|
D&D should support all types of parties...Well, it does, but the GM has to put in work if using published adventures, or roll his own, so to speak.
The game has, since AD&D and Holmes Basic, supported the idea of the "big four" being the core basis for the mechanics. 3x further added the concept of "WBL" to represent the typical amount of gear a party would need to tackle CR appropriate encounters.
If any of these elements are changed, the game will still support what you want to do, it will just take a bit more work to tailor the challenges to the party composition/magic level you want to play.
It isn't the system's job to cover every contingency, party makeup, or magic level. That's why we have GMs. D&D isn't all things to all people, which is why several other fantasy rpgs exist, but D&D IS what it is, and has been that for a long time, and continues to be more popular than the other systems, so why should it change the basic premise overmuch?
One day in 1974, a little box with three books appeared on store shelves. One day later, someone created houserules for that game.
That is probably due to the "Big Four" being the first core classes, with the "racial classes" added in as slight variants in Basic D&D. Still, in AD&D, after a few levels, any PC class could function in its role pretty well even as a "solo" character. The mechanics were simpler, options more restricted (practically no chance for "mix-maxing") yet the biggest difference in my opinion was the "caps" on AC, saving throws and THAC0. Also, magic, even at high levels, was relatively weaker -- even an archmage who took damage was "distracted", and couldn't cast spells. And, the Initiative system pretty much ensured that usually the warriors had an edge to wizards and clerics in combat. In 3E, it is ridiculoudly easy to "boost" your DCs, AC and Initiative to levels in which the fighter has to "ready" a single attack against you, and *HOPE* he rolls high enough to hit you (and even then you've got a fair chance to concentrate on a successful Spellcraft roll). 3E made the spellcasters (and magic, in general) much more powerful, without balancing the "melee" classes to them the way AD&D did.
In a way, 3E already *changed* the basic premise -- now you're dependant on spellcasters, and any party without a cleric and a wizard is going to have a hard time at high levels, yet a cleric and a wizard can "breeze through" most adventures on their own, *without* the rest of the party "burdening" them. If the "base assumption" for a successful party is the "Big Four", why doesn't the game have only four core classes? Seriously, wouldn't that "focus" the gameplay and party dynamics far better than offering X core classes, and yet assuming the players always pick two of the "Big Four"?
I know I can "houserule" anything, and change my campaign premise, but let's assume there's an element in the game mechanics that you and I and most of the GMs we both know have changed -- wouldn't that tell that there's something odd about that particular element? I could houserule a lot of stuff, but at which point does it resemble a different game altogether, and what good does it do if me or my players occasionally sit at other GMs' tables? Considering that they, too, might have houseruled some of those same rules in their own way.
And furthermore, any mechanical assumptions based on 'WBL' or the "mandatory" presence of spellcasters rely on certain "optimal" choices -- e.g. everyone works in complete "harmony" and the party spellcasters always use "buffs" on their party members, and everyone knows which items best compensate for their weaknesses. Any "deviation" from this results in either the GM always adjusting stuff on the fly (for example, if the cleric only "buffs" himself or the party is caught in the middle of a long adventure arc, and cannot buy those Cloaks of Resistance +3 or Rings of Protection +4). Sometimes it's simply because of the wizard memorizing "wrong" spells, neglecting those "buffs" that you (and the author of the adventure you're running) *assumed* he would cast, and it all results in a TPK. That's the "swinginess" many 4E fans refer to -- too often the difference between triumph and defeat for the whole party hangs on a single roll or even a single bad *choice* for an action or a spell.
|
|
Are you, perchance, studying or working full-time? Because if you are, I wonder how you're able to do that and write material (adventures) for each session, and yet include 12-page backgrounds on each item? Most of us have a hard time with bringing decent adventure material (hence the apparent popularity of, say, Paizo's stand-alone and AP modules) to the game table.[sarcasm]
What's all this crap about "studying or working full-time? You should either be playing D&D or raiding with your World of Warcraft guild!
[/sarcasm]
Or practising your 'Krav Maga'-skills... (that's what librarians do on their spare time). ;P
It isn't the system's job to cover every contingency, party makeup, or magic level. That's why we have GMs.
No gaming system can cover every "contingency, party makeup, or magic level". But it's a good idea to at least make the effort instead of foisting everything off on Rule Zero and declaring that if you don't play the Grognard Way, you're not playing the Right Way.
D&D isn't all things to all people, which is why several other fantasy rpgs exist, but D&D IS what it is, and has been that for a long time, and continues to be more popular than the other systems, so why should it change the basic premise overmuch?
D&D has constantly been evolving as a game for quite some time now. And no one is asking to change the basic premise - all that they are asking for is a robust ruleset that makes certain party combinations viable.
The funny thing is that these changes won't have any impact on a "Big 4" game at all, but all of the Grognards are resistant to these ideas because "that's not the way that it's been done", regardless of the actual merits of the ideas or their proclivity to encourage greater diversity amongst parties and engagement within the game. These are the same guys that threw a fit back when we moved from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition because Elves could become Paladins and we had standardized multi-classing rules. Heavens forbid!
And keep this in mind: Pathfinder not only has to compete with every other role-playing product out there, but it also has to compete with just about every video game and MMORPG under the sun. If you're willing to sacrifice good, substantive rule changes for the sake of tradition, so be it - but don't be surprised when potential players end up walking away from the gaming table because you can't provide a good explanation as to why they can't play a Chaotic Monk, or why their friend the Dwarven Fighter gets extra HP then he does just because he's a Dwarven Fighter, or why they can't get a saving throw every round to try and shake off status effects in combat.
... I seem to have mistyped the first sentence, which should actually read: "Because following your logic, you're effectively saying that deviating from the 'Wealth by Level' and 'Encounter Reward' -guidelines results in the NPCs and PCs being at a serious disadvantage (i.e. "gimped") against "standard" challenges, and eventually leads the game "breaking" at higher levels. Isn't this your point here?
I don't know if I'd say "breaking" at higher levels, but it does get more difficult the farther you go, yes. It isn't impossible, but it is harder.
And I'm arguing that if the game makes such basic assumptions that each party must include a cleric or a wizard (preferably both) whose spell selections always include certain "must-have" spells and every party member must have certain items to compensate for their "weaknesses", there's something flawed in the math behind the numbers.
The thing is, if you limit gear, you actually push players into playing only wizards and clerics (or sorcerers and druids). You take away the flexibility that item wealth can give you. Take a party with a make up of: bard, monk, ranger, paladin. This is a sub-par party, but with item wealth (e.g. healing wands for the bard, ranger, paladin; ghost touch weapons and armor; magic amulet for natural attacks for the monk, etc), it can still survive. Is it going to be harder than for a standard party, but thanks to enough gear wealth the party can still make it. Yeah, they might have to retreat to town to get a party member raised versus being able to do it on the stop themselves, but that is a choice to playing with a diverse choice of classes.
D&D should support all types of parties without the game becoming an excercise in optimizing party tactics and ability/spell/feat synergy and items (i.e. the more you "meta-game", the better and "smarter" you play).
Why should it? That is part of the fun of the game, using your head to work around challenges. But if you limit the wealth, now you got a 15th level party with one magic weapon between them facing 2 ice devils. Toast! Unless they are only clerics and wizards and then they might have a chance. If you want to limit wealth, fine, but then you either have to be prepared for everyone playing clerics and wizards or be prepared totally revamping the entire game from the ground floor. Which at that point it becomes a question of, why not just play a different system?
Are you, perchance, studying or working full-time? Because if you are, I wonder how you're able to do that and write material (adventures) for each session, and yet include 12-page backgrounds on each item?
Notice I said, "As much that is necessary to make the session enjoyable to all." Frankly I don't think 12 pages is necessary for the game to be enoyable to all, but I don't think that much is needed for PC backgrounds either, some DMs disagree. But if I thought I had to make magic more "interesting" and the only way to do it was coming up with long backgrounds, I'd do it somehow (got that laptop now, so I can take it into the ... yeah you don't want to think about it).
Most of us have a hard time with bringing decent adventure material (hence the apparent popularity of, say, Paizo's stand-alone and AP modules) to the game table.
But you are ok with moving away from the wealth assumptions, thus making it necessary to reevaluate and adjust every single product you use because they are all based on that assumption. So I guess I have to ask you now, do you work full time or go to school?
My campaigns typically have about 100+ minor and major NPCs (shopkeepers, PC "mentors"/superiors/allies/family members, guard captains, town drunks, farmers, etc.) with most of them having at least brief notes about personality and looks (and I write more as the campaign progresses). But magic items... sure, if we're talking about the Andurils or Excaliburs or Glamdrings of the campaign -- these are items that I write history about.
Ok, so you work on making the game world feel "authentic", good.
The +1 long sword the gnoll captain is wielding? Or the +2 dagger the invoker minion uses as a "secondary" weapon? Uh... I think I've got enough work on detailing the campaign world and writing adventures.
Wait a sec. First off, what are all those weapons hanging around for your game? I thought you keep magic items "special"? Secondly, how much background do you write about the gnoll captain himself? the invoker's minion? Not a lot? Why would you have to write a lot about his magic weapon? Surely the magic weapon isn't usually as important as him (except for those Glamdrings, excaliburs, and such), why would you write more about it? And if you don't write a lot of background on that gnoll captain, does that mean he was just a lame addition to the game? Is it just not necessary to detail every single character (or item) in order to make the characters (or items) as a whole feel "authentic"? If you can make that gnoll captain with very little (or no) background feel authentic, why can't you make his magic sword feel that way as well even without any background?
*If* the PCs want to know more about these items... sure, then it's a different story. But I don't want to write extra material "just in case" that the PCs might not even be interested to hear about.
Right, approach the issue like you approach NPCs. Detail them when it is necessary, don't waste your time doing it when it is not.
Seriously, which is more important to you? A well-written campaign arc with interesting adventures, or mediocre stuff with brilliantly written magic item backgrouds your players are not interested in?One can have a well written campaign and still have well written backgrounds for magic items, when it is meaningful to do so.
Following your thinking here, I could just as easily ask, which is more important? A well-written campaign arc with interesting adventures, or mediocre stuff with brilliantly written NPC backgrouds your players are not interested in?
|
|
I don't know if I'd say "breaking" at higher levels, but it does get more difficult the farther you go, yes. It isn't impossible, but it is harder.
So, I made the claim that the game mechanics should move towards being more “balanced”, i.e. that “bad” choices and retaining “free” multiclassing and other options would not “penalize” players. At the moment, the rules reward you for “meta-gaming” and “smart” tactics, which surprisingly often it lead to breaking the Suspension of Disbelief. Often it also leads to “rules-layers” dictating what spells you should memorize, which actions to take (“No, don’t cast that spell – you move *here* first and then quaff the potion. Alright, done.”) which classes/feats/skills to take, which magic items you should buy (not in my campaigns, but in general) and I find all that disruptive and highly annoying, both as a player and a GM. I’d rather see D&D becoming more “user-friendly” towards new players and GMs – not remaining a tactical excerise in which you pit your wits against the GM and try to “bend” the rules as much as you can. Individual GMing and playing styles may vary, but disappointingly often that’s the contemporary “spirit” of the game.
The thing is, if you limit gear, you actually push players into playing only wizards and clerics (or sorcerers and druids). You take away the flexibility that item wealth can give you. Take a party with a make up of: bard, monk, ranger, paladin. This is a sub-par party, but with item wealth (e.g. healing wands for the bard, ranger, paladin; ghost touch weapons and armor; magic amulet for natural attacks for the monk, etc), it can still survive. Is it going to be harder than for a standard party, but thanks to enough gear wealth the party can still make it. Yeah, they might have to retreat to town to get a party member raised versus being able to do it on the stop themselves, but that is a choice to playing with a diverse choice of classes.
No, that’s not actually correct. Let’s say we’re balancing saving throws a bit and “tweaking” ‘save-or-die’ and ‘save-or-suck’ effects so that not everything depends on a single roll. Also, let’s add Action Points (re-rolls) and “scaling” feats to the game (i.e. ‘Iron Will’ that would grant+1 per 4 levels to your Will saving throws). All those changes would make the game more tolerant towards “unusual” builds and more forgiving if you roll badly. And why stop there? Let’s also merge a few bonus categories, and take that into consideration with the “tweaked” saving throw bonuses and DCs. Now you won’t even *need* so many magic items, if certain feats give you, say, a scaling Resistance Bonus to your saves. The end result would be that even parties with “diverse choice of classes” would be able to function better, and yet the “optimal” party would not be significantly “better” or “stronger” than them.
Why should it? That is part of the fun of the game, using your head to work around challenges. But if you limit the wealth, now you got a 15th level party with one magic weapon between them facing 2 ice devils. Toast! Unless they are only clerics and wizards and then they might have a chance. If you want to limit wealth, fine, but then you either have to be prepared for everyone playing clerics and wizards or be prepared totally revamping the entire game from the ground floor. Which at that point it becomes a question of, why not just play a different system?
First of all, it's part of the fun for *some* people, who're also seeking intellectual challenge in matching their "wits" against everybody else (and the rules).
And, some GMs may think it’s fun to rewrite half the adventure, if the wizard’s player fails to show up for the session. Or watching players throw their hands up as they have no resources to solve a “challenge” (unless the GM uses a very cheap and unbelievable way to get them around it). In either case it shows that certain classes have so much versatility (which others sorely lack) that making “base assumptions” around them as you write material may lead to frustration and situations in which the adventure cannot progress (e.g. if the wizard dies, or the player has to leave early or cannot even attend the session). Or if one of PCs rolls a 1 for a saving throw, which leads to his magic sword failing its own save. Any “deviation” from the “baseline assumptions” -- i.e. the party has X amount of gold at the beginning of each session to spend on mundane and magical gear, and they have Y gold pieces worth of gear at level W, and the party always includes a cleric and a wizard and a rogue, and so on – leads to the game becoming more “challenging”, often at a disastrous cost, unless they’re “smart”.
Like I’ve said, at the moment the game mechanics reward “clever” choices and “powergaming” over role-playing and diverse options. It punishes you in many ways for any “suboptimal” choices you make. If we’re going to keep it as a “tactically-minded D&D grognard’s wet dream”, sure, nothing to be changed there. Yet if we want *all* sorts of players and GMs to be able to embrace it and have fun – especially “newbies” – then something in the baseline assumptions should (in my opinion) be changed.
Notice I said, "As much that is necessary to make the session enjoyable to all." Frankly I don't think 12 pages is necessary for the game to be enoyable to all, but I don't think that much is needed for PC backgrounds either, some DMs disagree. But if I thought I had to make magic more "interesting" and the only way to do it was coming up with long backgrounds, I'd do it somehow (got that laptop now, so I can take it into the ... yeah you don't want to think about it).But you are ok with moving away from the wealth assumptions, thus making it necessary to reevaluate and adjust every single product you use because they are all based on that assumption. So I guess I have to ask you now, do you work full time or go to school?
Work, and I often need to spend a couple of extra hours per day (on my spare time) to read “required” fact or fiction titles and articles (i.e. stuff that all librarians are “expected” to have familiarized themselves with). On weekends I can usually relax, and perhaps spend about 10 hours per week on writing game material.
And no, I’m not okay with that – as I tried to prove above, you *can* make the numbers “click” without those WBL tables or any such base-level assumptions, right?
Wait a sec. First off, what are all those weapons hanging around for your game? I thought you keep magic items "special"? Secondly, how much background do you write about the gnoll captain himself? the invoker's minion? Not a lot? Why would you have to write a lot about his magic weapon? Surely the magic weapon isn't usually as important as him (except for those Glamdrings, excaliburs, and such), why would you write more about it? And if you don't write a lot of background on that gnoll captain, does that mean he was just a lame addition to the game? Is it just not necessary to detail every single character (or item) in order to make the characters (or items) as a whole feel "authentic"? If you can make that gnoll captain with very little (or no) background feel authentic, why can't you make his magic sword feel that way as well even without any background?
Oh, I didn’t say magic items didn’t exist *at all* in my campaigns. Neither did I claim that they’re “special” or all “named” – I only noted that I, as GM, probably hand out a lot *less* magic items than “assumed” by the WBL table. And wasn’t it you who noted that magic weapons should usually have a history and a name – and if not detailed by the DM, then the responsibility falls on the players’ shoulders, right?
Right, approach the issue like you approach NPCs. Detail them when it is necessary, don't waste your time doing it when it is not.One can have a well written campaign and still have well written backgrounds for magic items, when it is meaningful to do so.
Following your thinking here, I could just as easily ask, which is more important? A well-written campaign arc with interesting adventures, or mediocre stuff with brilliantly written NPC backgrouds your players are not interested in?
Sure, but considering that many GMs have a difficult time doing both, at least when they get older (i.e. you have a family and job and probably other hobbies beside gaming), I guess all GMs I know would say that they have to choose between writing (and running) adventures and item/NPC backgrounds. And how many “meaningful” items are there in your campaigns?
As for your question, the first, naturally. NPCs I can improvise, and jot down quick details about them as I’m running the game – magic item histories often require me to consult accessories, unless I want to get my details wrong (“Uh, that sword, by the way, wasn’t forged in Kingdom X, but Theocracy Y, and 300 years earlier than I said last session…”). And “winging” an adventure is pretty challenging – especially if you’re run “intrigue-heavy” campaigns (as I do). Also, I do a lot of hand-outs, which my players like, and even a single one (if properly done) may take hours to finish. And, as I noted, I run an "intrigue-heavy" campaign with a lot of NPCs involved in plot hooks, "red herrings" and so on, which means that the more NPCs I create, the more options I usually have to advance the plot.
You can have it “all”, if you’re especially creative or a fast writer (or, naturally, if your players don’t pay attention to any “extra” details or you and they don’t mind occasional errors). Most of us probably choose to go with detailed adventures and campaign plots with a handful of well-written NPCs thrown in – if you’ve got time to “flesh out” magic item histories or do hand-outs, that’s just added “extra”.
So, I made the claim that ...
I think when you make all classes equally powerful, that breaks the "suspension of disbelief". Look at 4e, one of the complaints about it is it is too "video-gamey" because of the total balance of classes (among other things). People should be different, some people are more powerful than others. That doesn't mean balance shouldn't be a concern, but if a few classes are more powerful than some others (especially at higher levels where it is has been shown that most parties don't even play) that is ok.
Often it also leads to ...
Well D&D has always has some tactical basis to it (being derived from a tactics game). There are other systems that focus exclusively on roleplaying and the game rules are hand-waved. That might be more in line with the type of game you wish. And if some players are dictating what actions that other players choose to do, then that is a group problem and should be addressed as such. Often times I've played with people who have their character make "poor" choices because they decided it was more in line with their character ("I won't heal myself but instead rush in to save my ally because I am a paladin"). Player problems are not the problem of the system, they are the problem of the peoople playing the game and should be dealt with there.
No, that’s not actually correct. ...
Yes, actually it is correct. You are talking about reworking the entire system. Now under your ideal system, people have to take specific feats, YOU are now dictating what feats they must have in order to survive. The current system, with the assumptions of appropriate wealth leaves the choices in the hands of the party. If the party runs into a situation that they didn't have the right stuff for but had the chance to get it, whose fault is that ultimately? Theirs. Let the PCs make choices, some times they make good ones, sometimes poor ones. Maybe the figther should have gotten ghost touch on his sword instead of flaming. Now that fight with a bunch of shadows is going to be harder for him, but he made that choice and he nows has to deal with it. I personally prefer freedom of choice over DM dicate.
First of all, it's part of the fun for *some* people, who're also seeking intellectual challenge in matching their "wits" against everybody else (and the rules).
Right. And some stuff that you want is fun for some and not others. Considering the way things are, is how they are, and one of the goals of PfRPG is for backwards-compatibility (whatever they mean by that). It seems as if it would be appropriate to stick with the assumptions as they are, otherwise you defeat that goal, right out of the gate.
And, some GMs may think it’s fun to rewrite half the adventure, ...
So basically you want people not suffer any consequences for being "dumb" and having bad luck. Sometimes players make poor choices (e.g.bought the wrong gear,pushed on even without the full party, etc), they should be allowed to do that IMO. Yes, the game will be harder, but those are often the sessions people remember fondly. Challenge is more exciting than things being easy. But with appropriate wealth and easy access to it, a party can decide ("Hey, the wizard is 'sick', we better go back to town and get him taken care of and gather some information about this place and see if we need to get items that can help since we won't have him to back us up.") And before we get too excited about how "powerful" wizards are, lets remember that is at mid-to-high level. At low levels wizards suck ass entirely. Basically the fighter is carrying the pathetic guy through fights where he does if he's luck a couple of d4's of damage (magic missile).
Like I’ve said, at the moment the game mechanics reward ...
The game mechanics don't favor those over roleplaying, roleplaying is what happens between the players and the DM, the rules don't even address that for the most part (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, non-withstanding). If you have a sub-par group, then you can't run through adventures the same as you would with the big 4, you have to change your tactics. That is both good game play and good roleplaying.
And no, I’m not okay with that – as I tried to prove above, you *can* make the numbers “click” without those WBL tables or any such base-level assumptions, right?
But that won't change the published material out there now. You'll still have to adjust all of those if you want to use it. At the very least you'll have to dump the magic gear and wealth in those products. Frankly, if time is that valuable, it is better to stick with the basic assumptions as they are now, then to rework the whole system.
Oh, I didn’t say magic items ...
If every gnoll captain has a magic sword and every evoker's apprentice has a magic dagger, that seems like a lot of magic items. So either you are handing out a lot of magic items, or you are making them "magically" switch to mundane items in the PCs' hands, or they are going to be special magic items.
And wasn’t it you who noted that magic weapons should ...
"Should"? No, I didn't say that. I said, IF a DM feels that they can't have a lot of magic items in their game because it makes them feel less "magical", then an alternative solution instead of just limiting the number is to make them more "authentic" by roleplaying them up. Of course if the players don't care about doing it, then maybe, just maybe the DM should see if they are letting their own desires get in the way of what the rest of the group wants. Running a game is not the same as writing a book after all. Too often it seems as if DMs say, "I want stuff to be 'special' dang it!" and players say, "We don't give a crap about that stuff, we just want to save the princess and kill the monsters." To which the DM then says, "Fine, then I am going to limit what you can have so you'll have to feel it is 'special'."
Sure, but considering that many GMs have a difficult time doing both, ...
How many? As many as the players wish there to be and are interested in there being. We have a couple of intelligent weapons, so obviously those have a bit of history. But there are also things like a ring a party member got that has her family crest on it (she didn't know who her family was for a long time) and her deity's symbol so that it can function as a holy symbol at need. Other players have other special items that have special meaning to them, but it is primary lead by player decision. If the players don't care about a magic sword they just got, I don't bother making any background for it. Does that mean a background couldn't exist, it could but if nobody cares about it why bother? Same thing with city guard number 12, if nobody cares enough to talk to the guy, why should I bother making a bunch of stuff about him.
As for your question, the first, naturally. ...
Sounds like you are self-imposing difficulties on yourself when it comes to items. That is your choice, but I don't think it is reasonable then to complain about them. You make it difficult to get items, and then wonder why you can't just wing it, you can't wing it because you made it difficult to get items. Running a game with intrigue isn't the problem. Just as it isn't the problem when detailing NPCs. You know which ones are important to the overall plot and you detail those. If the PCs get on a wild goose chase and start pushing into areas that you didn't detail, you wing it, same thing with items, assuming you haven't made them difficult to come by.
You can have it “all”, ...
Yes, yes you can. If you don't shoot yourself in the foot with self-imposed difficulties. There is some idea that if you do more of A, then that makes the game better. And that is true to an extent, but there is the idea of dimishing returns, when you do more of A at the expense of not doing some of B, your game can actually be worse off then if you had done some of A and some of B.
EDIT: I might add that it is poor design to create a module where the only way to succeed is to have spells X, Y, and Z ready as well as items A, B, and C. There is a difference between something being easier with those items/spells and something being impossible without them. If an adventure has something that needs a specific item/spell to deal with then that part should be (a) not time restricted and (b) should be able to learn how to do it and should have access through NPCs to deal with it.
|
|
I think when you make all classes equally powerful, that breaks the "suspension of disbelief". Look at 4e, one of the complaints about it is it is too "video-gamey" because of the total balance of classes (among other things). People should be different, some people are more powerful than others. That doesn't mean balance shouldn't be a concern, but if a few classes are more powerful than some others (especially at higher levels where it is has been shown that most parties don't even play) that is ok.
I didn’t say that – I said classes should more in “balance” to each other, i.e. that the “gap” between their weaknesses and strengths should not be so glaring. Each class should be as fun to play at *all* levels, and even the non-spellcaster classes should feel like they can contribute to the party without “magical” aid (whether from spells or items). I don’t think that would break Suspension of Disbelief – if anything, it would make the PCs rely *less* on magic (i.e. have the opposite effect). Now, what PF Beta has so far mostly done is to bolster the *strengths* of the classes, further widening the “gap”, instead of implementing balancing elements (such as by “tweaking” saving throws).
What 4E did was practically to make all classes “absolutely balanced” in the way that not only do their abilities work mechanically in a similar “format”, but they also *feel* the same, i.e. both the wizard and fighter have similar-level abilities that cause, say, 3D8 + STR/INT points of damage and “shift/slide/pull” an enemy X number of squares. In essence, only the “flavor” of the damage varies from class to class. And that’s not what I’m advocating here – I’m pretty sure you realize that, too. And, furthermore, I’m not the only complaining about the high-level play “breaking down” – it seems a lot of people have played high-levels campaigns and encountered the same kind of problems (if they didn’t, why would Paizo and other publishers even bother with publishing high-level adventures?). Besides, even if only, say, 25% of campaigns ever hit high levels, it’s not a very good reason to say “You know, 75% never have those kind of problems ‘cuz they don’t play high-level campaigns, so we don’t need to fix those issues that those who *do* complain about”.
Well D&D has always has some tactical basis to it (being derived from a tactics game). There are other systems that focus exclusively on roleplaying and the game rules are hand-waved. That might be more in line with the type of game you wish. And if some players are dictating what actions that other players choose to do, then that is a group problem and should be addressed as such. Often times I've played with people who have their character make "poor" choices because they decided it was more in line with their character ("I won't heal myself but instead rush in to save my ally because I am a paladin"). Player problems are not the problem of the system, they are the problem of the peoople playing the game and should be dealt with there.
I’ve GMed and played D&D for 20+ years, and until 3E came out, I always felt that each PC could benefit the party in their own way. Now, certain classes are significantly better and more versatile than others (after 5+ levels), i.e. the “balance of power” swiftly shifts from the “melee” classes to the spellcasters, eventually making the other classes feel redundant in comparison. I like the range of options in 3E, but there’s a world of difference between “min-maxed” PCs and, well, more *interesting* (unconventional) builds – the latter are “penalized” for not being, well, “optimized”. And this also shows during game play – like you noted, that paladin’s player made a “role-playing” decision, which was not a “smart” choice (at least I assume it wasn’t from the way you presented it). I wouldn’t ever call that (or someone refusing to “min-max” his PC) a “player problem” by any means – if the rules and/or the GM “penalize” you for good role-playing and taking “suboptimal” actions, then the problem lies elsewhere. At least in my books. Also, the problem with “rules-lawyers” I mentioned is born out of the mechanical emphasis on “smart” play and “min-maxing” – the game mechanics *encourage* this style of play. Sure, I can houserule away as much as I want to, but like I said before, I can’t houserule another GM’s campaign. When I join someone else’s campaign, I’m still facing the same problems, or, at best, the other GM has also “houseruled” them away, but it’s possible that his way may not suit my taste (and vice versa).
I know where the game’s origin lies, yet 1E/2E with all their “flaws” and incomplete rules made all sorts of play possible – there were no “dumb” or “wrong” actions in combat, or a thousand Prestige Classes and Feats to endlessly “fine-tune” your character with. The game’s thematical emphasis has always been “Heroic Fantasy”, not really tactical combat or “roll-playing”. I can’t even recall using minis back then, but ever since 3E came out, we had to rely on them more and more. Based on your posts, I get the picture you prefer it that way. You know, there are games like D&D Minis for people who enjoy tactical gaming and “optimal” choices without too much fuss about role-playing – that might be more in line with what you want out of roll… I mean, role-playing games.
Yes, actually it is correct. You are talking about reworking the entire system. Now under your ideal system, people have to take specific feats, YOU are now dictating what feats they must have in order to survive. The current system, with the assumptions of appropriate wealth leaves the choices in the hands of the party. If the party runs into a situation that they didn't have the right stuff for but had the chance to get it, whose fault is that ultimately? Theirs. Let the PCs make choices, some times they make good ones, sometimes poor ones. Maybe the figther should have gotten ghost touch on his sword instead of flaming. Now that fight with a bunch of shadows is going to be harder for him, but he made that choice and he nows has to deal with it. I personally prefer freedom of choice over DM dicate.
*SNIP*
Right. And some stuff that you want is fun for some and not others. Considering the way things are, is how they are, and one of the goals of PfRPG is for backwards-compatibility (whatever they mean by that). It seems as if it would be appropriate to stick with the assumptions as they are, otherwise you defeat that goal, right out of the gate.
No and no. I’m *not* talking about “reworking the entire system” – I’m talking about “tweaking” the math underlying the mechanics. That’s a vastly different thing, right? And let’s consider the scope of changes here… I’m suggesting a certain feat could grant you +5 to your Will Saves at 20th level, while that same feat plus Epic Will-feat would grant you +6 to your Will Saves at 21st level. The only difference is that you get one “plus” more, if you spend two feats. You don’t *NEED* to take it, but it would be a legit choice in campaigns in which the GM doesn’t hand out a lot of magic, or in which magic item shops do not exist. And, by the way, doesn’t PF already have feats that scale up with skill ranks, such as ‘Dodge’?
And following your logic, how different is making certain feats players rarely pick (namely, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes and Great Fortitude) more lucrative and balanced to the other feats equal to anyone “dictating” that PCs must take them? Any more than the rules now dictate what sort of equipment and how much gold the PCs are assumed to have at each level? Or which spells are “must-have” in each combat? You said you like the *players* having and making choices – my suggestion offers them a new one, only without magic items or spending *TWO* feats instead of one. Also, does it really dictate anything to anyone, considering that apparently very few players take them anyway? And, since you seem to believe that all is fine and good with the numbers, why are you claiming that anyone should take it “to survive”? You already seem to “swear” by the WBL table, and let players pick freely any items they can afford to, right? So where’s the problem? Your players may keep buying the stuff and “survive” just fine with their magic items, but players in games in which magic item shops are few could get +5 to their saves *without* spells or items. Doesn’t everyone win here?
My suggestions actually would change the mechanics very little in the end – far less than PF Beta has already done. All the races and classes are already more powerful than their 3E counterparts (more class features, HPs, ability score bonuses, etc.) and several abilities and spells work very differently in PF – such as ‘Rage Points’ or Channeling Energy. No matter which 3E supplement or adventure you wish to use in your PF RPG campaign, you still need to spend time converting stuff. Still, everything is “backwards compatible” (and I can explain the term to you, if you wish me to – you only need to ask). If I had suggested that the game would drop saving throws altogether and replace them with 4E’s “defenses”, and that all D20 rolls should be replaced with 3D6 rolls, *then* you could claim that I’d be “reworking the entire system”.
Also, why do you keep saying that everything is the players’ “fault”? Especially when it’s not the players who actually have a lot of say over the rules or the setting. Besides, if you always need the “right stuff” for every adventure, isn’t that a lot of extra burden to shove on the players’ shoulders? And, GMs often like to keep the players in the dark and any often even use “false” information to mislead inquisitive players, so if the PCs learn that ‘Darkshadow Hall’ is rumored to be filled with restless souls that doesn’t mean that buying several backpacks filled with Holy Water, Scrolls and Potions of Negative Energy Protection are going to help against the *real* inhabitants (and source of that rumour). In reality, it might be filled with a band of renegade Drow or followers of an evil religion – in which case the fighter who traded his ‘Flaming’ sword for a ‘Ghost Tourch’ weapon is going to regret his choice. And I find the whole idea of “blaming” players for choosing “suboptimal” equipment silly – maybe they’re just role-playing their characters (i.e. a fighter who worships a Deity of Fire, and therefore sees a ‘Flaming’ weapon as a “sacred” weapon of the faith) or maybe they are out of money. I don’t know about you, but I think the 3E rules heavily encourage and reward “powergaming”. And the point in my suggestions is to add more “fun” to campaigns in which players like to often make “suboptimal” or “dumb” (your word, not mine) choices.
So basically you want people not suffer any consequences for being "dumb" and having bad luck. Sometimes players make poor choices (e.g.bought the wrong gear,pushed on even without the full party, etc), they should be allowed to do that IMO. Yes, the game will be harder, but those are often the sessions people remember fondly. Challenge is more exciting than things being easy. But with appropriate wealth and easy access to it, a party can decide ("Hey, the wizard is 'sick', we better go back to town and get him taken care of and gather some information about this place and see if we need to get items that can help since we won't have him to back us up.") And before we get too excited about how "powerful" wizards are, lets remember that is at mid-to-high level. At low levels wizards suck ass entirely. Basically the fighter is carrying the pathetic guy through fights where he does if he's luck a couple of d4's of damage (magic missile).
Oh, I don’t really “remember fondly” all those times my PC has been killed/turned to stone/transported to another plane/etcetera because I failed a single roll. Or the many, many sessions during which I spent more time napping/reading one of the DM’s books/phoning non-gamer friends/playing RPGs on the DM’s computer/etcetera. than gaming. Am I one of those “dumb” players, then? Because usually the only “dumb” choice I made was to enter the room in which the encounter took place and play my character according to his class and demeanor – e.g. if I was playing a brave and relentless fighter, I tried to engage the enemy. Where was the “challenge”? In not being able/willing to go on a “shopping spree” in the local ‘MagicMart’? Or because the party’s spellcasters didn’t have “buffs” enough, or cast those on themselves? BTW, I have found that surprisingly often the spellcasters prefer to “buff” *themselves* at high levels, to further optimize their chance at survival. And this is largely due to having “bad experiences” with high-level 3E magic (e.g. your previous PC died of a SoD-spell or effect) and because high-level play *is* unforgiving (i.e. one failed or mediocre roll is usually enough).
Again, I’m not against the players having more options – I’m against majority of those options “penalizing” them for not “playing smart”.
And, BTW, all wizards get an at-will school power, most of which inflict 1D6 base damage (plus half your level), so your assessment of “a couple of d4’s of damage” is not valid in PF anymore.
The game mechanics don't favor those over roleplaying, roleplaying is what happens between the players and the DM, the rules don't even address that for the most part (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, non-withstanding). If you have a sub-par group, then you can't run through adventures the same as you would with the big 4, you have to change your tactics. That is both good game play and good roleplaying.
Funny, you seem to equate ‘tactics’ with ‘role-playing’ (i.e. “smart play”, right?). That’s “meta-gaming”, not role-playing. Role-playing encompasses more than just, say, “character immersion” and dialogue between the players and DM (or rolling a Bluff or Diplomacy or Intimidation check) – it also involves occasionally taking actions and making choices that might be “subpar” in the mechanical sense, but perfectly valid considering the character’s demeanor in the circumstances. And usually you (or the whole party) *are* penalized for these “suboptimal” choices, at least in the long run.
Let's have a few examples here: A barbarian who despises and rejects magic is “penalized” (even more in your group than mine), a paladin healing an ally in combat instead of himself might pay it with his life, a cleric of the God of War might prefer “buffing” himself over his allies and never memorize ‘Protection from Evil’ or ‘Dispel Magic’ (or any “Hard Counter”), an Invoker memorizing only Invocation spells instead of “Buffs” or “utility” spells results in a lot of extra “firepower” but no magical “aid” for the party, a fighter who has low WIS and DEX due to the player wanting to role-play a reckless and clumsy warrior may fail most saves in a session, and so on. These are all PCs who are mechanically affected (“penalized”) by their choices and tactics, mostly for role-playing reasons. And their party members are affected likewise. Yeah, you *can* change tactics and invest heavily in magical items, but I think that’s a poor “patch” for the simple fact that currently the game favors and *ENCOURAGES* mechanically “optimal” builds and choices/tactics. In short, the less you role-play and the more you “meta-game”, the better it usually turns out for the PCs. And it need not be that way – a few simple fixes would reduce this effect a lot. Also, note that it wouldn’t completely remove the margin for “powergaming” and tactics – just “smooth out” the curve a bit, so that “unconventional” builds and parties would have a better fighting chance. “Challenging” does not equal “outright-deadly-unless-you-are-optimized-for-the-situation”, right?
But that won't change the published material out there now. You'll still have to adjust all of those if you want to use it. At the very least you'll have to dump the magic gear and wealth in those products. Frankly, if time is that valuable, it is better to stick with the basic assumptions as they are now, then to rework the whole system.
As demonstrated above, even though PF RPG aims for as much “backwards compatibility” as possible, you still need to adjust a *LOT* of stuff in any 3E modules you intend to run. For example, all the classes have undergone major revisions, and a lot of magic items and spells have changed in PF Beta.
If every gnoll captain has a magic sword and every evoker's apprentice has a magic dagger, that seems like a lot of magic items. So either you are handing out a lot of magic items, or you are making them "magically" switch to mundane items in the PCs' hands, or they are going to be special magic items.
Don’t be an a**. I’m sure that you realized that I referred to unique major “minions” in an adventure, i.e. both with several “heroic” levels – not a Gnoll Captain as per a “Monster Manual-ish” entry or a wizard’s 1st level apprentice.
"Should"? No, I didn't say that. I said, IF a DM feels that they can't have a lot of magic items in their game because it makes them feel less "magical", then an alternative solution instead of just limiting the number is to make them more "authentic" by roleplaying them up. Of course if the players don't care about doing it, then maybe, just maybe the DM should see if they are letting their own desires get in the way of what the rest of the group wants. Running a game is not the same as writing a book after all. Too often it seems as if DMs say, "I want stuff to be 'special' dang it!" and players say, "We don't give a crap about that stuff, we just want to save the princess and kill the monsters." To which the DM then says, "Fine, then I am going to limit what you can have so you'll have to feel it is 'special'."
It was an ironic comment, you know. I’m not ashamed to confess that I’m probably one of those GMs who feel that handing out a lot of items or having MagicMarts in their campaigns results in a serious “inflation” on the value and approval of magic items. Often the “rarity” of magical items is enough to make my players excited about finding one, and any physical description (such as the one I posted) instead of just saying “Yeah, that sword is magical… and you know, like well-crafted, from steel” makes it feel even more “special”. I provide a history, if said item is relevant to the campaign in some way, *or* if the players actively seek that information. If the players want to give their weapons any names, they’re free to do so, but I never force them to (because that wouldn’t be smart). And, I’m very well aware of the fact that GMing is not about writing a fantasy novel (at least to satisfy any personal creative literary aspirations) – yet I’ve also run games for people who thought that all named NPCs are either allies or enemies, and they wanted to roll initiative within 20 minutes from the beginning of the session (otherwise the whole adventure was “crappy”). An important part of GMing is learning to read the players and adapting your game to suit their style and expectations – at least so much that they have fun (e.g. I wouldn’t be casually handing out magic items to “powergamers”, even if they expected every GM to do so).
How many? As many as the players wish there to be and are interested in there being. We have a couple of intelligent weapons, so obviously those have a bit of history. But there are also things like a ring a party member got that has her family crest on it (she didn't know who her family was for a long time) and her deity's symbol so that it can function as a holy symbol at need. Other players have other special items that have special meaning to them, but it is primary lead by player decision. If the players don't care about a magic sword they just got, I don't bother making any background for it. Does that mean a background couldn't exist, it could but if nobody cares about it why bother? Same thing with city guard number 12, if nobody cares enough to talk to the guy, why should I bother making a bunch of stuff about him.
So why did you argue so vehemently with me? Isn’t that more or less what I, too, posted?
Sounds like you are self-imposing difficulties on yourself when it comes to items. That is your choice, but I don't think it is reasonable then to complain about them. You make it difficult to get items, and then wonder why you can't just wing it, you can't wing it because you made it difficult to get items. Running a game with intrigue isn't the problem. Just as it isn't the problem when detailing NPCs. You know which ones are important to the overall plot and you detail those. If the PCs get on a wild goose chase and start pushing into areas that you didn't detail, you wing it, same thing with items, assuming you haven't made them difficult to come by.
Uh, how exactly am I “self-imposing difficulties” on myself? Firstly, I thought I was talking about how hard “winging it” is for improvising the whole session’s *adventure* or magic item histories, versus improvising NPCs (which I find easy). The former becomes easier with experience, but in an internally consistent and intrigue-heavy campaign it will *always* be difficult (because of all the “little things” you need to keep track of in your mind). As for magic item histories, you almost certainly need to refer to a few books to get the facts “right” -- unless you run your games in a “homebrewed” setting, in which case your own notes are all you need. Truth be told, the more magic items I give out, the more work I need to spend on getting the histories right, correct? And if I’m “winging it”, there’s always a player to correct me how the Empire of Netheril perished in the year -399, which was known as the Year of Sundered Webs, instead of year -1000, like I erroneously told them when I quickly improvised the item’s history. Or that an item from Ancient Thaeraevel could not have been made by Lich-King Alokkair. And so on.
Yes, yes you can. If you don't shoot yourself in the foot with self-imposed difficulties. There is some idea that if you do more of A, then that makes the game better. And that is true to an extent, but there is the idea of dimishing returns, when you do more of A at the expense of not doing some of B, your game can actually be worse off then if you had done some of A and some of B.
EDIT: I might add that it is poor design to create a module where the only way to succeed is to have spells X, Y, and Z ready as well as items A, B, and C. There is a difference between something being easier with those items/spells and something being impossible without them. If an adventure has something that needs a specific item/spell to deal with then that part should be (a) not time restricted and (b) should be able to learn how to do it and should have access through NPCs to deal with it.
Yet how many times do GMs this kind of assumptions when preparing adventures? You know, like since the party wizard usually memorizes ‘Greater Dispel Magic’, it’s okay to include a couple of magical traps, which end up killing two PCs just because the wizard didn’t prepare the spell this time. Or that it’s okay to put in a couple of “dead ends”, because he has ‘Passwall’ on a scroll – which he actually used three sessions ago, but you just forgot it, and the party is stuck, because the wizard doesn’t have the spell in his spellbook. Or how the fighter has two Potions of Bull’s Strength, but he doesn’t want to use his first action in combat to quaff them, which leads to his death in the middle of the adventure. Or that the rogue will be able to dismantle a dangerous trap, but he rolls a 1, and the party decides to give up on the adventure and retreat to town to lick their wounds against your wishes. Or that the bard memorizes at least one ‘Break Enchantment’, but this time he picks a “buff” in its place, which results in the fighter being ‘Dominated’. And so on. Most GMs make such assumptions for every session, and any “suboptimal” choice or a change to the PC tactics often ends up “punishing” them. And professional game designers, sadly, often make the same kind of assumptions, which means that in addition to modifying the adventure to suit your campaign (i.e. the backstory, hooks, NPCs and also the general “power level” to match the party build-up) you also pay constantly attention to whether PC X memorizes spells Y and Z so that they can get past rooms Q and R.
I think 4E’s philosophy of “every party can resolve everything without classes X and Y and spells Z and W” is far better in that regard. The adventure can still be filled with “challenges” – it just doesn’t fall apart if PC X doesn’t have access to spell Y anymore.As far as your first sentence goes, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If your group doesn’t care about B or C, it might be a waste of time trying to “shoehorn” them into the campaign against their will, right? My players love intrigue, multi-layered plots in the campaign, and detailed NPCs. They also like hand-outs in the form of diaries, journals, letters, maps, and so on. Occasionally they might also want to know more about magic items, in which case I provide that history to them, if they know where to look for that information. Sure, they probably wouldn’t mind about a few extra magic items in general, but I don’t think they’d like every 5th level NPC swinging +1 swords, for example.
|
|
Ok, so I've been going through the various threads (especially the spell and magic threads), and I have a question.
Should Pathfinder be made kid safe?
Swords are sharp. Maybe they should be made of foam so no one gets hurt.
Pits should all have big fluffy pillows at the bottom, 'cause, you know, it would be unfair if someone fell to their death.
Dragons should all breathe cotton candy. Fire and lightning interfere with the "story", as characters might break a fingernail or something.
Wizards should be limited to pulling rabbits out of their hats and ribbons out of their sleeves. All those "SoD" or "SoS" spells totally ruin everything!
And those pesky DR X/whatever stats need to go, I mean, how is a party expected to handle everything that might come up?
D&D has been deadly for 30+ years now. There are other systems for people who have to get their bad acting and writing fix satisfied, so why mess with this?
At the risk of tangentalizing a thread that's probably gone a ways away from the OP, I totally agree and move we get rid of dice altogether, because to-hit rolls always seem to have that niggling 5% chance of failure that is completely level-independent, and I have far too many damage rolls that fall on '1' and kill nothing.
I think Pathfinder would be better served by being a diceless, freeform game where death only occurs if A) you are an adversary of the PC's, or B) you are painfully obnoxious and subject to group vote that your character should die. Like, if you forgot the chips or something.
|
|
Ok, so I've been going through the various threads (especially the spell and magic threads), and I have a question.
Should Pathfinder be made kid safe?
Swords are sharp. Maybe they should be made of foam so no one gets hurt.
Pits should all have big fluffy pillows at the bottom, 'cause, you know, it would be unfair if someone fell to their death.
Dragons should all breathe cotton candy. Fire and lightning interfere with the "story", as characters might break a fingernail or something.
Wizards should be limited to pulling rabbits out of their hats and ribbons out of their sleeves. All those "SoD" or "SoS" spells totally ruin everything!
And those pesky DR X/whatever stats need to go, I mean, how is a party expected to handle everything that might come up?
D&D has been deadly for 30+ years now. There are other systems for people who have to get their bad acting and writing fix satisfied, so why mess with this?
At the risk of tangentalizing a thread that's probably gone a ways away from the OP, I totally agree and move we get rid of dice altogether, because to-hit rolls always seem to have that niggling 5% chance of failure that is completely level-independent, and I have far too many damage rolls that fall on '1' and kill nothing.
I think Pathfinder would be better served by being a diceless, freeform game where death only occurs if A) you are an adversary of the PC's, or B) you are painfully obnoxious and subject to group vote that your character should die. Like, if you forgot the chips or something.
Please read the whole thread before posting, because this was discussed two pages ago, and the general consensus was that PF RPG *should* be a narrativist, diceless RPG, and we think Jason will eventually give in to the majority of the gamers and give us what we want.