PDA

View Full Version : The Reason for Imbalance in D20



Matthew
2008-05-05, 05:34 PM
I recently read on one of the 'old school' boards that I frequent, this snippet of information:



But remember that, by Monte Cook's own admission, they included a bunch of intentionally "sub-optimal" options and advice in the 3.0 rulebooks as a way to encourage "rules mastery" among the player-base -- that those players who studied the rules (or hung out at the Character Optimization board at WotC) would be "rewarded" by having a real advantage over the casual players who just (foolishly) followed the advice in the books. That attitude (which seems to have been carried over directly from Magic: The Gathering) was one of the biggest turn-offs of 3E for me, because at this point in my life I have zero interest in "mastering" a ruleset, but neither do I want to be stigmatized as an "inferior" player by my decision not to do so (nor do I want to kowtow to some rules-geek for his condescension-laden "help").

Source (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4359&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)



Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

Source (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

For me, that explains a lot and I thought some folks here might be interested. :smallwink:

Frosty
2008-05-05, 05:41 PM
Urge to purge...rising. :smallfurious:

Jimp
2008-05-05, 05:48 PM
Bracing self for inevitable downward spiral.

Artanis
2008-05-05, 05:51 PM
This can only end in fire

Charity
2008-05-05, 05:54 PM
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3217/drwhatpp9.gif
Yay for built in brokeness, thanks Monty

Citizen Joe
2008-05-05, 05:56 PM
D20's aren't balanced because there are more 2 digit numbers than single digit numbers. Since the digits are carved into the face of the die, that's a little less weight on the side that favors two digits. Originally, you were supposed to take a crayon and fill in those numbers so they would be more visible, but it had the added benefit of counteracting the imbalance by adding the weight of the crayon wax back to the carved out digit locations. Unfortunately, people were too lazy plus the added benefit of illegible dice being much more cheatable, thus the technique never caught on. Now, D20's use a die stain that is nearly weightless which aggravates the imbalance.

Vortling
2008-05-05, 05:59 PM
I've actually seen this before. I assume some people are going to get mad about it.

Rutee
2008-05-05, 06:02 PM
This can only end in fire

Fighting hard, fighting on for the steel / Through the wastelands evermore / The scattered souls will feel the hell, bodies wasted on the shore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgrCKhxE1s)

I'm just curious who couldn't figure it out on /some/ level. I don't think they meant for entire classes to suck, but..

Charity
2008-05-05, 06:05 PM
What you talking about melee classes rule
check out my new fighter build
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/Elemental402/Avatars/2leggedhorse.gif

Matthew
2008-05-05, 06:07 PM
I've actually seen this before. I assume some people are going to get mad about it.

Sure, it's going to be old news to some people. I knew that D20 was imbalanced, but always assumed it was a flaw, not a design feature. Nothing to get angry about, it may even be an after the fact excuse, but still an interesting mentality (and potentially visible even in the newer supplements).



Fighting hard, fighting on for the steel / Through the wastelands evermore / The scattered souls will feel the hell, bodies wasted on the shore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgrCKhxE1s)

I'm just curious who couldn't figure it out on /some/ level. I don't think they meant for entire classes to suck, but..

Heh, heh, Dragonforce. For my part, I just never put two and two together, being always too busy seeking to address 'flaws', rather than think about why they were there.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 06:09 PM
Oh noes !

WOTC wants the players to learn how to thinck for themselves!

They wanted us to develop our minds! How dare they to do this? All games should be made in such a way you could pick your character abilities at random and do whatever crosses your mind during the game and don't be crippled at all!

Sheesssh, rewarding the players who use their brains, how much more evil can they be?

(Had readed that ages ago. And I totally suport it)

Jasdoif
2008-05-05, 06:09 PM
Sure, it's going to be old news to some people. I knew that D20 was imbalanced, but always assumed it was a flaw, not a design feature. Nothing to get angry about, really, but quite interesting."It's not a bug, it's a security feature!" :smalltongue:

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-05-05, 06:12 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA

What cracks me up is the theoretical scenario of Wizard's being a coven of angry nerds that make products to reward fellow nerds for being financially dependant social outcasts while punishing softcore nerd "posers" for having better things to do than homework for a GAME. :smallbiggrin:

SilverClawShift
2008-05-05, 06:13 PM
Am I the only person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable? I can't remember any playing experiences that were rendered unfun because my character wasn't operating at 100% capacity....

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-05, 06:14 PM
Oh noes !

WOTC wants the players to learn how to thinck for themselves!

They wanted us to develop our minds! How dare they to do this? All games should be made in such a way you could pick your character abilities at random and do whatever crosses your mind during the game and don't be crippled at all!

Sheesssh, rewarding the players who use their brains, how much more evil can they be?

(Had readed that ages ago. And I totally suport it)

Hey, great idea. Why not sell products under false advertising and flawed to boot. I'm sorry, this car is clearly meant to explode at random times. You're supposed to learn engine mechanics and then spend your money to fix it.

@^I'm more bugged because they did it on purpose and don't really tell people this.

Jerthanis
2008-05-05, 06:17 PM
See, I've been calling Monte Cook my mortal foe for years now, and just when I start to forget why I put him on that list in the first place, I read something like this that makes me stop caring about why.

In Magic: The Gathering, it kind of makes sense... if there weren't any bad cards, there would be no aspect of deck construction, since any X set of 60 cards would be about as good as any Y set, and that's against the spirit of the game. D&D is not founded around a concept of competition, nor about rules mastery. I now know the reason "rules lawyer" was about the biggest insult in 2nd edition, and disappeared in 3rd... It's because supporting rules lawyers is apparently the intended goal of one of 3rd edition's creators.

Tallis
2008-05-05, 06:18 PM
Well that's crappy...
and it explains a lot.

Could have sworn they said they were working to improve game balance in 3.x though. Guess they were lying like they did when they said 4e wasn't coming out any time soon....

Hopefully they'll be a bit more honest with us in 4e.

At least 1e and 2e admitted they weren't balanced and gave us different xp goals to even it out.

tyckspoon
2008-05-05, 06:18 PM
Sure, it's going to be old news to some people. I knew that D20 was imbalanced, but always assumed it was a flaw, not a design feature. Nothing to get angry about, it may even be an after the fact excuse, but still an interesting mentality (and potentially visible even in the newer supplements).


Flaw or design depends on how far it goes. I can see putting in noob-trap feats and spells (Toughness, Polar Ray, Enlarge Spell?) But entire classes? Making almost all non-magical characters mechanically poor in order to better reward people who saw through the trap? Somehow I think that can be assigned to the designers not having enough understanding of their own game, not intentional nerfing of entire character archetypes.

Jasdoif
2008-05-05, 06:22 PM
I'm more bugged because they did it on purpose and don't really tell people this.Yeah. It's one thing to be less effective because you didn't care about making an ineffective choice, it's another to be less effective because you didn't know your choice was ineffective.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 06:23 PM
Hey, great idea. Why not sell products under false advertising and flawed to boot. I'm sorry, this car is clearly meant to explode at random times. You're supposed to learn engine mechanics and then spend your money to fix it.

@^I'm more bugged because they did it on purpose and don't really tell people this.

By all means, point me to an oficial D&D advertisement that says D&D is not only 100% balanced but also it doesn't reward in any way more skilled players by playing.

And then you can go ask microsoft why their operating system crashes randomly for everything and anything, yet it is used by 99% of the computers out there since we're at it.

EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

Zocelot
2008-05-05, 06:28 PM
Imbalance has to be a part of the game, so that you can feel good about a powerful build. That said, WotC went far too far.

I also believe that Monte isn't talking about huge unbalances like Batman or CoDzilla, but rather small(ish) imbalances like Monks vs Fighters.

Matthew
2008-05-05, 06:29 PM
Flaw or design depends on how far it goes. I can see putting in noob-trap feats and spells (Toughness, Polar Ray, Enlarge Spell?) But entire classes? Making almost all non-magical characters mechanically poor in order to better reward people who saw through the trap? Somehow I think that can be assigned to the designers not having enough understanding of their own game, not intentional nerfing of entire character archetypes.

Sure, I'm not so much interested in the nitty gritty of what was considered to be more powerful than what, I'm just interested to read one of the designers admit that some of it (if not all of it) was purposeful. I did not know that, and it explains a lot about the mentality of the game design. To be clear, I am not judging it, I am just discovering it.

If I had known that the game was meant to be unbalanced and that players were meant, as part of the game, to find the rules exploits to feel clever, I never would have bothered trying to house rule those 'abuses' away. :smallwink:

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 06:30 PM
EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

Snakes and ladders.

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-05, 06:31 PM
By all means, point me to an oficial D&D advertisement that says D&D is not only 100% balanced but also it doesn't reward in any way more skilled players by playing.

And then you can go ask microsoft why their operating system crashes randomly for everything and anything, yet it is used by 99% of the computers out there since we're at it.

I'm not asking for 100% balance, in my analogy that would be a car that never breaks down. What I'm asking is that they not design it to breakdown. And I'm pretty sure that the official wizards advertisement for the PHB(3.5) says

The revised Player's Handbook received revisions to character classes to make them more balanced, including updates to the bard, druid, monk, paladin, and ranger. Spell lists for characters have been revised and some spell levels adjusted. Skills have been consolidated somewhat and clarified. A larger number of feats have been added to give even more options for character customization in this area. In addition, the new and revised content instructs players on how to take full advantage of the tie-in D&D miniatures line planned to release in the fall of 2003 from Wizards of the Coast, Inc., boldings are mine.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/175240000

And while being experienced in a game should make you better at it, it doesn't mean that they have to put aspects that will purposefully gimp you.

Kizara
2008-05-05, 06:35 PM
Am I the only person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable? I can't remember any playing experiences that were rendered unfun because my character wasn't operating at 100% capacity....

I find it acceptable to an extent.

I don't have a problem that their are superior ways to support a concept or that some combinations are more efficent then others.

I do have a problem that some concepts are not well supported, that some roles and archtypes are simply ineffectual because the mechanics are designed that way.

For example, I find it very acceptable that there is a 'right' way to make a fighter or cleric. I don't not find it acceptable that clerics and druids are inherently better then fighters, and that picking that class is inherently superior.

People should be rewarded for making the most of their concept, for playing efficiently, and for making informed and synergetic choices. They shouldn't be rewarded merely for picking druid and Natural Spell. Sword and broad fighters shouldn't be inherently inferior, just less potent for pure offense then 2Handers, etc.

I support competitive play. I encourage optimization at my table, and intense, deadly play. In fact, the fairly veteran players I game with often dissapoint me.

I have created and continue work on my Tome of House Rules with the primary purpose of creating balance in the game and make people work harder to create optimal characters.

Rutee
2008-05-05, 06:36 PM
If I had known that the game was meant to be unbalanced and that players were meant, as part of the game, to find the rules exploits to feel clever, I never would have bothered trying to house rule those 'abuses' away. :smallwink:

Hehehe. Reminds me of Disgaea. I spent the longest time doing my best to not 'cheat' in that game. Then I find out in the second one, from NPCs revealing some of the 'cheats' I've deliberately been avoiding, that the designers intentionally left them in to be abused. :smallbiggrin:

Except that was just me and the computer, not me trying to have fun with other players.

Dervag
2008-05-05, 06:50 PM
I heard that the source of the problem was this:

3rd Edition was originally playtested by a very small group of people whose idea of how the classes were meant to be played was very stereotyped. Wizards were blasters. Clerics were primarily healers, with a side-order of frontline melee and general magical support. Rogues were D&D thieves; their uniquely excellent stealth abilities were actually supposed to let them shine by giving them things they and only they could do. Whereas they were only moderately survivable in combat itself (though with a nasty punch, if they could line it up right).

The classes are more or less balanced with that in mind. Blaster wizards can't lock down an entire battlefield with one spell the way generalized wizards can, and their damage output isn't that much better than the fighter's.* Their iconic fighters were probably mostly sword-and-shield, and their clerics were mostly healers and frontline combatants who spread a few buffs around for emergencies.

All this was closely in line with earlier editions of D&D. The difference was that by making a few "wouldn't it be cool if..." changes, Wizards of the Coast had altered the game balance radically, probably without realizing it.

1) New saving throw system.Saving throw DC now scaled with spell level and with caster ability score. In previous editions this was not true- a monster had a more or less fixed chance of resisting any spell you could throw at it. A powerful monster was almost guaranteed to do so, and there were a lot fewer options for boosting your save DCs.

Therefore, wizards had to balance their spell lineups against the serious chance that the target would save. Spells that were guaranteed to have at least some effect even if the target saved, or which allowed no save, were very useful. That made blasting spells somewhat better, since most of them were 'save for half' and one (magic missile) was 'no save'. It also deflated the value of many 'save or suck/lose/die' spells, because the save option was more likely to occur. It was inherently an all or nothing action, and the high risk of getting nothing offset the great value of getting something.

So sure, spells like web, grease, and confusion were effective. But they didn't have quite such an enormous margin. And since the blasting spells really were about adequately balanced against the other characters' power levels, wizards didn't dominate quite so much.

Then Wizards rationalized the save DC system. The old fixed save DCs that each monster had (designated save vs. poison, vs. spell, and so on) were gone. In their place was a three-save sliding spell DC system and a sliding save modifier system.

There were obvious reasons to do this- the old system wasn't very intuitive, for starters. But it had two drawbacks:

-A metagaming (or just in-character smart) wizard could tailor his spells to his targets. Fighters have lousy Will saves, so throw save-or-lose spells requiring a Will save at them. has a powerful Will save? Use something requiring a Fortitude save. And so on. Before, this was harder to do, because almost everything you could cast would require the monster to make a "saving throw vs. spell," which meant that they had no easily exploited strengths or weaknesses due to that.

-Wizards provided ways for save DC to outstrip saving throw bonuses. This meant that wizards could use save-or-lose spells far more reliably, increasing their power to lock down encounters.

I suspect the playtesters never noticed this was happening because they were so obsessed with playing blasters that they didn't really [i]try to play a dedicated Battlefield Control wizard.

2) Clerics gained automatic spell substitution.This was "wouldn't it be cool if we improved clerics' ability to cast their nonhealing spells?" just as the previous issue was "wouldn't it be cool if the saving throw system were easier to understand?" The way WoTC fixed this was by allowing Good and Evil clerics to substitute cure and inflict spells for the prememorized ones in their inventory. Sounded neat.

But in the process, it gave them one of the advantages Wizards seems to have wanted to reserve for spontaneous casters. A cleric did not have to balance his spell lineup against the most obvious threat available to him- that the party would get mauled and look to him for healing. No matter what spells he memorized he could patch everyone up later.

Which, as intended, gave clerics more room to memorize buffs and utility spells. But then some cleric had the bright idea "Why don't I cast all these wonderful buffs on myself?" And so a monster was born, putting the 'C' in CoDzilla. CoDzilla was a better melee fighter than the melee fighter at equal level, which kind of stank since melee fighting was the melee fighter's only talent, while the cleric also had utility spells and healing (which could also be used to enhance a CoDzilla's performance).

The 'D' comes from the insane imaginative powers of Wizards' Monster Manuals- by providing so many animals of vastly enhanced power, and by providing a single feat to let Druids cast in animal form, they greatly increased the power of changing into animal form.

Again, I'm not sure Wizards noticed this fully- if their clerics were dedicated healers who spread their buffs around the party, their increased mechanical strength might have gone unnoticed. Likewise, the overpowering of druids wouldn't have mattered as much until someone realized that druids could technically change into velociraptors or dire bears or whatever.

Chronos
2008-05-05, 06:57 PM
So, on the one hand, we had designers who wanted to reward people who were taking advantage of the best possible set of options to try to break the game, and on the other hand, we had playtesters who were completely ignoring most of the options available, and only considering one set, which happened to be pretty poor. Yeah, that's a recipe to make a good game if I ever heard of one.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 07:00 PM
I'm not asking for 100% balance, in my analogy that would be a car that never breaks down. What I'm asking is that they not design it to breakdown. And I'm pretty sure that the official wizards advertisement for the PHB(3.5) says
, boldings are mine.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/175240000

And while being experienced in a game should make you better at it, it doesn't mean that they have to put aspects that will purposefully gimp you.

Well, unless you defend that 2e is more balanced than 3e, then they didn't tell any lie. 3e is definetely superior than 2e.

And the "instructs players on how to take full advantage" refers to the miniature line being released, and indeed they did, with all the maps and grid system. In 2e you had no reason to use those.

EDIT:And since nobody seems to remember it:

1-Natural spell wasn't in 3.0
2-Dinossaurs weren't animals in 3.0
3-Polymorph didn't grant extraordinary abilities in 3.0
4-Shapechange didn't grant supernatural abilities in 3.0

But guess what? Nobody played druids in 3.0 unless they were desesperate. So they allowed the druid to transform into velociraptors and gave him natural spell because it seemed to be the only way anyone would play a druid at all.

The fighter, meanwhile, was always played, so they didn't touch him.

Matthew
2008-05-05, 07:03 PM
Well, unless you defend that 2e is more balanced than 3e, then they didn't tell any lie. 3e is definetely superior than 2e.

Please don't start this off here. There are plenty of other threads available on the subject and absolute statements as to the virtues of one edition over another are unwelcome.

Also, notice that you are quoting out of context. The poster is referring to changes made between 3e and 3.5e, not between 2e and 3e.

Deepblue706
2008-05-05, 07:07 PM
Having once regularly played M:TG in the past, I kinda knew this before reading up about it. So, I'm not really phased by this - its just an explicit example of how WotC is composed of a bunch of ********s.

Collin152
2008-05-05, 07:08 PM
EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

THE game.
More experience you have, the more likely you are to lose.

Flickerdart
2008-05-05, 07:14 PM
Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all, and like hell I'm going to let the Fighter and Rogue take off small bits of enemy HP when I can hit the baddies with a Maximized Fireball or two before they even walk over to melee range. Battlefield control for me means Wall of Ice on one side, Wall of Ice on the other, and a corridor of Delayed Blast Fireballs in between, World War I style.

EvilElitest
2008-05-05, 07:16 PM
Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all, and like hell I'm going to let the Fighter and Rogue take off small bits of enemy HP when I can hit the baddies with a Maximized Fireball or two before they even walk over to melee range. Battlefield control for me means Wall of Ice on one side, Wall of Ice on the other, and a corridor of Delayed Blast Fireballs in between, World War I style.

well you can like it, sadly it is an underpowered way to go
from
EE

Charity
2008-05-05, 07:22 PM
I am half convinced this is just an after the fact cover up for crappy game design.

In a purely competative (and lets not forget collectable) game like MtG there is a purpose to imbalance between cards and combo's.
In a role playing game players are supposed to be a team, hell even the DM is on side as it were. We just paid cash money for second rate never to be utilised content, how is that good? For every pat on the back you are giving to your clever gamers you are giving a slap in the face to the rest of your players (no doubt to be referred to as idiot gamers)


Oh noes !

WOTC wants the players to learn how to thinck for themselves!

They wanted us to develop our minds! How dare they to do this? All games should be made in such a way you could pick your character abilities at random and do whatever crosses your mind during the game and don't be crippled at all!

Sheesssh, rewarding the players who use their brains, how much more evil can they be?

(Had readed that ages ago. And I totally suport it)
Just because you might consider yourselves in the former catagory, doesn't make the implied sneering at what is possibly the large majoity of their customers any more palletable.

Poor show if true, pathetic cop out if not
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/Elemental402/Avatars/woohoo.gif

Nebo_
2008-05-05, 07:22 PM
Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all, and like hell I'm going to let the Fighter and Rogue take off small bits of enemy HP when I can hit the baddies with a Maximized Fireball or two before they even walk over to melee range. Battlefield control for me means Wall of Ice on one side, Wall of Ice on the other, and a corridor of Delayed Blast Fireballs in between, World War I style.

No, you're not. Killing stuff is almost always fun, it's just that there are so many options that are better.


well you can like it, sadly it is an underpowered way to go


Only compared to what else a wizard can do. And we know who your post is from, you don't have to tell us Every. Single. Time.

The_Werebear
2008-05-05, 07:36 PM
I'm not surprised at all.

I just am really glad for ToB, which does a pretty good job of making all the roles insane monsters in combat.

However, I do have to say that so long as everyone is consistent on the power level, it can still be fun. My players meet and discuss their builds together to make sure everyone can contribute equally, and they know I operate under one primary rule that they are explicitly told: Start core and expand however you want. But anything you access, I access. If they stick with sword and board and blasty wizard's that's what they'll face. If they break out CoDzilla, ToB, and Batman, you can bet that the enemies will use it against them. And they know I am one of the better optimizers in the group:smallamused:.

I have yet to have a game that unbalanced when I told them that.

Maybe I just have especially nice players.

Chronos
2008-05-05, 07:37 PM
Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after allAnd just how many enemies can you hit with one fireball? A blaster druid can blow away a few hundred thousand enemies with a single spell.

Ascension
2008-05-05, 07:51 PM
I must say I'm actually surprised by this one. While I wasn't so sure about the bigger faults, I figured the feat recommendations and such in the book were just the product of naivete or insufficient playtesting. The thought that they were put there to intentionally screw people who followed their recommendations... That burns me up. The Toughness example in particular annoys me. I mean, sure, it's pretty obvious if you take a closer look at the feat lists that it's terribly subpar, but to think that when they recommended it in the book they were doing so with the knowledge that it was subpar... :smallmad:

I don't know how much say the other authors of the PHB had in this, so I'm not going to blame them... yet... but Monte Cook just lost favor in my eyes.

sonofzeal
2008-05-05, 10:16 PM
Actually, does anyone notice that the two quotes say subtly different things? The latter seems to be saying "some choices are better than others, smart players can tell the difference, and this selection process will enhance the experience for them." The former seems to be suggesting that "you've got to plead CharOp for help or spend weeks and weeks pouring through rulebooks or all your gamer buddies will laugh at you". I mean, I can see where he's comming from, but those aren't really the same thing. Half of my gamer buddies are still playing with Timmy Cards, and everyone manages to have fun anyway.

Also, it appears they're talking about subtle balance issue (for example, how Trip and Sunder are almost invariably better than Disarm, and how Mithril Bucklers can be worn by wizards for free), rather than the big issues of Fighters sucking, Wizards and CoDzillas ruling, etc. I do think WotC screwed up on those issues, but I do believe that was an accident. On the other hand, I'm fully in favour of some approaches being better than others - half the fun for me as a player is finding new builds and figuring out what works best.

Basically, I think there's a difference between "better/worse" and "broken". I think there's a lot of broken content, but I think what they're talking about is the better/worse catagory, and I support them in that.

LibraryOgre
2008-05-05, 10:31 PM
1-Natural spell wasn't in 3.0


Not in the core, but it was in Masters of the Wild.

Pronounceable
2008-05-05, 11:06 PM
Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

Russian roulette.
...

I'm not moved. The inherent DnD imbalance is because of the playtesters issue stated above. And WotC's need of producing splatbooks (which for some inexplicable reason always aim to one up the core) doesn't do wonders for balance either. This is just the icing on the cake.

And a touch of elitism does wonders for one's ego. Publishers are people too.

purepolarpanzer
2008-05-05, 11:19 PM
It's been said, but I will reiterate. Feats and spells having some that suck and others that rock? Not a problem. Entire classes being sucky, no matter how you run them? Lame. (And, again, I doubt this is what Monte Cook meant, but it still needs saying. Over and over again.)

Tengu
2008-05-05, 11:30 PM
EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

Suicide bombing.

Cuddly
2008-05-05, 11:48 PM
Suicide bombing.

Not an earthly one, anyway.

Reinboom
2008-05-05, 11:56 PM
Suicide bombing.
Even that is rewarding with enough skill.

"For the Overmind!"
:smalltongue:


On the article...
Some decisions were just a bit too stupid. I mean, really... I don't see a significant amount of stuff in the books played, ever. They are just wasted space. Even the 'bad players' know to avoid some of the stuff.
If you are going to make crap in books, at least perfume it. :smallsigh:

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-06, 12:20 AM
Here's my thoughts after reading that.

1) D&D is a cooperative, not competitive game.

2) Believe it or not, a lot of new players actually DO listen to advice given in a rulebook and expect it to, you know, be marginally useful. Intentionally going out of your way to dupe new players into picking bad options is not a good way to promote a game.

3) Every inch of space you wasted with those crappy feats, options, and bogus design suggestions could have instead been used for better and more interesting character options or even clarifications on certain rules write-ups so as to not make them confusing and easily exploitable.

4) Don't do that again, it's stupid.

Kompera
2008-05-06, 12:59 AM
It's been said, but I will reiterate. Feats and spells having some that suck and others that rock? Not a problem. Entire classes being sucky, no matter how you run them? Lame. (And, again, I doubt this is what Monte Cook meant, but it still needs saying. Over and over again.)

/signed

There is a huge difference between the types of "intentionally "sub-optimal" options" represented in D&D 3.5.

Power Attack plus Two-Handed Weapon is more potent than Power Attack plus sword and board.
Spiked Chain plus a huge investment in feats gives a Fighter a lot of options and potent advantages in combat.
Two-Handed Sword is marginally better than Battleaxe by the numbers.

All of the above are Easter Eggs that a skilled or experienced player can use to make their character more effective than the character of the player sitting next to them who hasn't yet figured these things out.

But, selecting Monk or Fighter as your character class being an intrinsically inferior option to selecting a Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/Priest as your character class, that's not an Easter Egg for the skilled players to find. What it is is not just poor, but incompetent game design.


[snipped]WotC's need of producing splatbooks (which for some inexplicable reason always aim to one up the core) doesn't do wonders for balance either.
That's called escalation. What better way to ensure that your latest addition to the game is purchased, than to make owning it provide an advantage to those who purchased it? It's been done by many other companies before, probably most famously by Games Wreckshop who re-release the same games every few years and then publish rules for special units in their house organ White Dwarf which are more potent than anything in the core game, as well as a steady stream of supplements containing new races, weapons, leaders, and units all more potent than those published in the core system. It wrecks the game over time, and so they are forced to do it all again after the cycle of supplements has been exhausted yet again. Of course since this is their business model they don't mind at all that the imbalance they deliberately craft into their games over time forces a reboot. They want to sell you the new release of the core rules again, after all.

tyckspoon
2008-05-06, 01:05 AM
/signed
Of course since this is their business model they don't mind at all that the imbalance they deliberately craft into their games over time forces a reboot. They want to sell you the new release of the core rules again, after all.

I think selling you the new redesigned model set to go with the rules update is more central to their business model. Especially since they started selling the core rulebooks separate from the starter game kits.. you get a $50-$60 hardback copy of the rules that they hope leads into hundreds of dollars of model purchases.[/tangent]

The Necroswanso
2008-05-06, 01:07 AM
Fighting hard, fighting on for the steel / Through the wastelands evermore / The scattered souls will feel the hell, bodies wasted on the shore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgrCKhxE1s)

I'm just curious who couldn't figure it out on /some/ level. I don't think they meant for entire classes to suck, but..



Shame on you. You gain three negative levels for that. (worst band ever BTW. PM me if you want real reasons why)

Anyway: OMG? Could it be true that WoTC created something that truly only benefits those willing to go out of their way to 'master' it?
I quit MTG because it practically only cattered to the "hardcore" crowd. I like to beleive D&D is innocent. So, in that fasion, I am going to remove all the information gained from this thread from memory.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-06, 01:07 AM
And WotC's need of producing splatbooks (which for some inexplicable reason always aim to one up the core)

man what

You realize that clerics, druids, and wizards are all core, right? Of the Big Five classes, three are from the core book.

While we're at it, Shapechange and Polymorph (the only spells so strong WotC gave up on them) are also core. And core has multiple arbitrarily-high-power loops.

There is no book (except Serpent Kingdoms, which gave us Pun-Pun) that is worse balanced than Core.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-06, 01:11 AM
You realize that clerics, druids, and wizards are all core, right? Of the Big Five classes, three are from the core book.

While we're at it, Shapechange and Polymorph (the only spells so strong WotC gave up on them) are also core. And core has multiple arbitrarily-high-power loops.

Outside of core, we have greater celerity and PrCs like the Incantarix and the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. Splatbooks aren't the cause of the imbalance, but they have a nasty tendancy to exacerbate things (with a few exceptions, of course).

Reel On, Love
2008-05-06, 01:16 AM
Outside of core, we have greater celerity and PrCs like the Incantarix and the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. Splatbooks aren't the cause of the imbalance, but they have a nasty tendancy to exacerbate things (with a few exceptions, of course).
Sure, we do. And Greater Celerity is nice, but it's no Gate. Incantatrix is ridiculous, but it's still not arbitrarily high-powered, which is what stuff like planar-binding efreets, Gate chains (especially via Candle of Invocation), etc are.

Of course core + splats has more broken and more overpowered. My point is just that Core is more broken than any single other book. Any two or three, even.

sonofzeal
2008-05-06, 01:19 AM
There is no book (except Serpent Kingdoms, which gave us Pun-Pun) that is worse balanced than Core.
Complete Champion.

But in general, I do agree. The power of splatbooks is not that they're instrinsically stronger than core, it's that they multiply the options available for players to cherrypick out of. Rare indeed is the book that is fundamentally more powerful than Core (ToB is the only other example I can think of, and that's if you ignore casters), but players are always going to choose the options that work the best for their character. Easy example - the Urban Ranger is basically equivalent in power to the normal Ranger, but anybody who chooses that variant will chose it because it makes their particular character better. If it was standard, and the classic Rangerwas the variant, the same would happen with it only showing up when it improves the particular character in question. So, by offering two equivalent ways of doing the same thing, you've increased the power available to players because they can choose the version that synergizes best with their concept. Not that options are a bad thing; the alternative is everyone playing a Commoner with the same stats, same feats, and same gear. And nobody wants that.

pasko77
2008-05-06, 01:20 AM
"It's not a bug, it's a security feature!" :smalltongue:

I love you :)

"It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature" has REALLY been used in a place i used to work.
(yes, it is a major company, no i'm not telling the name)

Kompera
2008-05-06, 01:23 AM
I think selling you the new redesigned model set to go with the rules update is more central to their business model. Especially since they started selling the core rulebooks separate from the starter game kits.. you get a $50-$60 hardback copy of the rules that they hope leads into hundreds of dollars of model purchases.[/tangent]

I sees a tangent, I runs with it. :)

I quit playing GW games when I purchased a pile of their miniatures which were being offered for sale at their eponymously named store. Hey, they never had a sale before, I dropped a bundle. I even remarked on the unprecedented sale to the two clerks in the store. "You guys never run sales, what's up?" "Oh, nothing really." I then spent hours painting my new miniatures. And then I showed up to play in one of their evening games hosted in their stores. And was told that they had released a new miniature line and that no one could play with the "old" miniatures in their store. Regardless of the fact that they had been purchased there.

They got me, but that was the last cent I've ever spent on a GW product and the last time I set foot in one of their stores. I even like their paints but found a different manufacturer to avoid spending another dime on GW products. And I tell this story to all of my gaming friends, to attempt to dissuade them from taking the GW hook.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-06, 01:51 AM
Complete Champion.
Except not. It can't compete with the Infinite Titan Gate Chain, or just with infinite Wishes.


But in general, I do agree. The power of splatbooks is not that they're instrinsically stronger than core, it's that they multiply the options available for players to cherrypick out of. Rare indeed is the book that is fundamentally more powerful than Core (ToB is the only other example I can think of, and that's if you ignore casters)
Candle of Invocation. Which leads to infinite Gate chains or infinite Wishes. 'nuff said. And why would you ignore spellcasters?


, but players are always going to choose the options that work the best for their character. Easy example - the Urban Ranger is basically equivalent in power to the normal Ranger, but anybody who chooses that variant will chose it because it makes their particular character better. If it was standard, and the classic Rangerwas the variant, the same would happen with it only showing up when it improves the particular character in question. So, by offering two equivalent ways of doing the same thing, you've increased the power available to players because they can choose the version that synergizes best with their concept. Not that options are a bad thing; the alternative is everyone playing a Commoner with the same stats, same feats, and same gear. And nobody wants that.
Except that the Urban Ranger is just a Ranger designed for an urban setting. Normal D&D games don't tend to take place mostly in cities. The Urban Ranger for an urban game just brings the ranger back up to where he'd normally be.

But, yes. Splatbooks tend to raise the average power--but that's for the best; a Core + CWarrior game is more balanced than a Core-Only game, for example.

Ascension
2008-05-06, 02:34 AM
2) Believe it or not, a lot of new players actually DO listen to advice given in a rulebook and expect it to, you know, be marginally useful. Intentionally going out of your way to dupe new players into picking bad options is not a good way to promote a game.

3) Every inch of space you wasted with those crappy feats, options, and bogus design suggestions could have instead been used for better and more interesting character options or even clarifications on certain rules write-ups so as to not make them confusing and easily exploitable.

These two comments are essentially a much better worded version of what I was trying to say earlier. I don't mind a little lack of balance, I don't mind the PHB not spelling out the most optimal combinations possible for you, but this stuff... this is annoying.

bosssmiley
2008-05-06, 04:44 AM
Matthew quoting T. Foster: "...by Monte Cook's own admission, they included a bunch of intentionally "sub-optimal" options and advice in the 3.0 rulebooks as a way to encourage "rules mastery" among the player-base..."

That sounds like nothing more or less than a load of face-saving baloney to me. :smallconfused: I'm always inclined to believe in c**k-up rather than conspiracy though.

The more likely explanation is that the designers of 3rd Ed. were pulling in two or three different conceptual directions and that their conflicting visions of the game system resulted in a downright kludgy mess. A simple case of "Too many cooks..." :smallwink:

Exacerbating this you had:

1) a probably less-than-rigorous playtest regime, which sounds (at least from anecdotal evidence) like the players were working under the assumption that 3rd Ed was going to play much more like 2nd Ed than it actually does.

2) the bloody mess that was the 3.0 to 3.5 update (druid vs. ranger 'balance', Skip's raging Sorcerer-phobia, and the balls up with the Diplomacy DCs table in the 3.5PHB, along the deliberate obfuscation of what CR actually means in the 3.5DMG, all spring to mind here)

3) rules sprawl combined with WOTC's downright lazy 'rush it out; reap the profit' playtesting and editing.

*Intentional* imbalance in Core D&D? Pull the other one! :smallamused:

Interesting insight though. Cheers

Falrin
2008-05-06, 05:41 AM
Well, first I think the initial idea has some 'flaws'.

Creating an 'unbalanced' game so people can grow through experience and creativity sound as a nice base for the game, but they take it wrong. People that are exeperienced and creative should get better within the system by using superior tactics, not by useing superior 'cards' and knowing what cards are :smallconfused: trapped :smallconfused:.

Nevertheless this is more a personal feeling and I can see this work for a particular type of game, something like munchkin maybe.

But then they make one of the most horrifying mistakes I've seen for a while. It looks like they take the mindset of a collectors, PvP game and project this on a 'sharing', teambased game where balance is prefered.

Oslecamo
2008-05-06, 05:51 AM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?

I surely didn't sign up for this. Actually, one of the things that atracted me at D&D was the complexity.

If I wanted a simple RPG, there are plenty of simple computer RPG's out there.

If I wanted to simple hang out with my friends whitout caring about rules at all, then I wouldn't play be playing a game in the first place.

Kizara
2008-05-06, 05:55 AM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?

I surely didn't sign up for this. Actually, one of the things that atracted me at D&D was the complexity.

If I wanted a simple RPG, there are plenty of simple computer RPG's out there.

If I wanted to simple hang out with my friends whitout caring about rules at all, then I wouldn't play be playing a game in the first place.

I think what the majority of people here are saying is that they feel it wasn't in good taste for wizards to actively give bad advice in their books to newer players. You have to literally learn to ignore any kind of advice or suggestion of playstyle in the books to optimize with any brains at all.

Also, that the different between complexity/options/playing skill and broken aspects (CoDzilla) isn't reasonable.

Artemician
2008-05-06, 05:59 AM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?

I surely didn't sign up for this. Actually, one of the things that atracted me at D&D was the complexity.

If I wanted a simple RPG, there are plenty of simple computer RPG's out there.

If I wanted to simple hang out with my friends whitout caring about rules at all, then I wouldn't play be playing a game in the first place.

You get an ego boost out of pimping a non-existent character out in a table-top game where the rules are changeable at the whims and fancies of a a Game Master?

I don't know about you, but the large majority of us play Table top Role-Playing Games to, you know, Roleplay. Not getting screwed over for picking any particular character concept facilitates better roleplay.

Project_Mayhem
2008-05-06, 06:09 AM
I quit playing GW games when I purchased a pile of their miniatures which were being offered for sale at their eponymously named store. Hey, they never had a sale before, I dropped a bundle. I even remarked on the unprecedented sale to the two clerks in the store. "You guys never run sales, what's up?" "Oh, nothing really." I then spent hours painting my new miniatures. And then I showed up to play in one of their evening games hosted in their stores. And was told that they had released a new miniature line and that no one could play with the "old" miniatures in their store. Regardless of the fact that they had been purchased there.

They got me, but that was the last cent I've ever spent on a GW product and the last time I set foot in one of their stores. I even like their paints but found a different manufacturer to avoid spending another dime on GW products. And I tell this story to all of my gaming friends, to attempt to dissuade them from taking the GW hook.

Thats horrible. A burn-down-the storeable offence.

However, I'm pretty sure thats not standard GW policy, more your local one being jerks. They would never have done that at my local one - hell, half the staff used retro figures. Also, mine frequently ran sales.

Although, I've been out of the loop since the newest version of Warhammer - as far as I'm concerned, seventh edition never happened - so this might be a recent thing.

Talic
2008-05-06, 06:20 AM
I've never had this problem.

Maybe it's because I look at things from a "DM with powergamers" perspective. Whenever I get a new sourcebook, I read it, but the first thing I read is all the mechanics. And I ask myself, "How will this impact my game?" I find about 1 in 4 combos before the boards do, and a few the boards don't, here and there.

After I see the mechanics, I figure WHERE that class/feat/ability would be in my game. Then I put it there. Then, and only then, do I look at the fluff, and, if it doesn't match my concept? I change it, unless it looks really good.

Note how I didn't read the "advice". I figure my opinion is as good as anyone's, and they're never going to actually put one of the twisted power combos my players will try to find (academic exercise, mostly) in that section, nor will it impact the fluff. I've got a good notion of playing most classes anyway, so it's not a big deal.

Charity
2008-05-06, 06:49 AM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?

I surely didn't sign up for this. Actually, one of the things that atracted me at D&D was the complexity.

If I wanted a simple RPG, there are plenty of simple computer RPG's out there.

If I wanted to simple hang out with my friends whitout caring about rules at all, then I wouldn't play be playing a game in the first place.

Putting the empty elitist stuff aside for a moment, lets try this.

Did you sign up to buy a book with one in three pages left blank?
That is essentially what you are saying is a good thing, you payed cash dollars for content that they knew was crap, are you still happy with this?

I still think it's an after the fact cop out to justify a poor product, but if it's for real it isn't just those that trust the books advice that are being slatted it's everyone that bought it, everyone who has jumped on their high horse to defend it. So don't pat yourself on the back and say I'm ok cos I just ignored the rubbish printed in the books I bought, you got hosed too.

TempusCCK
2008-05-06, 09:18 AM
Ha. Custom made for the powergamer, that's awesome.

Regardless, I still like the the 3.5 system and if you ignore the powergaming aspects of it, you can still have fun as a roleplayer, which is the interesting part to begin with.

I still think that's awesome, a poorly designed book with useless content motivated only by economics and the need for more.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-06, 09:26 AM
By all means, point me to an oficial D&D advertisement that says D&D is not only 100% balanced but also it doesn't reward in any way more skilled players by playing.

And then you can go ask microsoft why their operating system crashes randomly for everything and anything, yet it is used by 99% of the computers out there since we're at it.

EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

I dunno... I believe that punishing casual players that just want to have fun, and not expend thousands of dollars into tons of books and spend weeks devouring every rule.... is a bad policy.
As it was said, if you WANT to pick a bad option (bastards swords are fun. whee), it's fine. If you are punished just for playing the game (like picking monk or fighter instead of wizard or druid), you are making more and more people leave the game, and potentially losing more money. Nowadays, only the hardcore fans (and those with hope of a better game) and newbies currently care for D&D. Everyone else is going for others game systesm.

KIDS
2008-05-06, 09:29 AM
It's all very sad. I myself like small chunks of "better choice" and synergy, but the amount to which it exists in 3.5 is plainly ludicrous for a team game. Now I can blame Monte Cook :P

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-06, 09:44 AM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?

I surely didn't sign up for this. Actually, one of the things that atracted me at D&D was the complexity.

If I wanted a simple RPG, there are plenty of simple computer RPG's out there.

If I wanted to simple hang out with my friends whitout caring about rules at all, then I wouldn't play be playing a game in the first place.I want balance similar to what you would see in an RTS. Every side has about the same power, and certain combinations work together well, so an experienced player can succeed, but balance is the default. I don't want weak options thrown in as traps, because that is wasted space. I'm not playing the game to win, I'm playing it to have fun, and me and my friends all contributing equally when we have built to match our concepts with equal optimization should be the basis, not the exception.

warmachine
2008-05-06, 11:58 AM
My thoughts are: You've got to be ****ing kidding me. WotC deliberately wrote worthless junk to hurt the casual players? They need to get psychiatric help.

sonofzeal
2008-05-06, 12:43 PM
Except not. It can't compete with the Infinite Titan Gate Chain, or just with infinite Wishes.
Well no, but it's generally poorly written and poorly balanced. The Devotion feats are a good example, as is Fist of the Forest and a number of the others. Core has a few really stupid combos, but everything I've seen from Complete Champion is bollox. That said, I do admit to quitting in disgust after only reading a few pieces. It's the only WotC book I refuse to use.



Candle of Invocation. Which leads to infinite Gate chains or infinite Wishes. 'nuff said. And why would you ignore spellcasters?
You wouldn't, but a lot of people do when talking about ToB so I thought I'd mention it. It does significantly change the dynamics of the game with regards to relative power levels, so it bears mentioning.



Except that the Urban Ranger is just a Ranger designed for an urban setting. Normal D&D games don't tend to take place mostly in cities. The Urban Ranger for an urban game just brings the ranger back up to where he'd normally be.
The Ranger was only one example. The Monk fighting styles, the Wilderness Rogue, the Battle Sorcerer, and the various Specialist Wizard Variants are other examples of things where are not particularly more powerful than their default alternatives, but increase the power of the system due to making choices that synergize. I understand the Battle Sorc is generally thought to be underpowered compared to a pure Sorc, but a player heading for any of the gish PrCs might get good milage out of it. A Wilderness Rogue is only barely better than a standard Rogue, if at all, but a Barbarian / Wilderness Rogue is a significantly better mix than a Barbarian / Classic Rogue, because many of his most important skills (ie Survival) stay class skills the whole time.




But, yes. Splatbooks tend to raise the average power--but that's for the best; a Core + CWarrior game is more balanced than a Core-Only game, for example.
Agreed - CW brought its own platter of cheeses, but it is more balanced than Core for the most part, and the game is better off with it.

Oslecamo
2008-05-06, 12:55 PM
I don't know about you, but the large majority of us play Table top Role-Playing Games to, you know, Roleplay. Not getting screwed over for picking any particular character concept facilitates better roleplay.

Wait, we may have an important discuss point here.

In wich way having a weacker character hinders you from roleplaying?

This is, even if you're playing a commoner with 8 in all his stats and who wields a broken club, what makes that character harder to roleplay thant Mike the prodigiy wizard who rolled 18s in all his stats?

You're right, D&D is a roleplaying game. There is nothing I can remember stoping you from roleplaying your character the way you want it.

Two more points:

1-Yes I like building stuff up, looking for combos and sinergies. I started playing MTG before D&D and the spirit never left. Just like I enjoy digging trough my card collection seeking for bizarre combinations and building decks, I like digging trough Wotc books looking for bizzarre combinations and building characters, just for the heck of building them.

2-Many many computer RPGs have useless stuff on them. Final Fantasy, for example, despite being popular, only has one valid strategy at end game, wich is to stab stuff to death while throwing non elemental nukes, because the freacking enemies are either immune to anything but pure damage or can be killed in one hit anyway. You have all those amazing special powers like death and earthquake and hold and 99% of the times they're completely useless, yet FF is a very popular series.

To charity:
Start sarcasm
Ok, I'll google something up. Arghhh publicity! It's eating my eletrecity and my bandwitch and making me lose time! Google is clearly evil, I'll never use it again...OMG I bought a product and the package is too big! It's clearly evil, burn it burn it to the ground..

Pfff I think I'll read a book....No! The letters are too big! It's such a waste of paper! It hurts my eyes! What's this? Omg this site has so much open space It's clearly the worck of an evil sadic overmind...

Sleep...Yes...No, my body has so much things that could be better humanity is cleary an abomination of nature! I must purge the world of those dirty walcking apes(takes flamethrower and goes in a killing spree).
end sarcasm

Now, seriously, if we would complain about every waste of resources we see, I wouldn't do anything but complain. Waste is expected. Actually, If I ever see a product that isn't wasting my money in any way, I'll be greatly admired.

It's not the amount of uselss garbage that matters. It's the amount of uselss stuff in the middle of the barbage wich you can extract by yourself that matters.

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-06, 01:05 PM
I've never had this problem.

Maybe it's because I look at things from a "DM with powergamers" perspective. Whenever I get a new sourcebook, I read it, but the first thing I read is all the mechanics. And I ask myself, "How will this impact my game?" I find about 1 in 4 combos before the boards do, and a few the boards don't, here and there.

After I see the mechanics, I figure WHERE that class/feat/ability would be in my game. Then I put it there. Then, and only then, do I look at the fluff, and, if it doesn't match my concept? I change it, unless it looks really good.

Note how I didn't read the "advice". I figure my opinion is as good as anyone's, and they're never going to actually put one of the twisted power combos my players will try to find (academic exercise, mostly) in that section, nor will it impact the fluff. I've got a good notion of playing most classes anyway, so it's not a big deal.

That's a good strategy, one I wish I had the time to adopt. Generally I go to the boards to find out about whatever particular exploits there are, since I can't really do that myself.

That being said, if the advice is worthless (I tend to ignore it all myself) why are they wasting my space and money with it? That's the kind of thing that gets on my nerves.

valadil
2008-05-06, 01:09 PM
Ya know. I think the imabalance mentioned in M:tG made a lot of sense. The whole purpose of the game was that it was collectible. Nobody used Craw Wurm because it was a great card. They used 'em because it came with every starter pack. I don't think WotC ever saw Magic going as far as it did. I think the original goal was a game where you didn't know what your opponent would play because he'd use a completely different set of cards, some of which you'd never seen before. They did not anticipate the internet publishing and analyzing each card in a new expansion before the cards were even printed. Making some collectibles better than others made sense in that sort of game.

It does not make sense in D&D. At least not as described in the Monte Cook quotation. I think Monte got it backwards. Rather than adding in traps for newbies, there should be bonuses for serious players. Heighten spell seemed pointless when I first started. I mean, why would I heighten a fireball when I already had cone of cold? The cone had a higher damage cap.

I think WotC has been better lately about releasing content with a stronger baseline. Give a newb a Beguiler and he'll have a solid character. The character will be better if you read the CharOps board, but it will certainly be playable out of the box. Having newbs play decent characters while optimizers play optimized characters seems like a better game than one in which newbs play gimps and optimizers play optimized characters.

Rutee
2008-05-06, 01:11 PM
So.. when was the date on Monte Cook's post? Mulling it over, I've come to agree with the folks that he's trying to save face as a game designer rather then own up to sucking.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-06, 01:13 PM
Probably. He knows he is sux0rz and will never measure up to Gygax or Steve Jackson, so he tries to look like a bastard instead of an idiot.

Avor
2008-05-06, 01:23 PM
The whole immbances things, for all the good reasons, are not nessisarly worth it.

It says, "Play like this, use these feats, or you totaly suck and are bitchified."

I want to be a fighter, I want to be the hero, run into burning buildings, beat up bandits, wear shiney armour with spikes, ect

But noooo, pure fighters suck, and anybody who chooses them over even swashbucklers is a total ****ing moron!

The immbalances force you to pick effectiveness over cool. And that's not fun.



The other thing I hate is as DM, players who "master" a single class, know all the ins and outs, how to abuse the hell out of it. Then ask me if it's ok, saying it's just a melee class. The DM needs to know all the rules, that's alot of work, they simply don't have the time or effort to focus on each and every class to learn it inside and out.

Rutee
2008-05-06, 01:24 PM
Justin Achilli is probably better, and I can not think of a more damning insult for a game designer.

Also, yeah, this is sour grapes. The DnD for Dummies that he linked to said "3.5, coming soon!", which means it's 2k5 or near it. 5 years of people slamming his product? Yeah, that's pretty much as sour as grapes get.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-06, 01:25 PM
That's what the charop boards are for. Or the immortal answer: "Gimme some time to check everything out. D'you have a list of resources?"

DirtyPacifist
2008-05-06, 01:46 PM
Personally, I think I have spent more time and found more joy in trying to find most interesting and best working mechanical solutions than... Well... Doing anything else DnD related, really. As it seems likely any of the biggest gaps (like spellcasters vs. non-spellcasters) weren't intentional, I really don't mind small gaps at all.

That said, every system is a bit unbalanced so actually building those slight "errors" seems unnecessary.

Matthew
2008-05-06, 01:54 PM
Also, yeah, this is sour grapes. The DnD for Dummies that he linked to said "3.5, coming soon!", which means it's 2k5 or near it. 5 years of people slamming his product? Yeah, that's pretty much as sour as grapes get.
Huh? It links to Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies for me: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764584596/montecooksweb-20/104-0099416-8835107

He says 'six years of hindsight', so I guess maybe 2006? 3.5 was released in 2003, he already said his piece on that subject... Monte Cook's Review of D20 1.5e (http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html)

[Edit]
Nah, D&DfD was published April 2005, so must have been about then.



Personally, I think I have spent more time and found more joy in trying to find most interesting and best working mechanical solutions than... Well... Doing anything else DnD related, really. As it seems likely any of the biggest gaps (like spellcasters vs. non-spellcasters) weren't intentional, I really don't mind small gaps at all.

Ah well, that means that you are in the target audience demographic [i.e. people who like to optimise for fun]. Personally, I find that deadly boring, but that's just my subjective preference. If I had known the game was designed to appeal to that demographic I could have saved myself a lot of time, but it has been an interesting journey.

Charity
2008-05-06, 01:55 PM
To charity:
Start sarcasm
Ok, I'll google something up. Arghhh publicity! It's eating my eletrecity and my bandwitch and making me lose time! Google is clearly evil, I'll never use it again...OMG I bought a product and the package is too big! It's clearly evil, burn it burn it to the ground.

Pfff I think I'll read a book....No! The letters are too big! It's such a waste of paper! It hurts my eyes! What's this? Omg this site has so much open space It's clearly the worck of an evil sadic overmind...

Sleep...Yes...No, my body has so much things that could be better humanity is cleary an abomination of nature! I must purge the world of those dirty walcking apes(takes flamethrower and goes in a killing spree).
end sarcasm...
I think you may have missed the point somewhat.


Now, seriously, if we would complain about every waste of resources we see, I wouldn't do anything but complain. Waste is expected. Actually, If I ever see a product that isn't wasting my money in any way, I'll be greatly admired..

Your purchasing standards are clearly much lower than mine, though I think I ought to disabuse you of the notion that this is my main gripe.

Mine is not really a complaint about wasted resources, galling though that is. The very large part of my objection is the sneering attitude and foundationless elitism this shows toward their ( though I should really say his) paying customers.
To produce a substandard product through negligance or lack of ability is bad enough, but to deliberately create nonsense content and then add misleading advice on top of this is frankly immature and not what I would expect to have to pay for. Then to subsequently admit to this clever rouse is idiotic.


It's not the amount of uselss garbage that matters. It's the amount of uselss stuff in the middle of the barbage wich you can extract by yourself that matters.

I will assume that you meant useful here

Rutee
2008-05-06, 01:56 PM
Huh? It links to Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies for me: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764584596/montecooksweb-20/104-0099416-8835107

He says 'six years of hindsight', so I guess maybe 2006? 3.5 was released in 2003, he already said his piece on that subject... Monte Cook's Review of D20 1.5e (http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html)

[Edit]
Nah, D&DfD was published April 2005, so must have been about then.

Honestly, the operative thing here was "Years after 3.0". He's just trying to save face.

Matthew
2008-05-06, 01:59 PM
Honestly, the operative thing here was "Years after 3.0". He's just trying to save face.

As I said above, that is definitely a possibility. However, it doesn't seem any more likely to me, since he doesn't actually say they designed the worst parts of the game that way on purpose (and 2:1 Power Attack, for instance, was a 3.5ism). I don't know if you've read the blog entry, but he says stuff like 'Toughness was a feat intended for Elf Wizards, and primarily for first level tournament scenarios, etc... [i.e. suboptimal choices may be optimal, depending on the circumstances]. Bear in mind, Monte Cook left Wizards well before 3.5 was released (2001, in fact), which is the edition he should be slamming to save face (and, arguably, does elsewhere).

His discussion of high level magic can also be read on the same website: If I had another shot at it (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_144).

From what I hear of his latest release, he doesn't much care for balance anyway. :smallwink:

Sholos
2008-05-06, 03:49 PM
I sees a tangent, I runs with it. :)

I quit playing GW games when I purchased a pile of their miniatures which were being offered for sale at their eponymously named store. Hey, they never had a sale before, I dropped a bundle. I even remarked on the unprecedented sale to the two clerks in the store. "You guys never run sales, what's up?" "Oh, nothing really." I then spent hours painting my new miniatures. And then I showed up to play in one of their evening games hosted in their stores. And was told that they had released a new miniature line and that no one could play with the "old" miniatures in their store. Regardless of the fact that they had been purchased there.

They got me, but that was the last cent I've ever spent on a GW product and the last time I set foot in one of their stores. I even like their paints but found a different manufacturer to avoid spending another dime on GW products. And I tell this story to all of my gaming friends, to attempt to dissuade them from taking the GW hook.

You're nice. I would have requested my money back and probably have reported them to BBB. At the very least. You asked them why they had a sale and they didn't tell you that they were releasing a new line that would make the stuff you were buying unusable. That is unacceptable in my eyes. It's almost false advertising (not quite, but close). I don't know if it's technically illegal, but I definitely would have started a campaign in the area to get people to avoid that store. I wouldn't fault GW for the store employees being *******s. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have completely abandoned GW, either. It's the same reason I stopped Magic. It just got annoying to have to keep buying crap.

Yahzi
2008-05-06, 08:01 PM
Am I the only person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable?
I'd have to say yes.

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be annoyed to find out that the author of their game system deliberately made it stupider.

"Oh, did you read the words we typed and believe us? Haha sucker! U R NOOB!!#!"

Can you think of any other product that you would buy and not be outraged to discover the manufacturer deliberately screwed up parts of it?

Cuddly
2008-05-06, 08:04 PM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?

I surely didn't sign up for this. Actually, one of the things that atracted me at D&D was the complexity.

If I wanted a simple RPG, there are plenty of simple computer RPG's out there.

If I wanted to simple hang out with my friends whitout caring about rules at all, then I wouldn't play be playing a game in the first place.

IS THAT A

http://www.marcusleatherdale.com/images/adivasi/fullsize/adivasi_49_fs.jpg

OR A

http://www.letsgetitright.org/blog/red%20herring.gif

???

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-06, 08:06 PM
M'thoughts exactly, my 8 INT, handless friend.

Incidentally, have a loli or a cookie.

Tengu
2008-05-06, 08:09 PM
I want balance similar to what you would see in an RTS. Every side has about the same power, and certain combinations work together well, so an experienced player can succeed, but balance is the default. I don't want weak options thrown in as traps, because that is wasted space. I'm not playing the game to win, I'm playing it to have fun, and me and my friends all contributing equally when we have built to match our concepts with equal optimization should be the basis, not the exception.

Well said.

Yahzi
2008-05-06, 08:11 PM
So let me see if I can get this straight: the majority of the players wants a brainless game where a 5 year old who barely knows how to read and is playing for the first time will fare as well as the 20 year university guy who played the game for half his life?
You can teach a 5 year old the rules of chess. There are no surprises, tricks, or misleading information in the rules of chess.

Oddly, that seems to have virtually no impact on how much experience makes one a good chess player.

What we are trying to say is that people should get better at the game by playing the game, not by reading the rules.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-07, 12:00 AM
Wow... talk about hubris.

Gee Monte, perhaps there's a reason that WotC didn't seem to try all that hard to keep you from leaving the fold and starting your own company eh?

Look, I don't have a problem with a system that has design and balance issues. I don't have a problem with some cards in a CCG being better than others (that's partly how you push value for the uncommon and rare cards).

I do have an issue with the assumption about a system you are designing that "hey, I guess we better make up some flaws so serious players can feel smart." Because guess what, there are going to be flaws and imbalances anyway. Doing that on purpose is just asking for the kind of wild imbalance bettween classes that d20 suffers from. Thinking the system won't provide that just by itself and by the designers being human... pretty arrogant.

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-07, 12:21 AM
You can teach a 5 year old the rules of chess. There are no surprises, tricks, or misleading information in the rules of chess.

Oddly, that seems to have virtually no impact on how much experience makes one a good chess player.

What we are trying to say is that people should get better at the game by playing the game, not by reading the rules.

By the same token, they shouldn't print bad rules in a rulebook.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-07, 04:53 AM
First, big friggin' duh. Hello? Anyone who hadn't figured this out, like, ten years ago? And yes, I'm aware that 3E wasn't out yet ten years ago.

Second, it's just a typical "cover your word-for-donkey-I'm-not-allowed-to-write-on-the-forums". "Yes, we put those bad things there intentionally, really, it's by design!!!1!"

Third, reading more closely, he doesn't understand the purpose of Timmy cards. No, it is not to let people figure out that other cards are better (although Magic does have a few cards like that, such as the Iron Star). Timmy cards exist because many Magic players like to whack their opponent with 10/10 trample monsters. More importantly, they let you.

On the other hand, the monk class does not exist because many players like using unarmed combat, because (1) there are several other ways of accomplishing that, and (2) more importantly, the class doesn't let you.

Matthew
2008-05-07, 05:41 AM
First, big friggin' duh. Hello? Anyone who hadn't figured this out, like, ten years ago? And yes, I'm aware that 3E wasn't out yet ten years ago.

Second, it's just a typical "cover your word-for-donkey-I'm-not-allowed-to-write-on-the-forums". "Yes, we put those bad things there intentionally, really, it's by design!!!1!"

That seems a little contradictory... So, are you saying we should have figured out the game was designed to be unbalanced on purpose after playing it for a while and that this is a lie, so it wasn't intentionally designed to be unbalanced at all. I'm confused.

I knew D20 was unbalanced, what I didn't know was that it was designed that way on purpose (whether or not it really was is something people will have to make up their own minds about).



Third, reading more closely, he doesn't understand the purpose of Timmy cards. No, it is not to let people figure out that other cards are better (although Magic does have a few cards like that, such as the Iron Star). Timmy cards exist because many Magic players like to whack their opponent with 10/10 trample monsters. More importantly, they let you.

On the other hand, the monk class does not exist because many players like using unarmed combat, because (1) there are several other ways of accomplishing that, and (2) more importantly, the class doesn't let you.
Unfortunately, even if he misunderstands what Timmy Cards are for, that doesn't mean that they didn't apply the idea to D&D, it means that they didn't understand the idea they thought they were applying.

Charity
2008-05-07, 01:54 PM
First, big friggin' duh. Hello? Anyone who hadn't figured this out, like, ten years ago? And yes, I'm aware that 3E wasn't out yet ten years ago.

Second, it's just a typical "cover your word-for-donkey-I'm-not-allowed-to-write-on-the-forums". "Yes, we put those bad things there intentionally, really, it's by design!!!1!.

Ironically this post seems laced with the very same flavours as Monty's

perhaps Monty was right after all.

horseboy
2008-05-07, 09:50 PM
never[/b] had a sale before, I dropped a bundle. I even remarked on the unprecedented sale to the two clerks in the store. "You guys never run sales, what's up?" "Oh, nothing really." I then spent hours painting my new miniatures. And then I showed up to play in one of their evening games hosted in their stores. And was told that they had released a new miniature line and that no one could play with the "old" miniatures in their store. Regardless of the fact that they had been purchased there.
Weird. I was using their old Marauder line plague censor bearers and one piece clan rats in tournaments last year at the bunker and no one said anything to me about it. When was this?


The other thing I hate is as DM, players who "master" a single class, know all the ins and outs, how to abuse the hell out of it. Then ask me if it's ok, saying it's just a melee class. The DM needs to know all the rules, that's alot of work, they simply don't have the time or effort to focus on each and every class to learn it inside and out.That's why we have the "No repeat offenders" rule. I'm never allowed to ever play mounted fighter, ever again in any system. Moose is never allowed to play a mage or a ranger, we mastered them.

And if you have to have developers leave you powerful combos in the game for you to find, you're not nearly as cleaver as you want to believe about yourself.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 08:29 AM
It occured to me that the main difference is this:

Once you find out that a Magic card is sub-par, you wait a few minutes for the game to end, and then remove it from your deck.

Once you find out that a D&D class, race, skill, feat, or feature (or spell, for sorcerers) is sub-par, your character is essentially stuck with it forever.

Unless the DM allows the PHB2 retraining rules or the Dark Chaos trick, which were written years after 3.0 was first released, so that really is not an excuse.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 01:21 PM
I've actually seen this before. I assume some people are going to get mad about it.

The quote's being taken radically out of context. And, frankly, the bit where he explicitly says D&D doesn't do what Magic does is being completely ignored. For example, just a few paragraphs later:


To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

What Cook is talking about is the incontrovertible fact that any game which features meaningful choices will, as a matter of course, feature non-optimal combinations of those choices. The subject of his entire blog post was not about "deliberately designed brokenness", it was about a failure in 3rd Edition to include meaningful advice for new players in the rulebooks.

Toughness wasn't an optimal feat for PCs in long-term campaigns. But it had a definite role in low-level one-shots or for buffing low-level NPCs. As Cook says: Toughness had its uses.

His other example are the magic item creation feats: Useful in many long-term campaigns, completely useless in one-shots or in campaigns with insufficient downtime. Those aren't bad or broken feats -- they're just feats which are more useful in some situations than in others and knowing which requires a mastery of the system.

And I know that 4th Edition is promising that the bad ol' days in which players could make sub-optimal choices while building their characters are dead and gone. 4th Edition is lying to you: If there are any meaningful choices in the game, then sub-optimal choices are going to be possible. It is an unavoidable and incontrovertible fact.

Take Chess, for example. Perfectly balanced, right? Great. You open with an A2-A3 pawn move and I'll open with a classic Queen's Gambit. Or you open the game by moving your "horsey" five times in a row while I'm carefully developing the center of the board.

But let's imagine that 4th Edition has achieved the impossible and created a perfect balance in their hundreds of different powers so that, no matter which powers you take, you always remain perfectly balanced with every other option available.

Now, we'll both take the same standard stats and build a fighter. I'm putting my highest score into Intelligence. You're putting yours into Strength. Who's gong to have the better fighter? ("Maybe they've included Int-based fighter powers!" I don't take them. I take the Strength-based ones. Maybe I've got a concept. Maybe I'm like the 3rd Edition newbie who doesn't understand what Toughness is and isn't useful for.)

Frankly, the fact that the 4th Edition designers actually think they can eliminate sub-optimal choices is one of the things which makes me most question their basic competency in game design.


I heard that the source of the problem was this:

3rd Edition was originally playtested by a very small group of people whose idea of how the classes were meant to be played was very stereotyped. Wizards were blasters.

3rd Edition featured one of the largest playtests in the history of the industry. Assuming the recently released 4th Edition playtest list is comprehensive, the 3rd Edition playtest was larger.

Matthew
2008-05-12, 01:46 PM
The quote's being taken radically out of context. And, frankly, the bit where he explicitly says D&D doesn't do what Magic does is being completely ignored. For example, just a few paragraphs later:

I don't think so. The context is linked right there. The quotation may be read out of context, but that's the nature of quotations. It's also false to say that he "explicitly says D&D doesn't do what Magic does" or even that it is being ignored. He says "D&D doesn't exactly do" what Magic the Gathering does with regard to 'Timmy Cards', which I think should be perfectly obvious to anybody.



What Cook is talking about is the incontrovertible fact that any game which features meaningful choices will, as a matter of course, feature non-optimal combinations of those choices. The subject of his entire blog post was not about "deliberately designed brokenness", it was about a failure in 3rd Edition to include meaningful advice for new players in the rulebooks.

That is indeed the subject of his blog, but he clearly says that they purposefully didn't "design it [suboptimal choices] away" in order to "reward mastery of the game". It's pretty clear that many character creation and other choices were designed with arbitrary 'good and bad' options.

You are quite right that 4e will not be likely able to design all of these things away and that it will no doubt introduce new imbalances as part and parcel of its development. However, the designers are claiming to be making every effort to remove arbitrary suboptimal choices from the game (whether we believe them or not).

For me there are really only two issues here. 1) Feats, Spells, Skills, Equipment [and some other undefined aspects of the game] are not balanced so that one choice is equal to another 2) The game was intentionally designed that way to reward 'rules mastery'.

I am certainly not judging this approach in absolute terms, but I certainly know that it subjectively is not for me. As I say, if I had known that the game was designed so that some choices are better than others, I [and I assume others like me] wouldn't have bothered seeking to redress those rules we perceived as flaws.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 04:36 PM
For me there are really only two issues here. 1) Feats, Spells, Skills, Equipment [and some other undefined aspects of the game] are not balanced so that one choice is equal to another

They are not balanced so that one choice is equal to another for all characters in all situations.

They can't be.

That's what Monte Cook wrote. Taking his quotes out of context and distorting his words won't change that fact.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 05:40 PM
HIs words were "We deliberately wrote bad options into the rules to reward Rules Mastery". He then goes onto say "Some of these bad options can be useful at times, but in general are just traps"

At what point were we twisting?

Hawriel
2008-05-12, 06:02 PM
It occured to me that the main difference is this:

Once you find out that a Magic card is sub-par, you wait a few minutes for the game to end, and then remove it from your deck.

Once you find out that a D&D class, race, skill, feat, or feature (or spell, for sorcerers) is sub-par, your character is essentially stuck with it forever.

Unless the DM allows the PHB2 retraining rules or the Dark Chaos trick, which were written years after 3.0 was first released, so that really is not an excuse.

Why the hell do you need a damn rule book to give you permision to retcon your character? Thats totaly obsurd. Ive reworked characters many times when Ive found out the skill/feat set I took turned out to eather totaly suck or I saw a better way to express my character consept with a different skill/feat set, or even class. My GM did not say "no there are not rules to fix a character your just screwd deal with it." Insted my GM just said "your right. You really farked over your character. Tell me what you want to do." Then give suggestions that he thought might help.

Sorry if this was a rant but this kinda erked me. Kurald Im sorry if this sounds like im picking on you. That is not im intention. I did read the retraining rules and found them very dumb.

Matthew
2008-05-12, 06:14 PM
They are not balanced so that one choice is equal to another for all characters in all situations.

They can't be.

That's what Monte Cook wrote. Taking his quotes out of context and distorting his words won't change that fact.

That is not what he says, and once again I am not taking his quotes out of context, the context is right there for all to read. There is a huge difference between admitting that some things are good in one situation and some things are good in another, and saying we purposefully made some choices significantly worse than others (ala 'Timmy Cards') in order to reward 'rules mastery'.

Yes, some Feats have very minor niches where they are 'good'; I have argued that many times over the years in defence of things like Weapon Focus and, indeed, Toughness, but you cannot seriously be telling me that something like Weapon Specialisation is a good Feat to take at Fourth Level or Whirlwind Attack is a good feat to aim for, still less that Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bastard Sword is a wise investment of a Feat or that Half Plate/Splint Mail is a worthwhile armour choice. These are just bad options with only the slightest merit to them.

To put it another way, if someone were to say "I want to play a Level 1 Fighter who fights with two Long Swords" that is generally recognised as a 'bad choice'. That means that D20 doesn't support the concept 'Level 1 Fighter who fights effectively with two Long Swords.' What is the reason for this? It is apparently to reward players who realise it's a 'bad choice'. In my (subjective) opinion that is, frankly, stupid and not what I want from an adventure roleplaying game. The Animated Shield is a similar 'would be crazy to do without' high level item. The whole idea pretty much epitomises what I despise about D20, but also what other people love - builds and level resource management.

You are ignoring the facts about D20 and, indeed, the very words of one of its three lead designers.

Kompera
2008-05-12, 10:37 PM
Wait, we may have an important discuss point here.

In wich way having a weacker character hinders you from roleplaying?

This is, even if you're playing a commoner with 8 in all his stats and who wields a broken club, what makes that character harder to roleplay thant Mike the prodigiy wizard who rolled 18s in all his stats?

It's not harder to roleplay that. It's trivially easy. Here, I'll give a hypothetical example of play. The commoner with all 8s for stats and the broken club we'll call 'Barrelmaker", the name GMs in a club I was a member of would give to characters they would allow the player to re-roll. The rest will just be represented by their class.

The group of our heroes is in a dungeon, and is attacked by a several goblins:
Mage: I'll Sleep the group on the left! (spell effect is resolved, a few Goblins fall asleep)
Fighter: I'll charge the lead Goblin on the right! (combat roll is resolved, damage dealt, and a Goblin dies)
Barrelmaker: I'll charge the Goblin next to that one! (Combat roll is resolved, attack missed)
Cleric: (to Barrelmaker) "I thought I told you to stay out of combat? I use far too many healing spells trying to keep you alive." *sigh* I charge the Goblin Barrelmaker charged, so I might save his rear, again, when he is hit. (combat roll is resolved, Goblin is injured)

Later in town, the group needs to get information from the head of the town guards:
Barrelmaker: I'll go talk to him.
Everyone else: No! OOC: With your 8 CHA and pitiful skills you'll probably get us thrown in gaol. And even if you don't manage to offend, you won't be getting any useful information. Sure wish we had a Rogue... Cleric will go, he has the highest CHA.

Later, in the wilderness, the party needs to flee on horseback from a group of Ogres:
GM: Make Riding rolls to pull ahead of the Ogres.
<everyone passes except Barrelmaker>
GM: You're caught and eaten. Everyone else escapes.

Yeah, I fiated all of the rolls for purposes of this example. Maybe Barrelmaker would have accomplished something. It's possible. But the point is that such a character, while being perfectly able to be role played, is also not going to be as effective as any other person in the group, at anything. And while some might find that challenging and a role play bonanza, most people would find it frustrating, boring, and not fun at all. And your group might not appreciate the uselessness of your character, either, preferring, you know, to hang out with their equals. But feel free to tag along with them, tend the camp fire, curry the horses, and cook the meals. You'll be lousy at those tasks, too, but at least you'll be role playing, right?

So knock yourself out with your Barrelmaker. Just remember that while D&D is a role playing game, it is still a game. And games are meant to be fun, or there's little point in playing them. As Bruce Lee would say: "Role playing is like a finger, pointing towards the moon. Focus on the finger, and you'll miss all of that heavenly glory" *smack*

Re: GW. I'll keep this short because I don't want to derail. It took me months to paint up the minis (I'm slow like that), so there was no way to get a refund at that time. And after investing sweat equity in painting them I wasn't going to be willing to turn them in for a refund anyway. And it's possible that the employees didn't know about the mini line change. The timeframe? Wow, many years ago. The Epic Thunderhawks (with a huge pile of other minis) I bought were pretty plain, and I can't find an image of them online. This image of a Thunderhawk (http://gamesday.us.games-workshop.com/GamesDay2006/Baltimore_2006/Coverage/fw/images/5_sm.jpg) also seems to be more detailed than the model which replaced the ones I purchased. So it may have been 2 or more mini line changes ago.

Person_Man
2008-12-08, 12:34 PM
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I highly doubt any writer would think to themselves, "Hey, let's make Weapon Specialization is really weak. That will reward people for being smart and avoiding it." I assume they just didn't make balance a design goal. Instead, they wrote what they thought was interesting, and believed that players and DMs could handle PCs of varying power levels.

I think that Monte was engaging in revisionist history, a point that he basically admitted. No one wrote Toughness to be weak. They wrote it to be situational, and didn't think it was important to explain that it was situational. So if you're a game designer, you should either include (somewhat correct) advice with your crunch, or you should create a chart of some sort that shows Typical Damage and Effects By Level and try to stick to it.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-12-08, 12:37 PM
Hey, wow, a thread with Rutee in it. And Illeterate_Scribe (who got his original account back and stopped using that one).

Nice Necromancy, Person_Man. Especially of a thread that was just a massive flame war in the first place.

EDIT: And Justin_Bacon. I didn't know he got banned...

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-08, 12:55 PM
I'm so incredibly not at all sorry that I never DM'd a "standard" D&D campaign anymore, where before I always felt like somehow I wasn't a "real" DungeonMaster until I did at least one game according to RAW. Well, I know that's all bull**** now....

Also: for once I'm glad my gamers are all lazy bastards who are barely familiar with the rules. Somehow this really cements it in my mind that the two different ways of gaming (which I'd break down as Rules Serve the Story vs Story Serves the Rules) really are incompatible.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 12:57 PM
Also: for once I'm glad my gamers are all lazy bastards who are barely familiar with the rules. Somehow this really cements it in my mind that the two different ways of gaming (which I'd break down as Rules Serve the Story vs Story Serves the Rules) really are incompatible.

From the mouth of Zombies comes ....brainz. But also something interesting. Since I imagine this thread will be locked as necromancy, can you please PM me on this?

Also, cheese and crackers this must be old. Like, 4 banned people?

Artanis
2008-12-08, 01:01 PM
I count six banned people :smalleek: