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.
Just because they cannot be mathematically solved does not mean they can be mathematically analyzed with meaningful results, and just because a system is being analyzed does not mean pure math is being applied.
Everything in the universe is subject to logic and analysis to one degree or another. Games are no exception. And the limits of analysis are, themselves, a part of the analysis. The notion that just because a system cannot be solved and therefore should not be analyzed is fundamentally misguided.
And just because there are infinite possibilities does not mean you cannot analyze the system under design assumptions or glean meaningful data from even individual cases. There are infinitely many addition problems, but most children at least begin to comprehend the notion of addition after a non-infinite number, and with that information, manage to understand all of the infinitely-many addition problems in the universe without needing to examine all of them.
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?
In this example, let us frame the situation a little more with a few assumptions. Some are true, some are debated, but such distinctions are irrelevant for the purposes of this example; all are assumed true.
1) Mages have a harsh learning curve and require a rather large amount of paperwork. Without the learning and work put in, they suck. With the learning and work, they are undeniably the most powerful class in the game from beginning to end.
2) Warriors don't have the learning curve; a novice player can make and run one near peak effectiveness with comparative ease. However, "peak effectiveness" is not very high, and even with extensive experience, warriors have trouble keeping up, particularly alongside knowledgeable mages.
So, under those assumptions? You may have some novices who then go on to play most weeks for three years. If they're actively playing the game and looking into tactical options, then they're not novices anymore by the end of those three years. The game was hideously imbalanced at the beginning, but the situation was masked by inexperience; the warrior was able to compete with and even surpass the Wizard in the beginning, sure, but now that they know how to play, the fundamental problems with the game are laid bare. A game that's only fair if no one knows how to play it is not a fair game.
What is the endgame for balance enthusiasts?
One of my major axioms of gaming: Players want to do awesome things.
The mechanics should allow every party member to do awesome things, no matter who they are. It should not be a case where, "If you take this class, then you can't do awesome things within the system, and your only supply of awesome things has to be roleplay."
If you have a level 10 party going into a CR10 dragon's lair, complete with the dragon (ignoring the [Awesome] subtype) and cultists about to sacrifice the princess, and they run into that dragon. If the all fights together, they're pretty much guaranteed victory, and they know it, but by then the princess could well be sacrificed and the cult's dark god reborn. The team warrior should be able to step forward and say to his comrades, "I'll handle this; you go save the princess," and then have a legitimate chance in the spectacular duel with that level 10 dragon while the rest of the party saves the princess. Yes, there's a very real chance that the warrior will die, but it shouldn't be a pathetic curb stomp where the dragon just annihilates the warrior. If the warrior wins, it should be a glorious display. If the warrior loses, it should be at great cost to the dragon who is now severely wounded. I shouldn't have to break a single rule to get that, nor should I have to specifically hand one person twice as many opportunities to do awesome things in roleplay just because the rules systematically screw them.
Any member of the party should be able to do awesome things (appropriate to their power level) on their own power, and they should be able to come together to be more spectacular still. The mighty warrior should, in fact, be mighty. The powerful archmage should, in fact, be powerful. The deadly assassin should, in fact, be deadly. The master thief should, in fact, be masterful. All in comparable measure within the rules, that they can all be awesome without throwing the rules out the window, whether apart or together.
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!
Of course there's rules selectivity. Not all rules matter. Not all rules help. If you have four hundred and eighty seven options, but four hundred and eighty five of them do not advance your cause or help you in any way, then you need only truly assess two options.
What's more, you can assess option ranges; if you're five feet away from a creature with a move speed of forty, and you have a move speed of thirty, it doesn't matter that there are, say, a hundred different ways you can move, you're going to get caught. If there are fifty different ways you can bump up your damage dealt per round or depress the enemy's, yet you don't have any options significant enough to last more than three rounds or take the enemy out in less than five, that's a problem.
And also, you can gauge balance on the featureless plane. That's the baseline for measuring raw power. If that turns up unusual results, you can gauge whether the beings tested have any abilities that allow them to benefit uniquely from settings more advanced than the featureless plane in a manner more meaningful than their opposition. In the case of the Ranger, or the Rogue, or the spellcasters, they do indeed (not that the spellcasters need it), yet the Fighter? No such class abilities. A fire giant can use advanced terrain jut as much as a Fighter can, sometimes more. And some terrain features are simply not worth considering at all, they make the comparisons completely invalid, such as the perfect vantage point for locking ranged combat.
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.
It's not at all unreasonable to want the "kill things" class to be competitive in the murder industry by default. And this imbalance is a big, glowing, fundamental team issue; that the "kill things" class isn't actually good at killing things means it doesn't really contribute to the group in any meaningful way.
The mixed-class versus homogeneous-class deal is irrelevant, for the most part, though an all-Druid team will still excel with little difficulty and an all-Fighter team will most likely die horribly.
V V, thanks for the reasoned response.
I'll admit, I was being somewhat defeatist for argument's sake about the "solvability" issue. In science, they often deal with situations that don't lend themselves to total analysis. However, they also have a process of peer review and a methodology that precludes "know it all" behavior from the participants. Not always, but mostly.
I'm not sure if anything can be done about it. There are sometimes issues with mechanics, and there are sometimes issues with people wanting attention on the internet out of proportion with their actual contribution to the analysis. And there are sometimes jerks like me who want the whole thing to go away so that everyone can have fun.
I'm not begrudging the rules-wonks their fun. I just think it is really important to play the game and not just analyze it in a vacuum.
I can't speak for everyone, but I find that having rules that are as far out of whack as they are sort of interferes with fun after a while. So I'm coming from a direction of, "I keep needing to modify game play so far from the rules in order for it to run smoothly, that it would be easier for me to just makes rules corrections up front and be done with it." Like, everyone will be happily role-playing, and then some threat or hazard pops up that requires some sort of die roll to resolve. It would be nice if, for the sake of simplicity, something like this was the case:
Instead, when it comes down to rolling, we find that an intelligently-played wizard has a 5 in 6 chance, for ALL of them. The fighter has maybe a 1 in 6 for his best challenge (fighting) and 0 in 6 for everything else.
Again, these aren't hard and fast analytical results, just approximations to give the gist of how extreme the problem can seem for some people like myself.
----
SO WHY WORRY? Well, it seems to me that, with a minimal amount of work, the problems could be easily solved, and then we could all go back to playing. VV's posts, while sometimes a bit snippety in tone, have already provided me with at least one useful idea for my homebrew campaign. Kyrt has given me quite a number of useful suggestions. I'm hoping that the suggestions I've provided have in turn helped others. For people who see no need to tweak things, no sweat, just move on and leave us to the discussion. On the flip side, to declare that no one is allowed to question the perfection of the system makes no sense to me. Is it your hope that Paizo will ban all rules-related threads? We'll still question it, but just won't be able to get each other's feedback here. Why deny us that?
It gets even worse if the DM is a novice as wellWorse, 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!
I've seen this as well - but I've also seen newbies given the thief in a 1st edition dungeon crawl and decide not to come back. Much of the time you have pretty much one shot to hook them.
|
It would be nice if, for the sake of simplicity, something like this was the case:
the rogue had a 4 in 6 chance of dealing with a trap and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6;
the wizard had a 4 in 6 chance of winning a magical duel and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6;
the cleric had a 4 in 6 chance of laying the ghost to rest and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6; and
the fighter had a 4 in 6 chance of defeating the giant and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6. Instead, when it comes down to rolling, we find that an intelligently-played wizard has a 5 in 6 chance, for ALL of them. The fighter has maybe a 1 in 6 for his best challenge (fighting) and 0 in 6 for everything else.
One way to make things go easier on some of the classes is to allow for multiple solutions to problems, with no one, single, correct solution, without which, don't bother.
Disabling traps: This one drives me nuts. So many times, the DM will describe, or show a handout, of some fiendish device, and then all attention will go to the Rogue, as being the ONLY person allowed to contribute. And if he's dead, or KO? TPK. Whoops.
Why can't others contribute? Because the only solution is a Disable Device check, of DC(X).
Yet, in many cases, the solution is blatantly visible, for all to see.
Why can't the Fighter smash the mechanism, bend the blades, so they don't fit flush, block the crusher by hauling furniture, hammer pitons into the cogs, demolish the door to the exit?
Why can't the Cleric Stone Shape the gas vents shut?
Why can't the Wizard's Unseen Servant pull the reverse lever, or confuse the targetting sensors, so they don't shoot the PCs?
Laying the ghost to rest: What does the ghost want? What's tying it to this world? How do we fulfil it's unresolved issues?
Let's tear the room apart, playing '20 questions', until we get the McGuffin that releases it.
It shouldn't have to require a cleric spamming Turns and Channels, till it goes pop.
By allowing multiple solutions, you keep all players in the game.
By making some of those solutions require multiple, simultaneous actions, you train teamwork ("I can reach the trigger, but I need you to hold back the crushers!").
And it stops it being a boring die roll, or a solo session, where the others go raid the fridge.
|
|
"Story Hour" is a shorthand Kirth and I use for a particular style of gaming. A style that really has little "game" in it at all.
You can thank Vampire for that by the way.
I actually deleted that line (I blame WoD) right before I posted that...
I thought it started looong before that; a game involving dragons.
And lances.And kender?
By making some of those solutions require multiple, simultaneous actions, you train teamwork ("I can reach the trigger, but I need you to hold back the crushers!"). And it stops it being a boring die roll, or a solo session, where the others go raid the fridge.
YES! But do the trap rules (as written), for example, support these kinds of options? Nope. The DM is stuck, as always, standing on his head manipulating reality in order to keep everyone active. Personally, I got tired of that after a while, and started thinking that some rules changes up front would be a help.
|
|
Alright, here it is. There are a few things within these files that I've wanted to change a bit, but PC issues have prevented it.
With that in mind, I am open to critique, feel free to comment as you wish.
Thanks for that link: I'll give them a read later.
Is it deliberate that there's no revised Barbarian, Druid & Rogue?
I.e. do you believe they're OK as is, or have not got round to them?
|
|
YES! But do the trap rules (as written), for example, support these kinds of options? Nope. The DM is stuck, as always, standing on his head manipulating reality in order to keep everyone active. Personally, I got tired of that after a while, and started thinking that some rules changes up front would be a help.
I feel your pain.
It bugged me that we were always being told that a party could consist of any combination of classes, or at least a combo of 'one warrior, one divine, one arcane and one skilled', when in practice, you HAD to have a Rogue for traps, you HAD to have a Cleric for undead and Raise Dead, and you HAD to have a Wizard for versatility of spells (rather than the Sorceror, aka 'Johnny One-Note' or 'the wand on legs').
The only class that was at all replaceable in the tedious traditional F/C/W/R monopoly was the Fighter. Many groups would never see a Bard, Druid, Monk, Sorceror, or any class from non-core, except as a DMPC or fifth wheel.
The current PF rules seem to relax the necessity for always having a Rogue, though they will always be the best choice, thanks to their class focus and high skill points.
I just think many traps should be defeatable by, if not 'brute force and ignorance', then at least by other means than Disable Device.
In return, I reserve the right to reduce the xp they give, which I've always found ridiculously high for the piffling danger posed.
But this probably deserves a thread of its own.
YES! But do the trap rules (as written), for example, support these kinds of options? Nope. The DM is stuck, as always, standing on his head manipulating reality in order to keep everyone active. Personally, I got tired of that after a while, and started thinking that some rules changes up front would be a help.
I think Dungeonscape has rules for more intricate traps. Though even core has hardness rules if you want to smash/melt your way through. And the classic method of dealing with traps when you didn't have a Rogue was to set 'em off with something expendable. Creatures from a Bag of Tricks, summons, livestock. If you don't know where the traps are, just have the BoT boar go first.
Disabling traps: This one drives me nuts. So many times, the DM will describe, or show a handout, of some fiendish device, and then all attention will go to the Rogue, as being the ONLY person allowed to contribute. And if he's dead, or KO? TPK. Whoops.
Why can't others contribute? Because the only solution is a Disable Device check, of DC(X).
Yet, in many cases, the solution is blatantly visible, for all to see.
Why can't the Fighter smash the mechanism, bend the blades, so they don't fit flush, block the crusher by hauling furniture, hammer pitons into the cogs, demolish the door to the exit?
Why can't the Cleric Stone Shape the gas vents shut?
Why can't the Wizard's Unseen Servant pull the reverse lever, or confuse the targetting sensors, so they don't shoot the PCs?
Which is exactly why rogues are utterly redundant in dungeon crawls.
My players went through Castle Maure of all places without one. Truth is things are actually better without a rogue - relying on skill checks is just so unreliable compared to using a spell to insure that one has bypassed the trap.
That's one of those situations where I threw the book out.
Anyone can find traps by looking for them. As long as the players don't describe an action that might set off the trap, they don't. They can also roll, but that's taking a risk.
We've found the game a LOT more fun that way.