Not to pick on you Scribe, but this a good example of the kind of thinking that is problematic for tabletop group play in general. This quote is perfect for munchkinizing or beating a video game, but discounts one of the core principles of tabletop gaming; chiefly, the role of the GM. It is the GM's job to tailor make challenges from the top down: Campaign, Group, and Individual.
Not necessarily. That is one approach to DMing, but certainly not the only acceptable style.
Some people prefer to have their DM act simply as a "fair referee." In other words, "This adventure is suitable for a reasonably competent (and diverse) group of 1st-level adventurers. So if you have chosen to play a group of unreasonably incompetent (or unusually specialized) adventurers, you can expect problems."
Contributor
|
Not to pick on you Scribe, but this a good example of the kind of thinking that is problematic for tabletop group play in general. This quote is perfect for munchkinizing or beating a video game, but discounts one of the core principles of tabletop gaming; chiefly, the role of the GM. It is the GM's job to tailor make challenges from the top down: Campaign, Group, and Individual. A group of gamers who all want to play halfling illusionists should be able to do so with the same rate of success as a traditional power party.
Pick away, I drank my potion of barkskin.
I accept your view as valid, but I see a few reasons why this doesn't work for me. One is that many gamers run adventures that are amde by other people and don't have the time or ability to customize them or create their own (what magazine is this site for?). If the party is unbalanced, problems can arrise, but there are many ways to balance a party.
Also, even if I am making my own adventures, a poorly balanced party limits the type of challenges I can set. For example, if there is no rogue, I cannot expect them to overcome a magical trap except by setting it off. If there is no one who can heal, there are all kinds of problems.
Funny thing is, I do work very hard to tailor my encounters to the challenge level I want, but I do it in a general sense, not for my particular group. I rarely miss my mark either. And my experience has backed up what I was explaining in my first post; low-level encounters are more random and therefore harder to balance.
Also, I'd like to point out that I actually advised against changing the skill rules, because I don't have a problem with them, and think that doing so throws off other aspects of the game.
Not necessarily. That is one approach to DMing, but certainly not the only acceptable style.
Some people prefer to have their DM act simply as a "fair referee." In other words, "This adventure is suitable for a reasonably competent (and diverse) group of 1st-level adventurers. So if you have chosen to play a group of unreasonably incompetent (or unusually specialized) adventurers, you can expect problems."
I think you are missing my point. It doesn't matter if a DM picks up a canned adventure or creates one of his/her own, the players must be challenged. If the group of players want to play the gnome illusionists for Temple of Elemental Evil, the DM will have to work to make the encounters balanced and the party goals achievable. That IS being a fair referee. The game is meant to accomodate the gamers, not the other way around!
As ever,
ACE
I accept your view as valid, but I see a few reasons why this doesn't work for me. One is that many gamers run adventures that are amde by other people and don't have the time or ability to customize them or create their own (what magazine is this site for?). If the party is unbalanced, problems can arrise, but there are many ways to balance a party.
Fair enough if a DM really doesn't have the time to adjust a canned adventure for the party...i can only imagine the kind of problems that NOT adjusting for a unique group of PCs would bring about. See my comment in post below regarding approaching the game...
Also, even if I am making my own adventures, a poorly balanced party limits the type of challenges I can set. For example, if there is no rogue, I cannot expect them to overcome a magical trap except by setting it off. If there is no one who can heal, there are all kinds of problems.
This is another great example of "point of perspective." These scinarios that you mention above are spot on. Why would a DM design a game element that the PCs have no chance of overcoming?
Funny thing is, I do work very hard to tailor my encounters to the challenge level I want, but I do it in a general sense, not for my particular group. I rarely miss my mark either. And my experience has backed up what I was explaining in my first post; low-level encounters are more random and therefore harder to balance.
Unless a DM is thinking about publishing the adventures that he/she is designing, why would't a DM tailor a home brew to fit the needs of the PCs? I don't understand that line of thinking...
Also, I'd like to point out that I actually advised against changing the skill rules, because I don't have a problem with them, and think that doing so throws off other aspects of the game.
I'm with you on not changing the skill rules...there is no reason to fiddle with them. What i'm attempting to impress is that really it doesn't matter what the makeup of a party is in regards to how the game is fundamentally structured. Namely, that there's little point of running a Campaign that does not challenge both the Party and each Individual (see previous post). Think about it from a metagame standpoint...does it matter if Thor gets a +3 skill bonus to swim and Regnar gets a +20? If the goal of both characters is to make it to the other side of the river, a DM should not set the skill check at 35. If only one character need cross the river, the DM should not set the check at 10. This is a good example of the level of customization that a DM should be thinking about when designing/redesigning an adventure. The "party" in this example has a fair chance at succeeding in either scinario, yet a small chance for failure.
Anyway, it's late and we owe on taxes this year.
As ever,
ACE
I think you are missing my point. It doesn't matter if a DM picks up a canned adventure or creates one of his/her own, the players must be challenged. If the group of players want to play the gnome illusionists for Temple of Elemental Evil, the DM will have to work to make the encounters balanced and the party goals achievable. That IS being a fair referee. The game is meant to accomodate the gamers, not the other way around!As ever,
ACE
You should read "The players' Responsibilities" pg 92 Dungeon 132. Monte Cook has some things to say about players making unreasonable characters. It is not totally up to the DM to accomodate players characters, quote:
"Just as it's the DM's responsibility to create a campaign setting where the PCs can fit in .. the players have responsibilities too. It's a players responsibility to bring ... a character that fits into the DM's world. The character has to be one that could conceivably work with the other PCs."I agree with Monte Cooke on this one, IMO it is unfair to force a DM to restructure (sometimes significantly) published just because the group decides to take gnome illusionists excusively - unless the DM is willing to spend hours and hours rewriting material.
2c
igi
"Just as it's the DM's responsibility to create a campaign setting where the PCs can fit in .. the players have responsibilities too. It's a players responsibility to bring ... a character that fits into the DM's world. The character has to be one that could conceivably work with the other PCs."
Igi - not having read the article, are you sure this quote is to the point of this discussion? The quote seems to suggest two different ideas:
1) The relationship between player/character and DM and
2) The relationship among players/characters
(Many gamers don't use the correct termonology here...you must differentiate between Player and PC for discussions like this)
These topics shouldn't be conflated as the first points to how well a player understands how the DM has outlined the campaign. The second indicates the possibility of inter-party conflict (to the tune of Vecna with Pelor characters or something).
Also, just an aside...the first point only seems problematic for a Player being introduced to an existing campaign. At the campaign generation stage, this is a non-issue.
As ever,
ACE
|
Contributor
|
ACE,
I was going to go through your response point by point, but essentially I can turn each on it's head. Why would a group want to limit the options for types of encounters a DM can throw at them? If a DM doesn't have time to restructure a module for an unbalanced party, I would also hate to see the results, so why would they do that?
I'm not saying that the party is wholly responsible for game balance. I am saying it's a two way street.
And one more point where I must ake the opposite postion to you to demonstrate the middle ground where I actually stand: One reason I would want to put an encounter that an unbalnced party can't overcome is realism. How can I justify not using a reasonable defense that a villain would take just because my players choose an unbalanced party? It makes no sense. Many DMs set up encounters with NO regard for challenge compared to party level because they feel that it's more realistic. And they're right. I am not that extreme. But I'm not going to take all of the traps out of the lich's tomb just because my players don't want a to have a rogue among them.
I am all for letting the players explore interesting ideas and characters, finding different party balance, etc. But the DM should not be their slave.
Sorry, one more thing. If we accept that part of the game is the presentation of challenges to be overcome, I feel that part of this includes the challenge of varied encounters needing to be overcome by good party balance.
This is getting further and further from the topic of skill points.
ACE,
I was going to go through your response point by point, but essentially I can turn each on it's head. Why would a group want to limit the options for types of encounters a DM can throw at them? If a DM doesn't have time to restructure a module for an unbalanced party, I would also hate to see the results, so why would they do that?
This is all vety interesting.... *ding* New Thread!
This is getting further and further from the topic of skill points.
Right...see new post for continuation.
As ever,
ACE