|
Well, that's what I'm saying, be a DM.I like to think of myself as a facilitator. I provide a big sandbox for you to play in and hide toys in it periodically.
Yeah, me too. I just provide a setting, arbitrate interactions between the players and the setting, and let things grow organically.
Well, if I have the right players, that is. It's hard to find players who don't need to be dragged around by the rings in their noses these days.
|
|
Yes, it's completely unreasonable for people to be upset that their choice of character is relatively useless compared to someone else's choice of character.
Useless you say? I say you're wrong. There are some classes, HELLO BARD designed for ROLEplay, not ROLLplay. If you want to do big numbers on the table, a bard has NEVER been where it's at.
But I guess those of use that don't spend 3 hours rolling attack roles aren't having fun either.
|
|
The fighter might have a high charisma and spend most of his limited skill points on skills like Diplomacy and Bluff, but if the wizard memorised Charm Person that day then that's a more reliable option.
Sounds like an evil campaign to me. GOOD characters would never cast Charm Person to force GOODLY people to do something against their will... good thing that fighter is charismatic.
Useless you say? I say you're wrong. There are some classes, HELLO BARD designed for ROLEplay, not ROLLplay.
Yes, it's completely unreasonable for people to be upset that their choice of character is relatively useless compared to someone else's choice of character.
ALL classes should be designed for BOTH.
The idea that I can't easily play a bard who is effective in what makes up at least half of the average D&D game is a travesty. The idea that a fighter also falls into that category is just sad.
Stop tossing around terms like "rollplay". Not only is it widely considered to have little more than pejorative meaning, but it doesn't even have a place in a discussion of mechanical balance.
And yet the spellcasters also have the vast majority of out-of-combat situations covered too. The fighter might have a high charisma and spend most of his limited skill points on skills like Diplomacy and Bluff, but if the wizard memorised Charm Person that day then that's a more reliable option. What makes it worse for the fighter is that tomorrow he still has exactly the same options - the wizard can have a totally different set. So it's not just that most casters have more options on one particular day, they can swap out their options for a different set when they want to.Sigh, not another "spellcasters are better" thread.
Can I invoke Godwinn, because this is the RPG-equivalent of mentioning Nazis :)
Reeven's Law
"As a Paizo forum discussion grows longer, the probability of an Optimiser compaining about wizards approaches 1."
But I guess those of use that don't spend 3 hours rolling attack roles aren't having fun either.
Ah, I get it. If the rules are well-balanced and functional, we can't possibly be roll-playing.
If you don't want rules, don't use them. Story hour is fine in that case. My group spends like 3/4 of the time roll-playing, but when a die roll is called for, we like for there to be some reasonable system in place to adjudicate it -- one that's not wonky and lopsided in favor of certain classes.
And yet the spellcasters also have the vast majority of out-of-combat situations covered too. The fighter might have a high charisma and spend most of his limited skill points on skills like Diplomacy and Bluff, but if the wizard memorised Charm Person that day then that's a more reliable option. What makes it worse for the fighter is that tomorrow he still has exactly the same options - the wizard can have a totally different set. So it's not just that most casters have more options on one particular day, they can swap out their options for a different set when they want to.Sigh, not another "spellcasters are better" thread.
Can I invoke Godwinn, because this is the RPG-equivalent of mentioning Nazis :)
Reeven's Law
"As a Paizo forum discussion grows longer, the probability of an Optimiser compaining about wizards approaches 1."
"As a thread goes on the likelihood that someone who doesn't have an actual argument will accuse someone else of not playing D&D in the ONE TRUE WAY approaches 1."
Blue nose, actually it is you guy who don't have an argument.
You, the man in black, scott. You core argument is an Argument from personal incredulity, "I can't see how the game can be played in such a way that the issues I see are not an issue."
When asked to provide examples of the characters which you believe make meleeists irrelivant, you dont. If you did, we could provide adventures that prove you wrong.
You core argument is an Argument from personal incredulity, "I can't see how the game can be played in such a way that the issues I see are not an issue."
Incorrect. The argument is, "although the game can be played in such a way that the issues you see are not an issue, they remain underlying flaws in the rules set which can easily be corrected. What's the best way to do so, so that we're not forced to play in a certain manner just to avoid them?"
Useless you say? I say you're wrong. There are some classes, HELLO BARD designed for ROLEplay, not ROLLplay.
Yes, it's completely unreasonable for people to be upset that their choice of character is relatively useless compared to someone else's choice of character.ALL classes should be designed for BOTH.
The idea that I can't easily play a bard who is effective in what makes up at least half of the average D&D game is a travesty. The idea that a fighter also falls into that category is just sad.
Stop tossing around terms like "rollplay". Not only is it widely considered to have little more than pejorative meaning, but it doesn't even have a place in a discussion of mechanical balance.
Mr Betts I would like to politely disagree with your staetment:
ALL classes should be designed for BOTH.If thats the case whats the point of having more than one player.
I understand the statement that all players should be relevant to the game but not ALL the time. I was under the impression that part of the game experiance was team work because not every player or charrecter can do everything nor should they.
When a fighter can cast anything through items or abilites(pally's and rangers not withstanding) then whats the purpose of having a spellcaster in the party.
I have seen the threads about wizards wadeing into combat in the forms of giants and dragons and everytime MY wizard charecter has done that the fighter NEEDED the help. Just like afterwards I NEEDED the cleric to stop me from dropping into the negatives and dieing. My D&D experiance has always been about teamwork.
by having everyone be equal the need for teamwork is no longer there.
You core argument is an Argument from personal incredulity, "I can't see how the game can be played in such a way that the issues I see are not an issue."Incorrect. The argument is, "although the game can be played in such a way that the issues you see are not an issue, they remain underlying flaws in the rules set which can easily be corrected. What's the best way to do so, so that we're not forced to play in a certain manner just to avoid them?"
Kirth, your arguments are not the same as the guys listed. Your not as belicos in your statements. Your generally more reasonable and open to argument. While your not alone in making that argument, there is a seperate camp that is not on message with you, in my oppinion. Some have claimed that roleplaying and setting especific mechanics make no difference at all, and are not prepared to have their charges tested.
But lets face it, some here boarders on zealotry when discussing anything they feel is related to 4E. The argument started this thread and two others was 'Has "balance" ruined D&D flavor?' Stefan Hill, later rephrased it as has balance changed DnD flavour. The answer is undoubtly yes. If that is a good thing or not is open to discussion ofcause.
But we have people in the pro-4E zealot camp, like scott who are here saying, yes the flavour has changed, and that is for the better, while
here trying to claim that nothing has changed at all.
It is blatant hypocracy.
'4e is perfect because we like it, 3.5 is terrible and your all stupid for liking it.'
If you raise the issue that different play styles perhapes suit different systems, you get accused of either snobbery or 'not playing the game right.'
Forgive me if it all leaves me a little royally pee'd off.
Though then you're getting into the decker problem where, while both characters can be useful, they really can't be useful at the same time. While the negotiator is negotiating, all the combat characters probably have sit back and not do anything, and it's hard to have situations where everyone gets to shine at the same time.
I think the decker/netrunner problem you allude to here is different from the negotiator/combat imbalance issue. The decker problem is more extreme. Not only is another character not geared up to be particularly good at netrunning, the two types of play occur in fundamentally different spaces where another PC cannot participate at all except under very specific circumstances.
Characters not very good at either negotiation or combat can still play those scenes according to their abilities and be a net contributor to the enjoyment of the game.
|
And, since you weren't there, let me tell you: the "demonization" of the game made it that much cooler back then for a lot of kids. Kind of like how Ozzy record sales would spike every time someone called him a devil worshiper. The Chick Tract probably got more players at my table than any of the stupid TSR ads on TV or in the comics ever did. :)
"I'm ready to learn real magic, Miss Frost!"
<MMmmmmmmmmm, Miss Frost.....>
|
|
If thats the case whats the point of having more than one player.
Why do you even need more then one class for that matter. Design a generic class, the player put points in healing, attack, charisma, and thievery and we're good. 4 stats to rule them all.
While we're at it, let's give Magic Missile an attack roll. :P
|
|
I think the decker/netrunner problem you allude to here is different from the negotiator/combat imbalance issue. The decker problem is more extreme. Not only is another character not geared up to be particularly good at netrunning, the two types of play occur in fundamentally different spaces where another PC cannot participate at all except under very specific circumstances.
Characters not very good at either negotiation or combat can still play those scenes according to their abilities and be a net contributor to the enjoyment of the game.
He may not have a neural interface jack, but couldn't the street samurai join in on the virtual sabotage missions, via a dance-mat?
Or the Wii-Fit?
<MMmmmmmmmmm, Miss Frost.....>
I would, as they say, "so tap that."
Dark Dungeons is right up there with Frederick taking Dougal's pack to carry treasure in. Ah, memories...
Useless you say? I say you're wrong. There are some classes, HELLO BARD designed for ROLEplay, not ROLLplay. If you want to do big numbers on the table, a bard has NEVER been where it's at.
But I guess those of use that don't spend 3 hours rolling attack roles aren't having fun either.
I don't suppose +8 to AB and +8d6+8 to damage by level three qualifies as "big numbers" to you?
And by the by, it's very rude to spell at people like that. After all, this is an RPG. If you couldn't have RP and G at the same time, then it would be impossible for the hobby to exist.
How powerful a character or class is within the game has zero impact on how well the character is roleplayed. I can roleplay a Bard. I can roleplay a Paladin. I can roleplay a Fighter. I can roleplay a blind Commoner with both legs blown off and only one arm. I can roleplay a mage who can dish out enough raw damage from a 4th- and a 5th-level slot to kill most gods. 'Roleplay' is not an excuse for making a pathetically weak class.
And just because someone actually considers what that "G" might stand for in "RPG" doesn't mean they play nothing but slaughterfests staring Figh Tor, Clair Ick, and Dwarf. It means they actually want some game with their roleplaying, that they believe that a quality roleplaying game must, by necessity and definition, be a quality game as well. Who want the game to be fair when brought to bear, rather than having it systematically screw one set of players, to decree that if the rules are coming into the picture, warriors aren't allowed to be competent past whatever level.
You, the man in black, scott. You core argument is an Argument from personal incredulity, "I can't see how the game can be played in such a way that the issues I see are not an issue."
That ain't remotely anyone's assertion, chief. There are plenty of ways to play that mask the issue. Most of 'em involve not playing the game tactically. But the thing is, a game that's only 'balanced' when you don't play it is not a balanced game. And that is the issue.
Mr Betts I would like to politely disagree with your staetment:
ALL classes should be designed for BOTH.
If thats the case whats the point of having more than one player.
I understand the statement that all players should be relevant to the game but not ALL the time. I was under the impression that part of the game experiance was team work because not every player or charrecter can do everything nor should they.
When a fighter can cast anything through items or abilites(pally's and rangers not withstanding) then whats the purpose of having a spellcaster in the party.
I have seen the threads about wizards wadeing into combat in the forms of giants and dragons and everytime MY wizard charecter has done that the fighter NEEDED the help. Just like afterwards I NEEDED the cleric to stop me from dropping into the negatives and dieing. My D&D experiance has always been about teamwork.
by having everyone be equal the need for teamwork is no longer there.
You're not disagreeing with him, y'know. He's not saying everyone should be good at everything. He's saying they should all be legitimately powerful. If you have a Beguiler (sneakomancer) next to a Warblade (melee class that's actually good), they have completely disparate ability sets, but they're both very good at what they do. There will be situations that call for the Beguiler's talents, which she performs well, and situations that call for the Warblade's talents, that she performs well. Equal is not the same as identical.
The problem is, classes like the Fighter; their specialty is fighting, and they're bad at it. They can't fight well past low levels. The monsters are extremely powerful, and they cannot keep up with the kinds of monsters the party should be facing, while classes like the Druid are so awesome in melee as to make the Fighter a joke.
That the "stab stuff" class should be good at stabbing stuff is not the same as saying the "stab stuff" class sucks because it can't sneak. Rather, in this case, the "stab stuff" class sucks because it's not any good at stabbing stuff, and the only abilities it gets are stabbing stuff.
Mr Betts I would like to politely disagree with your staetment:
ALL classes should be designed for BOTH.
If thats the case whats the point of having more than one player.
So that more than two people can play the game.
I understand the statement that all players should be relevant to the game but not ALL the time.
I agree. But most of the time, all classes should have direct relevance to what's going on. Combat, being the activity that takes up a plurality (if not outright majority) at your average gaming table, ought therefore to be an activity that all classes can participate in with roughly equal levels of contribution.
I was under the impression that part of the game experiance was team work because not every player or charrecter can do everything nor should they.
It is. My argument is not that every class should be good at everything. My argument is that every class should have relevance during the game. If you spend an hour on RP, everyone should be able to contribute significantly to the RP. If you spend an hour on combat, everyone should be able to contribute significantly to the combat. Within each of these activities at the game table are in-game character actions. Individual classes can be better or worse at these. That's not as important. What matters is that, when you're talking about an activity going on at the game table (RP and combat are just two examples), all players should be engaged, and all players should feel like their character is a vital part of the team during that activity.
The rest of your post just misses the point, so I'll let you address the above.
The fact that Viletta Valdim is able to understand my argument perfectly demonstrates to me that I am not being unclear. I would appreciate it if those who choose to argue against me give me the courtesy of actually sitting down and thinking about where I might be coming from here. I'm starting to think that those on the other side of this debate are willfully misunderstanding their opponents' positions and making purposeful use of strawman arguments as a result.
But we have people in the pro-4E zealot camp, like scott who are here saying, yes the flavour has changed, and that is for the better, while
here trying to claim that nothing has changed at all.
First, "pro-4E zealot camp" is not appropriate language, here. It is radicalized, and demonstrates a desire on your part to undermine the credibility of those you argue against rather than addressing the argument itself.
It is an attitude like that which makes the Paizo forums one of the most insular gaming forums out there - very few people who play 4e are willing to come here, simply because of the truly ridiculous treatment they receive. You do a disservice to this community and Paizo by making use of that sort of language.
It is blatant hypocracy.
No, it isn't. Yes, the flavor of the game has changed. No, it's not a huge change. And no, the style with which I run my games has not changed significantly, either.
Now, if you want actual blatant hypocrisy, this post written by you only a couple days ago accuses someone else (wrongly) of an ad hominem attack, and you refused to address their actual point as a result. Yet, in the post I'm responding to right now you made use of a textbook ad hominem attack ("pro-4E zealot camp") in an effort to make it appear as though your opponents are not credible as a result of their fondness of a certain game.
In the future, before accusing someone of "blatant hypocracy", make an effort to ensure that your accusation is not patently false.
'4e is perfect because we like it, 3.5 is terrible and your all stupid for liking it.'
Again, this is not actually anyone's argument. No one is going to participate in discussions with you, Zombieneighbours, if you are unable to afford them the decency of accurately representing their own argument to them. It makes you appear rude, dense, malicious, or some combination of the three.
If you raise the issue that different play styles perhapes suit different systems, you get accused of either snobbery or 'not playing the game right.'
We're not arguing that you're not playing the game right. We're saying that many people play the game in the way we're describing, and that JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T DOESN'T MEAN THE PROBLEM DOESN'T EXIST. I have bolded, italicized, and capitalized the above for you because that is the core of our argument, and has been since the beginning of this discussion. In the future, if you want to address this argument, please start with the above statement in mind.
Forgive me if it all leaves me a little royally pee'd off.
You have, in this case, very little cause to be perturbed.
I think the decker/netrunner problem you allude to here is different from the negotiator/combat imbalance issue. The decker problem is more extreme. Not only is another character not geared up to be particularly good at netrunning, the two types of play occur in fundamentally different spaces where another PC cannot participate at all except under very specific circumstances.Characters not very good at either negotiation or combat can still play those scenes according to their abilities and be a net contributor to the enjoyment of the game.
But it points to the issue at hand. Sure the decker problem is the extreme end of the wedge but the further you go to balancing things in both circumstances generally the better. Its cool for the Beguiler t be great out of combat and only barely passable in combat as long as the DM insures that there is a good balance of both - it blows big time if your stuck for four sessions in the Dungeon of Mega Doom having to hang out Marko the Meta Magic Damage Dealer.
The reverse is equally true - its fun for the fighter to make snappy one liners and make lewd comments toward the poor NPCs but that gets old if your in an adventure featuring 3 sessions of skull drudgery and delicate negations.
Now one can say that its the DMs fault for not providing a good mix and that is partially true but in a world were adults are lucky if they get a solid four hours at the gaming table some weeknight that kind of ideal starts to really limit story options. In reality this turns into planning adventures along the lines of 1 combat encounter is matched by 1 roleplaying encounter over and over again. There are only so many role playing encounters one can have in the middle of a dungeon and it gets tiresome having some one kick in the door after every role playing encounter in your urban adventure. Plotwise one tends to get grouped styles of encounters - either a series of combat encounters with a role playing one stuck in for some variety or a slew of non combat encounters with maybe a poisoning attempt or some such to add spice.
The more the players can have fun in both environments the less the DM needs to jump through hoops trying to make the plot conform to a 1 for 1 mix of combat and none combat encounters.
The more the players can have fun in both environments the less the DM needs to jump through hoops trying to make the plot conform to a 1 for 1 mix of combat and none combat encounters.
I would argue that even the above situation (a 1 for 1 mix of combat and non-combat) is far from ideal if the PCs are each preferentially geared towards one or the other. Most players lose interest in a game pretty quickly if they are not actively engaged for long periods. Even if a PC shines in combat, if two out of the four hours of your average gaming session are spent in non-combat situations, he's not going to be having nearly as much fun.
If, instead, you develop niches for each PC to occupy in both areas of the game (combat and non-combat), and if all of these niches are engaging and fun, you have eliminated the problem completely. Instead of giving half the characters the spotlight half the time, everyone gets their own spotlight for most of the time. You can have individual moments of focus on one particular character or what have you, but these moments can now be dictated by the story, and don't endanger the interest of the other players sitting at the table.
|
|
Am I missing the point when I say that balance at my table is expected? This is my measure... Is everyone having fun? If they are, then the game is balanced.
If I find someone is not having fun there are some possibilities
1. They might prefer a different style of game.
2. They might be having an off night.
3. They might need to change thier character to something that they like better.
4. I might need to be making sure that they have more chances to shine.
The truth is that there are a million tweaks possible for the game and each will affect it differently depending on which group uses the tweak.
Instead of worrying about the rules, worry about the fun, and the rules kind of sort themselves out.
<MMmmmmmmmmm, Miss Frost.....>I would, as they say, "so tap that."
Dark Dungeons is right up there with Frederick taking Dougal's pack to carry treasure in. Ah, memories...
You're all going to hell.
BTW I cannot BELIEVE this alias wasn't already taken.
You're all going to hell.
<MMmmmmmmmmm, Miss Frost.....>I would, as they say, "so tap that."
Dark Dungeons is right up there with Frederick taking Dougal's pack to carry treasure in. Ah, memories...
I can make an alternate offer... yessssss.
Okay, it looks to me like people have left the thread entirely and are just bickering.
There is no reason this conversation needs to be about 4e, Pathfinder, or specific game systems at all. Take it outside, please.
Okay, it looks to me like people have left the thread entirely and are just bickering.
There is no reason this conversation needs to be about 4e, Pathfinder, or specific game systems at all. Take it outside, please.
If you look at it a certain way, it's sort of all on topic - every post that continues to discuss balance is effectively another answer of "No," to the question in the thread title. ;P
Instead of worrying about the rules, worry about the fun, and the rules kind of sort themselves out.
Maybe. A lot of people find that having an appropriate set of rules makes enjoying the game a lot easier, though.
It is. My argument is not that every class should be good at everything. My argument is that every class should have relevance during the game. If you spend an hour on RP, everyone should be able to contribute significantly to the RP. If you spend an hour on combat, everyone should be able to contribute significantly to the combat. Within each of these activities at the game table are in-game character actions. Individual classes can be better or worse at these. That's not as important. What matters is that, when you're talking about an activity going on at the game table (RP and combat are just two examples), all players should be engaged, and all players should feel like their character is a vital part of the team during that activity.The rest of your post just misses the point, so I'll let you address the above.
The fact that Viletta Valdim is able to understand my argument perfectly demonstrates to me that I am not being unclear. I would appreciate it if those who choose to argue against me give me the courtesy of actually sitting down and thinking about where I might be coming from here. I'm...
I agree with you. It isn't the games fault that because someone min/maxed their fighter to be only good at being a killing machine and that PC sucks in a role-playing situation and the same is true with min/maxed Bards who are brilliant at interaction but suck during roll-play.
IMO the game is only as good as the effort you as a player puts into it. Put nothing in, get nothing out.
I'd like to try and bring it back on track. In the OP, I address the issue (raised by Scott a few posts above), the notion that just because it can be "fixed" by a GM doesn't mean it isn't broken. I agree in principle, but I feel that some people use that as a crutch to attack the existing system at every opportunity.
All RPG systems are asked to perform under circumstances that are mathematically unsolvable. Even the notion that any sort of math could "balance" encounters is relatively new, by my reckoning. I think it may be fundamentally misguided, because any logical subset of the infinite possible scenarios we play is STILL too large to analyze meaningfully.
Basically, that bit about "Just because the GM can fix it doesn't mean the system isn't broken" is true, but it raises some essential questions about what is broken, and what can be "fixed" on a permanent basis. If a system is working without any GM intervention for me and my group, but it is not working for you and your group, what then?
Here's an interesting example, and I expect the mechanics-enthusiasts to meet this with some resistance, but I ask for you to consider it with an open mind:
I recognize that in game theory terms, a (perfectly) "rational" player will necessarily choose a certain class (let's say wizard) because it maximizes their play options. So why doesn't everyone in my group play a wizard? Partly this is a "flavor" choice, but there are other factors less often discussed. In my group, not everyone has the time or patience to play a wizard, because that class requires considerably more research and thought to play optimally. The wizard player is being rewarded for his investment — which is something I really enjoy from a game-design perspective, because playing a wizard calls for some very wizardly behavior, poring over tomes and whatnot.
Those who are already hyper-familiar with the rules likely don't account for this investment when they sit at the table and play. But from my vantage point, for beginning and intermediate players, there is a price of knowledge required of the wizard's player that few want to pay. It is only advanced players who see a clear choice, because the familiarity is not an obstacle.
What do you think of this example?
---
Nobody in this thread is wrong, unless they start talking about a war between play styles or 4e vs. PF. In the OP, I meant to say that mechanics wonks should utilize gameplay, not that they should shut up entirely.
Am I missing the point when I say that balance at my table is expected. This is my measure... Is everyone having fun? If they are, then the game is balanced.
You are missing the point, as fun and balance are not directly related. RIFTS is an extremely unbalanced game, and deliberately so, yet people can and do frequently have fun with it. That does not mean that it's a balanced game.
Instead of worrying about the rules, worry about the fun, and the rules kind of sort themselves out.
Except when the fundamental problems with the fun stem from the rules itself being unbalanced and unfair, you then have to examine those rules and figure out where the fundamental problem is so that you can fix it.
I agree with you. It isn't the games fault that because someone min/maxed their fighter to be only good at being a killing machine and that PC sucks in a role-playing situation and the same is true with min/maxed Bards who are brilliant at interaction but suck during roll-play.
IMO the game is only as good as the effort you as a player puts into it. Put nothing in, get nothing out.
Except it is the game's fault when it doesn't give the Fighter meaningful noncombat abilities, while simultaneously not giving them the abilities to be a killing machine. When you have to push the very limits of the game and do ten times the work to get something that functions half as well as another class does out of the box, a class that also functions equally well in multiple other aspects of play at the same time, you have a problem with the system, not a problem with the player.
What is the endgame for balance enthusiasts?
Meaning no disrespect, honestly.
Do any of you guys who are really into it (AMiB, I'm looking right at you) study game theory at all?
I have dabbled in game theory (there's one textbook on my shelf), certainly not enough to command any sort of authority on the subject, but it strikes me as relevant. The thing that bothers me most in conversations about RPG balance is ...
Well, chess. Chess is a game with exactly 6 classes, each of which has exactly one class ability. It is played on a ridiculously small and homogenous board compared to fantasy RPGs. And yet, it pretty much breaks down in any analysis after 4 or 5 turns. Even when talented mathematicians have set their mind to it, it would still take longer to "solve" chess than we have time left on this planet as a species.
Then I look at the way we talk about RPG balance, and how much more complex RPGs are in their fundamental behavior. I can't fathom how any meaningful analysis could possibly take place. It must be that the people at the table matter more than the rules of the game in all cases, because we are all fallible, and so we're dealing with rule selectivity at the very least!
So really, what is a meaningful, objective approach to game balance?
|
I'd like to try and bring it back on track. In the OP, I address the issue (raised by Scott a few posts above), the notion that just because it can be "fixed" by a GM doesn't mean it isn't broken. I agree in principle, but I feel that some people use that as a crutch to attack the existing system at every opportunity.
All RPG systems are asked to perform under circumstances that are mathematically unsolvable. Even the notion that any sort of math could "balance" encounters is relatively new, by my reckoning. I think it may be fundamentally misguided, because any logical subset of the infinite possible scenarios we play is STILL too large to analyze meaningfully.
Basically, that bit about "Just because the GM can fix it doesn't mean the system isn't broken" is true, but it raises some essential questions about what is broken, and what can be "fixed" on a permanent basis. If a system is working without any GM intervention for me and my group, but it is not working for you and your group, what then?
Here's an interesting example, and I expect the mechanics-enthusiasts to meet this with some resistance, but I ask for you to consider it with an open mind:
I recognize that in game theory terms, a (perfectly) "rational" player will necessarily choose a certain class (let's say wizard) because it maximizes their play options. So why doesn't everyone in my group play a wizard? Partly this is a "flavor" choice, but there are other factors less often discussed. In my group, not everyone has the time or patience to play a wizard, because that class requires considerably more research and thought to play optimally. The wizard player is being rewarded for his investment — which is something I really enjoy from a game-design perspective, because playing a wizard calls for some very wizardly behavior, poring over tomes and whatnot.
Those who are already hyper-familiar with the rules likely don't account for this investment when they sit at the table and play. But from my vantage point, for...
The problem with the view that if something isn't covered by the rules then the rules are broken is something of a fallacy for me. The absolute number of situation the rules are intended to cover could be effectively infinite. They don't cover in detail, for example, underwater opera singing. The value of a rules set is how it performs under the scenarios it is likely to need to cover. That, unfortunately, will vary depending on the gamers in question. By and large a majority of gamers can come up with a reasonable view of what is commonplace and also uncommon but sufficiently frequent to require coverage. But that will not be universal, and someone will always consider the rules broken because they don't cover X.
As an example, the Denizens (Frank and co) designed a complex treasure system involving parallel currencies to deal with a problem they perceived - how can you get rich but low level people (princlings with inherited wealth, merchants and so on) in a world where treasure seems to be derived from killing things and taking their stuff, and also in a world where you can wish into being whatever you want (including really powerful magic items). It was quite clever and more or less (if you actually ignored real economics) worked. But for me it was a non-problem - my players never cared, and rarely got to levels where Wish mattered, and in any case weren't interested in exploiting rules loopholes like that. So a key problem to which great intellectual effort was expended was simply a waste of time for me, and something I could conveniently ignore in my own game. Plus the solution was as artificial as the system (gold per level) it was intended to replace.
Which is why we endlessly argue (well, actually I don't care that much, I'm more depressed than enlivened by most of this thread) because our experience of what the rules need to cover is subjective. There will be commonalities, but what we experience will differ in the detail. Which is why we have DMs, part of the job of which is resolve these issues as painlessly as possible and just move on. Most of which will probably involve hand-waving. Some people may wish to have complex rules to cover relative trivia, but many won't - that is probably more about personal preference than anything to do with the integrity of the rules.
One of the best gaming sessions I ever played in was a Cthulhu session where any dice roll was replaced with a d2 (coin). Simple yes/no 50:50. No one did anything stupid (Can I jump that building...YES!) and everyone had fun. No mechanics, no charop, no rules lawyers. Just lots of fun.
Now I'm playing a game where I'm seeing myself as an outsider. I don't recognise the game anymore. It seems that the rules and mechanics have taken over and the fun of sitting down throwing odd shaped bits of plastic around on a table seems to be lost.
There was a thread where someone wanted to do something different. I personally think the proposal was a tad silly but what the hell, the guy wanted just wanted fun! A lot of people got snarky quoting this rule and that rule and I sat reading it all thinking yea its stupid but all he wanted was to play the game in a fun way.
If debating the smallest point about a rule floats your boat, fine. Me I would rather discuss playing the game. As someone once wrote "These are guidelines, not rules"
Except it is the game's fault when it doesn't give the Fighter meaningful noncombat abilities, while simultaneously not giving them the abilities to be a killing machine. When you have to push the very limits of the game and do ten times the work to get something that functions half as well as another class does out of the box, a class that also functions equally well in multiple other aspects of play at the same time, you have a problem with the system, not a problem with the player.I agree with you. It isn't the games fault that because someone min/maxed their fighter to be only good at being a killing machine and that PC sucks in a role-playing situation and the same is true with min/maxed Bards who are brilliant at interaction but suck during roll-play.
IMO the game is only as good as the effort you as a player puts into it. Put nothing in, get nothing out.
VV, you can't have cake and eat it in a game which uses a class system. If that is a problem then D&D isn't the game to solve it. It is about working as a team at a basic level. A party consisting of just one class will have a harder time than one of mixed classes. I don't see any single class being able to function in multiple areas as you state with the possible exception of the Cleric.
All I see is a lot of people wanting cake and eating it at the same time.
I recognize that in game theory terms, a (perfectly) "rational" player will necessarily choose a certain class (let's say wizard) because it maximizes their play options. So why doesn't everyone in my group play a wizard? Partly this is a "flavor" choice, but there are other factors less often discussed. In my group, not everyone has the time or patience to play a wizard, because that class requires considerably more research and thought to play optimally. The wizard player is being rewarded for his investment — which is something I really enjoy from a game-design perspective, because playing a wizard calls for some very wizardly behavior, poring over tomes and whatnot.Those who are already hyper-familiar with the rules likely don't account for this investment when they sit at the table and play. But from my vantage point, for beginning and intermediate players, there is a price of knowledge required of the wizard's player that few want to pay. It is only advanced players who see a clear choice, because the familiarity is not an obstacle.
What do you think of this example?
My problem here is that you are essentially punishing new players. This acts as a 'you must be this high to be cool' restraint. This is more of a problem then with experienced players as well because doing cool stuff is the first flashy part of the game that is likely to hook in newbies - especially younger ones.
It gets even worse if the DM is a novice as well - an experienced DM knows to bend over backward to make things fun for the fighter but a new DM thats struggling to just keep track of 4 different kinds of monsters or figure out where he placed the map for the adventure already has their 'CPU' running at max just to try and keep things, sort of, flowing and on track. Its hard enough to just run the game when your a new DM never mind also understand were the game is weak and make up for that in actual play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
What is the endgame for balance enthusiasts? . . . So really, what is a meaningful, objective approach to game balance?
That's what I've been asking myself as I've read this and other forums. What is it the game balance group is trying to achieve in these discussions? Are they trying to talk us all into switching to 4E or GURPS or WW or whatever? Are they trying to get us all to adopt the houserules they see as balancing the game? Are they trying to get us to bow down to wizard leetness or never play fighters? Are they trying to convince Paizo to change PFRPG (not likely, they *just now* published it, and after how much playtesting and commentary)? Are they trying to convince me that I must not have been having fun all this time because the rules I've been playing with are broken?
BTW, I don't mean this question rhetorically or accusatorily, I'm just missing the point. And not the specific points of the arguments, the Point of Why This Discussion Is Taking Place.
It gets even worse if the DM is a novice as well
Worse, or better?
No, seriously I see your point. I also remember some of the best games I've played in or run came from drastic misinterpretations of the rules, especially spells. Players and GMs who didn't know any better and frankly didn't care. Man, if only we could bottle and sell the playful ignorance!
BTW, I don't mean this question rhetorically or accusatorily, I'm just missing the point. And not the specific points of the arguments, the Point of Why This Discussion Is Taking Place.
The answer you seek lies HERE, Mr.Bell.
And we are not the "exceptions" I'm afraid.
I recognize that in game theory terms, a (perfectly) "rational" player will necessarily choose a certain class (let's say wizard) because it maximizes their play options. So why doesn't everyone in my group play a wizard? Partly this is a "flavor" choice, but there are other factors less often discussed. In my group, not everyone has the time or patience to play a wizard, because that class requires considerably more research and thought to play optimally. The wizard player is being rewarded for his investment — which is something I really enjoy from a game-design perspective, because playing a wizard calls for some very wizardly behavior, poring over tomes and whatnot.
Then it becomes an issue of whether or not this sort of metagame soft requirement is something that you want in your RPG of choice. I know that there are some significant drawbacks to making spellcasters more challenging to play (both in terms of rigor and system mastery). A new player who shows up wanting to play a spell-flinging wizard will have a much tougher time of it in a system of the sort that you favor, for instance.
What is the endgame for balance enthusiasts? . . . So really, what is a meaningful, objective approach to game balance?That's what I've been asking myself as I've read this and other forums. What is it the game balance group is trying to achieve in these discussions? Are they trying to talk us all into switching to 4E or GURPS or WW or whatever? Are they trying to get us all to adopt the houserules they see as balancing the game? Are they trying to get us to bow down to wizard leetness or never play fighters? Are they trying to convince Paizo to change PFRPG (not likely, they *just now* published it, and after how much playtesting and commentary)? Are they trying to convince me that I must not have been having fun all this time because the rules I've been playing with are broken?
Nope. We're just having a discussion. It's an opportunity for some of us to organize our thoughts and refine them, and if those tuning in come away from it with a new perspective or observation on any part of the discussion, so much the better.