Glass-Cannons, Whinging, and Blame

[Duff]

How do you actually handle that though?

Like, if one character has really bad will-saves, and the DM want's to run a campaign arc with illithids as the main villains, does the DM need to come to the player and ask his or her player's permission first?

This seems limiting, patronizing, and also likely to spoil the plot in advance.

Or is the DM just limited to only using villains which don't target any of the PCs weaknesses? Which are pretty few and far between given most groups I have seen.

That one's fairly easy.
"This campaign is going to include a lot of important Will saves. You should consider that in your build"
Or if you don't want 4 Clerics and 2 paladins "This campaign will have so many important Will saves, If you play a class with a weak will save I'm going to give you a +1 on it. If I'm doing that you probably want to also drop a feat into it"

[OldTrees1]

The one in his signature I believe.

Which I tried to look through to better understand the OP's situation, but I'm between eye tests and it didn't really ready like my kind of thing (although I might enjoy it if I ever played it, who knows). If anybody can summarise the damage and armour rules I'll be grateful.

I was wrong. Here is a corrected summary

I seem to have misread your summary. This appears correct.

Quality does not affect penetration.



Page 173.

In short:

To hit, you roll a d20 and add your skill value, with modifiers for the weapon, maneuver, and battlefield conditions. It is opposed by the enemy's dodge, which means the difficulty is equal to ten plus their dodge score.

If you hit, you then roll for damage. Roll 1d20, and add your strength score and the weapon modifier. This is opposed by the enemy's resilience, which means the difficulty is equal to ten plus their resilience score.

I agree that most of the time stacking a shield with heavy armor or a parrying dagger with high agility is the optimal move, but it really depends on the opponents scores to begin with; and in either case neither ever provides less than 10% protection (or 5 /15 % in the case of a weapon with differing penetration).

Bolded for emphasis

Oh I misunderstood. I thought each attack was blocked by either Dodge or Resilience. I did not realize it was Atk vs Dodge => Damage vs Resilience => 1 wound (2 damage vs roughly 6-7 hp).

That changes the math "a bit".

Spoiler: More Math

Show

There are a few different classes of melees weapons. I was ignoring some previously due to misunderstanding the damage check. Here is more detail.
Standard weapon is +0 Accuracy Check, +5 Damage Check
Reminder: the damage check determines IF a wound happens. It is not +5 damage.
2 Handed? +2 Damage Check
+2 to either Accuracy Check or Damage Check? => Weapon gets Poor Penetration which means +1/+2/+3/+1 to Resilience for Light/Medium/Heavy/Shield.
-2 to either Accuracy Check or Damage Check? => Weapon gets Good Penetration which means -1/-2/-3/-1 to Resilience for Light/Medium/Heavy/Shield.

Pentation breaks even at Medium Armor (or Light + Shield).
Shield vs Parrying Dagger. Both give +2 to different steps but Shield is affected by Penetration.

Hm. There are smaller choices that could change the meta, but overall it looks like
Check 1: 1d20+Ability+5 vs 10+Ability+5
Check 2: 1d20+Ability+5 vs 10+Ability+Armor
So there is no reason not to wear armor. The only question is how much benefit does it give.

You start at a -5 disadvantage on an opposed d20 check. Depending on the attacker's choices that could be a -9 disadvantage on an opposed d20 check (2 handed weapon with -2 penalty on check 1).
+5 advantage (and attacker wins ties) = 73.75%
+3 advantage = 66%
+1 advantage = 57.25%
No Armor takes roughly 11.7% more damage than Light Armor.
No Armor takes roughly 28.8% more damage than Medium Armor.
Light Armor takes roughly 15.2% more damage than Medium Armor.

Okay, your frustration makes more sense now. I see no reason not to equip some armor. The only downside I see is the -2/-4/-6/-0 penalty to skills. Sure the wound system makes me not as worried about an 11.7% because damage is so binary, but Medium Armor -> No Armor is getting hurt every 3 rounds instead of every 4.

[Talakeal]

So I talked to the player who said armor is worthless again. This time he better explained himself and said that since he is playing a rogue type character, he doesn't think the stealth penalty for light armor is worth it. Which is much more reasonable, and honestly it is weird to me that the rogue archetype in modern fantasy wears leather armor to begin with. But I am still a bit concerned, as this is the same guy who refused to ever upgrade his armor's quality in the last game even at the point where it would have only cost a pittance, and then bitched every time his character took damage.

I was wrong. Here is a corrected summary



Bolded for emphasis

Oh I misunderstood. I thought each attack was blocked by either Dodge or Resilience. I did not realize it was Atk vs Dodge => Damage vs Resilience => 1 wound (2 damage vs roughly 6-7 hp).

That changes the math "a bit".

Spoiler: More Math

Show

There are a few different classes of melees weapons. I was ignoring some previously due to misunderstanding the damage check. Here is more detail.
Standard weapon is +0 Accuracy Check, +5 Damage Check
Reminder: the damage check determines IF a wound happens. It is not +5 damage.
2 Handed? +2 Damage Check
+2 to either Accuracy Check or Damage Check? => Weapon gets Poor Penetration which means +1/+2/+3/+1 to Resilience for Light/Medium/Heavy/Shield.
-2 to either Accuracy Check or Damage Check? => Weapon gets Good Penetration which means -1/-2/-3/-1 to Resilience for Light/Medium/Heavy/Shield.

Pentation breaks even at Medium Armor (or Light + Shield).
Shield vs Parrying Dagger. Both give +2 to different steps but Shield is affected by Penetration.

Hm. There are smaller choices that could change the meta, but overall it looks like
Check 1: 1d20+Ability+5 vs 10+Ability+5
Check 2: 1d20+Ability+5 vs 10+Ability+Armor
So there is no reason not to wear armor. The only question is how much benefit does it give.

You start at a -5 disadvantage on an opposed d20 check. Depending on the attacker's choices that could be a -9 disadvantage on an opposed d20 check (2 handed weapon with -2 penalty on check 1).
+5 advantage (and attacker wins ties) = 73.75%
+3 advantage = 66%
+1 advantage = 57.25%
No Armor takes roughly 11.7% more damage than Light Armor.
No Armor takes roughly 28.8% more damage than Medium Armor.
Light Armor takes roughly 15.2% more damage than Medium Armor.

Okay, your frustration makes more sense now. I see no reason not to equip some armor. The only downside I see is the -2/-4/-6/-0 penalty to skills. Sure the wound system makes me not as worried about an 11.7% because damage is so binary, but Medium Armor -> No Armor is getting hurt every 3 rounds instead of every 4.

Well, armor does limit stealth and mobility, and it does weigh and cost a fair bit, so there isn't "no reason" not to wear light or medium armor, but I agree it is generally worth the tradeof for most builds. Personally I think the final decision should come down to image and archetype rather than optimization, but that's a pretty pie in the sky design goal.

Personally the one archetype I think the system struggles with is the "barbarian" who has lots of strength but foregoes armor.

Thanks again for looking at the math!

That one's fairly easy.
"This campaign is going to include a lot of important Will saves. You should consider that in your build"
Or if you don't want 4 Clerics and 2 paladins "This campaign will have so many important Will saves, If you play a class with a weak will save I'm going to give you a +1 on it. If I'm doing that you probably want to also drop a feat into it"

I think I already answered this, but the problem isn't so much about a campaign as a story arc which I decide to run at a later point for an existing group.

[OldTrees1]

So I talked to the player who said armor is worthless again. This time he better explained himself and said that since he is playing a rogue type character, he doesn't think the stealth penalty for light armor is worth it. Which is much more reasonable, and honestly it is weird to me that the rogue archetype in modern fantasy wears leather armor to begin with. But I am still a bit concerned, as this is the same guy who refused to ever upgrade his armor's quality in the last game even at the point where it would have only cost a pittance, and then bitched every time his character took damage.

Well, armor does limit stealth and mobility, and it does weigh and cost a fair bit, so there isn't "no reason" not to wear light or medium armor, but I agree it is generally worth the tradeof for most builds. Personally I think the final decision should come down to image and archetype rather than optimization, but that's a pretty pie in the sky design goal.

Personally the one archetype I think the system struggles with is the "barbarian" who has lots of strength but foregoes armor.

Thanks again for looking at the math!

Yeah I could see the -2/-4/-6 penalty to Stealth as an issue. It is good you talked to the player and got a deeper explanation. I hope stealth is rewarded enough. Is the +4 to Stealth worth a 28.8% increase in damage? That is up to how the GM runs the campaign and how much the player likes the out of combat stealth vs the in combat being hit.

Is upgrading the armor quality just increasing resilience by +1 for a small cost? What did they buy instead? I find +2 armor rather boring and only really like the +1 magic armor because +0 magic armor is rarely a thing. (I find qualitative upgrades more interesting than quantitative ones.) The increased quality might not be worth the price to them despite it costing a "pittance".

However I think you are right to be concerned. Based on the limited context I have, I would have many concerns about your group. You should expect them to be hit even more often and bitch even more than in the previous campaign. In a more typical group with more typical "bitching", that would be readily addressed. However, from our limited context, your group skews towards more toxic than typical. So concern is expected.

[MoiMagnus]

Which is much more reasonable, and honestly it is weird to me that the rogue archetype in modern fantasy wears leather armor to begin with.

Given the almost absence of leather armour in history, I would not be surprised if the rogue was pretty much the only reason why the leather armour exists in D&D in the first place.

Most classes are expected to yield heavier armours. Notable exceptions are wizard/sorcerer who are supposed to have magical defences and/or magical robes, and monk/barbarians who are supposed to fight half-naked (and still survive for some reason).

Design wise, the rogue is a martial character, so needed some sort of mundane defensive option more effective than civilian's clothings (remember that Dex bonus to AC didn't exists in 1e). And medium/heavy armours went against the idea of a stealth character, so I assume they introduced a penalty-less armour, made of leather because that looks cool enough.

[kyoryu]

Given the almost absence of leather armour in history, I would not be surprised if the rogue was pretty much the only reason why the leather armour exists in D&D in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiled_leather

[Anonymouswizard]

My personal fantasy heartbreaker (still not to the point where I can post on the forum) actually gets rid of most leather armour, you can get a boiled leather breastplace to put over a gambeson (or chain as the rules currently stand) but that's it. It does exist in my post-apocalyptic RPG, but it's not a standard item (boiled leather counts as light armour but is noted as rare, unboiled leather doesn't give a bonus).

Leather armour is a historical thing, although I believe relatively rare compared to cloth armour (which I believe was fairly effective). Studded leather wasn't and is actually weird as better than leather when you think about it (yes the metal studs will rob a hit of energy, but also deflect it into the explicitly unboiled leather). Leather helmets were also a thing, as I discovered when I researched helmets for am A-level science project, but they weren't really common.

[kyoryu]

My personal fantasy heartbreaker (still not to the point where I can post on the forum) actually gets rid of most leather armour, you can get a boiled leather breastplace to put over a gambeson (or chain as the rules currently stand) but that's it. It does exist in my post-apocalyptic RPG, but it's not a standard item (boiled leather counts as light armour but is noted as rare, unboiled leather doesn't give a bonus).

Leather armour is a historical thing, although I believe relatively rare compared to cloth armour (which I believe was fairly effective). Studded leather wasn't and is actually weird as better than leather when you think about it (yes the metal studs will rob a hit of energy, but also deflect it into the explicitly unboiled leather). Leather helmets were also a thing, as I discovered when I researched helmets for am A-level science project, but they weren't really common.

Unboiled leather wasn't really a thing for sure, while boiled leather was. I'd probably argue to include soft leather armor as effectively the same thing as cloth armor (which is more effective than people think)

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: gateway game and hence higher player disaster rates. That is probably a high R value bit for sure. I do think that the emphasis on gaining elaborate “cool” powers with an intricate player knowledge that you can possess is a potential contributor. It’s a bit like how other bits of fundamentally useless knowledge are used to confer social status and create a sense of belonging. I don’t think you get that in simpler systems, so you don’t get the false sense that you the player are somehow special/cool and can stay a bit more detached...but alas, not exactly an RCT-able question.

Re: he’s playing home brew. True, but it’s baseline D&D that’s being modded up from what I can see. Reasonably comprehensive edits for values in the files so to speak - and that’s no easy job - but in terms of player dynamics, it’s still d&d.

[OldTrees1]

Re: he’s playing home brew. True, but it’s baseline D&D that’s being modded up from what I can see. Reasonably comprehensive edits for values in the files so to speak - and that’s no easy job - but in terms of player dynamics, it’s still d&d.

A potentially relevant difference is every attack is "Accuracy vs Dodge" followed by "Strength vs Armor" to determine if a hit was scored. It is like 3E if every attack was rolled against Touch AC to touch and then rolled against Flatfooted AC to penetrate. Suddenly the dexterous monk starts regretting their lack of armor.

Outside of that nuance, you have a good point.

[Quertus]

the problem isn't so much about a campaign as a story arc which I decide to run at a later point for an existing group.

So… don't do that?

If *you* choose for the existing low will party to run through the Illithid slaver story arc, that's on you, and they have every right to complain.

OTOH, if

A) this was always the plan

A1) as demonstrated by the published module / sealed documents / encrypted files;

A2) and you warned them that

A2a) low will saves is a bad idea

A2b) or that you're going to run things honest, including not telling them *what* is a bad idea

B) or you are running a sandbox

B1) where *they* chose the Illithid slaver path, and

B2) not all paths punished Will

Then it's on them.

[Kardwill]

I think I already answered this, but the problem isn't so much about a campaign as a story arc which I decide to run at a later point for an existing group.

The important thing is, don't surprise them with the Mind Flayers. Telegraph the problem ahead of time. Have them encounter a lone Illithid, or very clear proof of its presence, and clear indications of what it can do. Then, your players will have the opportunity to either avoid your "Illithid campaign arc", try to find alternative solutions, or find a way to compensate for their weakness.
And I think we had this conversation earlier, but when you hint for something, you have to lay it thick, otherwise most players won't pick up the clues. Stuff that is obvious for the GM is never obvious for the players, who don't see the entire module and don't have the advantage of hindsight.

If there is clear foreshadowing, then players can see it as a "problem to solve", and not a grudge-monster.

Also, allowing for character respec in the middle of the campaign is a good way to avoid the frustration a player can feel when they understand they built their character "wrong"

[Talakeal]

The important thing is, don't surprise them with the Mind Flayers. Telegraph the problem ahead of time. Have them encounter a lone Illithid, or very clear proof of its presence, and clear indications of what it can do. Then, your players will have the opportunity to either avoid your "Illithid campaign arc", try to find alternative solutions, or find a way to compensate for their weakness.
And I think we had this conversation earlier, but when you hint for something, you have to lay it thick, otherwise most players won't pick up the clues. Stuff that is obvious for the GM is never obvious for the players, who don't see the entire module and don't have the advantage of hindsight.

If there is clear foreshadowing, then players can see it as a "problem to solve", and not a grudge-monster.

Also, allowing for character respec in the middle of the campaign is a good way to avoid the frustration a player can feel when they understand they built their character "wrong"

That's normally how I try and do things; but in my experience players just beat their head against the problem rather than adjusting their tactics, let alone their build.

There is a video game design principle that when you introduce a new mechanic there are four phases; once in a safe environment where the players can experiment, once in a standard environment, once when combined with previous mechanics, and then finally in a way that allows players to show off and be rewarded by their mastery of the mechanic. I generally try and stick to this principle, but my players don't make it easy.

So… don't do that?

If *you* choose for the existing low will party to run through the Illithid slaver story arc, that's on you, and they have every right to complain.

OTOH, if

A) this was always the plan

A1) as demonstrated by the published module / sealed documents / encrypted files;

A2) and you warned them that

A2a) low will saves is a bad idea

A2b) or that you're going to run things honest, including not telling them *what* is a bad idea

B) or you are running a sandbox

B1) where *they* chose the Illithid slaver path, and

B2) not all paths punished Will

Then it's on them.

First, I know you like to play in sandbox games, but please understand that most people don't.

To me, this is unnecessarily restrictive to both the players and the GM. As a GM, I feel like I should be allowed to use anything in the monster manual, and as a player I feel that my build choices should matter.

Now, this can be abused in either direction; a GM actually pick on one player intentionally or get to the point where the PC isn't really a good fit for the game, and likewise a player can intentionally build weaknesses into their character as a way of trying the GMs hands on the other extreme.

You also get into problems where, across the entire party, someone will be weak to almost everything, and if the DM has to avoid it,suddenly the list of antagonists grows pretty small. And this gets worse when you look at weaknesses in relation to the other PCs rather than against some absolute standard.


Also, I am still curious and wanting to talk about your ideas for campaign diagnostics when you get a chance.

Re: he’s playing home brew. True, but it’s baseline D&D that’s being modded up from what I can see. Reasonably comprehensive edits for values in the files so to speak - and that’s no easy job - but in terms of player dynamics, it’s still d&d.

I kind of resent that :p

But yes, it is a traditional RPG in terms of a group of allied player characters working together to overcome obstacles with minimal and one GM who has nearly total narrative control if that is what you mean.

[Segev]

Sandboxes are deceptively hard to run well. However, run well, a player looking for a more story-oriented experience will find one as long as he is looking for hooks. Which is necessary no matter what kind of game you're playing.

[KaussH]

Design wise, the rogue is a martial character, so needed some sort of mundane defensive option more effective than civilian's clothings (remember that Dex bonus to AC didn't exists in 1e). And medium/heavy armours went against the idea of a stealth character, so I assume they introduced a penalty-less armour, made of leather because that looks cool enough.

As a side note, 1st ed AD&D did have defensive adjustment that applied to ac based on dex.

[KaussH]

On a wider note. Charicter design is often not a matter of a weak base. It is a trade off between stuff your good at and stuff your bad at. So you might have a weak will save,and hit like a train. You might have low hit points, but be able to make lots of attacks, ect. If you are going to only use the stuff that everyone is resistant to, good against, good at all the time, then you might as well just take the abilities off the table and make everyone flat everything.

Flaws and weaknesses are a way to be good at x and bad at y. And while x might be what your great at, from time to time y must happen.

This is, in my view, one of the reasons why in a lot of dnd, and in some other games, magic wildly outpaces martial. Since magic is often viewed a powerful a lot of games have flaws.. hard to cast, restrictive components, easy to interpret, might explode you instead, ect. And you also get, world shattering magic...
Remove the balances (oh, I never require components, why do I need to make a success roll, it should just work, ect) and suddenly spell casters are op.
(Not that you couldn't do the same with fighter types, but then people jump on the reality bus.. )

[Chauncymancer]

By the way, I've spoken to a few SCA players who claim that the idea for soft leather armor has its genesis in a set of brigandine that had been scavenged of it's metal plates, leaving behind a leather jacket with little rivets stuck in it. Somebody looked at that, and instead of thinking that something was missing, tried to figure out how leather and rivets could constitute armor.

[Talakeal]

By the way, I've spoken to a few SCA players who claim that the idea for soft leather armor has its genesis in a set of brigandine that had been scavenged of it's metal plates, leaving behind a leather jacket with little rivets stuck in it. Somebody looked at that, and instead of thinking that something was missing, tried to figure out how leather and rivets could constitute armor.

That’s likely for studded, but I am pretty sure buff coats were a real thing.

[Xervous]

This is, in my view, one of the reasons why in a lot of dnd, and in some other games, magic wildly outpaces martial. Since magic is often viewed a powerful a lot of games have flaws.. hard to cast, restrictive components, easy to interpret, might explode you instead, ect. And you also get, world shattering magic...
Remove the balances (oh, I never require components, why do I need to make a success roll, it should just work, ect) and suddenly spell casters are op.
(Not that you couldn't do the same with fighter types, but then people jump on the reality bus.. )

If one character type progresses in scope and the other doesn’t, being isolated to a ‘What Do I Do?’ rather than a ‘How Do I Do?’, I think we’ve got the obvious source of the imbalance. It’s clearly part of the design intent. If people want balance and simulation pick something that isn’t inherently imbalanced to simulate...

[Willie the Duck]

Given the almost absence of leather armour in history, I would not be surprised if the rogue was pretty much the only reason why the leather armour exists in D&D in the first place.
Most classes are expected to yield heavier armours. Notable exceptions are wizard/sorcerer who are supposed to have magical defences and/or magical robes, and monk/barbarians who are supposed to fight half-naked (and still survive for some reason).
Design wise, the rogue is a martial character, so needed some sort of mundane defensive option more effective than civilian's clothings (remember that Dex bonus to AC didn't exists in 1e). And medium/heavy armours went against the idea of a stealth character, so I assume they introduced a penalty-less armour, made of leather because that looks cool enough.

Leather armor was introduced in Chainmail, and included in oD&D, meaning they pre-date the conception of the Thief (later Rogue) class. The original (Chainmail) reason for 3 categories of armor (it had leather, chain, and plate; plus with or without shields) was to facilitate light/medium/heavy troop types, as well as allowing for different weapon-vs-armor comparisons. In the switch to D&D, it retained the weapon-vs-armor bit*, and picked up the added value of the lesser protective armor being lighter**, and thus those who wore less armor could carry more loot*** out of the dungeon-- facilitating the difficult weighing of choices that Gary believed was key to a good game.
*that apparently saw very little use in D&D, even at Gary and Dave's tables
**this being a bit of a misnomer, as people in the same combat roles tended to wear the same rough poundage of armor, regardless of material
***and thus XP

By the way, I've spoken to a few SCA players who claim that the idea for soft leather armor has its genesis in a set of brigandine that had been scavenged of it's metal plates, leaving behind a leather jacket with little rivets stuck in it. Somebody looked at that, and instead of thinking that something was missing, tried to figure out how leather and rivets could constitute armor.

That’s likely for studded, but I am pretty sure buff coats were a real thing.

Ring mail and Studded leather already have an explanation – misinterpretation of medieval artwork. There is plenty of art showing people on battlefields with what looks like studded leather, or with metal-colored circles all over them. That was just the artist’s way of conveying someone in brigandine or mail. Regular leather could also be that scenario – there seems to be some evidence that cuir bouilli was sometimes worn over mail and aketon/gambeson, making armor just that much more protective than chain and padding; this like studded could have been misinterpreted as just the outer shell being an armor type. Or it could have been buff coats. Or Gary just got it wrong, and thought that the relatively rare leather jack was more prevalent and the more common fiber cloth jack less so*.
* although, it should be mentioned that once AD&D came about, leather and padded armor were both included, and had the same protective value.

Leather armour is a historical thing, although I believe relatively rare compared to cloth armour (which I believe was fairly effective). Studded leather wasn't and is actually weird as better than leather when you think about it (yes the metal studs will rob a hit of energy, but also deflect it into the explicitly unboiled leather). Leather helmets were also a thing, as I discovered when I researched helmets for am A-level science project, but they weren't really common.

Gambesons or Aketons were a huge part of medieval armor, and were indeed significant protection. They also weren’t ‘light’ (by which I think people usually mean ‘are less bulky, look like clothes/can be worn under clothes, inhibit acrobatic endeavors less than metal armor, etc.’ more than an actual weight value). As has ben pointed out by others, it depends on what you mean by leather (something distinct from buff coats or cuir bouilli over mail, or not), but yes regular just leather doesn’t have a lot of evidence as a common source of armor by itself (although since leather and cloth don’t often last 1000 years, we’re mostly trying to interpret from art). I’ve seen speculation that it’s more a supply chain (there was a lot more flax for linen than spare leather not already needed for other uses), and repair (you can re-sew cloth and it is most as good as new. Leather you have to patch, and it won’t be as strong afterwards) concerns than it not being suitable for armor. One thing I can safely say just from having worn a leather jacket before – it sure wouldn’t be more stealthy than cloth armor.

[Quertus]

Sandboxes are deceptively hard to run well. However, run well, a player looking for a more story-oriented experience will find one as long as he is looking for hooks. Which is necessary no matter what kind of game you're playing.

First, I know you like to play in sandbox games, but please understand that most people don't.

Well, even ignoring sandboxes,

So… don't do that?

If *you* choose for the existing low will party to run through the Illithid slaver story arc, that's on you, and they have every right to complain.

OTOH, if

A) this was always the plan

A1) as demonstrated by the published module / sealed documents / encrypted files;

A2) and you warned them that

A2a) low will saves is a bad idea

A2b) or that you're going to run things honest, including not telling them *what* is a bad idea

B) or you are running a sandbox

B1) where *they* chose the Illithid slaver path, and

B2) not all paths punished Will

Then it's on them.

Most of my analysis still applies.

I'm not sure that there's data to support that *most* people don't like to play sandboxes. And I'd be quite surprised were this to be true. But it also doesn't matter - what matters is *your* players. Who sure seem to complain a lot. Do we have any evidence for *their* preferences in this matter?

I'd love to run a good sandbox for them, and see how they respond.

@Segev, why do you say that doing so is "deceptively hard"?

To me, this is unnecessarily restrictive to both the players and the GM. As a GM, I feel like I should be allowed to use anything in the monster manual, and as a player I feel that my build choices should matter.

"I should be allowed to stick my hand in any box."

"I should be allowed to store anything in boxes - even acid or lava."

Me: "sure, but… maybe *warn* them before they stick their hand in a box of acid? Especially since they keep complaining about losing hands?"

Also… people who complain about losing hands when they stick them in boxes of acid should *not* be used for testing your system. Testers should simply *explain* that they are losing their hands to unlabeled boxes of acid, and ask whether or not that was the intended result.

Drop those players, drop your system, or drop all pretences of keeping your sanity.

Now, this can be abused in either direction; a GM actually pick on one player intentionally or get to the point where the PC isn't really a good fit for the game, and likewise a player can intentionally build weaknesses into their character as a way of trying the GMs hands on the other extreme.

You also get into problems where, across the entire party, someone will be weak to almost everything, and if the DM has to avoid it,suddenly the list of antagonists grows pretty small. And this gets worse when you look at weaknesses in relation to the other PCs rather than against some absolute standard.

System testers should be willing to play Sentient Potted Plants next to Not!Thor.

So, which are you doing?

Are you testing your system, and fixing the imbalances (like no defence and no armor) that they point out?

Or are you running a system, where they have a right to complain about false claims (does your system claim any level of balance / lack of trap options (and note that spending money to reduce the ability to carry money might be considered a trap, if not a trap option)?)?

With what mindset are your players approaching your game?

(Answer: a totally broken one, where, if they finished one level X% ahead of "WBL" (does your system actually *have* WBL tables?), they expect to finish the next level at least X+Y% ahead of WBL, or else they complain and feel that they have failed. Possibly exacerbated by the (correct) belief that the GM micro-balances, even changing the tactics of the encounter based on how the characters are doing, making any build or tactical choices irrelevant.)

Different styles train players to approach the game different ways. How do you want them to approach the game, and what are you *actually* encouraging? Afaict, just going by your descriptions, your style is… schizophrenic (EDIT: wrong word. Multiple personality, maybe? Is there an art word… like multimedia, but for styles?), and that doesn't help your players to choose a mindset with which to approach the game.

Also, I am still curious and wanting to talk about your ideas for campaign diagnostics when you get a chance.

Yeah, I'm too senile to remember anything about that. (other than that you mentioned it once before in this thread, iirc)

[Talakeal]

Well, even ignoring sandboxes,


Most of my analysis still applies.

I'm not sure that there's data to support that *most* people don't like to play sandboxes. And I'd be quite surprised were this to be true. But it also doesn't matter - what matters is *your* players. Who sure seem to complain a lot. Do we have any evidence for *their* preferences in this matter?

I'd love to run a good sandbox for them, and see how they respond.

"Like" was the wrong word, I meant "Prefer".

I don't have any hard data to back that up, but I know from my experience, both as a GM and as a PC, that sandboxes are always less fun for the players and more frustrating to run for the DM than a linear adventure.

Likewise, if you look at the market, the vast majority of adventures that are published these days are not sandboxes.

Please note that I don't mean sandboxes aren't fun, just less fun than linear adventures, and that may simply be because they are so hard to do "right."

Yeah, I'm too senile to remember anything about that. (other than that you mentioned it once before in this thread, iirc)

That's a shame. Now that quarantine is over I might actually have time to try it.

I can't remember exactly which one of my threads you posted it in, but it was sometime in mid-late 2019.

"I should be allowed to stick my hand in any box."

"I should be allowed to store anything in boxes - even acid or lava."

Me: "sure, but… maybe *warn* them before they stick their hand in a box of acid? Especially since they keep complaining about losing hands?"

Again, what does this warning actually look like at the table?

Like, hypothetically, let's say I am running a 20 level campaign. From levels 1-3, the primary villain will target AC, from 4-6 it will target will, from 7-9 it will target reflex, from 10-12 it will target for, from 13-15 it will deal fire damage, from 16-19 it will do energy drains, and at level 20 it will deal sonic damage.

What does my warning look like? And when is it delivered? And how does it change if I don't decide on what each arc will focus on until I have already finished the last one, as is more or less normal for me?

Like, in my current campaign, I have a general idea of the themes, I have a few adventures outlines, a few scenes planned out, and know who most of the major NPCs and players that are going to be involved are, but I haven't statted out anything, and I don't even know who the villains are except for the first two missions; and I can't know until the game is well underway because the players are free to make or break allegiances over time.

System testers should be willing to play Sentient Potted Plants next to Not!Thor.

I disagree.

The game is not about playing sentient potted plants, it is about playing people, there aren't even rules for such, and would have to be home-brewed.

On a less literal level, yeah, people can make an intentionally bad character. I don't see why you should test around that possibility.

There is a difference between trap options and sabotaging your own character.

Are you testing your system, and fixing the imbalances (like no defence and no armor) that they point out?

Or are you running a system, where they have a right to complain about false claims (does your system claim any level of balance / lack of trap options (and note that spending money to reduce the ability to carry money might be considered a trap, if not a trap option)?)?

With what mindset are your players approaching your game?

The game is more or less finished at this point.

I mean, I am sure it contains traps, dysfunctions, and exploits, every RPG does, and I will remove them when I find them, but at this point we are mostly just playing for fun.

Or are you running a system, where they have a right to complain about false claims (does your system claim any level of balance / lack of trap options (and note that spending money to reduce the ability to carry money might be considered a trap, if not a trap option)?)?

That's a very hard question to answer.

To me, a trap option is a choice which is flat out inferior; for example if you have two feats, one that gives +1 to hit with melee weapons and the other a +2 to hit with melee weapons, all other things being equal the former is a trap option. My system does not intentionally contain trap options, but I am sure it contains unintentional ones which I correct when I find and appreciate when players point out.

Balance is a more or less meaningless term though, and the vast majority of things are incomparable. In a vacuum, one could say that crafting skills or less valuable than combat skills, for example, and that would be true if everyone took the same crafting skill, but if the group has a variety of skills they are stronger as a whole. Likewise, even amongst crafting skills, wood-working and stone-working are probably less useful than metal-working or alchemy, but a group with 1 of each is better off than 2 metal workers and 2 alchemists.

To take this further, a jack of all trades character tends to suck in most parties, but in a solo adventure or in a very large group with 7+ players, they will likely outshine a specialist. Likewise, going overboard on offense or defense is a bad move in a vacuum, but if you have two people to compliment one another they can make for an excellent hammer and anvil strategy.

A guy who spends a bunch of character points to be totally immune to mind control might be a detriment to the group when fighting orcs, or overpowered when fighting illithids; a dedicated pyromancer might be a liability when fighting efreets, but a tremendous boon when exploring the yeti's icy lair.


Now, what exactly do you mean by falls claims? Like rules dysfunctions?

Possibly exacerbated by the (correct) belief that the GM micro-balances, even changing the tactics of the encounter based on how the characters are doing, making any build or tactical choices irrelevant.)

You GREATLY overestimate my tactical acumen if you think I can make the player's build or tactical choices irrelevant. It just doesn't matter than much. I would say the individual variance of dice rolls over an encounter probably has ten times the impact of playing a little softer when the PCs are struggling.

Also, I would imagine it is just plain human nature to do this, and that most DMs (and players) get lazy and overconfident while whining and buckle down and focus when losing. And honestly, characters in the game world might do the same, so its probably good RP; after all a wounded or cornered animal is especially dangerous, while a well-fed animal facing inferior prey will likely play with its food. Likewise, villains who are in a position of strength might toy with their enemies or bully them around, while those who find themselves taking heavy and unexpected casualties will likely dive for cover and reevaluate their tactics.

That being said, I do agree that buckling down when losing can feel like "punishing success"; but on the other hand refusing to show mercy can also feel like "kicking people when they are down," I am just not sure which is worse.

(Answer: a totally broken one, where, if they finished one level X% ahead of "WBL" (does your system actually *have* WBL tables?), they expect to finish the next level at least X+Y% ahead of WBL, or else they complain and feel that they have failed.

It doesn't have WBL as such; but it does have a expected levels of wealth gain. Basically, an average adventure increases the character's wealth score by about five; completing optional objectives might increase this number, while taking on debts might decrease it.

Basically, in my last game they would get most or all of the bonus objectives and avoid taking on more than minimal debt, 2 out of three missions.

The third mission, they would struggle a bit on, either being too beat up to complete the bonus objectives, or needing to take on significant debt (usually in the form of mercenaries or consumables), or god forbid both.

Then they would bitch endlessly about how my game was too hard (despite the fact that they had an easy time the previous two adventures) and would tell me that they just wasted their evening by making barely any profit, to which I would have to explain that the experience points are the real reward, and matter way more to character power than money.

They would still complain, and I would show them the behind the scenes; that the adventure is designed to increase wealth by five each mission; so a "standard" party would get 5 + 5 +5 for a total of +15; while they got +8, +9, +2, for a total of +19. Then they would say that it FEELS like a huge loss, because they went from being 70% ahead of the curve to only 22% ahead of the curve, and that they would have had to be at least 75% ahead of the curve to actually feel like it was a worthwhile endeavor.

Different styles train players to approach the game different ways. How do you want them to approach the game, and what are you *actually* encouraging? Afaict, just going by your descriptions, your style is… schizophrenic (EDIT: wrong word. Multiple personality, maybe? Is there an art word… like multimedia, but for styles?), and that doesn't help your players to choose a mindset with which to approach the game.

Schizophrenic is the right word; it has a different meaning when used figuratively than when used literally.

Yeah, I can kind of see how not taking things to ludicrous levels is a bit schizophrenic. That is a legitimately good point.

In my mind, the ideal player character would:

Work with the rest of the group to make characters that compliment one another and be stronger as a whole than the sum of their parts.
Create a character that is specialized, but not so specialized that they are bored / frustrated / a liability when their specialty isn't applicable.
Be brave, but also smart, rationing out their resources to get as far as they can before giving up.
Has a personality and some flaws rather than simply being a perfectly efficient robot; but not so much that they are ever a liability to the group.

[kyoryu]

At a minimum, sandboxes are harder to effectively productize than linear games.

[Segev]

At a minimum, sandboxes are harder to effectively productize than linear games.

I thought Tomb of Annihilate did a decent job. It could be done better, but it didn't do it poorly.

The big thing a productized sandbox needs is current plans, resources the planners have, and some comments on how each faction acts if each faction's plans advance.

[Cluedrew]

I on the other hand feel sandboxes are inherently more fun than linear adventures because they offer you more meaningful choices. I accept that not everyone agrees with that - I don't really understand why - but I will shoot down the statement that anyone "knows" that players "always" have more fun in a linear campaign. Similarly with them always being more frustrating to run but even if I think that one is wrong I think I see where it is coming from.

[Satinavian]

I would also say that sandboxes are moe fun, but also harder to write.

[Lacco]

I would also say that sandboxes are moe fun, but also harder to write.

It's the difference between a street and a city. Not necessarily harder to write, just more streets, more buildings, more people... if you do not "cheat" by using some illusions of freedom (copying streets, quantum ogres/schroedinger railroads), your best bet is randomization with modifications. Emergent plots/narratives/stories...

So it's more effort to write and the results may vary. It's rather easier to sell ticket for a train ride, or even tickets to amusement park than to sell a "make your own trip" to a city you have no information about.

However, the city will allow for multiple visits and if you are the right person... you'll find the exploration and discovery much more rewarding than just riding the same railway.

[Anonymouswizard]

I find that the main issue with ruining sandboxes is tracking developments and working out of the PCs actions need to agree any planned or emergent storylines (does collapsing the mine affect the election in the local town? If that election would be effected dies that mean that the bandit king the PCs helped get established will get more out less bold?).

I generally find the the two easiest ways to run a game are having the players that All Roads Lead To Rome or get the PCs in an organisation so that I can have missions to them in character. Sandboxes are, once you've set up the initial area, easier for me to run then railroads because I have a whole will to plot out aftereffects rather than two seconds to work out how to deal with the players who have jumped the tracks (either a way to get them back on track or a way to at least mess about productively).

[Calthropstu]

I would also say that sandboxes are moe fun, but also harder to write.

Actually, Sandboxes require very little writing. You set some locations, build an overall far reaching plot, draw up some maps, and viola. You have a sandbox. Add some generic quests that can happen anywhere and you have a realistic feel with very little writing.

[Satinavian]

Actually, Sandboxes require very little writing. You set some locations, build an overall far reaching plot, draw up some maps, and viola. You have a sandbox. Add some generic quests that can happen anywhere and you have a realistic feel with very little writing.

You need locations. And factions. And motivations for those factions. And relationships between them. And things that are in motion so that your sandbox is not just stale and static when the players don't do anything or are active in some other part. And possible hooks for all of that so that the PCs have it easy to engage with stuff whenever they want to.

It is not impossible, but it is certainly a lot more than you would prepare for a linear adventure.