the same level, and equal XP gain, if levels change from representing mastery of the system that gives you power to simply actual ability.

Thus, while a level 10 Fighter and a level 10 Wizard under an ideal system would have roughly equal ability, it's not because they're equally skilled, but because the fighter is the best damn swordsman in the country, and the wizard is still nowhere near the limitations of magic.

Now, on topic, balance is a concern because players want to be able to affect the game roughly as well as everybody else (barring a few pricks, who want to hog the spotlight). This is invariably true, whether they want to affect the game through a well-oiled combat machine, or through excellent RP.

If the game has any mechanical element, for everyone to be able to affect the game equally, the classes must have options that are roughly equal in power. Thus, the need for balance.

Rutee
2008-03-08, 08:53 PM
I don't think using GURPS in a comparison works. Because, quite simply, GURPS is to RPG's a Silver Age Superman or Batman, noth in crunch AND fluff.

Oh crap it's dark. Better set myself on fire.

Overlard
2008-03-08, 08:54 PM
Being gimped because your character concept is inherently weak is OK. If I want to play a blind swordsman with a gammy leg and a terrible stutter, I expect that to cause me problems.

Being gimped because your character class is inherently weak is not OK. If I want to play a fighter, I don't expect to be outshone in virtually every field, including the speciality my very class is named after.

Everyone likes being able to contribute, and some classes just don't lend themselves to this, especially at high level play. Some, like the wizard, are highly effective in all but the most unusual circumstances. Others, like the fighter, only come into their own once in a blue moon.

SofS
2008-03-08, 08:55 PM
I don't think using GURPS in a comparison works. Because, quite simply, GURPS is to RPG's a Silver Age Superman or Batman, noth in crunch AND fluff.

I should remember to put asides in parentheses. To be more specific, I was thinking of playing a similar level of fantasy in GURPS, like Banestorm or Dungeon Fantasy. Those are similar in feel to D&D, I think, and they present a decent balance between PCs of different builds.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 09:02 PM
Indeed. The whole point behind GURPS was that it was intended to be the best of the best of the best repeat ad infinitum at everything, and that anyone should be able to do SOMETHING useful with it, no matter the character concept. And I believe it did work. As you say, balance is much greater there, even when you can munchkin your character concept.

Da Beast
2008-03-08, 09:29 PM
"Balance" is a quest for people that for some bizarre reason cannot have fun unless everyone have the same damage output.

Even more curious there must be "balance" on a PARTY system.

Balance will never be achieved because nothing is created equal.

I'm tired of hearing this. Yes, it's a system intended for multiple players. Why does that make it a good idea for two of them to be able to outclass everyone else in ever area of game play? And this isn't just a high level problem. At level one the wizard can end an entire fight with one sleep spell and a druid's animal companion is almost as good as any sword swinger by itself.

I'm also tired of the idea that casters should be better because magic is magic. Magic isn't real. That sounds obvious but no one in the anti balance brigade seems to understand what exactly that means for the game world. Magic is only as powerful as the designer dictates. In any given fantasy world magic can be strong enough that even a fairly unskilled mage can level cities or it can be so weak that even the most powerful of wizards are limited to pretty unimpressive feats such as talking to birds. If the game world is going to be closer to the first end of the spectrum then that's fine, but the design should reflect that. If magic is the be all end all of power available to mortals then make just make a game where everyone is some sort of wizard and be done with it. The idea of character levels suggest that a wizard and a fighter of the same level should both be around the same level of power and the capabilities of magic within the game world ought to reflect that.

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-08, 09:32 PM
Balance is a big deal because people like to have fun while playing a game.

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-08, 10:28 PM
Pretty much what everyone has said.

It isn't even about how much damage you're doing. It's about having a purpose.


In terms of combat, Shadowrun isn't balanced at all. But it's pretty good about everyone having a role. That magician may well be able to turn invisible, blast you with lightning, make you think your a poodle, and use your corpse as a vessel for a spirit, but you know what? The cyborg is likely to shoot you in the head before you get a chance. The team hacker is squishy too, and can't summon fire breathing zombies. But they can mess with the cameras to make it look like the guards are still patrolling like normal as the fire breathing zombies are slaughtering everything.

There's a lot of different ways you can play the game, but in nearly every one of them the one with the social skills is going to be useful, and sometimes the most useful. They can get you more money, when you're discovered by guards convince them that you're from internal investigations, and gather information on that disturbing sculpture you found when you dug up the grave of that guy who said he Jesus, and got taken out in the cross fire of a gang war.


That's a lot more fun than, "I move forward 30 feet. The monster moves back 30. The wizard uses his instant death power and beats the encounter. For the 30th time today."

That's what balance is. Maybe you still get killed when caught in the crossfire of a gang war, but if it only injured you, you might be able to sue them, despite the fact it's not normally something you can really sue about. Or make the gangers feel really guilty about it, make peace, and go plant some trees somewhere.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 10:44 PM
Balance did not start with MMOs.

Balance did not start with RPGs.

Balance did not start with board games.

Ever play chess? Go? Checkers? You know why they're still around?

That's right, because they're -balanced-. Balance is essential to a game meant to endure for long periods of time - if it isn't balanced, it just won't be fun in the long term, and often, not even in the short term.

Balance is essential because it lets everyone have fun. In a balanced system what really affects your success or failure is the player behind it, not the setup you're stuck with, and if you have to do the same thing over and over and over again, the game lacks the necessary diversity to be fun as well.

Fundamentally balance is essential to game design, the single most important part of it in fact. Nothing else has quite the impact balance has on its own.

Arguing against balance is to argue against fun and good game design.

Rutee
2008-03-08, 11:15 PM
Indeed. The whole point behind GURPS was that it was intended to be the best of the best of the best repeat ad infinitum at everything, and that anyone should be able to do SOMETHING useful with it, no matter the character concept. And I believe it did work. As you say, balance is much greater there, even when you can munchkin your character concept.
GURPS is really only spectacular at portraying internally consistent worlds. From what I've read, the fun of the system as a system ends at character creation, so in terms of the playing the /game/ (Rather then the character) it's not that hot, and in terms of storytelling, well. There's better.

Squider
2008-03-09, 01:05 AM
Alright, i dunno if this has come up yet.
But remember AD&D? at higher levels wizards (actually M-U's) were much better then fighters at the same level.

But they were on another exp table. It actually required much more time, energy, and experience to learn to manipulate arcane powers then to swing a sword. And you party was consisted of higher level fighters then it did wizards, because equal levels and the wizards out did.

I think what may (I'm speculating don't kill me) have happened is that when it was switched over to a universal exp table they may have forgot to consider that.

Indon
2008-03-09, 01:29 AM
It became a problem about the same time that people started to talk about D&D on the internets in earnest.

It's been known D&D is unbalanced for some time (one word about AD&D's wizard magic - Contingency), but for a long time the prevailing attitude was, if you broke D&D, it's entirely your fault - you're an evil powergamer and you should stop that right now. For a while, that's what the internets said too.

Since then, the perception has shifted - on the internet, at least, the player is expected to have the right to make the most powerful character he can (and he's silly if he doesn't), and if that breaks the game, then it's not his fault, but the system's. So the system must be changed so that the most powerful character options can no longer be too much more potent than what everyone else can (and is similarly expected to) select - this is balance.

This is further visible from looking at character options - mechanically inferior options are now considered entirely reasonable to ignore in all circumstances, and generally mocked by their very existence, whereas once they were viewed with respect - while once it was a sign of maturity and system ability that you played your orc Wizard, with his intelligence penalty, now it's just considered stupid to bother with things like that. Thus, mechanically inferior mechanical options must be removed, so that on a purely mechanical basis any given option might be selected - this too is balance.

As with all things in business, balance became a problem when the consumers began to decide it was a problem.


Ever play chess? Go? Checkers? You know why they're still around?

That's right, because they're -balanced-.

Nim. Tic-tac-toe.

Roulette. :P

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 01:48 AM
My problem is that melee is both less effective, and not as cool at higher levels.

Not only can the wizard kill things better than you, not only do he and the cleric not need you at all, for anything...

But the wizard has 1000 different ways to kill things better than you, and they're all flashier and more spectacular than anything you can ever do.

And you watch a Wizard player play, and he gets to make all these choices, he's so much more engaged in the game than you.

And you end up asking yourself, "Why the **** am I playing this boring character?"

Should magic be more powerful than non-magic? Yes, obviously. So how do you balance the game? Give the melee guys magic, duh.

I mean, seriously, at level 20, being able to survive without magic is silly, you should be dead meat.

This is why the ToB classes are better.

It also provides an explanation for why said melee guy is stronger, faster, and better than everyone else in the universe.

Diamondeye
2008-03-09, 02:29 AM
I do believe the concept of power balance in characters started with 989 studios/Verrant/Sony Online Entertainment.

QFT.

OR to be more precise, that's where the currently popular idea of balance originated. All the arguments I'm hearing here about why characters should be balanced could have easily been pulled from EQ and WoW boards over the last 9 years. This includes the wild exaggerations based on internet theory as opposed to actual play.

There is never, ever going to be a balanced game. Never. It will not happen; it is not humanly possible. Designers have been trying to balance Everquest for 9 years, and this is a computer game, with no subjective DM, no contingency, timestop, dire bear wildshape, or whatever your pet peeve might be, and they still have not managed to balance it to the satisfaction of the player base.

There are only 15 character classes in EQ and only 9 in WoW, with no multiclassing, and in those games, not every race can be every class, and yet there is always some class community claiming their class is underpowered and someone else is overpowered.

Now, could 3.5 be closer to balanced than it is? Absolutely; there's huge room for improvement. But it is not nearly as out-of-balance as it appears to be; much of the perceived imbalance is based on character concepts that are freely admitted to be improbable or impossible in actual play, and on gross exaggerations such as "It's not fun if you can fight a dragon but a goblin kicks my ass." There is no character class in the game that can't beat a goblin at level 1, much less at the levels where dragons are encountered, but this is accepted as an accurate assesment of play.:smallannoyed:

There are real balance problems; spell resistance, as someone mentionedis a joke compared to magic resistance of the old games, especially with feats like spell penetration. Between Wildshape, natural spell, and animal companions the druid is a walking balance problem, and the monk is in dire need of offensive help and contingency probably needs to go.

That said, I have not yet seen a convincing argument that the overall difference in power between classes is ridiculously broken. Somewhat broken, yes, but too many people use that as the premise and the conclusion of their argument, and we all know what that's called.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-03-09, 02:36 AM
Indon I mostly agree with your points, but their is a point where D&D is broken beyond repair. At the highest levels of play, the casters literally can't avoid being better then none casters. I mean seriously, quickened dominate? empowered split ray enervation? Implosion? Wail of the Banshee? Or how about the iconic Prismatic wall? None of these spells are really options that require any sort of power gamer to take, and they're both cooler and much more effective then anything the fighter can do, ever, no not even then.

It's not that these options exist that bug me, options for wizards to outshine everyone else exist at all levels of play. What bothers me is that these options become some of the weaker options, and they still are game breaking. Sure, you could take a wizard at high levels that did nothing but spam polar rays, summon monster, and uhhh incendiary cloud, but no one ever does. High level play is just fundamentally unfair, and a game as free form as D&D shouldn't become fundamentally unfair just because you decided to be a city watchman as opposed to the watchmans spellcaster.

Rutee
2008-03-09, 03:37 AM
A bunch of horse hockey


Oh for Gods sakes. That's not how it works at all, and you're deliberately using the most breakable class seeking more power to 'prove' your point. The reason balance became relevant is that it became more and more recognized that the casters negated the non-casters. The perception is not "I should be able to maximize my character and not break the game". The perception is "The fighter and the wizard should both be useful, without the wizard deliberately knocking himself down". People don't generally pick a particular class to deliberately nerf themselves.

Pironious
2008-03-09, 04:13 AM
Q: When did balance become such a big deal?
A: When Batman started preparing Grease.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


But the wizard has 1000 different ways to kill things better than you, and they're all flashier and more spectacular than anything you can ever do.

It's all in the description. You could say "I hit him with my sword and he falls down" or you could say something much much more elaborate.

The main fundamental thing to remember though, is balance lies in the hands of the players. You actually don't have to twink and optimize your characters, and if everyone in the group just builds a character true to that character's concept and backstory, chances are it won't matter. Both my tabletop games have fairly mature players who aren't all about killing things quickly, but rather playing their character the way they want to.

As the result of this, we've also seen characters do crazy, even downright suicidal things. Like going melee with dire sharks. In water. Outnumbered.

(And getting away unscratched due to poor rolling on the sharks behalf, and supporting fire from a crew of low level rogues.)


This is why the ToB classes are better.

It also provides an explanation for why said melee guy is stronger, faster, and better than everyone else in the universe.

Ugh. You couldn't be more wrong.

Do you think someone who has 20 levels in fighter doesn't have a number of fighting stances? For example, there's a big difference between combat expertise 3, combat expertise 5, and none at all. What about Robilar's Gambit? If that isn't a stance, I don't know what is.

You can actually roleplay things such as maneuvers and strikes without needing a mechanical thing to do it. A power attack 3 might be your character's "Wolf Strike". Once again, it falls on the players to fill out their character fully, rather than just complain about "I hit it." every round.

Oslecamo
2008-03-09, 05:14 AM
Well, casters only dominate as much as the DM allows them.

If the wizard/artificer/druid gets all the time in the world to buff and craft stuff and prepare bidings and whatever other combos and the BBEG doesn't advance an inch with his evil ritual of world destruction in the spare time then the game deserves to be unbalanced, because the BBEG is a total idiot who is just waiting for the paty to enter and slaughter him.

Then there's the question of team work. Sure, the wizard can buff himself for protection and teleport if something goes wrong, but what about his allies? When the enemy suprises the party and the druid/cleric is being chomped by that gargantuan monster with huge spell resistance, will the wizard run away like a chicken and abandon his companions?

Wouldn't it had been wiser to buff the party's rogue/fighter so he can defeat the said gargantuan monste instead of preparing 1001 escape routes for your character only?

And I must say, even whitout the wizard's suport, it's not hard to make a fighter/rogue who canjump into battle and slaughter everything single handedly before the druid/cleric/wizard needs to act.

D&D was suposed to be a team game. A party wich works togheter is always much stronger than an equal number of people who play individually.

Of course, we now will have 4e and nobody has need of anybody thanks to healing surges and other similar stuff.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-09, 05:48 AM
Well, casters only dominate as much as the DM allows them.

If the wizard/artificer/druid gets all the time in the world to buff and craft stuff and prepare bidings and whatever other combos and the BBEG doesn't advance an inch with his evil ritual of world destruction in the spare time then the game deserves to be unbalanced, because the BBEG is a total idiot who is just waiting for the paty to enter and slaughter him.
The wizard only needs a tiny bit of time to learn a few spells. The Druid needs time for... what, exactly?


Then there's the question of team work. Sure, the wizard can buff himself for protection and teleport if something goes wrong, but what about his allies? When the enemy suprises the party and the druid/cleric is being chomped by that gargantuan monster with huge spell resistance, will the wizard run away like a chicken and abandon his companions?
How will the druid/cleric be chomped? He's a powerful melee fighter, and he has his own buffs. Spell resistance is penetrable, and there are no-SR spells.

But if the *druid* is being owned, then hell yes, the Wizard teleports away.


Wouldn't it had been wiser to buff the party's rogue/fighter so he can defeat the said gargantuan monste instead of preparing 1001 escape routes for your character only?
What spells, exactly, should be used the rogue/fighter that couldn't be better used neutralizing the enemy?


And I must say, even whitout the wizard's suport, it's not hard to make a fighter/rogue who canjump into battle and slaughter everything single handedly before the druid/cleric/wizard needs to act.
Oh, really?
Then go ahead and do it. I want to see this rogue/fighter who can slaughter above-CR opponents single-handedly.


D&D was suposed to be a team game. A party wich works togheter is always much stronger than an equal number of people who play individually.

Of course, we now will have 4e and nobody has need of anybody thanks to healing surges and other similar stuff.
A lot of wizards' power is battlefield control, which relies on the party.

4E is going to be *more* about teamwork than 3.5.

LibraryOgre
2008-03-09, 05:52 AM
Alright, i dunno if this has come up yet.
But remember AD&D? at higher levels wizards (actually M-U's) were much better then fighters at the same level.

But they were on another exp table. It actually required much more time, energy, and experience to learn to manipulate arcane powers then to swing a sword. And you party was consisted of higher level fighters then it did wizards, because equal levels and the wizards out did.

I think what may (I'm speculating don't kill me) have happened is that when it was switched over to a universal exp table they may have forgot to consider that.

There were a lot of other things that changed with the 2e-3e change that gimped fighters vs. wizards... really, putting everyone on the same XP table is probably amongst the least.

In no particular order

1) Removing the tactical ability to move and make multiple attacks.
2) Radically reducing the memorization/preparation time for expended spell slots, allowing wizards to spend far more spells per day every day.
3) Spells of choice per level, which greatly increased a wizard's flexibility, and decreased his reliance on commerce for necessary spells; without becoming autocratic, it is now difficult for a DM to control which spells are in the game.
4) Radically decreasing the level at which magic items can be created, especially Miscellaneous/Wondrous items (having a two-fold result; it slows wizards slightly in advancement, but also greatly increases their flexibility if they can make the items they wish that much earlier).
5) Reworking saving throws, making it more difficult for a high-level fighter to resist hostile magic.

And those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head.

Paragon Badger
2008-03-09, 06:12 AM
Well, casters only dominate as much as the DM allows them.

My previous post indicated that Wizards can even give the DM a hard time with little to no effort.

...And short of dropping a bridge on 'em*, there's little anyone can do.

They are just too versatile/powerful.

*They'll have Contingency: teleport, for said bridge.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 06:20 AM
Ugh. You couldn't be more wrong.

Do you think someone who has 20 levels in fighter doesn't have a number of fighting stances? For example, there's a big difference between combat expertise 3, combat expertise 5, and none at all. What about Robilar's Gambit? If that isn't a stance, I don't know what is.

You can actually roleplay things such as maneuvers and strikes without needing a mechanical thing to do it. A power attack 3 might be your character's "Wolf Strike". Once again, it falls on the players to fill out their character fully, rather than just complain about "I hit it." every round.
You are missing my point. Fighters have skill. ToB classes have magical powers. That's why one is easier to rationalize.

No matter how skilled a "fighter" becomes, he's just a soldier with a sword. At high level, it's just plain not believable that he can kill the dragon, let alone compete with a Wizard, who at level 20, is literally going to be the most powerful person in the campaign setting (Unless you're playing in Faerun, which is just... extra broken).

Martial Adepts make much more sense. There's no such thing as a person who can kill 100 normal men (level 1 human warriors, for the sake of argument), with just a sword. This is why Fighters at high level are dumb. Now, a Martial Adept makes more sense, he can win because he has magic, which makes him more powerful.

In a fantasy setting, that's internally consistent. Being able to beat down 100 men just because you're a grizzled veteran is not.

And yes, having flashier mechanics matters too. It gives the player choices and options beyond just figuring out how to dress up the "flavor" of his mechanically identical attack every turn.

Pironious
2008-03-09, 07:24 AM
No matter how skilled a "fighter" becomes, he's just a soldier with a sword. At high level, it's just plain not believable that he can kill the dragon...

Alright then Mr. It's Not Consistent, if you need magic to kill a dragon...

What sword is this fighter using? Could it be, through some sheer amazing coincidence, that this fighter is decked out in magical gear. Granting him augmented strength, speed and endurance.

Hey, look at that, internally consistent after-all.

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-09, 07:48 AM
I like to think of 'balance' in games (Tabletop, MMO's or others) as being like finding the Nash equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Equilibrium) in that game. You get to a mystical zen sort of point where all the classes operate, each with a function that's not ursurped by any other and no one is totally in control of the spotlight but rather all are sharing it.

It's fun to chase clouds, too. :smallbiggrin:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-09, 08:21 AM
Older play styles expect mages to be more powerful than their smashy counterparts, at higher levels. I was reading some stuff by Gygax (some 3.0 splatbook), and it was expected that magic be mysterious, powerful, and dangerous. Even as late as 3.0, it's implicit that magic should be more powerful than non-magic, given the PrCs and feats out there. I haven't played much of the older editions, but from my experience, the magic users were just as powerful back then, only in a different sort of way.

When was it decided that every class should be equally powerful? Blizzard? The internet? Civil rights?

The big difference is that in early editions of D&D, magic was more powerful than non-magic, but it was harder to use and its power wasn't unlimited. Heck, Clerics capped out at 7th level spellcasting. Wizards were your artillery, fighters were your infantry, Clerics were support and you all worked together.

In 3.X clerics fight better than fighters, and wizards do everything better than everybody. D&D 3.X magic isn't "mysterious, powerful, and dangerous" it's "cheap, flexible, and practical".

Saph
2008-03-09, 08:35 AM
That said, I have not yet seen a convincing argument that the overall difference in power between classes is ridiculously broken. Somewhat broken, yes, but too many people use that as the premise and the conclusion of their argument, and we all know what that's called.

QFT. My personal opinion is that at least 50% of the people on these boards who airily talk about how easy it is to make overpowered characters would completely fail if they had to put any of it into practice in an average game.

As for the OP, I think people have been complaining about game balance since games existed. "I play paper. Rock is fine. Nerf scissors."

- Saph

Kami2awa
2008-03-09, 08:48 AM
Balance is ultimately the responsibility of the GM. The GM should provide challenges for their group which allow each member to contribute to the story. If an unbalanced character dominates the game, find challenges he can't defeat alone. For example, consider the rainstorm in OOTS that stops the spellcasters and rogue doing anything in the fight with Miko. Consider a blaster mage with a lot of fire spells attacked in a dry pine forest. Consider the broken half-ogre with the spiked chain... Many enemies are intelligent and if their biggest threat is from wizards then the first thing they do is design a strategy to render wizards less dangerous.

Rutee
2008-03-09, 10:42 AM
Do you think someone who has 20 levels in fighter doesn't have a number of fighting stances? For example, there's a big difference between combat expertise 3, combat expertise 5, and none at all. What about Robilar's Gambit? If that isn't a stance, I don't know what is.

You can actually roleplay things such as maneuvers and strikes without needing a mechanical thing to do it. A power attack 3 might be your character's "Wolf Strike". Once again, it falls on the players to fill out their character fully, rather than just complain about "I hit it." every round.

Yeah, but without those mechanical benefits, you'd suck, unless you deliberately set out to break your Fighter. And DnD didn't exactly encourage players' to elaborate on their fighting style, describing the techniques they use. Still doesn't, but it's a bit better now that ToB has shown the 'average' DnD player that it can be done within DnD.

And lest you decide that the best argument would be to hurl stones at me for not having the good sense to do so on my own, the first thing I did on playing Exalted was come up with a custom fighting style, and I don't pass up opportunities to do so with other new characters. DnD just doesn't encourage that behavior. In fact, given that any mobility or acrobatics based trick is going to require a move action, which kills your full attack, it /discourages/ it for any character who's combat style would otherwise be movement-based.

Balance is ultimately the responsibility of the GM. The GM should provide challenges for their group which allow each member to contribute to the story. If an unbalanced character dominates the game, find challenges he can't defeat alone. For example, consider the rainstorm in OOTS that stops the spellcasters and rogue doing anything in the fight with Miko. Consider a blaster mage with a lot of fire spells attacked in a dry pine forest. Consider the broken half-ogre with the spiked chain... Many enemies are intelligent and if their biggest threat is from wizards then the first thing they do is design a strategy to render wizards less dangerous.
Think about this for a minute; You have to build every intelligent creature to specifically counter the Casters. What does this tell you? Why should the GM have to do all this work just because WotC is clueless/lazy? It's one thing to make a setting, and to make a story, but having to fix a system at its core?


Still haven't seen a convincing argument for why /classes/, at their basic level, shouldn't be balanced, aside from "Wizards should be more powerful because they're magic". Well, that's not a convincing argument either, but it's not one I can really shoot down. What you prefer for your settings is what you prefer.

Artemician
2008-03-09, 11:26 AM
You are missing my point. Fighters have skill. ToB classes have magical powers. That's why one is easier to rationalize.

No matter how skilled a "fighter" becomes, he's just a soldier with a sword. At high level, it's just plain not believable that he can kill the dragon, let alone compete with a Wizard, who at level 20, is literally going to be the most powerful person in the campaign setting (Unless you're playing in Faerun, which is just... extra broken).

Martial Adepts make much more sense. There's no such thing as a person who can kill 100 normal men (level 1 human warriors, for the sake of argument), with just a sword. This is why Fighters at high level are dumb. Now, a Martial Adept makes more sense, he can win because he has magic, which makes him more powerful.

In a fantasy setting, that's internally consistent. Being able to beat down 100 men just because you're a grizzled veteran is not.

And yes, having flashier mechanics matters too. It gives the player choices and options beyond just figuring out how to dress up the "flavor" of his mechanically identical attack every turn.

A High Level Fighter is not a grizzled veteran. A high level fighter is a god of war, who shrugs off blows that would fell lesser men, slay dozens of men with one stroke, tear down stone walls with his bare hands, cleave right through trees, and the very sight of him causes enemies to **** in their pants.

A Warblade is exactly the same as a high level fighter, except with fancier mechanics. Fluffwise, they behave in the same way. Take out the word "Warblade" from the ToB and replace it unilaterally with Fighter. It's not going to impact the fluff in any meaningful way.

As to your second point, why shouldn't this high level warriorguy be able to slay dragons? A real-world fighter would not be able to do so, but D&D is not the real word. A high level Fighter is just as much out of this world as a wizard.

Yakk
2008-03-09, 11:31 AM
It became a problem about the same time that people started to talk about D&D on the internets in earnest.

It's been known D&D is unbalanced for some time (one word about AD&D's wizard magic - Contingency), but for a long time the prevailing attitude was, if you broke D&D, it's entirely your fault - you're an evil powergamer and you should stop that right now. For a while, that's what the internets said too.

Since then, the perception has shifted - on the internet, at least, the player is expected to have the right to make the most powerful character he can (and he's silly if he doesn't), and if that breaks the game, then it's not his fault, but the system's. So the system must be changed so that the most powerful character options can no longer be too much more potent than what everyone else can (and is similarly expected to) select - this is balance.

I view it as "I don't want to accidentally squish the other party members".

I create a holy warrior type character concept, and slap it together. It isn't ridiculously godlike, but it is an effective warrior and an effective priest.

Next to me, someone decides to be a level 2 sorcerer/level 2 bard, and chooses to wear a chain shirt, and owns a short sword.

When I realize this, I have two options:
1> Help her rewrite her character,
2> Rebuild my character concept so that it is bad at both fighting and priesting.

There is nothing wrong with my friends character concept: she is someone with inborn magical power (sorcerer) who is also a traveling minstril (bard). She likes the idea of a chain shirt (and she can even cast bard spells in it!)

But through no fault of my own, this game system happens to have a kick ass paladin-type class.


This is further visible from looking at character options - mechanically inferior options are now considered entirely reasonable to ignore in all circumstances, and generally mocked by their very existence, whereas once they were viewed with respect - while once it was a sign of maturity and system ability that you played your orc Wizard, with his intelligence penalty, now it's just considered stupid to bother with things like that. Thus, mechanically inferior mechanical options must be removed, so that on a purely mechanical basis any given option might be selected - this too is balance.

At the least, mechanically unreasonable options should have big warning signs, so the new player doesn't screw themselves over by choosing them.

But there is no sign in 3.5e that says "at level 7 and above, all non-full-casters should be avoided", or the other similar mechanical pitfalls.


Nim. Tic-tac-toe.

Tic-tac-toe is a game you play with very small children.

Nim's popularity plummitted when the winning algorithm was discovered. It used to be a huge bar game.


Roulette. :P

Roulette is one of the most "balanced" of the standard gambling games.

Using a single 0 wheel with 2:1 payoff on red/black, we are talking a 98.4% payoff rate on double-or-nothing.

Squash Monster
2008-03-09, 11:32 AM
Somebody claimed the wizard needed to spend a ton of time preparing via buff spells before he'd be useful.

I'd like to dispute that claim:
1 - Grease, Color Spray
2 - Glitterdust, Web
3 - Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud
4 - Black Tentacles, Solid Fog
5 - Cloudkill, Transmute Rock to Mud
6 - Acid Fog, Summon Monster VI
7 - Control Weather, Reverse Gravity
8 - Incendiary Cloud, Polymorph Any Object
9 - Shapechange, Timestop

Except for Color Spray, every last one of those is from one of two schools (Conjuration, Transmutation). Up until fifth level, every last one of those can, used properly, end a fight instantly (no buff time). Seventh and Eighth are like that too (six is weak). Finally, nine: Shapechange takes one casting every few hours and completely negates the usefulness of everybody else. If that's too much buff time (what?) then Timestop takes one round and lets the caster cast 1d4+1 of the spells higher up on the list.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-03-09, 11:38 AM
Which is why I would love to play a game with low magic usage. Wizards and sorcerers should not number in the hundreds of thousands, while there are only 2 or 3 monks around. Nu uh. Should be the other way around; like it is in LoTR; how many True wizards are in the stories? 5? at most? And how many fighters, rangers, monks, etc? Hundreds of thousands? That is how I like to play DnD; swords and boards, fists of fury, and the occasional blaster/summoner/controller. Psionics should be around as much as Wizards; perhaps on a scale.

KIDS
2008-03-09, 11:38 AM
No one is asking for a perfect balance (which, as you pointed out, would become boring quite soon), but we are asking for a reasonable one. The current state, with comparisons like Wizard-> Sorcerer, Cleric-> Fighter, Animal Companion -> Fighter, Caster -> Melee being very easy to spot and occuring daily in every game, is not reasonably balanced. Also, there are way too many "terribly sucking" and "incredibly awesome" options, which make optimization, lack of optimization or anti-optimization of any kind further break the system.
Yes it works, but it is not satisfactory. So much about my concerns...

Kurald Galain
2008-03-09, 11:44 AM
In 3.X clerics fight better than fighters, and wizards do everything better than everybody. D&D 3.X magic isn't "mysterious, powerful, and dangerous" it's "cheap, flexible, and practical".
QFT.

Of course, we wouldn't want to challenge our players by putting drawbacks on any spell, ability or item. That would be grossly unfair.



at least 50% of the people on these boards who airily talk about how easy it is to make overpowered characters would completely fail if they had to put any of it into practice in an average game.
Probably. Also, at least 50% of the people who talk about it wouldn't actually want to do that in practice.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-09, 12:03 PM
QFT. My personal opinion is that at least 50% of the people on these boards who airily talk about how easy it is to make overpowered characters would completely fail if they had to put any of it into practice in an average game. Druid. Max wisdom and con, grab an animal companion who doesn't suck, pick up Natural Bond and Natural Spell. Win. At least Wizards require work to break, WotC couldn't have made it any easier to crush a game with a Druid.

Saph
2008-03-09, 12:27 PM
Druid. Max wisdom and con, grab an animal companion who doesn't suck, pick up Natural Bond and Natural Spell. Win. At least Wizards require work to break, WotC couldn't have made it any easier to crush a game with a Druid.

Funny you should mention that. I have a druid player in the game I'm currently DMing. He's consistently one of the least effective PCs, so much so that he's survived the entire campaign with less damage than anyone else because the monsters always rank him as the lowest-priority target.

I'm starting to approach the point of just ignoring anyone who uses the phrases "Win" or "I Win" regarding D&D.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-09, 12:30 PM
Funny you should mention that. I have a druid player in the game I'm currently DMing. He's consistently one of the least effective PCs, so much so that he's survived the entire campaign with less damage than anyone else because the monsters always rank him as the lowest-priority target.

I'm starting to approach the point of just ignoring anyone who uses the phrases "Win" or "I Win" regarding D&D.

- Saph

What are his usual tactics? Tactics make a large part of any build. Really, all the caster have is a better choice of tactics open to them, but they can still make bad ones.

Squash Monster
2008-03-09, 12:32 PM
Druid takes less effort to unbalance build-wise, but figuring out the tactics is a lot harder.

Wizard, on the other hand... cast from the spell list I gave a few posts back. That's it, you're golden.

Yakk
2008-03-09, 01:25 PM
Funny you should mention that. I have a druid player in the game I'm currently DMing. He's consistently one of the least effective PCs, so much so that he's survived the entire campaign with less damage than anyone else because the monsters always rank him as the lowest-priority target.

I'm starting to approach the point of just ignoring anyone who uses the phrases "Win" or "I Win" regarding D&D.

- Saph

I'm curious:
What is his animal companion? What tricks did he teach it?

Is he under level 7? (by level 7, you can wild shape for 21 out of 24 hours per day -- at 8th, 24 hours per day). If not, what does he shape into?

Is his wis/con high?

For spells: does he save most spell slots to heal? damage? debuff? buff? Does he have the "cast while shapechanged" feat?

Yahzi
2008-03-09, 02:14 PM
I've been playing a campaign lately. I'm a halfling druid; my party members are an elven Fighter/Ranger and an elven Wizard/Priest. We're 4th level.

Last session we fought three BBEGs (one of which was a CR 7 encounter). My druid, in animal form, backed up with a few summons, did the vast majority of the damage. The wizard/cleric doled out some damage with a wand of magic missile. The fighter's total damage output for the night was... 3 points. Between all of the fights, after all the magic defenses, he managed to score 3 points of damage.

Balance became an issue when people got tired of watching their fighters cry. :smallbiggrin:



I have a druid player in the game I'm currently DMing. He's consistently one of the least effective PCs
What? How? He gets Summon Nature's Ally spontaneously. All he has to do is spam that and he has to do better than a fighter. :smallbiggrin:

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 02:51 PM
If Balance is no big deal, then can I play my homebrew class with +4 to all stats and no LA in your campaign?

Artanis
2008-03-09, 03:45 PM
To those of you saying, "oh, all the Wizard has to do is avoid overpowering the rest of the party"...that might make things more fun for the Fighter, but how much fun do you think the Wizard is having?

Say a player wants to play a Wizard...how much fun do you think he's having if he's not allowed to actually be a Wizard? I know I, for one, would not be thrilled if the only spell I was allowed to cast was Magic Missile. Bunch of clumsy enemies all in one spot? Sorry, I'm not allowed to use Grease, because it would make the Fighter (especially a Cleave fighter) irrelevant. A bunch of low-HD enemies posing a serious threat to the party? Sorry, I'm not allowed to use Color Spray, because it would also make the Fighter irrelevant. Locked door entirely slathered with contact poison? Sorry, I'm not allowed to use Knock, because it would make the Rogue irrelevant. Hallway full of traps? Sorry, I'm not allowed to use Summon Monster, because it would also make the Rogue irrelevant.

And that's just spells that are second level or lower. Imagine how much more castrated the Wizard's player will feel when he gets to the really cool stuff, only to come face to face with being forced to self-ban (or wind up with the DM banning) nearly every single option he has?

If I'm a Wizard, I want to be useful and do cool stuff...if I wanted to blast things I'd be a Warmage, or at least a Sorcerer. The problem is that all the Wizard's cool stuff breaks the game pretty much on accident. If I want to avoid overshadowing the rest of the party, I'm not allowed to do any of the things that make a Wizard a Wizard...and if I'm not allowed to do the things that are the entire point of the class, there's no fun in playing it.

So what do you prefer? Making the Fighter irrelevant? Or ordering the Wizard to actively castrate himself with a ball peen hammer until he'd have more fun playing anything else?

Saph
2008-03-09, 03:59 PM
Oh, you don't have to tell me that Druids can be powerful. I've been playing one in our World's Largest Dungeon game for almost a year now. We've gone from 3rd to 11th level, and at some points I was actually controlling as many figures and doing as much damage as the rest of the party put together.

But there's a difference between "very powerful if used right" and "I win automatically". People tend to forget that.

- Saph

Artanis
2008-03-09, 04:02 PM
Oh, you don't have to tell me that Druids can be powerful. I've been playing one in our World's Largest Dungeon game for almost a year now. We've gone from 3rd to 11th level, and at some points I was actually controlling as many figures and doing as much damage as the rest of the party put together.

But there's a difference between "very powerful if used right" and "I win automatically". People tend to forget that.

- Saph
Well, when "hey, Grease looks cool, I'll cast it under those Golems and see what happens!" automatically wins you the fight...

strayth
2008-03-09, 04:04 PM
I've noticed that about druids, big-time. It strikes my games more often depending on the environment for the druid, but sometimes they come off as weak. Other times it's like "So my druid straps into his jetpack..."

Also KIDS I love the Animal Companion thing, haha.

Balance became a big deal when someone got hurt by their ineffectiveness. Balance became a big deal when a DM didn't exercise his presence as a breathing person at the table, as intended. Balance became a big deal when the tightrope walker was told he'd never walk again.

It's a serious thing. They don't have tightrope walkers in wheelchairs.

It stops being a big deal when the players trust the DM, the DM giving them reason to do so, and the developers use responsible design for all in mind.

Indon
2008-03-09, 04:30 PM
The reason balance became relevant is that it became more and more recognized that the casters negated the non-casters.
You could do that in earlier versions of AD&D. Mechanically optimizing your character to be able to do it, however, carried a stigma - you were a powergamer, not really roleplaying at all but trying to manipulate the game to 'win' D&D, which was considered absurd.


The perception is not "I should be able to maximize my character and not break the game".

Oh?


Say a player wants to play a Wizard...how much fun do you think he's having if he's not allowed to actually be a Wizard?

From about the same page of this thread. How many people would you like me to quote on this forum saying that that is precisely their perception, then?

The perception is that people will naturally optimize their characters, and if you don't, it's because you're either not good at playing D&D -


Druid. Max wisdom and con, grab an animal companion who doesn't suck, pick up Natural Bond and Natural Spell. Win.


Wizard, on the other hand... cast from the spell list I gave a few posts back. That's it, you're golden.


What? How? He gets Summon Nature's Ally spontaneously. All he has to do is spam that and he has to do better than a fighter.

- or you're intentionally gimping your character.


The perception is "The fighter and the wizard should both be useful, without the wizard deliberately knocking himself down".

Edit:


There is nothing wrong with my friends character concept: she is someone with inborn magical power (sorcerer) who is also a traveling minstril (bard). She likes the idea of a chain shirt (and she can even cast bard spells in it!)

But through no fault of my own, this game system happens to have a kick ass paladin-type class.

So what? If I want to play a noble-born Dragon-blood, I'm going to be weaker than my friend who wants to play a Solar. That game system happens to have blatant imbalance, and nobody cares, because the same perceptions simply do not exist among any Exalted community.


At the least, mechanically unreasonable options should have big warning signs, so the new player doesn't screw themselves over by choosing them.

Just because an option is more or less powerful than another does not make it 'mechanically unreasonable' unless you're expected to pick only options of a specific level of effectiveness...

Though I do agree that more or less potent options should be specified as such - many systems with intentionally imbalanced abilities do so, and it works out just fine for everyone.

Morty
2008-03-09, 04:38 PM
You could do that in earlier versions of AD&D. Mechanically optimizing your character to be able to do it, however, carried a stigma - you were a powergamer, not really roleplaying at all but trying to manipulate the game to 'win' D&D, which was considered absurd.

Great, except in 3.5 D&D, you can break the game without even trying too hard, simply by being a wizard using certain set of spells and your friend being a TWFing fighter.



- or you're intentionally gimping your character.

*sigh*
Because if you're not using those stuff, you are, intentionally or not, gimping your character. Now, I'm not one of those people who can't see the huge gray area between twinked out wizard and a kobold samurai, but if you outclass people around you by using class features you have no reason not to use, the class is broken. Why should I not use Wild Shape, Glitterdust or Divine Power? They're right there in the class table or on the spell list.

Indon
2008-03-09, 04:40 PM
*sigh*
Because if you're not using those stuff, you are, intentionally or not, gimping your character. Now, I'm not one of those people who can't see the huge gray area between twinked out wizard and a kobold samurai, but if you break the game by using class features you have no reason not to use, the class is broken.

I'm not necessarily criticizing the attitude. I'm merely describing how attitude change has led to Balance being considered important in the game design of D&D, while before it was not.

Jerthanis
2008-03-09, 04:44 PM
I've been playing a campaign lately. I'm a halfling druid; my party members are an elven Fighter/Ranger and an elven Wizard/Priest. We're 4th level.

Last session we fought three BBEGs (one of which was a CR 7 encounter). My druid, in animal form, backed up with a few summons, did the vast majority of the damage. The wizard/cleric doled out some damage with a wand of magic missile. The fighter's total damage output for the night was... 3 points. Between all of the fights, after all the magic defenses, he managed to score 3 points of damage.

Balance became an issue when people got tired of watching their fighters cry. :smallbiggrin:


Oh joy, we get to use anecdotal evidence! In that case, last night I was playing a level 12 Wizard in a team with a Sword and Board Paladin, a two-gun Rogue (it's Iron Kingdoms), and a level 12 Cleric. The Paladin was doing about 50+ damage a round, and only that little because they were undead, and thus immune to his criticals. The Rogue evicerated the two things not immune to Sneak Attack instantly, and one of the more powerful undead with +elemental damage, and the Cleric... facilitated others. She Consecrated the place to give all the Undead penalties, and Prayer/blessed the party. In the entire dungeon, my 12th level Wizard gave one creature a single negative level with an Empowered Enervation, killed something in a pit when I fireballed it, and used Fly/Telekinesis to cross a gap and help the Cleric across. Later I hasted the Paladin, boosting his damage output by maybe 20% for one fight and blocked a passage with a Wall of Force. I couldn't have completed the dungeon without the Paladin, but I'd be kidding myself to say the Paladin really needed me at any point.

A couple sessions previously, a Dread Wraith attacked us. By the CR, we should've been able to kill two of them at once with no effort. It nearly killed me in the second round, and I was forced to flee but it couldn't even harm the Paladin.

Aren't Paladins overpowered? Anecdotally?

But seriously, most people who play the game aren't breaking it down mathematically to find who has the greatest percentage of contribution and trying to even it out... and really, in any real game situation it's difficult to really tell when underperformance is due to poor luck or poor strategy. In almost every real game situation, I've seen each class perform admirably in their own ways, and teamwork is always terribly important.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-09, 04:48 PM
It's a serious thing. They don't have tightrope walkers in wheelchairs.


That would be a GREAT act. I'd pay to see that.

Rutee
2008-03-09, 05:23 PM
You could do that in earlier versions of AD&D. Mechanically optimizing your character to be able to do it, however, carried a stigma - you were a powergamer, not really roleplaying at all but trying to manipulate the game to 'win' D&D, which was considered absurd.
Except it doesn't take any real effort at optimization. That's pretty much the entire problem. "Take non-blasty spells" is not exactly the hardest idea I've ever seen.


From about the same page of this thread. How many people would you like me to quote on this forum saying that that is precisely their perception, then?

The perception is that people will naturally optimize their characters, and if you don't, it's because you're either not good at playing D&D -
You fail at reading comprehension.

Artanis: Saying exactly what I said
STK: "Look how easy this is"
Squash Monster: "Look how easy this is"
Yahzi: "Look how easy this is"



So what? If I want to play a noble-born Dragon-blood, I'm going to be weaker than my friend who wants to play a Solar. That game system happens to have blatant imbalance, and nobody cares, because the same perceptions simply do not exist among any Exalted community.
you're very bad at this. There's no perception of equality because of the huge neon signs that WW hangs up saying that Solars are better then Dragonblooded. There is no clamoring to change things because Exalted is meant for Creation, with no pretense of setting neutrality.

Now, do you want to know why Dungeons and Dragons should be balanced? Because I'm going to have to recant my earlier words, that there was technically nothing wrong with someone preferring Magic being better then Melee, within DnD's core system. The reason why it's better for there to be a closer measure of parity is exclusivity; If I want magic to be awesome, that's fine. If I want melee to be awesome, also fine. Neither of those necessitates stomping on the other. I just need my preference to be awesome in its own right. If everyone can be awesome, then nobody is denied their fun. The second thing, is that DnD is setting neutral, and is in the heroic fantasy genre. The heroic fantasy genre makes no distinction between magic or melee being better. You say Gandalf, I say Conan. You say Merlin, I say Arthur. You say Zuo Ci, I say Lu Bu. As a setting neutral work that seeks to enable players to play in a Heroic Fantasy setting, it behooves DnD to make it possible to be awesome either way. Given that settings are different it would also behoove it to make it easy to houserule one or the other better, so that the setting itself can be tilted to one or the other, but superiority of one or the other should /not/ be an assumption of the core system.

Why in God's Name would it be bad for a setting neutral game to let GMs pick what's stronger in their setting? Because they really don't get that choice as is.

Indon
2008-03-09, 05:43 PM
Except it doesn't take any real effort at optimization. That's pretty much the entire problem. "Take non-blasty spells" is not exactly the hardest idea I've ever seen.
"Optimization is so easy, a caveman could do it!" is very much part of, "Of course everyone should be able to optimize!"


You fail at reading comprehension.

Artanis: Saying exactly what I said
STK: "Look how easy this is"
Squash Monster: "Look how easy this is"
Yahzi: "Look how easy this is"
I thought it might have been impolite to say that the perception is, "If you can't optimize, you suck at D&D," but I guess I'm not very good at subtlety and I'd rather get my point across, and I apologize for being a bit abrasive about it. I should L2debate.


you're very bad at this. There's no perception of equality because of the huge neon signs that WW hangs up saying that Solars are better then Dragonblooded. There is no clamoring to change things because Exalted is meant for Creation, with no pretense of setting neutrality.
Setting neutrality does not require class balance. There was no clamoring to change things for AD&D (at least, no more than there was clamoring about every other aspect of the system).


Now, do you want to know why Dungeons and Dragons should be balanced?
I already know.


If everyone can be awesome, then nobody is denied their fun.

Because players are not considered responsible for taking steps to ensure that everyone can be awesome anymore. That onus is placed on the system by the players.


Given that settings are different it would also behoove it to make it easy to houserule one or the other better, so that the setting itself can be tilted to one or the other, but superiority of one or the other should /not/ be an assumption of the core system.
Why not? For decades nobody particularly cared.


Why in God's Name would it be bad for a setting neutral game to let GMs pick what's stronger in their setting? Because they really don't get that choice as is.

I'm not necessarily saying it's bad. I'm saying that balance has become a system problem because the players stopped making it themselves, and expected the system to do it for them.

Rutee
2008-03-09, 05:50 PM
"Optimization is so easy, a caveman could do it!" is very much part of, "Of course everyone should be able to optimize!"
Where is this coming from? Because it's not in the text you're quoting.



I thought it might have been impolite to say that the perception is, "If you can't optimize, you suck at D&D," but I guess I'm not very good at subtlety and I'd rather get my point across, and I apologize for being a bit abrasive about it. I should L2debate.
You recognize that your quotes don't say that, no?



Setting neutrality does not require class balance. There was no clamoring to change things for AD&D (at least, no more than there was clamoring about every other aspect of the system).
It does in most genres, and heroic fantasy is one of them.



Because players are not considered responsible for taking steps to ensure that everyone can be awesome anymore. That onus is placed on the system by the players.
God Forbid the customers dictate to the company what they want out of a product. Making the wizard



Why not? For decades nobody particularly cared.
Decades that have been ruled by the Stormwind Fallacy, where if you optimize you're EVIL and a WITCH.



I'm not necessarily saying it's bad. I'm saying that balance has become a system problem because the players stopped making it themselves, and expected the system to do it for them.
God forbid the system designers fix their own work, amirite?

Morty
2008-03-09, 05:51 PM
"Optimization is so easy, a caveman could do it!" is very much part of, "Of course everyone should be able to optimize!"

No, because if optimization is easy or unintentional, it effectively stops being optimization. If I take Sleep instead of Magic Missle simply because I like to cast more subtle spells, am I a powergamer?


Because players are not considered responsible for taking steps to ensure that everyone can be awesome anymore. That onus is placed on the system by the players.

Normally I'd agree that players shouldn't have everything handed on a platter, but in 3.5 D&D they don't have an option to have a balanced high-level game even if the fighter's player is an utter munchkin and the wizard's player doesn't optimize in the slightest.


Why not? For decades nobody particularly cared.

For more than decades everyone thought the world is flat and the sun revolves around it.


I'm not necessarily saying it's bad. I'm saying that balance has become a system problem because the players stopped making it themselves, and expected the system to do it for them.

No, they expect the system to not actively put one character over the other just because they have different classes.

Indon
2008-03-09, 07:43 PM
Where is this coming from? Because it's not in the text you're quoting.
"Look how easy this is," then.


You recognize that your quotes don't say that, no?
We're polite on this forum.


It does in most genres, and heroic fantasy is one of them.
Why would it need to be in _any_ genre?


God Forbid the customers dictate to the company what they want out of a product. Making the wizard
As I've said twice now: I'm not saying the change is bad. I'm definitely saying it's a change in gamer culture.


Decades that have been ruled by the Stormwind Fallacy, where if you optimize you're EVIL and a WITCH.

Yes, yes, you clearly feel that change was a good one.


God forbid the system designers fix their own work, amirite?

It's not broken - it just doesn't offer the features people want now. It's a matter of people who play the game changing, and the game is changing to match.


No, because if optimization is easy or unintentional, it effectively stops being optimization. If I take Sleep instead of Magic Missle simply because I like to cast more subtle spells, am I a powergamer?
Optimization could be similarly performed in earlier versions of D&D - nobody cared. Balance was simply not viewed as mattering, regardless of how easy it must be to break the game.



Normally I'd agree that players shouldn't have everything handed on a platter, but in 3.5 D&D they don't have an option to have a balanced high-level game even if the fighter's player is an utter munchkin and the wizard's player doesn't optimize in the slightest.
And even then, not many games _are_ broken. That option clearly exists and most seasoned 3.5 players exercise it.


For more than decades everyone thought the world is flat and the sun revolves around it.
Look. I'm not calling people who simply want mechanical balance in their game system WoW-loving rollplayers, I would prefer that you not imply people who don't care are flat-earther gaming luddites, eh?


No, they expect the system to not actively put one character over the other just because they have different classes.

All you're even saying is a reterming of what I said but without any attempt at objective analysis of the changes of opinions in gamers.

Look, you two.

The question was, "When did balance become such a big deal?"

The answer is, "When people began to expect their RPG systems to be balanced."

It's as simple as that. What are you two even arguing against?

Rutee
2008-03-09, 07:46 PM
Look, you two.

The question was, "When did balance become such a big deal?"

The answer is, "When people began to expect their RPG systems to be balanced."

It's as simple as that. What are you two even arguing against?

[Scrubbed] I'm arguing against this ridiculous perception that people who want Balance are doing so on the grounds of wanting to optimize the hell out of everything.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-09, 07:50 PM
This has become so jumbled Les Claypool could do a bona fide Primus song with this. People, can you leave the quote storm and incipient flamin' aside and just state your platform, so that others can understand it? No quotes. No elaborate debate. Just a small post that states in three small sentences tops, what you mean.

Indon
2008-03-09, 07:51 PM
Do you not read? I'm arguing against this ridiculous perception that people who want Balance are doing so on the grounds of wanting to optimize the hell out of everything.

Like it or not, that's part of the change. Optimization used to be commonly discouraged as being contrary to roleplaying.

Now character effectiveness is considered an integral part of being able to enjoy the game, and optimization is an unavoidable - because it's necessary - part of that.

Edit: Why would you think that's bad?

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-09, 08:18 PM
Like it or not, that's part of the change. Optimization used to be commonly discouraged as being contrary to roleplaying.

Now character effectiveness is considered an integral part of being able to enjoy the game, and optimization is an unavoidable - because it's necessary - part of that.

Edit: Why would you think that's bad?

Optimization was discouraged? I think you mean powergaming was discouraged. If optimization was discouraged, then fighters would specialize in great swords, then fight unarmed.Optimization is used when you put a higher stat in intelligence while making a wizard. Powergaming would be making Batman, probably with initiate of the seven fold veil throw in for good measure. And you know what, I've never seen a group that encouraged characters like that, except in very specialized cases meant to test the system or basically screw around. And, yes having an effective character is considered integral, as if you aren't effective at all you can't do anything, and I generally don't enjoy just watching others role dice. Now I'm not saying that you have to be good at everything, but usually you have one area where your character is effective.

Rutee
2008-03-09, 08:33 PM
Like it or not, that's part of the change. Optimization used to be commonly discouraged as being contrary to roleplaying.

Now character effectiveness is considered an integral part of being able to enjoy the game, and optimization is an unavoidable - because it's necessary - part of that.

Edit: Why would you think that's bad?

Why do I think a blanket statement calling anyone seeking balance is a munchkin bad? Surely you're not serious.

Anyway, my position has primarily been counter to the thought process that the magi 'should' be more powerful in DnD. In some settings, sure, but in DnD's core system? Nah; Heroic Fantasy has too many awesome people of all stripes to make a default decision that one should be better then the other.

Yakk
2008-03-09, 08:39 PM
So what? If I want to play a noble-born Dragon-blood, I'm going to be weaker than my friend who wants to play a Solar. That game system happens to have blatant imbalance, and nobody cares, because the same perceptions simply do not exist among any Exalted community.

Did you miss the huge neon sign that says "Dragon-blood suck compared to Solar Exalted"? You need far more "points" to make a Dragon-blood that is a direct challenge to a single Solar Exalted. (At which point, you gotta wonder why they bother with using the same point system!)


Just because an option is more or less powerful than another does not make it 'mechanically unreasonable' unless you're expected to pick only options of a specific level of effectiveness...

It is if someone wants to be "an effective warrior", but the warrior-like options are all ineffective. Playing ineffective characters is always an option: having the game system dictate that entire styles of character are ineffective less so.

In Exalted, if you want to play an "unusually effective" Dragonblood, you just give that player 1.5 to 2.0 as many points to start with. That ratio would have to be figured out by experiment.

You could do the same thing in D&D -- simply grant the abilities of 2 levels instead of 1 whenever you gain a level in a melee-type class.

At the same time, it is easier to add a controlled imbalance than it is to remove an existing imbalance in a system. Ie, imagine if WW had created Dragonblooded via a system that an X point Dragonblooded was equal to a Solar Exalted.

Then they could say "the typical Dragonblooded is built with half as many points, and Dragonblooded earn XP half as fast". Viola: the exact same effect. Except now the level of imbalance is calibrated. :)

Rutee
2008-03-09, 08:45 PM
(At which point, you gotta wonder why they bother with using the same point system!)

Because every WW game uses Exp as character points. DB just pay more for everything. Same system, different values.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-03-09, 09:07 PM
I don't think anyones debating anymore that wizards are inherently broken, or even that that's a bad thing. No ones even attacking power gamers. Matter of fact not a damn thing is debated, some people who are posting just seem to think so. So could we please put this quasi flame war over less then nothing to rest?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-09, 09:10 PM
Naaah. Too much fun to see so much talent wasted.

Indon
2008-03-09, 10:07 PM
Optimization was discouraged? I think you mean powergaming was discouraged.
It takes more optimization to be called a powergamer than it once did.


Why do I think a blanket statement calling anyone seeking balance is a munchkin bad? Surely you're not serious.
When'd I say that? In fact, how does that assumption even make sense?

Balance is favored more by people who follow a paradigm in which more significant optimization is not considered munchkinry. And as you noted, when that paradigm makes that accusation, it's called a fallacy.


Did you miss the huge neon sign that says "Dragon-blood suck compared to Solar Exalted"? You need far more "points" to make a Dragon-blood that is a direct challenge to a single Solar Exalted. (At which point, you gotta wonder why they bother with using the same point system!)

It's not the points that really make the difference - Dragon-Bloods only pay more than Solars for charms and Essence.

The significant areas where Dragon-bloods are weaker are:

Sorcery (DB's can only use Terrestrial-circle magic)
Martial arts (They are limited to only a few Celestial styles, and even those are difficult)
Essence (DB's can not rise above 7 Essence without GM fiat - other types are limited only by age)
How their charms work (DB's get fewer dice than Solars and don't get any special tricks like Perfect Successes to make up for it... - last I checked they also have fewer Perfect Abilities)

You need to tweak _those_ to really close the gap.



At the same time, it is easier to add a controlled imbalance than it is to remove an existing imbalance in a system. Ie, imagine if WW had created Dragonblooded via a system that an X point Dragonblooded was equal to a Solar Exalted.

Then they could say "the typical Dragonblooded is built with half as many points, and Dragonblooded earn XP half as fast". Viola: the exact same effect. Except now the level of imbalance is calibrated. :)

That would be a system in which Dragon-blooded would lose much of their uniqueness as Terrestrial Exalts (and would not be 'the exact same effect'). Luckily, balance is not valued so much that White Wolf would scrap all of that.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 10:09 PM
Alright then Mr. It's Not Consistent, if you need magic to kill a dragon...

What sword is this fighter using? Could it be, through some sheer amazing coincidence, that this fighter is decked out in magical gear. Granting him augmented strength, speed and endurance.

Hey, look at that, internally consistent after-all.
Because it just makes you feel so warm and cool to know that your character is only powerful because he has badass items. Sure, the wielder of Excalibur can't be defeated in battle. But wouldn't you start to feel a little bit like a fraud if you used it? I mean, you win, because you have the magic sword, not through any merit of your own.

Kind of... Sucks.


A High Level Fighter is not a grizzled veteran. A high level fighter is a god of war, who shrugs off blows that would fell lesser men, slay dozens of men with one stroke, tear down stone walls with his bare hands, cleave right through trees, and the very sight of him causes enemies to **** in their pants.

A Warblade is exactly the same as a high level fighter, except with fancier mechanics. Fluffwise, they behave in the same way. Take out the word "Warblade" from the ToB and replace it unilaterally with Fighter. It's not going to impact the fluff in any meaningful way.

As to your second point, why shouldn't this high level warriorguy be able to slay dragons? A real-world fighter would not be able to do so, but D&D is not the real word. A high level Fighter is just as much out of this world as a wizard.
Except that fluff-wise, a fighter is just a grizzled veteran. Go read the fighter description in the PHB.

They're extremely skilled people, nothing more, nothing less. I'd say they should cap out at level 6-10, to be honest, because that should be about the highest level a person could possibly achieve through sheer force of arms.

Can a fighter cause a (normal, non enchanted) sword to burst into flame? Can he turn invisible? Can he hurl fire, teleport, stop time, etc? Because a Warblade or Swordsage can do all of those things, without needing any magical items. He can conjure his own magic, and that's why a high level martial adept is far more believable than a high level fighter.

And it's far more fun to play, because there are actual mechanics to back it up.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2008-03-09, 10:21 PM
I'm curious, here.

The 'culture of optimization' being described, wherein, if one chooses to make a less effective character- for instance, a Fighter, capital F- one is jeered at and dismissed.
As opposed to, apparently, a culture wherein the point was one's dramatic potential- effectiveness numerically, or mechanically, was secondary.
I'm not entirely certain of this latter point's veracity, but I'll assume it is perceived truth for the nonce.

What I feel this ignores is the fact that D&D is a game whose system for advancing characters is based on combat, and a game wherein the only 'goal' inherent in the system is to advance one's character. It could be argued that the game has no goals at all, or that the goal is to have fun, but this is specious; if there was no incentive to move forward and grow in power and prestige, the game would simply broaden, rather than progress in a linear, upward fashion.

I would be interested to see a counter-argument to the above; if D&D is not designed to reward characters who are mechanically effective, and specifically effective in combating threats to themselves and their party with force of one sort or another, why is its advancement system based on combat?
That the option to grant XP based on role-playing is present is not sufficient; the suggestion amounts to a footnote on 'ad-hoc' grants for solving problems socially.
I draw from this the lesson that D&D is designed to be enjoyed by being effective; I will, therefore, continue to attempt to be effective, and as such, I will continue to be concerned with being effective regardless of what form of character I choose to play.
Thus, for me to enjoy the game, I must be concerned with Balance, in the sense of 'two mechanically effective characters of differing fundamental concepts should be of roughly equal power'- i.e. a well-built Fighter or Rogue should be on-par with a well-built X.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 10:24 PM
I've actually often thought that a game where you can't really get any more powerful than you start would be interesting. The only motivation would be plot.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2008-03-09, 10:29 PM
I've actually often thought that a game where you can't really get any more powerful than you start would be interesting. The only motivation would be plot.

It would be interesting. It would not be Dungeons and Dragons.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-09, 10:34 PM
I've actually often thought that a game where you can't really get any more powerful than you start would be interesting. The only motivation would be plot.

Spirit of the Century (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html), which I first heard of on these very boards.

Roland St. Jude
2008-03-09, 10:43 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep this conversation on the civil, friendly level we expect around here. (If you're not sure what that means, please see the Forum Rules about what not to do.)

Citizen Joe
2008-03-09, 10:49 PM
I've actually often thought that a game where you can't really get any more powerful than you start would be interesting. The only motivation would be plot.

I've said that the worst thing to happen to role playing was rewarding people for killing things. Try awarding experience only for accomplishing goals and not for killing things (unless killing the thing was actually a goal). When killing becomes a resource sink with no payoff, I think you'll find people start avoiding it in favor of alternative means of accomplishing goals.

Back on topic...
There is an assumption that all the players deserve a fair share of the fun when playing a game. When one person soaks up all the attention and takes all the roles, then the others (typically) have less fun. Thus it is important that no one thing be excessively powerful that it renders everything else superfluous.

Zincorium
2008-03-09, 10:52 PM
The one big problem with a system where the power of the characters does not increase is that if you stick with the D&D or action movie system of a series of progressively more difficult encounters, the mortality or injury rate of the characters increases directly with the strength of their foes, and/or the initial power of the characters is such that low level foes provide no real threat, and only the significant antagonists are intended to challenge the players. From what I've heard, the latter is deeply unsatisfying to many people.

This can (as spirit of the century, a great game does) provide a large possible tool box which can provide better actions with the same character against foes of greater stature. A good DM will provide things within the encounter which intelligent players can devise to turn against a particularly difficult foe, such as a wooden floor which can be smashed by a large piece of furniture tossed from a balcony.

Also, some sort of reward system should be introduced which gives the players something to look forward to. As power is out, things like favors from NPCs or the passing out of some sort of secret that the players can wonder at. Both of those do require some skill and planning ahead to be meaningful.

Paragon Badger
2008-03-09, 11:07 PM
Except that fluff-wise, a fighter is just a grizzled veteran. Go read the fighter description in the PHB.

They're extremely skilled people, nothing more, nothing less. I'd say they should cap out at level 6-10, to be honest, because that should be about the highest level a person could possibly achieve through sheer force of arms.

Can a fighter cause a (normal, non enchanted) sword to burst into flame? Can he turn invisible? Can he hurl fire, teleport, stop time, etc? Because a Warblade or Swordsage can do all of those things, without needing any magical items. He can conjure his own magic, and that's why a high level martial adept is far more believable than a high level fighter.

And it's far more fun to play, because there are actual mechanics to back it up.

Because someone mentioned Zuo Ci and Lu Bu earlier, I felt the need to show you some high level fighters. :smallwink:

Seeing this opponent, Lu Bu left the pursuit of Gongsun Zan and engaged the new adversary. Zhang Fei was elated, and he rode forth with all his energies. They two were worthily matched, and they exchanged half a hundred bouts with no advantage to either side. Then Guan Yu, impatient, rode out with his huge and weighty green-dragon saber and attacked Lu Bu on the other flank. The three steeds formed a triangle and their riders battered away at each other for thirty bouts, yet still Lu Bu stood firm.

Then Liu Bei rode out to his brothers' aid, his double swords raised ready to strike. The steed with the flowing mane was urged in at an angle, and now Lu Bu had to contend with three surrounding warriors at whom he struck one after another, and they at him, the flashing of the warriors' weapons looking like the revolving lamps suspended at the new year. And the warriors of the eight armies gazed rapt with amazement at such a battle."

A bout is roughly one 'pass', like in a joust.

However, the beating of gongs and rolling of drums mingling with his dreams awoke Dian Wei, and he jumped up. His trusty halberds had disappeared. The enemy was near. He hastily snatched up an infantryman's sword and rushed out. At the gate he saw a crowd of spearmen just bursting in. Dian Wei rushed at them slashing all around him, and twenty or more fell beneath his blows. The others drew back. But the spears stood around him like reeds on the river bank. Being totally without mail, he was soon wounded in several places. He fought desperately till his sword snapped and was no longer of any use. Throwing it aside he seized a couple of soldiers and with their bodies as weapons felled ten of his opponents. The others dared not approach, but they shot arrows at him. These fell thick as rain, but he still maintained the gate against the assailants.

However, the mutineers got in by the rear of the camp, and they wounded Dian Wei in the back with spear thrusts. Uttering a loud cry he fell. The blood gushed from the wound in torrents, and he died. Even after he was dead not a man dared to come in by the main gate.

And so Zhao Zilong escaped most imminent danger, and Liu Shan's safety, bound up with his savior's, was also secured. On this career of slaughter which ended in safety, Zhao Zilong, bearing in his bosom the child lord Liu Shan, cut down two main banners, took three spears, and slew or wounded of Cao Cao's generals half a hundred, all men of renown.

Then Hua Tuo said, "This is what I shall do. In a private room I shall erect a post with a steel ring attached. I shall ask you, Sir, to insert your arm in the ring, and I shall bind it firmly to the post. Then I shall cover your head with a quilt so that you cannot see, and with a scalpel I shall open up the flesh right down to the bone. Then I shall scrape away the poison. This done, I shall dress the wound with a certain preparation, sew it up with a thread, and there will be no further trouble. But I think you may quail at the severity of the treatment."

Refreshments were then served, and after a few cups of wine, the warrior extended his arm for the operation. With his other hand he went on with his game of chess. Meanwhile the surgeon prepared his knife and called a lad to hold a basin beneath the limb.

The surgeon then performed the operation as he had pre-described. He found the bone much discolored, but he scraped it clean. When the knife went over the surface of the bone and made horrible sounds, all those near covered their eyes and turned pale. But Guan Yu went on with his game, only drinking a cup of wine now and again, and his face betrayed no sign of pain.

It's all in the presentation.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-10, 12:58 AM
The one big problem with a system where the power of the characters does not increase is that if you stick with the D&D or action movie system of a series of progressively more difficult encounters, the mortality or injury rate of the characters increases directly with the strength of their foes, and/or the initial power of the characters is such that low level foes provide no real threat, and only the significant antagonists are intended to challenge the players. From what I've heard, the latter is deeply unsatisfying to many people.

This can (as spirit of the century, a great game does) provide a large possible tool box which can provide better actions with the same character against foes of greater stature. A good DM will provide things within the encounter which intelligent players can devise to turn against a particularly difficult foe, such as a wooden floor which can be smashed by a large piece of furniture tossed from a balcony.

Also, some sort of reward system should be introduced which gives the players something to look forward to. As power is out, things like favors from NPCs or the passing out of some sort of secret that the players can wonder at. Both of those do require some skill and planning ahead to be meaningful.
I have actually run games with no XP gain before, once or twice. Just said, "Ok roll up a level X" where X is 10-15, and then had them play that. There was no XP for anything at all, let alone killing things. Basically only things like "Stop the villain" and "Save the (Fill in the blank)" matter then.

It's actually not hard to do "escalating" either, although I think it's unnecessary myself. But you can have completely different flavor in fights that are all essentially equal challenge. 50 goblins, or 1 lich (Totally made up and not nearly equivalent, but you get my point).

They both take work and strategy, but one is a boss fight, and one is just dealing with the peons, and the feel of the fights are very different.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-10, 01:03 AM
Because someone mentioned Zuo Ci and Lu Bu earlier, I felt the need to show you some high level fighters. :smallwink:

Seeing this opponent, Lu Bu left the pursuit of Gongsun Zan and engaged the new adversary. Zhang Fei was elated, and he rode forth with all his energies. They two were worthily matched, and they exchanged half a hundred bouts with no advantage to either side. Then Guan Yu, impatient, rode out with his huge and weighty green-dragon saber and attacked Lu Bu on the other flank. The three steeds formed a triangle and their riders battered away at each other for thirty bouts, yet still Lu Bu stood firm.

Then Liu Bei rode out to his brothers' aid, his double swords raised ready to strike. The steed with the flowing mane was urged in at an angle, and now Lu Bu had to contend with three surrounding warriors at whom he struck one after another, and they at him, the flashing of the warriors' weapons looking like the revolving lamps suspended at the new year. And the warriors of the eight armies gazed rapt with amazement at such a battle."

A bout is roughly one 'pass', like in a joust.

However, the beating of gongs and rolling of drums mingling with his dreams awoke Dian Wei, and he jumped up. His trusty halberds had disappeared. The enemy was near. He hastily snatched up an infantryman's sword and rushed out. At the gate he saw a crowd of spearmen just bursting in. Dian Wei rushed at them slashing all around him, and twenty or more fell beneath his blows. The others drew back. But the spears stood around him like reeds on the river bank. Being totally without mail, he was soon wounded in several places. He fought desperately till his sword snapped and was no longer of any use. Throwing it aside he seized a couple of soldiers and with their bodies as weapons felled ten of his opponents. The others dared not approach, but they shot arrows at him. These fell thick as rain, but he still maintained the gate against the assailants.

However, the mutineers got in by the rear of the camp, and they wounded Dian Wei in the back with spear thrusts. Uttering a loud cry he fell. The blood gushed from the wound in torrents, and he died. Even after he was dead not a man dared to come in by the main gate.

And so Zhao Zilong escaped most imminent danger, and Liu Shan's safety, bound up with his savior's, was also secured. On this career of slaughter which ended in safety, Zhao Zilong, bearing in his bosom the child lord Liu Shan, cut down two main banners, took three spears, and slew or wounded of Cao Cao's generals half a hundred, all men of renown.

Then Hua Tuo said, "This is what I shall do. In a private room I shall erect a post with a steel ring attached. I shall ask you, Sir, to insert your arm in the ring, and I shall bind it firmly to the post. Then I shall cover your head with a quilt so that you cannot see, and with a scalpel I shall open up the flesh right down to the bone. Then I shall scrape away the poison. This done, I shall dress the wound with a certain preparation, sew it up with a thread, and there will be no further trouble. But I think you may quail at the severity of the treatment."

Refreshments were then served, and after a few cups of wine, the warrior extended his arm for the operation. With his other hand he went on with his game of chess. Meanwhile the surgeon prepared his knife and called a lad to hold a basin beneath the limb.

The surgeon then performed the operation as he had pre-described. He found the bone much discolored, but he scraped it clean. When the knife went over the surface of the bone and made horrible sounds, all those near covered their eyes and turned pale. But Guan Yu went on with his game, only drinking a cup of wine now and again, and his face betrayed no sign of pain.

It's all in the presentation.
I've read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, thanks. The thing is, that a sword to the chest will still kill any of them. They make 100 jousting passes without advantage, that means they can't hit each other, not that they're taking massive wounds. Yet a fighter in D&D can get stabbed and fireballed and so on dozens of times before death. That's stupid. I'm sorry, but it is.

I remain a fan of the Martial Adepts, and still think that the Fighter and probably a couple of other base classes should be replaced by them.

And no one has answered my point that if you don't have mechanical options to juggle and manage, you have less to do, and are less engaged in the game than if you only have an attack, that you can think of 100 ways to describe, but could just as easily say, "I whack it again".

Rutee
2008-03-10, 01:15 AM
I've read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, thanks. The thing is, that a sword to the chest will still kill any of them. They make 100 jousting passes without advantage, that means they can't hit each other, not that they're taking massive wounds. Yet a fighter in D&D can get stabbed and fireballed and so on dozens of times before death. That's stupid. I'm sorry, but it is.

Clearly you have never played a Dynasty Warriors game, where mooks basically break their weapons upon the Heroes of the Three Kingdoms, and they can take quite a few sword hits to the chest. Heck, Dian Wei did it at his death scene, after Hu Che Er stole his Red Flotation Device.

Regardless, why is that stupid? Or rather, why is it more stupid for a fighter to take these hits, but not a ToB class? Mind, I love ToB for making melee capable of /doing/ something, but you seem to be drawing a false delineation here. *Any* DnD character can take sword wounds straight to the chest and still keep on walking, by RAW. It's about as 'believable' as it ever will be, in any case.

Also I think he was really just contesting the idea that melee can't be bad-ass, not that Fighters are mechanically uninteresting, compared to other classes.


It's not the points that really make the difference - Dragon-Bloods only pay more than Solars for charms and Essence.
...You missed what he said. You need more Exp to achieve the same end result. None of what you said is mutually exclusive to this. Notwithstanding that there is not really an attempt to balance DBs with Solars. Again; System for one setting, and in that setting, the Dragonblooded suck comparatively. It'd be like trying to balance Mortals in WoD with Vampires.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-10, 02:15 AM
Look, you two.

The question was, "When did balance become such a big deal?"

The answer is, "When people began to expect their RPG systems to be balanced."

It's as simple as that. What are you two even arguing against?

No, actually.

The correct answer is "Always". Games have ALWAYS had to be balanced; if a game was unbalanced, ultimately it ended up getting dropped, by and large.

Chess, go, and checkers are popular for a reason. The strategic depth of those games would be impossible without balance.

There are these people who have this bizzare and absolutely incorrect idea that balance is a new idea. These people have absolutely no idea whatsoever what they're talking about. Balance has always been an essential part of game design; if all the players do not feel they have equal chances of winning, it is not fun.

If a game lacks balance, then it is a bad game. End of story. It may be good at being SOMETHING ELSE, but it is bad at being a game.

Artemician
2008-03-10, 02:26 AM
There are these people who have this bizzare and absolutely incorrect idea that balance is a new idea. These people have absolutely no idea whatsoever what they're talking about. Balance has always been an essential part of game design; if all the players do not feel they have equal chances of winning, it is not fun.

If a game lacks balance, then it is a bad game. End of story. It may be good at being SOMETHING ELSE, but it is bad at being a game.

To be fair to them though, there are some who don't treat D&D as a game, but rather as a roleplaying experience. Their logic is that they have fun not from overcoming challenges, but from interacting and acting out a role.

Which is a perfectly valid viewpoint to take.

ZekeArgo
2008-03-10, 02:29 AM
If a game lacks balance, then it is a bad game. End of story. It may be good at being SOMETHING ELSE, but it is bad at being a game.

While this is correct for games in which there is nothing stake, many games of chance and skill are known to have far better odds for the house than for its players.

Just a tiny rebuttal to a blanket statement, not all good games require balance, but then there have to be circumstances that elevate the unbalanced game into something enjoyable.

Rutee
2008-03-10, 02:30 AM
To be fair to them though, there are some who don't treat D&D as a game, but rather as a roleplaying experience. Their logic is that they have fun not from overcoming challenges, but from interacting and acting out a role.

Which is a perfectly valid viewpoint to take.

On the other hand, the core system being balanced isn't a hindrance to this goal.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-10, 02:54 AM
While this is correct for games in which there is nothing stake, many games of chance and skill are known to have far better odds for the house than for its players.

I would argue that a lot of these aren't good games at all, either, though. Slots, MMOs, video poker, and similar are not "fun" but rather enjoyable, and the reason for this is actually their addictive qualities - there's a certain level of payoff that actually really gets people going, and these "games" play off of it. This is why MMOs seem so unfun to a lot of people, and people gripe about them, yet they're so popular - they're not fun in the same sense as other games, but rather addictive. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'd argue (and many, including Sirlin, would agree with me) that they aren't "good games", even if they are an enjoyable experience. Also, many people think they can "win" at these games, when in reality, they're always losers statistically speaking.

They are good at bilking people out of money, though.

Notably, poker is perhaps the most popular of the stakes games, and many people REALLY love playing poker. And, interestingly, it is a balanced game.


To be fair to them though, there are some who don't treat D&D as a game, but rather as a roleplaying experience. Their logic is that they have fun not from overcoming challenges, but from interacting and acting out a role.

Which is a perfectly valid viewpoint to take.

I agree with this, but I think the reality is that many people enjoy a blend of the two, at which point...


On the other hand, the core system being balanced isn't a hindrance to this goal.

This comes into play.

It is absolutely true that a roleplay does not need to be balanced, but I think once you make it a roleplaying GAME it does need to be so. If you are playing it simply for the roleplay, you don't need balance, but for those who like to add in the game part, or to which the game is more important than the roleplay, balance is essential. Though even in the sense of pure roleplay, you do want to balance desired:actual screen time. If everyone wants a lot of screentime, balance can help achieve that and imbalance can create a very bitter experience for some people.

Farmer42
2008-03-10, 02:59 AM
Having a really deep, immersive character is tons of fun. I do it all the time. The problem is, while it may be fun to RP a half-dragon minotaur barbarian, the rogue still out damages me in combat and is more likely to hit. During RP sections he's a great character, but when we get to combat, I always felt like the fifth wheel, and it was more like a wheel of American instead of a fine, aged Gouda.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-10, 03:41 AM
Clearly you have never played a Dynasty Warriors game, where mooks basically break their weapons upon the Heroes of the Three Kingdoms, and they can take quite a few sword hits to the chest. Heck, Dian Wei did it at his death scene, after Hu Che Er stole his Red Flotation Device.

Regardless, why is that stupid? Or rather, why is it more stupid for a fighter to take these hits, but not a ToB class? Mind, I love ToB for making melee capable of /doing/ something, but you seem to be drawing a false delineation here. *Any* DnD character can take sword wounds straight to the chest and still keep on walking, by RAW. It's about as 'believable' as it ever will be, in any case.

Also I think he was really just contesting the idea that melee can't be bad-ass, not that Fighters are mechanically uninteresting, compared to other classes.
Dynasty Warriors is based on RoTK, but, when you really watch it, they've taken the highly exaggerated characters of RoTK, and made them even more exaggerated. They've turned them into demigods, which is fine for the game, but they're not human. No way, no how.

Besides, if you watch them fight, they conjure fire and ice, fly through the air, and so on. They're clearly Martial Adepts, not Fighters ;)

Rutee
2008-03-10, 03:51 AM
Dynasty Warriors is based on RoTK, but, when you really watch it, they've taken the highly exaggerated characters of RoTK, and made them even more exaggerated. They've turned them into demigods, which is fine for the game, but they're not human. No way, no how.

Besides, if you watch them fight, they conjure fire and ice, fly through the air, and so on. They're clearly Martial Adepts, not Fighters ;)

Nah, only the strategists and rulers conjure patently supernatural effects. But, that dodges the real question; Why is it absurd for a Fighter to absorb patently superhuman amounts of damage, but not a Martial Adept? The way I see it, Martial adepts are the regular melee as they should be, so there's no split.

shadow_archmagi
2008-03-10, 04:29 AM
I would like to someone try a group consisting of all clerics, or wizards, or maybe even some mix of the magical things. Just to see how irrelevant fighters are.

Naturally, they'd start from level 4 and go up.

Thoughtbot360
2008-03-10, 04:59 AM
Yes, WoW have Priests ... same thing, I played one before the first expansion come out so I can say I had ... issues with the class since I soled.

Also its not a back pedal, let me put this way ... the argument you are "not having fun" does not apply if you ... say want to use tank rush tactics when your side is a "infantry".

RPG that have a party system require each character to specialize in some field, of course a "merman bard" is going to under perform in a dungeon crawl.

The complain about wizards I think its valid and invalid at the same time, wizards at start are weak and they became godly after the later half of the levels but the notion the wizard is from the start playing in "god mode" is absurd, also what wizard would waste a "knock" spell when there is a rogue around?

The issue I have is the "Kindergarten" notion everyone must have fun and when it means everyone it means EVERYONE, including the Cha 8 half Orc Bard ... the moment the system is catered to never failed to "be fun" its a nanny system.

Well, I think thats a bit of an extreme example of an inferior character. A Bard with 8 CHA is no Bard at all. Now one with 14 or 16 Charisma is a bard...and probably one with abnormally high strength score, and thats a half-Orc Bard thats actually played straight. No why the player wants a half-Orc Bard to begin with is probably a sign of mild masochistic tendencies, but most of the people who do make a half-Orc Bard will simply spend points in Charisma as if they were serious.

But lets take a look at your early argument (specifically with Zincorium):




Originally Posted by Zincorium View Post
Balance comes up because no one should automatically suck just because they like a particular type of character.

Drakron:

I am sorry but I REFUSE to play in a system were a completely broken character is allowed to "not suck", that is not balance ... its kindergarten.

Now, to hear the two of tell it, there are only two systems of RPG:

Zincorium claims that the current model of D&D has some character types that completely overshadow what the others can do. And that anyone choosing a character type that gets too far away from the "Elite" character type X aren't allowed to shine for one second, no matter how much they min-max. Basically, you can never, ever, ever play a Fighter whose worth a damn, while if you play Pun-Pun (which I believe nobody really has...probably out of decency), you have no weakness and you can never do wrong.

You seem to claim, just going by the wording of your reaction here (and you're subsequent half-Orc Bard remark), that any and all other systems have a mechanism that makes even the most terribly designed and counter-intuitively character automatically just as powerful as what would otherwise be the strongest character build in the system. Basically, it doesn't matter if you study the system, and create the "Pun-Pun" of that system, because Pun-Pun is only as good as a half-Orc Bard with 8 Charisma.

My question is: Can there be no middle ground?

Khanderas
2008-03-10, 05:09 AM
I didn't bother reading the replies so to the OP general implied question:

I, myself, do not have a general problem with magic being powerful. Smashy mountain and crushy armies is all good. Kings listen and commoners wet themselves in fear at the mere sight of a Wizard / Sorceror.

The problem is the lack of drawbacks.
Anyone can be a Wizard / Sorcerer. Just declare you pick a level in it. No need for a lenghty education all you need is to be alittle smarter then the average slackjaw (note that virtually all posters in the "stat yourself" threads sport above average to semi-genious score in int. Funny that). Sad fact is that many supplements just add options to the casters with little to no drawback. The powercreep as it is known have made it so that Casters can do anything mundanes can do, at no real drawback... And that is the problem.

No obligations. The Master / University that trained you (perhaps), don't expect you to do missions for free. No need to fetch spellcomponents. You don't get your Masters enemies. No need for apprentice fees, scholarly upkeep or anything. Whatever you loot earn is yours to keep.

Materials for spells are for most games, implied you got. Fireball all you want, it is assumed you got the materials for it, unless you are captured and stripped. Even if you are captured and stripped, feats exists to let you drop this requirement. They are in a bag just outside the cell anyway.

In fights, they are traditionally the glass cannon. High priority to be attacked because of the dangers they present and lack of body armor gave them this title. Only the casters got spell buffs up that give them 100% protection vs different things. Protection from missiles, Freedom of movment, Fly and Invisibility all give a certain degree of invulnerability to its user, often at very long durations.

Any spellcomponent that they do need to keep track of (like the classical diamond for ressing) is often easily traded for, in the nearest settlement. Its not that you need a diamond of 5k golds worth. You need 5k gold and civilization. Granted, restricting this would slow the game down considerably, and the same goes for magical arms for Fighters, but it still is worth a mention.

Contingency, timestop, celerity. Need not say more. Going first is huge in a fight.

Casting a spell takes the same amount of time as stabbing someone. Unless you ready an action for it, getting a mace-to-the-face does not hinder a caster in the least. Not that it matters, since concentration skills eventually gets large enough to take that readied action and almost always make it. True we can't start letting spells take 2 rounds to cast, but it would, in theory, make casting harder (and if it is harder, we can buff it to the powerlevels it should have).



Edit: All of the above are broad generalisations, opinion and heresay. But they are true... probelbly. Atleast in some cases.

Diamondeye
2008-03-10, 06:06 AM
No obligations. The Master / University that trained you (perhaps), don't expect you to do missions for free. No need to fetch spellcomponents. You don't get your Masters enemies. No need for apprentice fees, scholarly upkeep or anything. Whatever you loot earn is yours to keep.

The DM can do all of this any time he wants. You don't need rules for this; if it WAS a rule it would just place a burden on the DM to create scenarios to support a "class limitation".

GammaPaladin
2008-03-10, 06:15 AM
Nah, only the strategists and rulers conjure patently supernatural effects. But, that dodges the real question; Why is it absurd for a Fighter to absorb patently superhuman amounts of damage, but not a Martial Adept? The way I see it, Martial adepts are the regular melee as they should be, so there's no split.

Pretty much all of them had strikes where their swords would flame, or crackle with energy, or... etc etc.

Why is it more believable for a Martial Adept to take those kinds of hits? Because he's magic. What more needs be said? If a Martial Adept or a Wizard kills a dragon, it makes sense. They have powers beyond those of mortal men. When a fighter, who's supposedly a completely non-magical mortal manages it... It just... There's no explanation for why they're so powerful, and it stops making sense.


The DM can do all of this any time he wants. You don't need rules for this; if it WAS a rule it would just place a burden on the DM to create scenarios to support a "class limitation".
Except that when you do something like that and there's no rule for you to point to in the books, the players bitch about how you're railroading them and taking all the fun out of the game, etc, etc...

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-10, 06:27 AM
{Scrubbed}

Oslecamo
2008-03-10, 06:43 AM
Pretty much all of them had strikes where their swords would flame, or crackle with energy, or... etc etc.

Why is it more believable for a Martial Adept to take those kinds of hits? Because he's magic. What more needs be said? If a Martial Adept or a Wizard kills a dragon, it makes sense. They have powers beyond those of mortal men. When a fighter, who's supposedly a completely non-magical mortal manages it... It just... There's no explanation for why they're so powerful, and it stops making sense.



Let' see some of the stuff the fighter can do, and the martial casters(also known as warblade, crusader and swordsage) can't.

1-Take a mount, charge into a group of enemies of same level and slaughter them all before anybody else gets to do anything

2-Pick a bow and slaughter Balors from a great distance.

3-Keep an enemy completely locked in one place with a constant flurry of trips and attacks of oportunity.

4-Be grappled and still take his favorite weapon and slaughtering the fool who tought that could hold him.

No need martial fancyness. Just one really tough guy who takes baths in lava to relax.

Also, anyone who says that the way melees should be is making them unable to use their favorite sword move every turn, you have to ask yourselves: then what is the diference between a melee and a caster? None anymore. Only the names change, like it will happening 4e.

Is that nobody remembers anymore melees before Wow? You know, when melees where suposed to equip an uber melee weapon, uber armor, and then jump inside the enemies bashing away at everything nearby?

Along the years, they started to add powers to the melee guy. First just a few powers, wich you could use here and there, but still had to rely mostly in your vanilla attacks, but nowadays things have fallen to the point where the melee somehow has as many powers as the caster. What sense does this make? The caster is breacking the laws of reality, but still doesn't have more variety than the guy who swings his sword around?

The only explanation is that there are no more melees. There are sword swinging casters and staff swinging casters.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-10, 06:51 AM
Let' see some of the stuff the fighter can do, and the martial casters(also known as warblade, crusader and swordsage) can't.

1-Take a mount, charge into a group of enemies of same level and slaughter them all before anybody else gets to do anything
Whatever's stopping them? Assuming they're enemies a Fighter can slaughter...


2-Pick a bow and slaughter Balors from a great distance.
The Crusader can. The others could spend a feat on bow proficiency if bows were worth a proficiency slot. A non-core melee fighter will not be a particularily good archer.


3-Keep an enemy completely locked in one place with a constant flurry of trips and attacks of oportunity.
They can do this just as well as the fighter.


4-Be grappled and still take his favorite weapon and slaughtering the fool who tought that could hold him.
Actually, there's a Tiger Claw stance for that. And you can get it way before level 18.


Is that nobody remembers anymore melees before Wow? You know, when melees where suposed to equip an uber melee weapon, uber armor, and then jump inside the enemies bashing away at everything nearby?
They're boring. No, seriously--they're really boring. You have next to no viable tactical options except full-attacking, moving and attacking, and (if you're built for it) tripping. You can play in your sleep.
Also, WoW has nothing to do with it.


Along the years, they started to add powers to the melee guy. First just a few powers, wich you could use here and there, but still had to rely mostly in your vanilla attacks, but nowadays things have fallen to the point where the melee somehow has as many powers as the caster. What sense does this make? The caster is breacking the laws of reality, but still doesn't have more variety than the guy who swings his sword around?
What? The caster's powers are "Sleep", "Magic Missile", "Acid Arrow"... the Fighter's powers are different ways of attacking his opponent. Do you know how many different ways there are to try to cut someone?

The Fighter's "exploits" are martial techniques. The wizard's spells are spells. They use the same fundamental mechanic, but that's it. The caster isn't "breaking the laws of reality", he's casting spells, something his reality lets him do, consistently, every time he does X and Y. Why should his fireblast do more damage than the fighter's flurry of sword-swings?


The only explanation is that there are no more melees. There are sword swinging casters and staff swinging casters.
There's been a preview of 4E fighters. What about the example Fighter is caster-like?

Artemician
2008-03-10, 06:52 AM
Now, to hear the two of tell it, there are only two systems of RPG:

Zincorium claims that the current model of D&D has some character types that completely overshadow what the others can do. And that anyone choosing a character type that gets too far away from the "Elite" character type X aren't allowed to shine for one second, no matter how much they min-max. Basically, you can never, ever, ever play a Fighter whose worth a damn, while if you play Pun-Pun (which I believe nobody really has...probably out of decency), you have no weakness and you can never do wrong.

You seem to claim, just going by the wording of your reaction here (and you're subsequent half-Orc Bard remark), that any and all other systems have a mechanism that makes even the most terribly designed and counter-intuitively character automatically just as powerful as what would otherwise be the strongest character build in the system. Basically, it doesn't matter if you study the system, and create the "Pun-Pun" of that system, because Pun-Pun is only as good as a half-Orc Bard with 8 Charisma.

My question is: Can there be no middle ground?

QFT.


Why is it more believable for a Martial Adept to take those kinds of hits? Because he's magic. What more needs be said? If a Martial Adept or a Wizard kills a dragon, it makes sense. They have powers beyond those of mortal men. When a fighter, who's supposedly a completely non-magical mortal manages it... It just... There's no explanation for why they're so powerful, and it stops making sense.

What's so supernatural about the warblade? The swordsage (martial artist) and the crusade (paladin) are blatantly supernatural, and justifiably so. But the Warblade... why do you consider "I hit it for massive damage" or "I hit it very fast" more supernatural than Power Attack or Snap Kick?

On another note, high level fighters are perfectly capable to defeating a dragon.. for the very same reaons you bring up for martial adepts and wizards. They have powers far beyond that of mortal men.

Are you telling me that men who can fight nonstop for 7 days and 7 nights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_tuah), slay entire armies at age 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuchullain), catch a horse by chasing it to exhaustion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostam),and shoot a petrified brain through someone's skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cet_mac_M%C3%A1gach) are not blatantly superhuman?

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-10, 07:12 AM
{Scrubbed}

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-10, 07:21 AM
{Scrubbed}

Could we maybe not?

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-10, 07:25 AM
Could we maybe not?

{Scrubbed}

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-10, 07:26 AM
Why not? Why even bother treating these people like reasonable human beings? It's obvious they have no real goal other than blindly attacking 4e, for whatver their reasons.

Seriously, stop. You Are Not Helping.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-10, 08:38 AM
Seriously, stop. You Are Not Helping.

{Scrubbed}

Indon
2008-03-10, 09:03 AM
I would be interested to see a counter-argument to the above; if D&D is not designed to reward characters who are mechanically effective, and specifically effective in combating threats to themselves and their party with force of one sort or another, why is its advancement system based on combat?

3'rd edition's advancement system is not based on combat, but rather the nebulous concept of "the encounter". Combat and trap experience is better defined than social encounters, but that seems to have been at least slightly intentional at the time.

Though, I don't think AD&D had non-combat advancement.


There are these people who have this bizzare and absolutely incorrect idea that balance is a new idea.
For roleplaying games, balance has often not been viewed as necessary (which makes it very much not an essential part of the design for a game). This has changed over recent years. Simple as that.


If a game lacks balance, then it is a bad game. End of story. It may be good at being SOMETHING ELSE, but it is bad at being a game.

Then has D&D only recently become a game?


Also, anyone who says that the way melees should be is making them unable to use their favorite sword move every turn, you have to ask yourselves: then what is the diference between a melee and a caster? None anymore. Only the names change, like it will happening 4e.

Is that nobody remembers anymore melees before Wow? You know, when melees where suposed to equip an uber melee weapon, uber armor, and then jump inside the enemies bashing away at everything nearby?

Firstly, I don't think your problem is relevant to the fact that balance is being valued in the game. I think your problem is that Wizards has gone about balancing the game in a lazy, subtractive fashion (which is a concern that I share) - a game can be balanced while maintaining mechanical diversity, Wizards just did not do so (arguably, because it is easier to balance a game with simpler mechanics).

Secondly, I thought the Warrior's Rage system was a very novel and innovative way of dealing with a martial class, and I wouldn't mind if it were ripped literally right out of WoW and put into D&D. You might have to houserule your game pretty extensively to get the Warrior's ability use system to fit within the mechanically strict powers system, though.


A fighter won't be that good an Archer either. Personally, I'd love to see this scarecrow fighter slaughter balors with a bow.

Sir Giacomo wrote up a Fighter and posted it on this board that could frequently one-round a Balor with a decent tactical setup, and two-round it otherwise. It was some time ago, if I recall.


{Scrubbed}

This is why you should be civil in discussion. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-10, 09:06 AM
SEE? THIS is the reason everbody Wuved the idea of stunt rules in benejeseret's thread. Because it allows Fighter and Rogue badass normals to, well...DO badass things, like doing one kickass jump and beheading a great wyrm red dragon with a single blow (See: Coup de Grace enchantment on weapon, used a Scabbard of Keen Edges, did a jump attack that would have tripled the damage you did anyway because you catch ze draggy by surprise and he is using his touch AC to boot), or suddenly vanishing into the shadows only to put a dagger in your attacker's skull (See: Did a new Hide check, a Dex check to climb the wall and do a wall jump silently, and finally a move silently check to avoid making sounds, followed by a SA with double the dice pool because of catching your opponent offguard) a few moments later.

Goober4473
2008-03-10, 09:15 AM
The issue of balance is not the idea that everyone is exactly equal, or that everyone gets the same damage. The issue is that everyone gets equal opportunity to shine. I think D&D 3.x is unbalanced in this regard because some classes get to shine way more often, and even overshadow other classes. I don't care if a wizard is way more powerful than a fighter, as long as the fighter gets the same spotlight time, and the same chance to do what he or she is good at. But in 3.x, a wizard, cleric, or druid often not only has their own role or niche to fill, in which they get the satifaction of doing what they do best, but they can fill the roles of weaker classes, and fill them better, to the point that the party fighter never gets the satisfaction of doing what he or she does best, because he or she does not do anything best.

I've played in statistically unbalanced campaigns that were loads of fun because even though I was a 6th level fighter/rogue and I hung out with an 18th level wizard, the game was run in such a way that I always had my critical part to play, and I always got my share of the satifaction and limelight. I've also played in much more statistically balanced games in which some players never got to do anything.

I think 3.x is unbalanced, both statistically, and if not handled properly, in overall fun for the players. However, if a game is run correctly, and players are cooperative and mature, it tends to work out fine, even though the classes are unbalanced.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-10, 09:18 AM
Yes. The real problem is when a GOOD, mature player, even when trying not to step on someone else's toes, picks one of the Win spells, and erases everyone else's use. Example: Black tentacles. Or Overland Flight, since, with flight, who needs someone to block attacks?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-10, 09:28 AM
Though, I don't think AD&D had non-combat advancement.
1E, I'm not sure about. 2E explicitly did (you could get XP for spellcasting and stealing, among others, and unlike 3E you would get XP for good roleplaying or having a good idea).



For roleplaying games, balance has often not been viewed as necessary (which makes it very much not an essential part of the design for a game). This has changed over recent years. Simple as that.
I think the simple concept is this: people play the game to have fun. Some people consider it not fun if their character is constantly upstaged. To placate these people, some game designers attempt to make classes that are non-up-stage-able.



Sir Giacomo wrote up a Fighter and posted it on this board that could frequently one-round a Balor with a decent tactical setup, and two-round it otherwise.
Yes, except that "decent tactical setup" made a number of highly unlikely assumptions, most prominently that his balor was sitting in the middle of a large empty plain, not doing anything.

Indon
2008-03-10, 09:33 AM
1E, I'm not sure about. 2E explicitly did (you could get XP for spellcasting and stealing, among others, and unlike 3E you would get XP for good roleplaying or having a good idea).
Hmm, interesting.


I think the simple concept is this: people play the game to have fun. Some people consider it not fun if their character is constantly upstaged. To placate these people, some game designers attempt to make classes that are non-up-stage-able.
And there are clearly more of those people now than there were.


Yes, except that "decent tactical setup" made a number of highly unlikely assumptions, most prominently that his balor was sitting in the middle of a large empty plain, not doing anything.

Which brings up a funny point about the Balor's CR - why is it listed as CR 20, with power proportional to being CR 20, when you're expected to encounter it at the head of an entire demonic army?

But still, even with a non-optimal tactical setup, the archer build still pumped out very high damage, sufficient to lay the hurt down on a Balor.

Goober4473
2008-03-10, 09:39 AM
Yes. The real problem is when a GOOD, mature player, even when trying not to step on someone else's toes, picks one of the Win spells, and erases everyone else's use. Example: Black tentacles. Or Overland Flight, since, with flight, who needs someone to block attacks?

I'd definately agree with that. The afforementioned 18th level wizard was built with PHB only and wasn't min/maxed or twinked at all. With all the extra content out there, it takes a lot of DM intervention to keep characters reasonable. It is still very possible though, I think, as long as you have a good DM and mature players, to keep everyone equal (in spotlight, if not stats).

I think it comes down to three options:
1: Live with unbalanced D&D.
2: Fix it.
3: Play something else.

I do all three, depending on the game I want to play.

Morty
2008-03-10, 09:40 AM
/stuff

Aside from flaming and insulting you're excercising here, I have to ask you a question: why in the Nine Hells do you bring 4ed here? It's been mentioned only briefly in this thread and the whole dicsussion is about things largely unrelated to it.
On topic: I don't think it's worthwhile to debate as to wheter balanced systems are better than unbalanced ones and so on, because while purposedly unbalanced systems have got certain undisputable merits and advantages, 3ed D&D isn't one of them. It's system built with assumption of balance between characters and classes but fails at it. 4ed D&D is also built with interclass balance in mind, and wheter it'll suceed at it is yet to be seen. Same with advancement and rewards, although 3ed D&D handles those fine.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-10, 09:50 AM
And there are clearly more of those people now than there were.

Should we blame the government, or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-10, 10:00 AM
Should we blame the government, or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV?

We could just blame Canada...

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-10, 10:34 AM
Aside from flaming and insulting you're excercising here, I have to ask you a question: why in the Nine Hells do you bring 4ed here? It's been mentioned only briefly in this thread and the whole dicsussion is about things largely unrelated to it.
On topic: I don't think it's worthwhile to debate as to wheter balanced systems are better than unbalanced ones and so on, because while purposedly unbalanced systems have got certain undisputable merits and advantages, 3ed D&D isn't one of them. It's system built with assumption of balance between characters and classes but fails at it. 4ed D&D is also built with interclass balance in mind, and wheter it'll suceed at it is yet to be seen. Same with advancement and rewards, although 3ed D&D handles those fine.

I think you just summed up yourself why I brought up 4e; even if it isn't spelled out in the OP, 4e is pretty clearly the impetus behind it. Given that the more common anti-4e rhetoric revolves around complaining that either/or a) classes shouldn't be balanced against each other; b) 4e = WoW. Since the OP made both, I think it is a reasonable conclusion to make that 4e was the intended taget here or at least the root cause. As for why I am being a jerk: I'm still really sick of hearing the broken record. Also, I am trying to quit smoking, so strangling a kitten or bludgeoning a puppy seem like great ideas right now. :smallfurious:

Rutee
2008-03-10, 11:33 AM
3'rd edition's advancement system is not based on combat, but rather the nebulous concept of "the encounter". Combat and trap experience is better defined than social encounters, but that seems to have been at least slightly intentional at the time.
Social encounters aren't defined. At all. Traps are only barely defined as encounters, and are only countered by the Rogue, is the assumption. Environmental encounters got a slight handwaving and explanation, and are easily bypassed by wizard spells. 3e doesn't come right out and say you only get exp for fighting, by RAW, but it does everything it can to drive that home wihtout saying it.



For roleplaying games, balance has often not been viewed as necessary (which makes it very much not an essential part of the design for a game). This has changed over recent years. Simple as that.
I'd say it was still essential. That it's importance went unrecognized is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]


Pretty much all of them had strikes where their swords would flame, or crackle with energy, or... etc etc.

Why is it more believable for a Martial Adept to take those kinds of hits? Because he's magic. What more needs be said? If a Martial Adept or a Wizard kills a dragon, it makes sense. They have powers beyond those of mortal men. When a fighter, who's supposedly a completely non-magical mortal manages it... It just... There's no explanation for why they're so powerful, and it stops making sense.
Why shouldn't that be the assumption for a fighter? A Fighter can take a hit that would cause a castle to detonate, and still be a-okay. Tell me that's not "Beyond the powers of mortal men". They still suck, as a class, but they're still superhuman.

Thinker
2008-03-10, 11:43 AM
But still, even with a non-optimal tactical setup, the archer build still pumped out very high damage, sufficient to lay the hurt down on a Balor.

Unfortunately Giacamo also simply disregarded arguments against his build and tactics, used a virtually sterile environment where the only goal was to kill the Balor (who was waiting to die), and the fighter was not very good against much else. Further, he was trying to prove that meleers were not useless by using a fighter to defeat a Balor. Archers do overcome one of the biggest problem with melee characters: mobility. The problem is it is harder to pump damage and DR stings more, but it is still generally better at higher levels than a meleer.

Indon
2008-03-10, 12:08 PM
I'd say it was still essential. That it's importance went unrecognized is irrelevant.

If people had - and have - fun with the system without it, how was it essential?


Unfortunately Giacamo also simply disregarded arguments against his build and tactics, used a virtually sterile environment where the only goal was to kill the Balor (who was waiting to die), and the fighter was not very good against much else. Further, he was trying to prove that meleers were not useless by using a fighter to defeat a Balor. Archers do overcome one of the biggest problem with melee characters: mobility. The problem is it is harder to pump damage and DR stings more, but it is still generally better at higher levels than a meleer.

That fighter certainly wasn't a good meleer, but he was a perfectly good archer, and as you note, even better in many ways than a melee fighter. The point is, that the Fighter can make for a surprisingly devastating archer-type, despite cynic objections to the contrary.

horseboy
2008-03-10, 12:54 PM
Decades that have been ruled by the Stormwind Fallacy, where if you optimize you're EVIL and a [B]WITCH.[/BNo, because "back in the day" the closest way to "power game" a fighter was to take your highest roll and drop it in strength. Not only did it make you a better fighter but you got bonus XP for being a munchkin. As systems became more complicated and gave fighters more abilities some clearly were better than others *cough* UA Cavalier *Cough* Since they were "whole classes" it was a simple thing for DM's to just say "no." Then the Option series came out as a set of OPTIONAL abilites. They weren't really playtested well, and indeed many weren't even that well written. Then said abilities were brought into the core of 3.x, still largely unplaytested and poorly written. People now see said options and realize that they are "teh suxxor".

So no this whole argument is fallacious. This time where "There just was no power gaming" existed in the same space/time as "There's never been a worse time in history for ________." Insert, babies having babies (even though my grandmothers were married by the time they were 15), gangs, or any other social ill. They've always been there.

I've said that the worst thing to happen to role playing was rewarding people for killing things. Try awarding experience only for accomplishing goals and not for killing things (unless killing the thing was actually a goal). When killing becomes a resource sink with no payoff, I think you'll find people start avoiding it in favor of alternative means of accomplishing goals.Completely agree, if combat is only 1/4 the xp, then that means we should only have to spend 1/4 the time killin' right? :smallwink:
I would like to someone try a group consisting of all clerics, or wizards, or maybe even some mix of the magical things. Just to see how irrelevant fighters are.

Naturally, they'd start from level 4 and go up.Once again, I'll bring up my buddy's LG group. They had a cleric of Flarigan, Fleriougauh, that travel guy, a cleric of St. Cutbert, a Mystic Threuge of Wejass, a gnome rage mage and every once in a while Lamontaine would show up with his gnome illusionist. They never bothered with a fighter until I showed up with a trip monkey because they didn't need one. They go to conventions, crush their mod in 1/2-1 hour and then come and rescue "traditional" groups because they're just that good.

Morty
2008-03-10, 01:10 PM
I think you just summed up yourself why I brought up 4e; even if it isn't spelled out in the OP, 4e is pretty clearly the impetus behind it. Given that the more common anti-4e rhetoric revolves around complaining that either/or a) classes shouldn't be balanced against each other; b) 4e = WoW. Since the OP made both, I think it is a reasonable conclusion to make that 4e was the intended taget here or at least the root cause.

Nope, you're still jumping to conclusions. It's possible that 4ed was the reason OP posted this thread, but "should D&D be balanced"" and "wizards should own everyone because I say so" threads has been there for a long time before 4ed was even announced, and AFAIK 4ed has been marginal in discussion right here. And since as you said OP didn't say anything about 4ed, we have to assume 4ed isn't the crux of this thread.


The point is, that the Fighter can make for a surprisingly devastating archer-type, despite cynic objections to the contrary.

But it requires heavy optimization, while high-level wizard can be powerful by the virtue of having those 15 levels in wizard instead of some other class. The allegedly dubious value of Giacomo's build aside, I haven't read it.

Rutee
2008-03-10, 01:31 PM
If people had - and have - fun with the system without it, how was it essential?
Because DnD is setting neutral heroic fantasy, and heroic fantasy makes no assumptions about who's better? We went over this; It was essential for anyone who's fun wasn't contingent on the casters dominating, and that is probably most people.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-10, 03:33 PM
What's so supernatural about the warblade? The swordsage (martial artist) and the crusade (paladin) are blatantly supernatural, and justifiably so. But the Warblade... why do you consider "I hit it for massive damage" or "I hit it very fast" more supernatural than Power Attack or Snap Kick?
The Warblade has more disciplines available to him than just Iron Heart. You might want to look into them. Just saying.

Also, some of the Iron Heart maneuvers are blatantly magical. Lightning Throw?


On another note, high level fighters are perfectly capable to defeating a dragon.. for the very same reaons you bring up for martial adepts and wizards. They have powers far beyond that of mortal men.

Are you telling me that men who can fight nonstop for 7 days and 7 nights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_tuah), slay entire armies at age 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuchullain), catch a horse by chasing it to exhaustion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostam),and shoot a petrified brain through someone's skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cet_mac_M%C3%A1gach) are not blatantly superhuman?
I'd argue that people like Hercules or Cuchulain and so on are demigods, and therefore not human fighters. More to the point, all the legendary heroes of myth have magical powers yes. Therefore they are not D&D Fighters. They fit far more easily into the Martial Adept classes.

I don't know why you'd think they'd be Fighters.

Indon
2008-03-10, 03:39 PM
Because DnD is setting neutral heroic fantasy, and heroic fantasy makes no assumptions about who's better? We went over this; It was essential for anyone who's fun wasn't contingent on the casters dominating, and that is probably most people.

Were your argument correct, most people playing both AD&D and 3.x D&D would have very little fun.

Is your position that D&D has remained the dominant game on the market when it was missing an objectively key component which other games had, when the majority of the players should have been strongly motivated (by a lack of having fun in the game) to move to those systems?

Frosty
2008-03-10, 03:52 PM
3-Keep an enemy completely locked in one place with a constant flurry of trips and attacks of oportunity.
They can do this just as well as the fighter.

Actually, they can do better. Warblades get bonuses to opposed checks equal to intelligence. Crusaders get Thicket of Blades.

Frosty
2008-03-10, 04:08 PM
Were your argument correct, most people playing both AD&D and 3.x D&D would have very little fun.

Is your position that D&D has remained the dominant game on the market when it was missing an objectively key component which other games had, when the majority of the players should have been strongly motivated (by a lack of having fun in the game) to move to those systems?

that's the thing. A *lot* of us have been complaining about how broken 3.5 is. It's been playable in my games and we have fun because we have made agreements to not use some of the more brokem spells, and we tend to give Fighters much more gear to balance things out. DM Fiat must be used in order to make things fun. I'd rather not do that.

Sebastian
2008-03-10, 04:43 PM
Some time ago in another forum I found a post that represent perfectly my opinion about balance in RPGs and about RPGS in general and here it is


Originally Posted by Mythusmage
The problem is, currently RPGs are based on the wrong core concept. That concept? That RPGs are just like traditional games and so can be balanced. This a view held by most in the hobby despite readily available evidence and common experience. What the hobby tries to do is make RPGs fit a model that cannot apply them.

What is the better, truer model? That RPGs model life. Not necessarily life as we know it, but life in a general sense. By life I mean life as we live it. Life with all it's immensities, complexities, and surprises. Life in a universe that is freaking big.

Two things to note about life. 1. Life isn't fair. Never has been. You have to watch out for yourself and the people you're responsible for. 2. Life isn't balanced. It can't be. Life is just too big, too complex, too busy to ever be balanced. Game balance is simply impossible in life, and attempts to make it balanced just end in frustration. RPGs are life in that they too are too big, too complex, too dynamic to ever be balanced as a traditional game can be. Simply too many factors in play at any one time for fairness and balance to have a realistic part.

The first step then is to be open and honest about all this. Admit flat out that playing an RPG is like living in the real world, only with fantastical creatures and neat gizmos. You can be heroic and have adventures, but you do face risks. You need to do the work.

But, you may ask, what If I want to play Uberhero Par Excellence? Then, I would have to say, you're in the wrong hobby. You want to be hero of everything go write some Mary Sue. RPGs are for those who enjoy a challenge, and who can get over disappointment and learn from failure. A roleplaying game is not for those who can't stand losing and have to have all the goodies in the store.

RPGs aren't for everybody, nor do they have to be. RPGs are really for people who can accept the fact they can fail, even die. Who don't insist on things being fair or the challenges they face to be equal to their abilities. People who can face daunting odds and dare anyway.

As it presently stands RPGs aren't designed to do that. They make a forlorn attempt to satisfy the needs of all, and to appeal to all. Most especially to a bunch of spoiled brats who have been so carefully isolated from life they have no practical way of handling it when they do encounter it for the first time. The term is 'infantalization' and RPGs are not for the infantalized.

Design your RPG as a model for life as lived on a world. Present that world honestly, and encourage creative, adaptive, sensible play. Be honest with your players, and expect honesty from them. Most importantly of all, don't pander to your players, you'll regret it. If you want your game to be gonzo over the top superheroics, go for it. But don't demand that all games be like that.

the original post (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=178902&postcount=54)

Artanis
2008-03-10, 05:10 PM
Some time ago in another forum I found a post that represent perfectly my opinion about balance in RPGs and about RPGS in general and here it is



the original post (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=178902&postcount=54)
You know, somebody once did make a game meant to embody those concepts. Its name has since become synonymous with "what NOT to do when making a game".

Frosty
2008-03-10, 05:30 PM
Sometimes I think people forget what the DM's job is. For the most part, the DM's job is to have his creations lose to the PCs after his creations put up a damned good fight. Losing all the time sucks. Winning all the time sucks as well.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-10, 05:40 PM
Actually, they can do better. Warblades get bonuses to opposed checks equal to intelligence. Crusaders get Thicket of Blades.
Especially Swordsages or Warblades who dip into the Setting Sun discipline liberally (Through Martial Study, or Master of Nine levels).

Umpteen different techniques to not only lock an opponent down, but move him to the specific square you want him to be in even. And you can substitute dex for str on the opposed rolls for any of them ;)

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-10, 07:22 PM
Some time ago in another forum I found a post that represent perfectly my opinion about balance in RPGs and about RPGS in general and here it is
This is utterly ridiculous. Not only that, it's incredibly elitist. RPGs aren't for everybody--only the people who play MY way! If you like to play a super-awesome character, find a different hobby, because doing that is on par with writing the worst kind of fanfiction!"
As they say on the Webbernets, god bless'em... "man, what?"

No, RPGs do NOT model life. You wanna random-roll your starting location in the world, wealth (right down to "too poor to eat"), whether you die from dysentery, etc? That's what life is like.

RPGs are games. Insisting that stuff unpleasant to the player is good because it's "realistic" is inane, because it misses the entire point of games. If that's 's what's fun for you, go ahead and roll for dysentery, but if someone else wants to play a pulp hero in the vein of Doc Savage (Spirit of the Century), or the reincarnation of an ancient sorcerous god-king who can slaughter armies, make the world tremble, and convert enemy warriors into fanatics with a speech (Exalted), then I have some of the best RPGs in the industry availible to me. Who the hell is that guy to tell me I'm in the wrong hobby?

RPGs are games. They are not for "people who aren't afraid to fail". RPGs are not a real-life challenge. You characters may be challenged; you should be having fun. "Modelling life" isn't fun for, I'd say, the significant majority of players.

The idea that it's impossible for an RPG to be decently balanced is ridiculous. For a start, let's look at Wushu--all characters are modelled the same way; the descriptions change, but they're blanced against each other. I may have "Walks-in-Shadows Kung Fu 5, Penetrating Eyes 4, Eastern Philosopher 3, Social Oddity 1" and I'll be essentially balanced against my friend the charming gunslinger with "Bandit Revolvers Style 5, Irresistible Smile 4, Love'em and Leave'em 3, What Responsibilities 1". I can describe superhuman kung fu and quiet insight; he can describe twin pistols that fire a rain of lead and social charm.

Playing an RPG is *not* "just like living in the real world but with monsters and magic stuff". First of all, let's take genre games. Calling Spirit of the Century a bad game would be ridiculous; it's remarkably well-designed to do what it does... and it simulates pulp action-adventure, which most assuredly doesn't work the way real life does. My real life isn't nearly as dark and everything-has-a-price as Unknown Armies, and I hope no one's is. If I'm playing Weapons of the Gods, life operates according to fundamentally different assumptions.
Then, let's look at games that aren't explicitly catering to a genre, and hey, look--they sure don't work like real life, either.

It sounds like the guy you're quoting needs to go play Warhammer Fantasy or something and stop complaining about how other people have fun. D&D is NOT a Gritty Simulation of Life. Frankly, it never was.

horseboy
2008-03-10, 07:55 PM
Is your position that D&D has remained the dominant game on the market when it was missing an objectively key component which other games had, when the majority of the players should have been strongly motivated (by a lack of having fun in the game) to move to those systems?Behold the power of name brand recognition, and being bought by a massive mulit-billion dollar company that kept it a float after the American economy crashed in the late 90's.

Rutee
2008-03-10, 09:35 PM
Some time ago in another forum I found a post that represent perfectly my opinion about balance in RPGs and about RPGS in general and here it is



the original post (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=178902&postcount=54)
You know, before now, I never would have guessed someone would say THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY RPGS IS TO BE SIMULATIONIST! RAWR! I guess I was wrong. Why are you even playing DnD in the first place? There's no simulation of real life to it. That's why I can never lose a limb, and why there's almost no middle ground between "Alive,kicking, and fine" and "Dead".

Notwithstanding that your argument is self defeating. "RPGs don't do this!" "Yes, yes they do." Speaking of..




Is your position that D&D has remained the dominant game on the market when it was missing an objectively key component which other games had, when the majority of the players should have been strongly motivated (by a lack of having fun in the game) to move to those systems?
Yes, it is. TTRPGs have awful, awful marketing, and it shows when you look at how much better known DnD is compared to other games. Anecdotes, etc, but I didn't even /know/ about other game systems until someone else was telling me about their Shadowrun and WoD War Stories. There were perhaps 3 people in the gaming store where I grew up (Which was /small/, I'll admit) That actually knew about those other systems, and they never played them at the store because they were the only ones who even knew about them. Further, a lot of people /don't/ know about the imbalances being as glaring as they are (See: Giacomo). Then there's resistance to change on a conceptual level, then monetary investment (Both what you've sunk into DnD as is, and in switching to a new system) and I can easily see people almost never switching.

Dervag
2008-03-10, 10:03 PM
The issue of balance is not the idea that everyone is exactly equal, or that everyone gets the same damage. The issue is that everyone gets equal opportunity to shine. I think D&D 3.x is unbalanced in this regard because some classes get to shine way more often, and even overshadow other classes. I don't care if a wizard is way more powerful than a fighter, as long as the fighter gets the same spotlight time, and the same chance to do what he or she is good at. But in 3.x, a wizard, cleric, or druid often not only has their own role or niche to fill, in which they get the satifaction of doing what they do best, but they can fill the roles of weaker classes, and fill them better, to the point that the party fighter never gets the satisfaction of doing what he or she does best, because he or she does not do anything best.

I've played in statistically unbalanced campaigns that were loads of fun because even though I was a 6th level fighter/rogue and I hung out with an 18th level wizard, the game was run in such a way that I always had my critical part to play, and I always got my share of the satifaction and limelight. I've also played in much more statistically balanced games in which some players never got to do anything.Yeah.

For a simplistic example think of DC comics, which contains a variety of superheroes. Some of them are incredibly powerful physically, like Superman. Others are human beings who are merely exceptional by normal human standards.

Superman can take a meteor to the chin and keep going. He's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, he can bend steel with his bare hands, change the course of mighty rivers, blah blah blah.

Batman is... an Olympic-class athlete with a lot of training and money. Oh, and he's really smart and good at making preparations.

The DC universe is clearly not balanced statistically between Superman and Batman. In any kind of fight in which Batman and Superman both had to overcome a physical obstacle, and Batman didn't have some kind of God weapon to give him Superman-level powers, Superman would waltz through any challenge that Batman could even hope to confront.

But Batman is cool. Even though he's so totally outgunned that it shouldn't even be interesting to watch him fight, it still is. Of course, you won't often see Batman and Superman fighting the same enemy side by side, because that would be a slaughter either for Batman or for Superman's share of the bad guys. Despite that, we still think Batman is cool because he gets his moments to shine. He has technological tricks that let him fight opponents out of his weight class. He uses his detective skills to help tougher allies solve problems they aren't doing well with on their own. And so on.

Thus, Batman stays interesting because he does things that Superman can't do very well (like come up with complex mastermind plans). And because he gets lots of chances to show off his abilities in combat with human or near-human opponents.

D&D can be like that. The problem is that it's hard to make it like that because the wizard or cleric has to intentionally avoid using some of their most powerful tactics. If they use those tactics, they almost can't help but upstage the fighters and rogues.


I think 3.x is unbalanced, both statistically, and if not handled properly, in overall fun for the players. However, if a game is run correctly, and players are cooperative and mature, it tends to work out fine, even though the classes are unbalanced.


Behold the power of name brand recognition, and being bought by a massive mulit-billion dollar company that kept it a float after the American economy crashed in the late 90's.Hold on. Let's think about that for a minute.

First of all, why would Wizards keep D&D "a float" if it was naturally going to collapse? Presumably, they would either have sold or discontinued the franchise if they didn't think it would sell. They did it with some other game systems bought from TSR, such as Alternity.:smallfrown:

Second and more important, you're saying that the only thing keeping D&D in a top position in the RPG market is name recognition. That's a very common observation to make about successful products that have significant flaws, but there's a problem with it.

Name recognition isn't enough. No matter how many people recognize a product's name, they won't keep buying it if it is actively bad. For example, McDonald's probably has more name recognition than any other single food trademark in the world. People buy McDonald's all over the world.

But if they started selling a product that was actively bad, so bad that the great majority of people thought it tasted terrible, their name recognition would not save them. As it is, people accept the fact that McDonald's food isn't very nutritious and isn't all that well prepared, because it is cheap and because it takes something like two minutes to prepare compared to 20 or 30 for similar products made at a sit-down restaurant. For many people in some situations, that's important enough to justify its flaws.

That would go away if the product were bad enough that, say, 90% of the people who sat down to eat it went "Yuck!" It wouldn't matter how fast to prepare or how cheap it is if I could scoop up a handful of dirt from outside, shovel it into my mouth, and get just as good a taste experience. And it certainly wouldn't matter how fast or cheap the food is if McDonald's competitors could turn out adequate food that was almost as fast and almost as cheap as McDonald's new terrible food. McDonald's name recognition wouldn't convince people to keep going back and buying food that tasted like dirt.

D&D is in the same situation. If most people hated it, it simply could not sell. There'd be no chance. There are too many competing systems that would steal all of D&D's market share out from under it if the only thing the product had going for it was that it was "D&D." Eventually, Wizards of the Coast would be stuck with only a small sliver of the total market, and would either abandon the title or (more likely) sell the trademark to someone else.

D&D has flaws, sure, but those flaws aren't so crippling that sane people consistently abandon the game. Some people abandon it, but not all, and the people who don't abandon it aren't clearly stupid or crazy. So clearly D&D has things going for it other than name recognition.

Aereshaa_the_2nd
2008-03-10, 10:15 PM
This is an interesting subject for me for I am making a homebrew wargame. In it, I have decided to disregard balance.
The reason is, I think that the whole concept of a class is flawed. In real life, very few people do only one thing. I, for example, am a game programmer. But I also do creative writing and constructed languages. So instead of having classes which have to be balanced, my system has a skill system in which one takes points in skills, such as 'archery', 'tracking', 'pyromancy', etc. If you choose a bunch of useless skills, too bad.

horseboy
2008-03-10, 11:22 PM
D&D is in the same situation. If most people hated it, it simply could not sell. There'd be no chance. There are too many competing systems that would steal all of D&D's market share out from under it if the only thing the product had going for it was that it was "D&D." Eventually, Wizards of the Coast would be stuck with only a small sliver of the total market, and would either abandon the title or (more likely) sell the trademark to someone else.

D&D has flaws, sure, but those flaws aren't so crippling that sane people consistently abandon the game. Some people abandon it, but not all, and the people who don't abandon it aren't clearly stupid or crazy. So clearly D&D has things going for it other than name recognition.Well, there is a third thing. Apathy. If you've eaten nothing but McDonald's hamburgers your whole life, what comparison do you have for just how NASTY those things are. (I don't eat McD's either) Once you've had something of quality it's hard to go back to crap.
Let's go back just a little. Back at the end of the 90's, when rpg companies were tanking left and right. What made WotC choose to take D&D over any of the others? They recognized the name. So they bought it and WW. That made them big enough to draw the attention of the Big Boys at Hasbro and they in turn bought them.

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 04:41 AM
You know, somebody once did make a game meant to embody those concepts. Its name has since become synonymous with "what NOT to do when making a game".

And this game would be...?

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 05:12 AM
To Rachel and Rutee

I think there are some big misunderstanding here

first, The post I quoted never mention real life, it mention LIFE
"Not necessarily life as we know it, but life in a general sense. By life I mean life as we live it. Life with all it's immensities, complexities, and surprises. Life in a universe that is freaking big."

It could be the life on a hobbit in Middle Earth, a mutant in the Marvel Universe, a rebel pilot in star wars, or even something more genreal, like life in a postatomic world, but not necessarily our life.

second, the post never once use the word "simulation" or one of its derivate.
It use "model", that have a different meaning.

toon, amber and yes, even spirit of the century are certainly not simulations and yet model their respective genres (cartoons, Zelazny's amber novels and pulp) pretty well. One could even say that they were designed to model the lives of a cartoon character, an amberite and a pupl hero.

third and last, Mythusmage is not talking about how to play a game, but about how they should be designed. The way I read it (or, at least, the way I think it) is that games should not be desgned starting with the idea to make them balanced but with the idea to correctly model the setting/genre/world they are trying to recreate, if you can do it AND make it balanced then it is better, but it should not be the priority, if you play star wars jedi are more powerful than non jedi, in Ars magica magi are more powerful than companions, in middle earth elves are more powerful than men, try to change that only for game balance sake is a bad thing (IMHO)

Starsinger
2008-03-11, 06:03 AM
try to change that only for game balance sake is a bad thing (IMHO)

On the other hand, taking the DC super hero analogy further, it's annoying as hell every other session or so to have to say "Oh look! Another puddle filled with kryptonite wherein batman's gear is also useless!" Just because Aquaman is in the party and the DM keeps trying to give people time to shine separately.

Winterwind
2008-03-11, 06:21 AM
And this game would be...?I presume Artanis meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATAL) (I'm not going to as much as mention its name aloud here, rumours say that can draw a horrible curse upon you).

As for balance... I find it matters only as much as everyone should be able to play the role they choose to. In a setting where mages are explicitly stated as superior to mortals, playing the role of a mortal is a conscious choice to be weaker than the mage in many situations (and it still doesn't mean the character would not be equally powerful in the campaign after all, if one equates power with the ability to influence the story - the mage may outkill the warrior by hurling fireballs, but is he also as well versed street-wise, knowing whom to talk to in what way to accomplish his goals?). On the other hand, in a setting which contains no such statement, a character who devotes her/himself to a specific task should be more or less balanced with another character who puts the same amount of devotion into the same task (even if they choose different approaches), otherwise somebody is not being able to play the role they envisioned.

On the other hand, I haven't ever played in a system which could not be brought to a state we considered more or less balanced with just a few house rules at best, if those were needed at all, so...

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-11, 06:39 AM
For roleplaying games, balance has often not been viewed as necessary (which makes it very much not an essential part of the design for a game). This has changed over recent years. Simple as that.

This isn't true, save perhaps in your head. This has always been a consideration, though in the past less attention was paid to it by developers. The reason was fundamentally that they had a lazy and altogether flawed attitude - good enough was good enough, and if the game was broken, then its the DM's responsibility to keep things in line, right?

The problem was that this didn't work out at all for obvious reasons.

So why have RPGs become more balanced? The answer is relatively simple: competition and professionality.

As the companies became more successful, the level of professionality increased; rather than amateurs, people began to understand the systems on deeper levels, and as many geeks were very intelligent, and decided they, too, wanted to go into the business of making these fun games, you find that the level of talent and professionality will increase over time as mathematically adept people with design skills, such as engineers, get involved. And once you go from the amateur to the professional, the product begins increasing rapidly in quality and user friendliness.

The second issue is, of course, competition. When I was in elementary school, you couldn't find people who were playing systems other than D&D. In middle school, I started seeing Vampire show up, and it became more popular when I was in high school. In college I started seeing a lot more GURPS. There have always been competing roleplaying game systems, but D&D has always won; it was a worry, however, that someday, D&D wouldn't win. And balance is a major issue that can drive people away from a system; why should I, as a DM, run a broken system when I can run a non-broken or less broken one? The answer is I wouldn't and shouldn't, and thus if I can just switch over to playing GURPS or a White Wolf product or what have you, WotC is going to lose my dollar.

When you have sharp competition you tend to end up with much better products because you have to fight for your customers; if your product is inferior, fewer people will buy it, and eventually even if you were once the leading company you may lose out and go out of business, or become a niche company rather than the one running the industry. For a good example of a company which lost, look at Apple; they aren't out of business and are far from dead, but I'm typing this on a Windows OS and chances are you are as well.


Then has D&D only recently become a game?

It has long been a game, though it is debatable regarding how long it has been a good one. I'd say there's been certain levels in various editions which have been good games, but as a whole, as games D&D has not done that well.


1E, I'm not sure about. 2E explicitly did (you could get XP for spellcasting and stealing, among others, and unlike 3E you would get XP for good roleplaying or having a good idea).

2E actually expected you to hand out experience in the form of roleplaying and story awards; I personally felt it was a very cool system of experience. They actually took this to its logical conclusion in Alternity, wherein you don't actually get experience for doing anything in particular at all. That said, Alternity is very different from D&D and enormously less combat oriented.


If people had - and have - fun with the system without it, how was it essential?

Because fun is non-zero sum, and even if I have fun playing one thing, I may have MORE fun playing another, and once I play the other the first thing just doesn't seem as fun anymore. If you are trying to maximize fun (and I think it is generally fair to assume you are) you'll spend your time doing things which are high in fun:time ratios. If I have some fun playing an unbalanced RPG, but MORE fun playing a balanced RPG, which one am I going to play more often?


Is your position that D&D has remained the dominant game on the market when it was missing an objectively key component which other games had, when the majority of the players should have been strongly motivated (by a lack of having fun in the game) to move to those systems?

D&D has remained on top of the market because of inertia; I suspect the reason they came out with 3.5 was that they were worried that the system was so broken it was going to lose its market share to other gaming companies. Without a 4th edition system on the table, they had to come up with something, fast, and did. 3.5 obsfucated the issue for long enough for them to make a new system and sell a lot of product while not having wasted a lot of money on developing a system with a 3 year life span.

This is actually something a lot of people don't understand about product cycles - while it is true that new editions sell well, people simply don't replace their systems TOO often and, perhaps more importantly, it costs a great deal of money to develop a new system, whereas if you can ride an old one, you might be making just as much profit ultimately because while you aren't moving as much product at once you don't have massive R&D overheads.


What is the better, truer model? That RPGs model life. Not necessarily life as we know it, but life in a general sense. By life I mean life as we live it. Life with all it's immensities, complexities, and surprises. Life in a universe that is freaking big.

Welcome to simulationism, the far, far less popular model of RPing. When you see people saying this stuff, you know that they don't understand marketing or game design.

Not to mention, RPGs are a form of escapism; who wants to escape into a world exactly like our own?

Anyone who says that an RPG should be work has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

What this person is is an elitist, but worse still, he's not even the GOOD kind of elitist. He's not actually elite at all; he's just someone with a problem.

Simulationism tends to make for bad games for various reasons, and "life ain't fair" is one of them. Trying to actively incorporate imbalance into a game is to show you don't understand the MOST basic premises of game design.


You know, somebody once did make a game meant to embody those concepts. Its name has since become synonymous with "what NOT to do when making a game".

Indeed. People make fun of it constantly.


Who the hell is that guy to tell me I'm in the wrong hobby?

Someone who has the wrong hobby, clearly.


Superman can take a meteor to the chin and keep going. He's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, he can bend steel with his bare hands, change the course of mighty rivers, blah blah blah.

Batman is... an Olympic-class athlete with a lot of training and money. Oh, and he's really smart and good at making preparations.


I might point out that Superman is actually a bad superhero. This may surprise a lot of people; isn't he the ultimate superhero? But the reality is that it is Batman, not Superman, who is the ultimate super hero. Superman is too perfect; he's so good it is boring, and there's just nowhere interesting to go with him or interesting to do with him. The only way to beat him is kryptonite or to be so incredibly broken you're unto a god as he is, and I'm pretty sure most gods would have trouble beating Supes.

Batman, conversely, has limits and flaws. He has to work to beat people. He's a genius, he's strong and he's tough and he works for it. He has issues and isn't perfect, and it is possible to beat him, but people rarely do. It is far more believable for Batman to lose, so the element of risk makes it feel all the more real to the reader.

The latter is what you want to strive for in a RPG - you don't want Superman, he's no fun. Batman is far more fun to play, but he's not much fun when you're playing alongside Superman, as either Superman can solve the problem, or the problem is so out of everyone's grasp that you have no chance at all of solving it because you're just far too weak as even someone who is rediculously overpowered can't deal.


If you've eaten nothing but McDonald's hamburgers your whole life, what comparison do you have for just how NASTY those things are.

Thing is though, they don't taste bad. Lots of people make this claim, but it is demonstrably untrue. McDonald's hamburgers, fries, and milkshakes all taste very good indeed; they're full of the molecules which make your mouth sing. They're horrible for you, but that's irrelevant to their taste.

Many people will say stuff like "it tastes terrible" because it makes them feel special; they're elitist, fundamentally, but its all the funnier because it just shows that they're being haughty but not truthful. They're trying to be highbrow when it actually shows they're low. To be truly elite, you must acknowledge reality as it is, not pretend to not be plebian.


third and last, Mythusmage is not talking about how to play a game, but about how they should be designed. The way I read it (or, at least, the way I think it) is that games should not be desgned starting with the idea to make them balanced but with the idea to correctly model the setting/genre/world they are trying to recreate, if you can do it AND make it balanced then it is better, but it should not be the priority, if you play star wars jedi are more powerful than non jedi, in Ars magica magi are more powerful than companions, in middle earth elves are more powerful than men, try to change that only for game balance sake is a bad thing (IMHO)

Actually, that just shows Mythusmage has absolutely no idea whatsoever about how to design anything. It shows that he fundamentally doesn't understand a thing about it. He THINKS he understands, but he doesn't. What he is is a faux-elitist; he's actually plebian, and not particularly intellectual.

The reality is that if the point of something is to do something, then you need to make it do that something in a balanced fashion. For instance, let's take Star Wars. You play Star Wars to be a jedi, right?

THerefore, the correct thing to do is to make it so all players are jedi.

If you're making a game based on Harry Potter, everyone should be a wizard; you shouldn't be a muggle or a squib.

If you're making a game based on The Wheel of Time, everyone needs to have a special ability, be it Aes Sedai, having the old blood and rediculous luck like Matrim Cauthorm, having Perrin's wolf abilities, or what have you. You shouldn't be able to be some random scrubby farmer.

Ironically, what a lot of people miss about White Wolf's games which is ingenius is that, in a Vampire game, you're expected to be a vampire. Sure, the races aren't particularly well balanced against each other, but that's okay - within the context of an individual campaign, everyone is supposed to be a vampire or a werewolf or what have you, it isn't supposed to be a mix. You play Vampire to be a vampire, you play Werewolf to be a werewolf.

The flaw, of course, is when you make a game so specific that too few people want to actually do that specific thing. This is, I suspect, why White Wolf ultimately is less successful than WotC; its great fun to play a vampire once or twice, but after a while, you want to do something different, and that requires buying a different set of books.

D&D's power is that you can be a wizard, a fighter, a theif, or what have you all in the same system; you're playing the same game with the same books but playing a very different sort of character.

In D&D, the unifying thing is that you're a hero of high pseudo-midieval fantasy; while that's fairly broad, your goal should be to make all of those balanced against one another, as that is the basic premise of the system. It isn't "wizards in a pseudo-midieval world", it is a diverse group of heroes in such a world.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-11, 06:57 AM
1e and 2e had balance becuase of:


different xp tables and rewards
spell components


The first was a really important one, the second was a convoluted and annoying process - it also caused wizards to be a little more careful with spells when they had to track every pinch of bat guano. In 3.X you have the bag of infinite spell-components (aka the normal, PHB spell component pouch).

Have you ever considered the logistical broken-ness of the SCP?

Also, on topic of Batman v. Superman...

Poor widdle Batman may be a mere mortal who can't throw a car across the city, yet he is still able to fight the same enemies as Superman, still face the same level of threats (Justice League) and ultimately, is more secure than Superman. Batman's identity is (mostly) unknown to his enemies. While Superman has a secret identity, his weakness to kryptonite is pretty well known.

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 07:09 AM
Not to mention, RPGs are a form of escapism; who wants to escape into a world exactly like our own? This again. Who ever said anything about "a world as our own"?


For instance, let's take Star Wars. You play Star Wars to be a jedi, right?

Wrong, I'd want to play Han Solo.
[/QUOTE]

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 07:30 AM
1e and 2e had balance becuase of:


different xp tables and rewards
spell components



There was more than that, there was "memorization" times (you use time stop today, tomorrow you'll need 90 minutes to prepare another), there was random durations, when you don't know exactly when that Fly spell stop working (and no magical parachute) you need to be careful, there was the "1 hp of damage and you can't cast spells for that round" rule, there was spells with a risk and/or a cost that wasn't just gold or XP(Wish) , etc.

any of these risks were removed or nerfed beyond recognition in 3e and casters were given extra spells and other tricks unheard of before (casting two spells for round? in 2nd edition not even the gods could do that) no surprise they have become so much more powerful than the other classes.


Have you ever considered the logistical broken-ness of the SCP?
Yes, I have. an item that can contain a virtually infinite quantity of spell components and that let you find the exact component you need between an imprecisate variety as a free action even when blind, or in darkness, or underwater. If it was a magic item it would put the handy haversack to shame. :)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 07:53 AM
... there was random durations, when you don't know exactly when that Fly spell stop working (and no magical parachute) you need to be careful, ...

There is still random duration, but it is sometimes forgotten. Time Stop is a good and often overlooked example.
Duration was not completely random in 2nd edition either. Fly lasted a turn per level + 1d6 turns, which makes the duration similar to the 3rd edition version, instead of a parachute you get 1d6 turns to land.

On the other hand, spell components were an optional rule in AD&D.

Indon
2008-03-11, 07:57 AM
This isn't true, save perhaps in your head. This has always been a consideration, though in the past less attention was paid to it by developers.
It's quite evidently true, otherwise more fans would have been clamoring for it than, say, were clamoring for better simulationist rules.


Because fun is non-zero sum, and even if I have fun playing one thing, I may have MORE fun playing another, and once I play the other the first thing just doesn't seem as fun anymore.
If _that_ were true, all my friends who've played GURPS (that's a balanced system, right?) wouldn't be having much fun playing D&D. That's very much evidently not the case, and in fact I know very few people who prefer not to play D&D at all, though most gamers I know have played multiple systems.

The fact is, rather, that different games have different features that are fun for different people, and for many, balance is not important.


D&D has remained on top of the market because of inertia; I suspect the reason they came out with 3.5 was that they were worried that the system was so broken it was going to lose its market share to other gaming companies.
So in response, they broke it more, and your argument is further that their customers are... what? So collectively stupid that they didn't notice for years, rather than just didn't care?


This is actually something a lot of people don't understand about product cycles - while it is true that new editions sell well, people simply don't replace their systems TOO often and, perhaps more importantly, it costs a great deal of money to develop a new system, whereas if you can ride an old one, you might be making just as much profit ultimately because while you aren't moving as much product at once you don't have massive R&D overheads.
Except that maintaining the same market is not at all Wizards' stated intent (Not just for 4'th edition, either - 3.0 was designed to be simpler and easier to get into). Wizards' stated intent is to expand the gaming market, by giving their game popular appeal... and balance is a popular feature of another class of game, too, one which has a ready audience of millions more potential D&D players.


Welcome to simulationism, the far, far less popular model of RPing. When you see people saying this stuff, you know that they don't understand marketing or game design.

Not to mention, RPGs are a form of escapism; who wants to escape into a world exactly like our own?
Simulationism isn't about making a world like our own. It's about making a consistent, persistent, more believable world similar to our own in fundamental ways - they don't make many fantasy universes in which the laws of physics just don't apply.


Indeed. People make fun of it constantly.
Using FATAL as an example of simulationism is like using, well, WoW as an example of gamism.


I might point out that Superman is actually a bad superhero.
Superman has plenty of flaws... narratively. Just as in the game in which the players can't gain power at all, the game in which you have enough power to solve all your problems necessarily turns to plot instead. And it can do that just fine.

Superman is a bad character in a gamist-oriented superhero game. He's just fine as a superhero and he'd work well in Mutants and Masterminds, too, if you focus the game on story.


Many people will say stuff like "it tastes terrible" because it makes them feel special; they're elitist, fundamentally, but its all the funnier because it just shows that they're being haughty but not truthful. They're trying to be highbrow when it actually shows they're low. To be truly elite, you must acknowledge reality as it is, not pretend to not be plebian.
"Man, balance is such a vital part of the game, and D&D is so broken!" *keeps playing*

That's what I'm seeing, and among people who most definitely know of other systems, and purportedly aren't affected by Wizards' legendary inertia.


For instance, let's take Star Wars. You play Star Wars to be a jedi, right?

THerefore, the correct thing to do is to make it so all players are jedi.

If you're making a game based on Harry Potter, everyone should be a wizard; you shouldn't be a muggle or a squib.

If you're making a game based on The Wheel of Time, everyone needs to have a special ability, be it Aes Sedai, having the old blood and rediculous luck like Matrim Cauthorm, having Perrin's wolf abilities, or what have you. You shouldn't be able to be some random scrubby farmer.

Having played and seen other games based on your first and third examples, I have to say that's a silly assumption. Many people play to interact in that world, not necessarily for their own wish-fulfillment.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:16 AM
I refuse to play in a system where everything but the casters is brokenly bad by default.


Blame your DM. The DM should be balancing his game around his players/characters.

Because a spell is in the PHB (or whereever) doesn't mean a Wizard has to get access to it.

If your Wizard is stealing all the glory, where are the magic resistent encounters? Monsters? Anti-Magic fields?

Do you think the Rust Monster was created for any purpose other than to be used if a Party's plate warrior types were completely stealing the show from archers, rogues, and magic-users?

Zincorium
2008-03-11, 08:22 AM
Blame your DM. The DM should be balancing his game around his players/characters.

Because a spell is in the PHB (or whereever) doesn't mean a Wizard has to get access to it.

If your Wizard is stealing all the glory, where are the magic resistent encounters? Monsters? Anti-Magic fields?

Do you think the Rust Monster was created for any purpose other than to be used if a Party's plate warrior types were completely stealing the show from archers, rogues, and magic-users?

Er, these are not new arguments.

1. If you cannot play something out of the box, it's the game's fault. The DM can fix anything, a competent DM could fix FATAL. That doesn't mean FATAL is a decent game.

2. By the PHB rules, yes. He does. Anything else is a specific change to the rules. Not a bad change, but yes, it is a change.

3. If you do use anti-magic zones, you're making the wizard completely helpless. Balanced does not mean totally useless 50% of the time and win 50% of the time.

4. Rust monsters are the legacy of a particularly torqued off DM from back in the early days when fighters were powerhouses. The fact they're still around is due to tradition, not practical value.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:26 AM
The Batman/Superman analogies are flawed on their face. The outcome of every fight in a Comic Book is pre-determined by the writers for whatever makes an interesting story. There is no objective system using random elements to determine success.

To the guy who made the Kryptonite Puddle example, implying the DM was creating situations to let Aquaman shine... That is the normal course of things. Players make PCs, then the DM tailors adventures (not unlike a writer) that will play to both the strengths and weaknesses of the characters. The outcome is not, however, predetermined.

If who the characters are specifically is not taken into account when designing encounters and adventures, then you don't even need a DM. You need a map and some randome encounter tables.

If the party Paladin has taken a vow of honor to never strike a woman, you have to expect at some point in the campaign to be attacked by Amazon Warriors... otherwise the vow is pointless in the context of the story :-p

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 08:30 AM
Blame your DM. The DM should be balancing his game around his players/characters.

It can be quite difficult to balance an encounter if the variance in power is high within the party.


Because a spell is in the PHB (or whereever) doesn't mean a Wizard has to get access to it.

Perhaps not, but why not try to balance the spells in the first place?


If your Wizard is stealing all the glory, where are the magic resistent encounters? Monsters? Anti-Magic fields?


Using Golems every second encounter becomes tedious fast.
Anti-magic Fields generally favor spellcasters over non-casters, since the use of spells is only slightly impeded whereas all items, such as armor and weapons, are suppressed.
Having parts of a campaign take place in areas without any possible use of magic does a good job of nerfing the casters, but that just creates a situation where casters are either completely worthless (at least for the wizard/sorcerer) or much more powerful than others.


Do you think the Rust Monster was created for any purpose other than to be used if a Party's plate warrior types were completely stealing the show from archers, rogues, and magic-users?


Good old Rusty is a holdover from earlier editions and hardly an example of excellent game design. It can perhaps be fun to use it once, but after that, not so much.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:31 AM
Er, these are not new arguments.

1. If you cannot play something out of the box, it's the game's fault. The DM can fix anything, a competent DM could fix FATAL. That doesn't mean FATAL is a decent game.

2. By the PHB rules, yes. He does. Anything else is a specific change to the rules. Not a bad change, but yes, it is a change.

3. If you do use anti-magic zones, you're making the wizard completely helpless. Balanced does not mean totally useless 50% of the time and win 50% of the time.

4. Rust monsters are the legacy of a particularly torqued off DM from back in the early days when fighters were powerhouses. The fact they're still around is due to tradition, not practical value.


Agreed, except for point 1. But that's what we have. There is NO hope of 'balancing' even 10 classes let alone 50+. And even if you found a way to theoretically balance them mathematically in a perfect scenario, it wouldn't withstand play because situations will change everything. Wizards with Fireballs, Lightningbolts, and Poison Gas clouds are severely limited if they have to fight in a 10'x10' space, no?

As for point 1, can't everything play out of the box? Balance is about how things look in comparison to other classes in specific circumstances.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:37 AM
It can be quite difficult to balance an encounter if the variance in power is high within the party.


Right, isn't the DMs job to disallow those things from the start?



Perhaps not, but why not try to balance the spells in the first place?

Well to me the Spell List is supposed to be exhaustive and show the widest range of possibility, not that the entire range of things should necessarily exist.

Just because they have a huge list of Cleric Domains it doesn't mean that your campiagn world will have deities that offer every single domain option.

I think the problem is that there is an assumption that the Players should be able to use 100% of the source material, and the DM just has to deal with it as best he or she can. It should be the opposite - the DM sets the boundaries for what works in the game, and the Players run with it as best they can.

Indon
2008-03-11, 08:38 AM
1. If you cannot play something out of the box, it's the game's fault.
I'm pretty sure plenty of people play 3.x D&D out of the box without the game completely disintegrating due to utter brokenness.


2. By the PHB rules, yes. He does. Anything else is a specific change to the rules. Not a bad change, but yes, it is a change.
What if the rules had said, "DM's should use common sense to determine spell availibility?" (Or just "DM's should use common sense," heh)

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:41 AM
2. By the PHB rules, yes. He does. Anything else is a specific change to the rules. Not a bad change, but yes, it is a change.



Where is that rule? I don't have a PHB handy. I seem to recall that Wizards need to find spells to scribe into their books, and there are rules about being able to learn spells, but I don't recall one explicitly stating that every spell would always be available?

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 08:42 AM
On the other hand, taking the DC super hero analogy further, it's annoying as hell every other session or so to have to say "Oh look! Another puddle filled with kryptonite wherein batman's gear is also useless!" Just because Aquaman is in the party and the DM keeps trying to give people time to shine separately.

Yes, But you have to admit it would fit the genre perfectly. :D

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 08:45 AM
What if the rules had said, "DM's should use common sense to determine spell availibility?" (Or just "DM's should use common sense," heh)

If the book had to tell you to use common sense, maybe you* don't have enough common sense to start for

* "you", as generic second person singular, not specifically "you Indon".

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 08:47 AM
Where is that rule? I don't have a PHB handy. I seem to recall that Wizards need to find spells to scribe into their books, and there are rules about being able to learn spells, but I don't recall one explicitly stating that every spell would always be available?

A wizard gain automatically 2 spells for level. I don't remember if there are specific limitations on which spells he can pick.

Starsinger
2008-03-11, 08:47 AM
The Batman/Superman analogies are flawed on their face. The outcome of every fight in a Comic Book is pre-determined by the writers for whatever makes an interesting story. There is no objective system using random elements to determine success.

To the guy who made the Kryptonite Puddle example, implying the DM was creating situations to let Aquaman shine... That is the normal course of things. Players make PCs, then the DM tailors adventures (not unlike a writer) that will play to both the strengths and weaknesses of the characters. The outcome is not, however, predetermined.

True, comic books are pre-determined. But lets say you have a group of people who recreate those characters with mutants and masterminds.You still have to fill puddles with kryptonite and remove batman's utility belt and scuba gear and even the bat-snorkel because if you don't, they can still outshine Aquaman in his native environment. Just like, sure you can fill a dungeon with whatever traps you'd like, but the wizard/cleric/druid can invalidate the challenges tomorrow (most of the time its the wizard who does this). Which brings me around to the next point.


If the party Paladin has taken a vow of honor to never strike a woman, you have to expect at some point in the campaign to be attacked by Amazon Warriors... otherwise the vow is pointless in the context of the story :-p

By flinging around rust monsters, disenchanter beasts, anti-magic fields, and magic immune opponents, and puddles filled with kryptonite like they're candy, you're invalidating people constantly. And constantly being invalidated isn't fun. Sure, the Fighter gets to feel good because he's shining now, but if he had a heart he'd feel bad because the wizard is sitting there with his masterwork (maybe) crossbow and his BAB of +4 which doesn't really suffice to hit the golem, and then he can't pierce the DR, nor can he even buff someone else, since afterall its a kryptonite golem in an anti-magic zone.

Now yes, occasional bouts of "you can't fight" are fine, but when it gets to the point that random mooks are toting around kryptonite laser guns...

Indon
2008-03-11, 08:51 AM
If the book had to tell you to use common sense, maybe you* don't have enough common sense to start for

* "you", as generic second person singular, not specifically "you Indon".

Except that by relying on the DM to produce a world for the players, the DM is (hopefully) assumed to have that common sense already.

It's an unwritten premise that the DM is competent - why not make it RAW? :P

For that matter, let's just put, "DM's should make consistent worlds with good stories and balance the players' time in the spotlight," into the RAW just to avoid any confusion.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:59 AM
Now yes, occasional bouts of "you can't fight" are fine, but when it gets to the point that random mooks are toting around kryptonite laser guns...

If that happens the DM either made a lot of serious mistakes or allowed the player to make exceedingly bad choices.

But there is no such thing as Balance. It is a myth, a fool's game, windmill tilting.

The closest you would come would be a game with one class where everyone had identical abilities but you were allowed to assign whatever Roleplay Mask you wanted to them.

For example - "Ranged Attack 3d6 Damage" would be Roleplayed as a Bow by a martial PC and Roleplayed as a energy blast by Wizard.

Apart from that, there is no approximation of balance because Balance is dependent on who you are being compared to and in what circumstance, and you are disallowing situational disabilities because they "invalidate" people.

The only Balance is whatever is enforced by the DM through limiting what classes are allowed, what spells are allowed, what magic items are awarded, and the composition of encounters that are created.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 09:01 AM
Right, isn't the DMs job to disallow those things from the start?

These things can be hard to identify at first glance and the real problem is that if something becomes relatively powerful even if the player is making no effort to unbalance things.

The DM could say that the druid is not a possibility for this reason, but should not things have been better balanced from the beginning instead of requiring a lot of tweaking or exclusion of material for this reason alone?


Well to me the Spell List is supposed to be exhaustive and show the widest range of possibility, not that the entire range of things should necessarily exist.

Just because they have a huge list of Cleric Domains it doesn't mean that your campiagn world will have deities that offer every single domain option.


Again, as above, if these things are provided in the CORE books why not balance them so they can be used with relative ease or at least label them as usable only for high level play?


I think the problem is that there is an assumption that the Players should be able to use 100% of the source material, and the DM just has to deal with it as best he or she can. It should be the opposite - the DM sets the boundaries for what works in the game, and the Players run with it as best they can.


The DM can limit the use of material in consort with his players as much as they see fit, but shouldn't things have been reasonably balanced from the start, so the DM does not have to spend a lot of time changing classes and figuring out which feats and spells and items etc. to ban?

Of course, for mature and/or experience players it might not be much of a problem, but for new players and DMs it might be a rough start where some have a lot less fun than others.

Oslecamo
2008-03-11, 09:01 AM
Except that by relying on the DM to produce a world for the players, the DM is (hopefully) assumed to have that common sense already.

It's an unwritten premise that the DM is competent - why not make it RAW? :P



Not it's not.

I had a Dm who was older than me and had pretty good grades and had a great girl for girlfriend and played in a band in the free times.And still found time to play soccer. A very nice and smart guy.

Some of his houserules:
1-Casters can cast as many quickened spell per turn as they want.
2-You can't flanck monsters 2 or more size categories bigger than you.
3-Sorcerors can use metamagic for free.
4-Rogues can only sneack attack with daggers and crossbows.
5-If you use 2 weapons, you only get sneack attack from one.
6-Druids can wildshape inside antimagic fields.
7-Clerics don't need free hands to cast spells.

There were only fullcasters in the party, and 4 of them were divine. No need to explain why do I?

Common sense is not common.

Prophaniti
2008-03-11, 09:09 AM
For me, balance is not so big a deal. I play to enjoy the world, and I like worlds where magic is more powerful, because hey it's magic. I don't like worlds where magic is prolific. My ideal game has magic powerful, but uncommon. This is, of course, hard to implement in a game, since if a player wants to play a mage it doesn't really matter that his character spent years and years as an apprentice before learning even a basic cantrip, whereas the fighter went out and picked up a sword. It matters to the characters, but in-game most of this is hand-waved, and the wizard is still more powerful right now than the fighter. I can deal with that. I've been dealing with it. I don't like the idea of mundanes doing things ordinarily associated with magic, such as ToB. Now, I like it as a game tool, and I like most of the character concepts presented in it, mostly the Crusader and Swordsage. I just don't think it comes close to solving the problem. The problem with the current system is the power level and game-abusing tendencies of the casters, not the low power of mundane classes.

I most definitely disagree with the current take on fixing it, which seems to be 'let's dumb it down and keep everyone from getting hurt', such as you see with the removal of the racial ability penalties. Differences between the races are very interesting in most fantasy settings, and a big part of the plot. To use an extreme example, there's no reason a human and a minotaur, given equal training and equipment, will be on even footing. The minotaur is bigger, stronger and tougher than the human. Now, the human might be more clever and quicker, but that just backs up my point. I know, one can make the argument that lowering stat variance assists role-playing, since it lessens meta-gaming and min-maxing. I say, people who are going to do that are going to do it anyway, even if we eliminate all the racial bonuses and abilities. For me, it adds another level of flavor to the race I want to run.

Since everyone else has mentioned WoW so far, and I don't want to feel left out ('cause that would be bad, and would ruin the game), the best example I can think of for what I'm talking about is that game. Everything Must Be Balanced! So it is writ! (except, of course, AV). What you end up with is the fact that racial choice in WoW is as bland as picking out a pair of socks. One has to really learn to ignore the game itself and get into the background mythos before your race matters, aside from cosmetically. I feel that stat and mechanical differences, when done right, make your race matter right from the start, makes it feel like a choice that actually matters, and gives you some added framework to build a character on. It brings the background and the flavor to the mechanics, rather than having to ignore one to see the other.

Anyway... kind of a tangent from class balance there. Still about balance, though, so I'm going to keep it in.

Indon
2008-03-11, 09:15 AM
Common sense is not common.

Well, since what he did wasn't exercising common sense, it would have been a houserule.

See how awesomely that works?

Charity
2008-03-11, 09:17 AM
Just a quick asside to those folks whom think the best product always becomes the leading brand, this is very much not the case.

Brand leaders win through by generating a perception of superiority or sometime just through marketplace availability.
I give you the old video format wars. VHS anahilated BETAMAX even though the quality was inferior, the tapes were bigger and at the same time shorter, and the players were even more expensive (play/record time). A better product does not equal a brand leader, that is mostly due to marketing and logistics.

Going back to the topic in hand in my experiance it has always been the domain of the DM to try and secure some sort of party balance, and it has often caused conflict.
Players all too often cannot view the game objectively, they only see themselves as being penalised for making strong mechanical choices, if the game is balanced out of the box, this conflict is mitigated. I can only see this as a good thing, it may be that this lends itself to less diversity, but if you start with a firm foundation it is easier (IMO) to modify things to your particular groups requirements.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 09:17 AM
These things can be hard to identify at first glance and the real problem is that if something becomes relatively powerful even if the player is making no effort to unbalance things.

The DM could say that the druid is not a possibility for this reason, but should not things have been better balanced from the beginning instead of requiring a lot of tweaking or exclusion of material for this reason alone?



Well, I see the root of our disagreement, which may be irreconcilable. You think they should have been better balanced from the start, and I think that balance doesn't exist :-p

Seriously though, now we're into the realm of marketing and such. If we are talking good game design, then there peobably should be like 5 classes and no more, and the rules dependent stuff should be minimal. All the spell caster classes that aren't Wizard or Sorcerer could probably just be the way you RP a Wizard or Sorcerer, but Players of this game love special rules. And the
Designers of the game love to sell books. :-p

Your goal would be best reached by severely limiting the amount of special features and rules and relying on RP, but that won't sell.

Indon
2008-03-11, 09:26 AM
A better product does not equal a brand leader, that is mostly due to marketing and logistics.

Is this a clever way of saying D&D has remained the market leader because of the OGL? 'cause Betamax was a proprietary format.

You have a fairly good point, there - you effectively don't have to buy the core rulebooks, and who doesn't like playing a free game? But I'm pretty sure that you could get material to play other, balanced games, if not free than definitely cheap.

Starsinger
2008-03-11, 09:28 AM
I don't like the idea of mundanes doing things ordinarily associated with magic, such as ToB. Now, I like it as a game tool, and I like most of the character concepts presented in it, mostly the Crusader and Swordsage. I just don't think it comes close to solving the problem. The problem with the current system is the power level and game-abusing tendencies of the casters, not the low power of mundane classes.

You don't see how these go hand in hand, do you? Limiting yourself to being mundane, and by mundane I mean all definitions including this: one 2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative, you put a cieling on yourself. What's the upper limit of being mundane? Strength higher than 18, since people have this sick obsession that D&D scores match up to real world limits? Being able to dodge a fireball without actually moving, on a flat plain? Being able to shrug off a swipe of a dragon's claws? Falling off of a building and living?

Is Batman the upper limit of being mundane? Hercules? Aragorn? Mr. Burns? Where exactly is the threshold, that once you cross it you stop being mundane?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 09:30 AM
Well, I see the root of our disagreement, which may be irreconcilable. You think they should have been better balanced from the start, and I think that balance doesn't exist :-p

Seriously though, now we're into the realm of marketing and such. If we are talking good game design, then there peobably should be like 5 classes and no more, and the rules dependent stuff should be minimal. All the spell caster classes that aren't Wizard or Sorcerer could probably just be the way you RP a Wizard or Sorcerer, but Players of this game love special rules. And the
Designers of the game love to sell books. :-p

Your goal would be best reached by severely limiting the amount of special features and rules and relying on RP, but that won't sell.

I agree that perfect balance is utopia unless we severely limit the options to a point where we are playing the same class with different colour coding.

But that is a far cry from a situation where a class can totally steal the spotlight 90 % of the time without even trying hard.

Hopefully 4th edition will be better balanced while still allowing for the diversity of rules and options that we like about D&D.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 10:08 AM
I agree that perfect balance is utopia unless we severely limit the options to a point where we are playing the same class with different colour coding.

But that is a far cry from a situation where a class can totally steal the spotlight 90 % of the time without even trying hard.

Hopefully 4th edition will be better balanced while still allowing for the diversity of rules and options that we like about D&D.


Well, I'll concede that point. When you have 50+ classes there is no way that some of them won't be broken from the start because you ran out of non-broken stuff to publish 20 classes ago.

The Core PHB classes seemed to have been built around versatility - a Fighter could be built as a nimble fighter, a tank, an Archer, etc. With versatility comes the jack-of-all-trades-yet-master-of-none baggage. A lot of the later classes are built around single tricks that work too well.

And I agree with you on the 4th Edition hopes, although I have serious concerns as well... Their answer to everyone's complaint about their favorite race/class being excluded seems to be "We'll be adding all those Races/Classes back in at a later date" which tells me that the balance problems will be back. However, hopefully the new class design will limit the range on disparities to a much narrower band.

Plus, the adoption of Roles as a specific design element (instead of an ad hoc categorization) will provide better basis for comparison. Defenders have to be balanced against each other... So a "Mystic Defender" using Arcane power source should be compared to Fighters and Paladins, not to Wizards (who are Controllers). I believe the 3.x editions people tend to compare balance against like type and classes are less role-specific in design.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-11, 10:16 AM
I figure everyone should be 90% effective in 10% of the situations, 50% effective in 50% of the situations, and 10% effective in the remaining 40%. Now the situations where you are effective changes depending on your specialty, but nobody is fully effective in most situations. The 10/40 situation is there to encourage diversity and offer challenges. That is my definition of balance.

Prophaniti
2008-03-11, 10:24 AM
You don't see how these go hand in hand, do you? Limiting yourself to being mundane, and by mundane I mean all definitions including this: one 2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative, you put a cieling on yourself. What's the upper limit of being mundane? Strength higher than 18, since people have this sick obsession that D&D scores match up to real world limits? Being able to dodge a fireball without actually moving, on a flat plain? Being able to shrug off a swipe of a dragon's claws? Falling off of a building and living?

Is Batman the upper limit of being mundane? Hercules? Aragorn? Mr. Burns? Where exactly is the threshold, that once you cross it you stop being mundane?

Mundane would be describing someone who has no source of power outside the physical, no magic, no psionics, no nothing. Everything they can do, they do through sheer badassness. Batman is a good example. Hercules, too, though obviously with divine heritage added in, which raises the bar. Of course a mundane can do things that may not be very realistic, it is a game after all. They just shouldn't be doing things that are blatently impossible (flying, creating fire out of nothing), this is the realm of magic. Now, that leaves quite a logical power gap between mundanes and magic-users. This is by no means a bad thing in my book. I like it there.

As a matter of fact, in my own experience casters are only severely overpowered on paper. Sure, you can take the time and effort to make a wizard who cannot be stopped and controls every encounter. That's a hell of a lot of effort, though, with the net result that no one will like you and some monster will eventually pass his saving roll and the crit you for max damage, dropping your mighty wizard ass anyway. Most of the characters who've stolen the spotlight, in any roleplaying game we've used, have been badass normals. Melee specialists, or ranged specialists. The only exception has been when we played a WH40k game useing modified d20 rules. The psyker really did dominate many scenes. This ultimately lead to his demise, however, as his flashy killing of everyone around drew too much attention and he got shot full of holes. (suddenly the party rememebered that you get +4 AC vs ranged attacks when prone, and all dropped to the ground)

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 10:32 AM
By flinging around rust monsters, disenchanter beasts, anti-magic fields, and magic immune opponents, and puddles filled with kryptonite like they're candy, you're invalidating people constantly. And constantly being invalidated isn't fun. Sure, the Fighter gets to feel good because he's shining now, but if he had a heart he'd feel bad because the wizard is sitting there with his masterwork (maybe) crossbow and his BAB of +4 which doesn't really suffice to hit the golem, and then he can't pierce the DR, nor can he even buff someone else, since afterall its a kryptonite golem in an anti-magic zone.
True, but to a point, if you are a villain and you know how powerful magic/magic armor/magic weapons are and you have an intelligence higher than 10....
I mean, I can totally see a particolary smart ogre chieftan raise his rust monsters pets to hinder those pesky adventurers, or maybe, on a extremely foolhardy plan, capture a beholder, rip out his eyes and keep him prisoner to use his antimagic ray on the PCs.
Or something like that, if you live in a world where your enemies most powerful weapon is magic it is only natural that you search for a way to neutralize it.
[/quote]
Now yes, occasional bouts of "you can't fight" are fine, but when it gets to the point that random mooks are toting around kryptonite laser guns...[/QUOTE]
Again, totally in genre. :D
In old superman comics kryptonite was everywhere, you could not kick a rck without finding an piece of green K under it. :)

Muyten
2008-03-11, 10:38 AM
I most definitely disagree with the current take on fixing it, which seems to be 'let's dumb it down and keep everyone from getting hurt', such as you see with the removal of the racial ability penalties. Differences between the races are very interesting in most fantasy settings, and a big part of the plot. To use an extreme example, there's no reason a human and a minotaur, given equal training and equipment, will be on even footing. The minotaur is bigger, stronger and tougher than the human. Now, the human might be more clever and quicker, but that just backs up my point. I know, one can make the argument that lowering stat variance assists role-playing, since it lessens meta-gaming and min-maxing. I say, people who are going to do that are going to do it anyway, even if we eliminate all the racial bonuses and abilities. For me, it adds another level of flavor to the race I want to run.


I don't get why removing racial penalties is such a big deal. It doesn't differentiate the races any less since there will still be bonuses and apparently more of them as witnessed by the elf stats. They are also promising more racial feats in core which will further help to differentiate the races in IMHO. I also don't agree that simplifying is the same as 'dumbing it down'.

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 10:42 AM
The closest you would come would be a game with one class where everyone had identical abilities but you were allowed to assign whatever Roleplay Mask you wanted to them.

For example - "Ranged Attack 3d6 Damage" would be Roleplayed as a Bow by a martial PC and Roleplayed as a energy blast by Wizard.


HERO works someway like that.

GURPS, too, even if a little less.

Prophaniti
2008-03-11, 10:58 AM
I don't get why removing racial penalties is such a big deal. It doesn't differentiate the races any less since there will still be bonuses and apparently more of them as witnessed by the elf stats. They are also promising more racial feats in core which will further help to differentiate the races in IMHO. I also don't agree that simplifying is the same as 'dumbing it down'.

I read the preview books. Talking about how 'we don't want the players to be "penalized" just for picking a race' and 'we're trying to eliminate times when the character isn't useful because he can't beat the SR or damage reduction'. It's that whole 'political correctness' attitude, the same line of thinking that had some elementary schools ban tag because the person who was 'it' might feel bad. That's definitely dumbing it down. We all have to have happy skipping fun time, nevermind that whole 'challenge' thing, someone might fail and lose some self-esteem.

I apologize for the sarcasm. Hopefully it conveyed my frustration with the current trend of gaming, table-top rpg or otherwise. At least there are still games out there like Ninja Gaiden that challenge me and make no apologies.

Frosty
2008-03-11, 11:00 AM
I think there can be a middle ground with casters. I'm going to try to introduce a modified anti-magic field, where casters must succeed on a level check in order to cast a spell, and magic items still work. This makes it so the casters aren't completely screwed, and the fighters can still shine. I'll keep the regular amfs FOR SPECIAL OCCASIONS as well.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-11, 11:08 AM
I read the preview books. Talking about how 'we don't want the players to be "penalized" just for picking a race' and 'we're trying to eliminate times when the character isn't useful because he can't beat the SR or damage reduction'. It's that whole 'political correctness' attitude, the same line of thinking that had some elementary schools ban tag because the person who was 'it' might feel bad. That's definitely dumbing it down. We all have to have happy skipping fun time, nevermind that whole 'challenge' thing, someone might fail and lose some self-esteem.

I apologize for the sarcasm. Hopefully it conveyed my frustration with the current trend of gaming, table-top rpg or otherwise. At least there are still games out there like Ninja Gaiden that challenge me and make no apologies.

Yep you are right. It's so stupid to have a game with balance.

Hey, let's play Monopoly.

You get the Thimble. It follows all the rules of Monopoly as written.

I'm using the Iron, instead of rolling, I simply decide what numbers the dice rolled on my turn. Why are you looking at me like that? No, no.. I can only declare that I rolled doubles twice..on my turn; if I declared doubles again I would end up in jail and that would suck.

As the Iron, I also get double the amount of money and pay half as much for taxes and such.

Game balance is for losers!

Indon
2008-03-11, 11:25 AM
Yep you are right. It's so stupid to have a game with balance.

You know, instead of ranting about balance, you could have just correctly pointed out that Prophanti's post was off-topic and had nothing to do with system balance.

A system is not rendered unbalanced if races have stat penalties or if there's more than one way to defend against an attack.

Sebastian
2008-03-11, 11:27 AM
Yep you are right. It's so stupid to have a game with balance.

Hey, let's play Monopoly.

...

Game balance is for losers!

An important difference between the two games that you probalby missed is that you don't win or lose at D&D.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 11:34 AM
Well, I'll concede that point. When you have 50+ classes there is no way that some of them won't be broken from the start because you ran out of non-broken stuff to publish 20 classes ago.

Power creep and the conversion of 3.5 books into a testing ground for 4e mechanics made any notion of balance an unlikely event, but the problem is already apparent in CORE where there is not much excuse other than ignorance and tradition.


The Core PHB classes seemed to have been built around versatility - a Fighter could be built as a nimble fighter, a tank, an Archer, etc. With versatility comes the jack-of-all-trades-yet-master-of-none baggage. A lot of the later classes are built around single tricks that work too well.


That and the fact that initial play testing involved wizards favoring blast spells. However, I still have trouble understanding how the Druid got through and was improved in 3.5 with the inclusion of Natural Spell in the PHB.


[4th Edition hopes, concerns and thoughts]


I agree.

Prophaniti
2008-03-11, 11:53 AM
Thank you for the snarky, irrelevant reply, Mr. Friendly, even though you missed my point entirely. Sorry about the off-topic trend there, Indon. I've said all I really need to earlier on the subject. I don't believe the balance issue is as pervasive or game-breaking as everyone seems to think. It certainly hasn't stopped my group from having a good time. Sure, there are some things I would change, and some that I can't figure out why they did that in the first place, but the same will be true of any game I encounter, since I wasn't the one who designed it. I still have fun, and no wizards steal my spotlight, not even my monk's.

horseboy
2008-03-11, 11:56 AM
Thing is though, they don't taste bad. Lots of people make this claim, but it is demonstrably untrue. McDonald's hamburgers, fries, and milkshakes all taste very good indeed; they're full of the molecules which make your mouth sing. They're horrible for you, but that's irrelevant to their taste.

Many people will say stuff like "it tastes terrible" because it makes them feel special; they're elitist, fundamentally, but its all the funnier because it just shows that they're being haughty but not truthful. They're trying to be highbrow when it actually shows they're low. To be truly elite, you must acknowledge reality as it is, not pretend to not be plebeian.
I'll agree with everything you said except this. At the risk of going off on a tangent, MC Donald's food is horrible. Their faux meat patty is only made palpable by the excessive use of ketchup and mustard piled on them. It's so bad that they are loosing market share. Much like D&D they're scrambling around trying out goofy gimmick after goofy gimmick (Oh, look McRib is back) to keep themselves in the black while they desperately try and figure out how to bring back customers when the answer is simple. Stop making your product suck.

Oslecamo
2008-03-11, 12:04 PM
Well, since what he did wasn't exercising common sense, it would have been a houserule.

See how awesomely that works?

Oh, that's the funny part.

All of those houserules, he claimed that were to exercise more "common sense" in the game. Aka you can't flanck effeciently something that is too big, or that a quickened spell should indeed be so quick you could throw as many as you could in 1 turn, or that rogues should only be able to sneack attack with roguish weapons.

And he claimed the game was still balanced because even if the sorceror was able to nuke the enemies in oblivion under a rain of quickened magic missiles in the first turn, he would only be able to do this one or two times a day. Now broken would be allowing the rogue to sneack attack with 2 weapons, definetely, because he could go with it all day, never mind he now can't sneack attack 90% of the enemies out there due to the absurd amount of houserules nerfing the rogue class he imposed in the name of "common sense" and "balance", to the point the ONLY thing the rogue could do well was find and disable traps, and even in that he was slightly nerfed.

So, as you can see, everyone has quite a diferent view of balance and common sense.

Indon
2008-03-11, 12:12 PM
Oh, that's the funny part.

I guess I should have indicated more clearly in my posts that I was being tongue-in-cheek, and kind of poking fun at reliance on the RAW.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 12:27 PM
[QUOTE=Prophaniti;4046987]I read the preview books. Talking about how 'we don't want the players to be "penalized" just for picking a race' and 'we're trying to eliminate times when the character isn't useful because he can't beat the SR or damage reduction'. It's that whole 'political correctness' attitude, the same line of thinking that had some elementary schools ban tag because the person who was 'it' might feel bad. That's definitely dumbing it down. We all have to have happy skipping fun time, nevermind that whole 'challenge' thing, someone might fail and lose some self-esteem.
[QUOTE]


While I agree there is no need to 'dumb down' anything, I would argue that Racial Attribute Penalties (and to a lesser extant Bonuses) are legacy items that don't make all that much sense anymore.

Why? Well, back in Ye Olden Days when I was still a young greenhorn, we had to roll 3d6 for our attributes, in order. And that order was Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha. None of this fancy 'put the physical stats next to each other' business of today, no sir!

So you got a very random and ecclectic set of stats, and often as not your stats would dictate your class. Hell, you couldn't even BE a Paladin unless you happened to roll a 17 for Charisma!

So what did the Racial Adjustments do? Well, it was a way to try and impose the Racial Stereotypes on the random rolls. So that Stats those races were known to be good for (and bad for) would be better reflected in the averages.

Today however, in the days of Point Buy Systems and/or Multiple Rerolls and determing the order to apply stats means that the Player already has a LOT of control over how the PCs stats are going to look. Perfect control even, with Point Buy systems. The effects of Penalties and Bonuses can be accounted for or mitigated by how the Player decides to allocate his points/rolls.

So, under 4th Ed. it seems to me they understand this and thus realize the Racial Penalty was largely meaningless, while they kept in the Racial bonuses probably as a means to allow those races to excel in those stats a little cheaper.

Artanis
2008-03-11, 01:56 PM
I presume Artanis meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATAL) (I'm not going to as much as mention its name aloud here, rumours say that can draw a horrible curse upon you).
Right on the first try :smallbiggrin:


...or rather, given the subject matter, I guess :smalleek: might be more appropriate.

horseboy
2008-03-11, 02:02 PM
Agreed, except for point 1. But that's what we have. There is NO hope of 'balancing' even 10 classes let alone 50+. And even if you found a way to theoretically balance them mathematically in a perfect scenario, it wouldn't withstand play because situations will change everything. Wizards with Fireballs, Lightningbolts, and Poison Gas clouds are severely limited if they have to fight in a 10'x10' space, no?No. Earthdawn has 29 different classes. Their "balance" is FAR better. Pretty much to the point I don't have to worry about who's playing what when I make an encounter. No spending all that time going: "Ge, how am I going to be able to build this so the Elemenalist doesn't outshine the Horror Stalker but doesn't kill the Archer?" Nope it's: "What would make a cool encounter here? Hmm, the Horror Stalker is whining about not having enough poison available. Let's throw in two wyverns! Yeah, that'll work." I don't have to constantly poor through internet sites trying to find out the latest broken combination. When I sit down and try to actually break it, even using the "cheesie" Alternate Design Mechanics I just can't break it nearly as bad as a core D&D wizard. Everything I've come up with requires either the use of a rule clearly marked as OPTIONAL and warns of potentially game breaking results or are so staggeringly high level that they're going to be going up against the final big boss of the campaign, so it doesn't really matter any more. (In 3.x terms, around level 30)

In short it's a system my group can play hard and not have to worry about breaking. We appreciate that and play it far more, since we can do so much more with it.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-11, 02:12 PM
An important difference between the two games that you probalby missed is that you don't win or lose at D&D.

This is a common fallacy, repeated again and again in roleplaying circles. "It doesn't matter if it's balanced, because you can't win an RPG."

All RPGs - with the possible exception of some really, really modern indie-RPGs - have rules and goals, and assign the players resources with which they are expected to achieve those goals within the framework laid down by the rules. That's what RPG rules are for.

The way in which I allocate resources in an RPG affects my ability to contribute creatively to the game. The only way that I, as a player, can influence events in an RPG is to succeed at in-character actions.

To put it another way, while you cannot win an RPG you can most certainly lose one. If your character dies, forcing you to create a new character, and put the group through an awkward, immersion breaking scene, where they spontaneously decide to trust your new character implicitly, you lose. If you find yourself unable to affect any of the monsters you're fighting, or unable to contribute to the party's progress towards the goals which it will have been set, you lose.

Winning and losing is part of every RPG. People just pretend it isn't as an excuse to avoid balancing the game properly.

Indon
2008-03-11, 02:39 PM
The way in which I allocate resources in an RPG affects my ability to contribute creatively to the game. The only way that I, as a player, can influence events in an RPG is to succeed at in-character actions.
So if I'm playing Lord of the Rings: The RPG that is Eerily Similar to the Book, and I'm Boromir and I die, I contribute nothing creatively to the game by doing so?


To put it another way, while you cannot win an RPG you can most certainly lose one. If your character dies, forcing you to create a new character, and put the group through an awkward, immersion breaking scene, where they spontaneously decide to trust your new character implicitly, you lose. If you find yourself unable to affect any of the monsters you're fighting, or unable to contribute to the party's progress towards the goals which it will have been set, you lose.

Man, D&D just keeps getting harder and harder. It used to be I could only lose by not having fun, since having fun was the primary objective of the game. Now I lose if all sorts of things happen!

"Man, I keep on rolling 1's this fight. I'm losing D&D so badly! I hope I can roll a 20 so I can not lose it some."

Also, I just lost the game! (Normally I cheat and don't bother to announce it, but I felt it appropriate to mention another game which you apparently can not win at, but you can lose it. Who has fun playing this?)


Winning and losing is part of every RPG. People just pretend it isn't as an excuse to avoid balancing the game properly.

There are _far_ better reasons to balance D&D that do not require redefining the game around living vicariously through your characters, and declaring players with insufficiently powerful characters to be losers at the game.

Artanis
2008-03-11, 02:42 PM
Man, D&D just keeps getting harder and harder. It used to be I could only lose by not having fun, since having fun was the primary objective of the game. Now I lose if all sorts of things happen!

"Man, I keep on rolling 1's this fight. I'm losing D&D so badly! I hope I can roll a 20 so I can not lose it some."

Also, I just lost the game! (Normally I cheat and don't bother to announce it, but I felt it appropriate to mention another game which you apparently can not win at, but you can lose it. Who has fun playing this?)
Now you're just being stubborn.

If having to roll up a new character is not fun for a player (which Dan Hemmens says is the case for him), then yes, even by your definition they lose the game because they aren't having fun. If being unable to affect a monster is not fun for the player, then yes, even by your definition they lose the game because they aren't having fun. And so on.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-11, 02:47 PM
So if I'm playing Lord of the Rings: The RPG that is Eerily Similar to the Book, and I'm Boromir and I die, I contribute nothing creatively to the game by doing so?

Yes. Your death wasn't your choice, it was dictated by game mechanics. Your capacity to contribute creatively to the game has also been reduced to zero since your fictional avatar, the character through which you make any and all of your contributions to the game, has been removed.


Man, D&D just keeps getting harder and harder. It used to be I could only lose by not having fun, since having fun was the primary objective of the game. Now I lose if all sorts of things happen!

"Man, I keep on rolling 1's this fight. I'm losing D&D so badly! I hope I can roll a 20 so I can not lose it some."

If you roll enough 1s, your character eventually dies, you fail in the arbitrary goal you are attempting to achieve with your limited resources, and you do not receive the reward you would otherwise receive. You lose.

You might still have fun in the process. I enjoy playing Warhammer 40000, even though I don't win every game. I still lose at it, even if I enjoy it.


Also, I just lost the game! (Normally I cheat and don't bother to announce it, but I felt it appropriate to mention another game which you apparently can not win at, but you can lose it. Who has fun playing this?)

Check out xkcd.


There are _far_ better reasons to balance D&D that do not require redefining the game around living vicariously through your characters, and declaring players with insufficiently powerful characters to be losers at the game.

But they are, in fact, losers. The game requires the players to manage their limited resources in order to achieve particular goals. Failure to achieve those goals with those resources constitutes losing, just like you lose Settlers of Catan if you aren't first to get 10 VPs. It's not about whether you enjoy yourself, it's about whether you succeed in the task the game sets you.

Indon
2008-03-11, 03:03 PM
But they are, in fact, losers.

Near the beginning of this thread, I said that the reason balance became important in D&D was because the mindset of its' players has been changing.

This - really, your entire point - is an outstanding example of what I meant.

Edit: And I frequent the XKCD forums. Most of the people posting on the comic thread, did not like The Game, unsurprisingly.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-11, 03:24 PM
Near the beginning of this thread, I said that the reason balance became important in D&D was because the mindset of its' players has been changing.

This - really, your entire point - is an outstanding example of what I meant.


Sorry, are you saying that there was a point at which D&D players didn't try to keep their characters alive in combat, where players went into a dungeon saying "you know what would be cool, if we all died in the second room, we should try to engineer a situation in which that happens."

All RPGs are resource allocation exercises, D&D more than most. Claiming that you can't "lose" a game in which you're set a specific goal to achieve with a limited resource set is ludicrous. You can lose D&D in exactly the same way you can lose 40K - if you are defeated in one of the challenges the game sets you. That's what a game is.

Indon
2008-03-11, 03:28 PM
Sorry, are you saying that there was a point at which D&D players didn't try to keep their characters alive in combat, where players went into a dungeon saying "you know what would be cool, if we all died in the second room, we should try to engineer a situation in which that happens."

No. I'm saying that there was a point at which D&D players would die in the Tomb of Horrors and talk about how it was awesome and they had fun playing, rather than, "Oh, man. We lost D&D."

It's indicative of a change in the emphasis of the game.

Artanis
2008-03-11, 03:41 PM
Y'know, it looks to me like you two are just using two different definitions of the word "lose".

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-11, 04:02 PM
No. I'm saying that there was a point at which D&D players would die in the Tomb of Horrors and talk about how it was awesome and they had fun playing, rather than, "Oh, man. We lost D&D."

It's indicative of a change in the emphasis of the game.

I played a Warhammer 40K game a few weeks ago in which my Sisters of Battle were slaughtered mercilessly by my opponent's Chaos Marines. I had an awesome time playing it, it doesn't change the fact that I lost.

Yes, people will say what an awesome time they had dying in the Tomb of Horrors, they will also say what an awesome time they had finally beating the tomb of horrors. The point here is that the Tomb of Horrors is a game, and one you either win (by beating the dungeon) or lose (by failing to beat the dungeon). If the party Wizard sails through all the monsters in the Tomb, while the fighter doesn't do anything, that's a problem. If the Wizard scry-teleports into the central room, and PaO's the demilich into a gerbil during a Time Stop, that's a major problem.

Anon-a-mouse
2008-03-11, 04:22 PM
Sorry, are you saying that there was a point at which D&D players didn't try to keep their characters alive in combat, where players went into a dungeon saying "you know what would be cool, if we all died in the second room, we should try to engineer a situation in which that happens."

All RPGs are resource allocation exercises, D&D more than most. Claiming that you can't "lose" a game in which you're set a specific goal to achieve with a limited resource set is ludicrous. You can lose D&D in exactly the same way you can lose 40K - if you are defeated in one of the challenges the game sets you. That's what a game is.

It could be argued that your character is set a specific goal and that your task is to generate a story about a guy who has been set that goal. If you set out to play like this (I personally do not) then the game ceases to be objectively win/lose.

Ellisande
2008-03-11, 05:32 PM
All RPGs are resource allocation exercises, D&D more than most. Claiming that you can't "lose" a game in which you're set a specific goal to achieve with a limited resource set is ludicrous. You can lose D&D in exactly the same way you can lose 40K - if you are defeated in one of the challenges the game sets you. That's what a game is.

I beg to differ. It's perfectly valid to say that your CHARACTER loses, because he has failed to achieve a particular goal, but this glosses over the biggest difference between RPGs on the one hand and Warhammer, computer games, or even poker; the fact that the RPG doesn't set the PLAYERS a specific goal (and, in fact, doesn't even necessarily set the characters a specific goal). This is what distinguishes RPGs as storytelling games (albiet one with tactical aspects) from its wargaming roots.

To say that the players are winners or losers in an RPG makes no more sense than it does in Sim City; there are no externally imposed goals, and if the time spent playing is enjoyed, it's a success.

The idea that D&D is a game to be 'won' or 'lost' is a completely different paradigm from how some of us envision or play it, and this is what Indon refers to, I think. (Not that I can remember back far enough in the thread to remember his point...)

Snooder
2008-03-11, 06:16 PM
I beg to differ. It's perfectly valid to say that your CHARACTER loses, because he has failed to achieve a particular goal, but this glosses over the biggest difference between RPGs on the one hand and Warhammer, computer games, or even poker; the fact that the RPG doesn't set the PLAYERS a specific goal (and, in fact, doesn't even necessarily set the characters a specific goal). This is what distinguishes RPGs as storytelling games (albiet one with tactical aspects) from its wargaming roots.


Just because the game doesn't set a specific goal does not mean it sets no goals at all. D&D does not have a single stated goal that all players must accomplish. It does however have a multitude of smaller goals that players work toward. Part of that is acheiving character goals, and part is revealing parts of the story and another is overcoming obstacles. If you are playing Tomb of Horrors for example, while your character's goal may be to get enough money for his ailing mother or to find the spellbook of Illahak the Merciless, your goal as a player is to explore the dungeon and see what cool stuff the designer put in. It is also to get a character out of there alive so you can brag to friends that you survived Tomb of Horrors. In the context of a larger campaign, the general goals include increasing character power by gaining levels and wealth, participating in the events at the gametable, and accomplishing personally signigicant goals.



To say that the players are winners or losers in an RPG makes no more sense than it does in Sim City; there are no externally imposed goals, and if the time spent playing is enjoyed, it's a success.


But you CAN lose Sim City. If your city dies or goes bankrupt, you can't play anymore. Whatever goals you had planned end, and thus you lose.



The idea that D&D is a game to be 'won' or 'lost' is a completely different paradigm from how some of us envision or play it, and this is what Indon refers to, I think. (Not that I can remember back far enough in the thread to remember his point...)

True, and I run the risk of "telling you how to the play the game" when I say this, but it is the correct paradigm. D&D was always intended to be a game, from its beginnings to its current interpretation. The awarding of XP for success and the rules for combat resolution are there for a reason. The game can be played in other fashions, and indeed that is one of its strengths, but it would be false to claim that THAT was the original purpose or that a game driven approach is the aberration.

Balance is important because D&D is a game and balance has always been important. The very mechanics behind levels and experience puts the lie to any other interpretation.

Now, the further and more useful question is how balance is acheived. I think the point of those who profess that balance wasn't important is truly that balance was dictated more by the DM and players reaching a consensus than by the rules as laid down. The rules laid the broad framework, but the fine points had to be adjudicated by the individual roleplaying groups. This we can agree is probably true, but it does not lessen the importance of balance, and the responses of some who find balance completely alien and repulsive should prove why that approach has been found wanting.

As an earlier poster stated, common sense is not common. Relying on a DM for balance means that one has to rely on having a good DM with cooperative players. This doesn't always exist. I like the people I play with, but frankly, not all of them are great DMs. Spending more game design focus on balance helps to streamline the gameplay so that I can still enjoy playing in the poor DM's world. It also means that when Player A finds no problem with Divine Metamagic and Player B does, the DM doesn't have to make a rulng that could alienate either of them, but can instead point to a balanced ruleset as arbitrator.

Cuddly
2008-03-11, 10:47 PM
This has become so jumbled Les Claypool could do a bona fide Primus song with this. People, can you leave the quote storm and incipient flamin' aside and just state your platform, so that others can understand it? No quotes. No elaborate debate. Just a small post that states in three small sentences tops, what you mean.

Let 'em post what they want to post. I am curios about the issue, and don't mind reading long arguments. If you don't like to read, then don't.


On the other hand, the core system being balanced isn't a hindrance to this goal.

Actually, balance often (almost always) comes at the cost of verisimilitude.


I think you just summed up yourself why I brought up 4e; even if it isn't spelled out in the OP, 4e is pretty clearly the impetus behind it. Given that the more common anti-4e rhetoric revolves around complaining that either/or a) classes shouldn't be balanced against each other; b) 4e = WoW. Since the OP made both, I think it is a reasonable conclusion to make that 4e was the intended taget here or at least the root cause. As for why I am being a jerk: I'm still really sick of hearing the broken record. Also, I am trying to quit smoking, so strangling a kitten or bludgeoning a puppy seem like great ideas right now. :smallfurious:

You really need to stop obsessing over 4e dude, and maybe stop telling me what this "impetus" of mine is. {Scrubbed}


3. If you do use anti-magic zones, you're making the wizard completely helpless. Balanced does not mean totally useless 50% of the time and win 50% of the time.

I see this as an interestingly (perhaps new?) concern involving balance- everyone has to be doing something interesting and meaningful all the time. In earlier editions of D&D, and certainly earlier play styles, balance was back seat to realism. A fighter couldn't do what a wizard could do, since it wasn't magic. With the same attitude was the fact that just like life, there were unfair situations. There would be times when the wizard would be helpless, there would be times when the fighter was helpless. Just like there are times when the world class stunt car driver would be helpless without the tribesmen he is traveling with in the Indonesian rainforest. Maybe it's just the total narcissism and self-infatuation of my generation that makes everyone (at least the internets) clamor for being able to be doing REALLY COOL STUFF LEIK ALL THE TIME and LOOK AT ME!

Jayabalard
2008-03-12, 12:01 AM
All RPGs are resource allocation exercises, Not true... all RPGS can certainly be played as resource allocation exercises, but for many people, it's not a significant part of the game, and for some it's not part of the role playing game that they are playing in any way (since they focus solely on playing the role).

The fact that you see your way as the only way does not make it so; it does tend to make your posts good examples of the player mindset that makes balance "such a big deal."

Rutee
2008-03-12, 12:55 AM
Actually, balance often (almost always) comes at the cost of verisimilitude.
Weapons of the Gods would like a word with you.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-12, 01:04 AM
Weapons of the Gods would like a word with you.

Only since the Companion--as written, Strike spanks the other stats like a monkey (and kung fus with cheap Strike-adders are therefore better than others). Aside from that, though, yeah--I'd agree.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 01:05 AM
Orite. I'd gotten so used to the companion that I forgot it was a seperate book.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-12, 01:07 AM
Orite. I'd gotten so used to the companion that I forgot it was a seperate book.

Tragically, I don't have it.

Jayabalard
2008-03-12, 01:09 AM
Weapons of the Gods would like a word with you.I'm not familiar with the game, but a quick google seems to indicate that it of a genre that many people seem to feel intrinsically lacks verisimilitude ... perhaps it's not the greatest of examples?


Let 'em post what they want to post. I am curios about the issue, and don't mind reading long arguments. If you don't like to read, then don't.I'd prefer it it people skip the quote flaming as well... I don't mind long arguments, but there's a point where you should just quote the relevant text and make a response rather than dissecting someone else's post, taking things out of context, and inserting tiny responses to individual points.

Zincorium
2008-03-12, 01:12 AM
I see this as an interestingly (perhaps new?) concern involving balance- everyone has to be doing something interesting and meaningful all the time.

You're taking something from my post I clearly didn't mean, but I'll run with it. Yes, people should have something fun to do during play, either an action of their own or something cool happening around them.

What shouldn't happen is their initiative coming around and them being completely ineffectual. Powerful? Not necessarily.



In earlier editions of D&D, and certainly earlier play styles, balance was back seat to realism.

Yes, because of course magic missile is the height of realism. It might have taken a back seat to simulation of a fantasy world, but D&D has never been about realism.


A fighter couldn't do what a wizard could do, since it wasn't magic. With the same attitude was the fact that just like life, there were unfair situations. There would be times when the wizard would be helpless, there would be times when the fighter was helpless. Just like there are times when the world class stunt car driver would be helpless without the tribesmen he is traveling with in the Indonesian rainforest. Maybe it's just the total narcissism and self-infatuation of my generation that makes everyone (at least the internets) clamor for being able to be doing REALLY COOL STUFF LEIK ALL THE TIME and LOOK AT ME!

If that last point isn't pure sarcastic parody, you need to take a good long look at yourself and see whether you're giving everyone else a fair shake or just being asocial and dismissive of people you don't really know.

The failure of your example is that the stunt car driver isn't sitting in a chair around a table with a bunch of other people waiting for the whole thing to end so his time wasn't wasted. He's dealing with a possibly unpleasant reality (jungles aren't exactly fun) but he's got meaningful things to do as they relate to him, things that are not covered in D&D. He is LIVING the adventure. None of us are doing that with D&D, we're just pretending really hard.

Since everyone seems to be happily blaming hypothetical DMs, here's one: if your character is useless part of the time, it's your DM's fault for not making well-rounded encounters that don't kick characters to the curb. Or maybe the game should have characters who aren't limited by game mechanics to 'I swing a sword, the same way I've been swinging it all game'.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 01:12 AM
I'm not familiar with the game, but a quick google seems to indicate that it of a genre that many people seem to feel intrinsically lacks verisimilitude ... perhaps it's not the greatest of examples?

They would be incorrect. Wuxia is self-consistent. It is not realistic. Verisimilitude is more closely tied to self-consistency in fantasy, then realism.

In point of fact, WotG contains /more/ verisimilitude within it then DnD does, because DnD discusses a world that is 800 CE Europe, adds magic, demons, and oh my, and then doesn't consider the ramifications of those on its world. WotG looks at Wulin, think "Okay, what can they do, and how does one counter it?"

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-12, 01:21 AM
I'm not familiar with the game, but a quick google seems to indicate that it of a genre that many people seem to feel intrinsically lacks verisimilitude ... perhaps it's not the greatest of examples?
It's a genre, which by definition means it follows certain rules (different from the normal ones). How can it intrinsically lack verisimilitude?
Wuxia has verisimilitude. Watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and tell me it doesn't have it.
In D&D, if you're intelligent and learn spellcasting, you'll be able to, say, summon a horse that will disappear in a few hours by making gestures and saying words.

In Wuxia, if you cultivate your Chi, study kung fu hard enough, and otherwise train for it, you will be able to perch on tree branches, run on walls, split boulders with a blow, kill a hundred ordinary men, and otherwise do things that don't break verisimilitude even though they're no more realistic than Magic Missile. Watch Hero sometime--the wire-fu makes perfect sense in context, and it's very beautiful.

Jayabalard
2008-03-12, 01:28 AM
They would be incorrect. Wuxia is self-consistent. It is not realistic. Verisimilitude is more closely tied to self-consistency in fantasy, then realism.Verisimilitude is in the eye of the beholder; if they have a different opinion than you on whether something appears true or not, then that's just a difference of opinion. Neither of you are wrong.

Whether it's self-consistent or not isn't the issue; verisimilitude requires believability, and Wuxia is a genre that, self-consistent or not, stretches belief too far for many people. This can easily be seen in the various "The ToB is the debil" threads that crop up from time to time.

Since not everyone will agree that the game that you cite has verisimilitude, it's probably not a good example.


It's a genre, which by definition means it follows certain rules (different from the normal ones). How can it intrinsically lack verisimilitude?Following rules is only part of verisimilitude; you can invent an absurd set of rules that are self-consistent but that doesn't mean that the resultant genre will be believable.


Wuxia has verisimilitude. Watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and tell me it doesn't have it.I don't find it believable, so to me, it doesn't appear to be true. It doesn't have it.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-12, 01:36 AM
Really? Given the fundamental assumptions that kung fu can work the way it does in CTHD, it still doesn't have the appearance of truth?

*shrug*
That seems like a pretty limited imagination, to me. Can't help ya.

But if you like, Wushu open (http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html)--I've never played it, but it's a very simple system you can run anything you like with, and mechanically it's balanced (through the expedient method of having all characters have essentially the same mechanic, with a lot of freedom of description).

Rutee
2008-03-12, 01:36 AM
Verisimilitude is in the eye of the beholder; if they have a different opinion than you on whether something appears true or not, then that's just a difference of opinion. Neither of you are wrong.

Whether it's self-consistent or not isn't the issue; verisimilitude requires believability, and Wuxia is a genre that, self-consistent or not, stretches belief too far for many people.

This can easily be seen in the various "The ToB is the debil" threads that crop up from time to time.

Since not everyone will agree that the game that you cite has verisimilitude, it's probably not a good example.

First off, don't use that "An opinion can't be wrong" chestnut. Opinions can be wrong. I can opine that Kansans aren't considered by the US government to be legal United States citizens. I would also be demonstrably wrong, as the US government considers Kansans to be legal US citizens. I will grant that verisimilitude can be subjective, to an extent; The simple truth of the matter is that Wuxia is exactly as believable as most western fantasy, on its own. Cultural upbringing has an annoying tendency to interfere with that sort of thing though.

Jayabalard
2008-03-12, 01:46 AM
First off, don't use that "An opinion can't be wrong" chestnut. Opinions can be wrong. I can opine that Kansans aren't considered by the US government to be legal United States citizens. I would also be demonstrably wrong, as the US government considers Kansans to be legal US citizens.This isn't really a meaningful counter-argument; you're comparing apples to income tax.

Whether Kansans are or aren't considered by the US government to be legal United States citizens is not subjective. Whether something appears to be true (verisimilitude) to a particular individual is very much subjective. If you have a difference of opinion on something that is subjective, the other person isn't wrong, and neither are you... you just have a difference of opinion.


Cultural upbringing has an annoying tendency to interfere with that sort of thing though.Yup; upbringing is pretty much the prime control on what sort of fantasy an individual finds believable... or even realistic, since there are people who believe in astrology while I find that it lacks verisimilitude...

Rutee
2008-03-12, 02:00 AM
Having learned what astrologers learned, I promise that they possess a /great deal/ of verisimilitude, or /appearance/ of truth. It's also a bunch of horse hockey that relies on Barnum's Maxim.


Whether Kansans are or aren't considered by the US government to be legal United States citizens is not subjective.
You weren't discussing subjectiveness vs objectiveness. You merely stated that opinions can't be wrong.

And for that matter, given the definition as "Appearance of truth", Self consistency strikes me as the prime factor behind verisimilitude. Acceptance of that truth would be something different.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-12, 02:01 AM
If _that_ were true, all my friends who've played GURPS (that's a balanced system, right?) wouldn't be having much fun playing D&D. That's very much evidently not the case, and in fact I know very few people who prefer not to play D&D at all, though most gamers I know have played multiple systems.

Is GURPS balanced? I dunno; I haven't really seen people try to break it yet.

GURPS has other problems which have nothing to do with balance, though. Its higher degree of simulationism is one major issue, and the other is that, while 3.5 is complex, it doesn't hold a CANDLE to GURPS. Yeah, with all the splatbooks 3.5 is a mess, but just with the core book making a first level character is very simple, especially if you aren't a spellcaster.

Chess and Go are balanced and good games, but many people dislike them both for reasons that have nothing to do with balance.


So in response, they broke it more, and your argument is further that their customers are... what? So collectively stupid that they didn't notice for years, rather than just didn't care?

3.5 is no more broken than 3.0 was, and it fixed the absurdly broken Haste.


Except that maintaining the same market is not at all Wizards' stated intent (Not just for 4'th edition, either - 3.0 was designed to be simpler and easier to get into). Wizards' stated intent is to expand the gaming market, by giving their game popular appeal... and balance is a popular feature of another class of game, too, one which has a ready audience of millions more potential D&D players.

Balance is a feature of EVERY class of game. And of course they're trying to suck more people into D&D, but they aren't changing what D&D is and always has been, something you don't fundamentally understand.


Simulationism isn't about making a world like our own. It's about making a consistent, persistent, more believable world similar to our own in fundamental ways - they don't make many fantasy universes in which the laws of physics just don't apply.

Simulationism is about making a "realistic" world.


Superman is a bad character in a gamist-oriented superhero game.

Actually, no. He's just a bad character in general. He lacks the flaws necessary to make for an interesting character, and his strength is far beyond the bounds of a reasonable character. That's why they killed him off at one point - people just didn't care enough about him to keep buying his comic and sales were flagging.

Batman, Spiderman, and the X-Men are all MUCH better characters.


"Man, balance is such a vital part of the game, and D&D is so broken!" *keeps playing*

That's what I'm seeing, and among people who most definitely know of other systems, and purportedly aren't affected by Wizards' legendary inertia.

Its still the best game at what it does on the market. Vampire is no less broken, and GURPS is simulationist, not gamist, and other systems are just inferior in various other ways.


3. If you do use anti-magic zones, you're making the wizard completely helpless. Balanced does not mean totally useless 50% of the time and win 50% of the time.

Sadly, there are many spells and abilities which actually will work if they're cast outside of an AMF and then shot into them, so you aren't useless, you just choose the creation subtype spells and the few other spells which are explicitly immune due to spell text.


Using Golems every second encounter becomes tedious fast.

Not to mention it hoses several other party members, particularly the rogue.


Agreed, except for point 1. But that's what we have. There is NO hope of 'balancing' even 10 classes let alone 50+.

Incorrect, and spoken like someone who doesn't understand game design at all. There ARE ways to balancing 10 classes; the difficulty increases dramatically the more you add, but 10 is more than doable.


Where is that rule? I don't have a PHB handy. I seem to recall that Wizards need to find spells to scribe into their books, and there are rules about being able to learn spells, but I don't recall one explicitly stating that every spell would always be available?

While you DO have to find -additional- spells to scribe, when you level up as a wizard, you get to add two spells to your spellbook without using a source due to "independent research". So the only way to remove those spells as options is to remove them from the game.


But there is no such thing as Balance. It is a myth, a fool's game, windmill tilting.

Incorrect. These are again the words of someone who doesn't understand game design. I understand game design. Balance is NOT just a pipe dream; the only people who claim it is are those too incompetant to create it.


I most definitely disagree with the current take on fixing it, which seems to be 'let's dumb it down and keep everyone from getting hurt', such as you see with the removal of the racial ability penalties.

There is no difference between everyone else getting a bonus and you getting a penalty, except players are MUCH more likely to accept bonuses than penalties. It is well known that players are penalty-adverse, and WotC knows this quite well. If you look at a lot of Magic cards with drawbacks, even the super powerful ones, you'll find TONS of people who refuse to use them because they have drawbacks, despite the fact that they're hideously, hideously broken.

So removal of penalties is a complete non-issue, and just shows you don't understand player mentality. Indeed, you're one of those people who falls into the "doesn't understand penalties" category, though not in quite the same way.

And 4th edition has not been dumbed down at all; it is a much better game than 3.5 and there's nothing dumber about it. It is better designed and more coherent than 3.5, but that isn't dumbing down.


I give you the old video format wars. VHS anahilated BETAMAX even though the quality was inferior, the tapes were bigger and at the same time shorter, and the players were even more expensive (play/record time).

This is actually untrue; the undoing of betamax was actually entirely because of play length. VHS allowed you to record an entire football game (4 hours) on a single tape, something Betamax could not do. THere's a lot of myths about betamax.


As a matter of fact, in my own experience casters are only severely overpowered on paper. Sure, you can take the time and effort to make a wizard who cannot be stopped and controls every encounter. That's a hell of a lot of effort, though, with the net result that no one will like you and some monster will eventually pass his saving roll and the crit you for max damage, dropping your mighty wizard ass anyway.

This shows you don't understand what makes for a good caster. You don't get saving throws against spells which don't allow them, and those are what make the wizard broken.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 02:10 AM
I'm trying to avoid pulling an EE, where I create an absurdly difficult to follow argument by creatinga wall of quotes. Assume neither agreement or disagreement with nothing I don't specifically respond to.


Simulationism is about making a "realistic" world
No. The other poster had it correct. It's about making a believable world that follows whatever rules it lays out to their logical conclusion. Otherwise you could never have simulationism in anything but the real world.



Its still the best game at what it does on the market. Vampire is no less broken, and GURPS is simulationist, not gamist, and other systems are just inferior in various other ways.

Vampire is significantly less broken. It's breakable, no question, but compared to the system where one class posseses the capability to marginalize everything?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-12, 10:28 AM
Not true... all RPGS can certainly be played as resource allocation exercises, but for many people, it's not a significant part of the game, and for some it's not part of the role playing game that they are playing in any way (since they focus solely on playing the role).

So, how would one of these hypothetical games with no resource allocation actually work? Would you give the players an unlimited points-buy at character creation? Allow them to start at whatever level they chose? After all, the resource allocation isn't important, so why does it matter if you're playing a first level commoner and I'm playing a 20th level Wizard.


The fact that you see your way as the only way does not make it so; it does tend to make your posts good examples of the player mindset that makes balance "such a big deal."

It's not my "way" actually. It's just how RPGs work - or at least ninety percent of them - you are given a limited set of resources, you are asked to solve tasks with those limited resources. D&D levels and spell slots, Vampire discipline powers, Cthulhu SAN points, they're all resource allocation games. There are resources, you allocate them. It's not a question of perspective or interpretation any more than it's my "opinion" that Dracula is an epistoliary novel.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-12, 10:35 AM
Vampire is significantly less broken. It's breakable, no question, but compared to the system where one class posseses the capability to marginalize everything?

Vampire is less broken than D&D because it's trying to do something completley different.

A vampire who maxes out his Disciplines will generally be better at stuff than one who spends a similar number of XP on mundane skills, and of course a character who spends points on Firearms and Melee will be better in a fight than one who spends points on Academics and Contacts.

The thing is, Vampire isn't based on the assumption that the PCs will be having four fights a day. It's not more balanced than D&D, it just has less requirement for balance, because it's not challenge-based in the same way. PCs have less requirement to be "useful".

Indon
2008-03-12, 10:44 AM
I played a Warhammer 40K game a few weeks ago in which my Sisters of Battle were slaughtered mercilessly by my opponent's Chaos Marines. I had an awesome time playing it, it doesn't change the fact that I lost.

The objective of Warhammer 40K is to defeat the other army - it's a wargame, a game centered around beating up the other army.

D&D is a roleplaying game - it's a game centered around roleplaying. You could further set additional goals based on your character (thus my 'living vicariously' comment - it's by no means mandatory to make your character's goals your goals in the game), but that's ultimately your personal choice.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-12, 11:23 AM
{Scrubbed}

horseboy
2008-03-12, 11:42 AM
The thing is, Vampire isn't based on the assumption that the PCs will be having four fights a day. It's not more balanced than D&D, it just has less requirement for balance, because it's not challenge-based in the same way. PCs have less requirement to be "useful".No, Vampire is written with challenges other than fights in mind. Therefore "useful" includes more options in Vampire, making martial might nonmanditory.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-12, 12:26 PM
The objective of Warhammer 40K is to defeat the other army - it's a wargame, a game centered around beating up the other army.

D&D is a roleplaying game - it's a game centered around roleplaying. You could further set additional goals based on your character (thus my 'living vicariously' comment - it's by no means mandatory to make your character's goals your goals in the game), but that's ultimately your personal choice.

Ehh...

Someone hasn't played that much 40k. While nominally, yes, beating the other army will get you a win, most 40k games have objectives, such as securing a location or item. Often this aligns harmoniously with killing the enemy, however, one can conceivably run a 40k army list that isn't optimal at killing but excels at meeting certain objectives. (though the objectives are nominally chosen at random)

Interestingly though, 40k is a good example of a game that is heavily based around balance. While noone can argue that an IG grunt is balanced at all compared to, say, a Greater Daemon, 40k avoids this through the point system so that the IG player gets a few hundred grunts for the Daemon player's single demon.

As for winning and losing at D&D, if a campaign consists of players writing brilliant 3 page backstories and elaborate relationships between the players, then at least half the party dies every session due to fluke die rolls, there is a serious problem here.

Yes, death shold be able to occur, taking away that threat cheapens D&D. However, death shouldn't simply happen frequently, unless you really want that blender style.

As for the Boromir mentioning somewhere upthread, some have said Boromir died from a random encounter - I disagree. Boromir was killed in an obviously planned attack by the DM. The orcs were tracking the party and they were on a timetable. If the PCs stopped (which they did) the orcs could conceivably catch them (which they did); Boromir (and to a certain extent, Boromir's "player") was at fault since he was the one who failed his saving throw against the Ring and caused the delay for the party.

Boromir then sacrificed himself, standing against the tide of orcs so that everyone else could escape. A heroic and redeeming death - certainly not death to a random encounter. One can also make the case that as a DMPC or NPC, the DM (Tolkein) chose to have Boromir sacrifice himself to save the party when he realized that he had accidentally sent too many orcs and didn't want to screw up the continuity.

Of course maybe LotR was just a series of novels and not a D&D game.

horseboy
2008-03-12, 12:43 PM
Ehh...

Someone hasn't played that much 40k. While nominally, yes, beating the other army will get you a win, most 40k games have objectives, such as securing a location or item. Often this aligns harmoniously with killing the enemy, however, one can conceivably run a 40k army list that isn't optimal at killing but excels at meeting certain objectives. (though the objectives are nominally chosen at random)I'd also point out that (tournament) army lists usually have more back story than the average D&D character. :smallcool:

Morty
2008-03-12, 12:44 PM
I'd also point out that (tournament) army lists usually have more back story than the average D&D character. :smallcool:

Can you point me to this awesome source where all of D&D characters' backstories are being kept? After all, you wouldn't be making claims about "average D&D character backstory" without such source. I'm also afraid I forgot what D&D rules prevent playes from creating backstories.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-12, 12:47 PM
No, Vampire is written with challenges other than fights in mind. Therefore "useful" includes more options in Vampire, making martial might nonmanditory.

This is true, but even then some abilities are flat out more useful than others.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-12, 12:52 PM
Can you point me to this awesome source where all of D&D characters' backstories are being kept? After all, you wouldn't be making claims about "average D&D character backstory" without such source. I'm also afraid I forgot what D&D rules prevent playes from creating backstories.

Well gee M0rt, I'm sure he meant average in his experience. But you already knew that when you made the comment. Of course if you really want to get technical, he could have been talking about the massive database of tangled web or other online character storage sites.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 12:53 PM
This is true, but even then some abilities are flat out more useful than others.

This is true, but even in your stated example, things don't quite hold up. You were saying it was no more balanced, because Disciplines were more useful. Disciplines can't do everything. Period, end of discussion. You can not find a single path that will allow you to do everything. DnD Wizards, by virtue of being wizards, do everything. They are, by default, more broken then Vampire can ever be.

Morty
2008-03-12, 12:57 PM
Well gee M0rt, I'm sure he meant average in his experience. But you already knew that when you made the comment. Of course if you really want to get technical, he could have been talking about the massive database of tangled web or other online character storage sites.

If it's in his experience, he failed to mention it. And of course I know it was about his experience, it's just he has no way to know what the whole D&D community does.
Sorry for being overly snark, but I'm overreactive to arbitrary claims about this or that system sucking "because I say so". It's a result of seeing too many WFRPG fanboys bashing D&D with no knowledge about it.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-12, 01:06 PM
This is true, but even in your stated example, things don't quite hold up. You were saying it was no more balanced, because Disciplines were more useful. Disciplines can't do everything. Period, end of discussion. You can not find a single path that will allow you to do everything. DnD Wizards, by virtue of being wizards, do everything. They are, by default, more broken then Vampire can ever be.

Dominate can do most things, and the old-school Tremere basically could cook up a ritual for any conceivable purpose.

Then of course there's Mages, who really can do anything.

Indon
2008-03-12, 01:08 PM
Someone hasn't played that much 40k. While nominally, yes, beating the other army will get you a win, most 40k games have objectives, such as securing a location or item.
Nonetheless, not an RPG, and a wargame that tells you to destroy the Chaos Gate in X rounds is still very much a wargame.


I'd also point out that (tournament) army lists usually have more back story than the average D&D character. :smallcool:

Well, the units have more fluff, perhaps, courtesy of Games Workshop. I doubt the IG Dirt Farmer unit from the planet of Dirtopia has more player-provided background.

horseboy
2008-03-12, 01:10 PM
Can you point me to this awesome source where all of D&D characters' backstories are being kept? After all, you wouldn't be making claims about "average D&D character backstory" without such source. I'm also afraid I forgot what D&D rules prevent playes from creating backstories.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74621
In tournament play they want 3/4 page back story of your army, for which you get scored on.
Sorry for being overly snark, but I'm overreactive to arbitrary claims about this or that system sucking "because I say so". It's a result of seeing too many WFRPG fanboys bashing D&D with no knowledge about it.I'm not talking about WFRPG, I'm talking about the actual miniature based war game.


This is true, but even then some abilities are flat out more useful than others.Which was why everybody had marble flesh. :smallannoyed: