|
@digitalmage
-People have the ability to be many times more intelligent then they commonly are. I see glimses of that intelligence on rare occasions, yet they almost never utilize it not in games nor in life, as though they themselves dont realize its there. What other word is there for not useing what is available to you?
-if both players are not lazy, then each contributes greatly to the game in their own way. Neither being outshined by the other, think Naruto and Sasuke. Does either outshine the other even when one has greater power then the other?
-Well, I dont know of a better word for it. No disservice intended. If they want to be that way, let them. It is better if they understand though.
-Well I was never good with words, so my apologies.
|
|
@Mathew
GMs are part of the system because the rules are incapable of accounting for the player. The performance of a character is only about 30% the mechanics, the rest is the player and the GM.
Additionally, you need to calibrate your expectations of DnD. Level 5 is the limit for normal humans so once you get a bonus above 10, you have basically become a demigod, so why wouldnt a demigod of persuasion have any difficulty in persuading the halfling chief? Well the GM can step in here and recall that halflings generally keep to their own and would likely refuse to speak to the elf when there is a halfling they can speak to instead. The skill is not the end all and be all of the situation, other factors come into play, people, including halfling chiefs can be so stubborn that no silver tongue can sway them, only some other form of persuasion, but can the elf do that other form of persuasion or even recognize the possibility?
Besides, designing an adventure with the idea of players useing a particular skill at a particular place is just bad design to begin with, and such bad designs will undoubtedly lead to irritations such as this. Better to design without PCs in mind at all and let them find creative solutions.
- I prefer plausable rather then realistic, however, think of it this way, swing a stick or command the the very elements of nature, which is more versatile, which has greater potential, greater scope and depth? Why do you think we use guns and not swords in modern day? Because swords have limited use! Yes you can be the greatest sword wielder in all of history and yet you would still be defeated by one who has the ability to strike from a distance, repeatedly and quickly.
Magic mirrors technology, the only difference being that technology is based on the knowledge of the group while magic is knowledge of the individual.
Greater knowledge is greater power.
Guys love strength of muscles because its easy to see, easy to display, yet it is the weakest of all potential strengths possessed of any person. Knowledge and the ability to quickly utilize it, will defeat muscles anytime, anywhere.
- I have very rarely seen people try to win in anyway other then stereotypes. Fair or not, that is the most common way people try to win. Why do you think most optimizers maximize damage output? Why not gain the ability to immobilze or disable an opponant quickly and damage them at their leisure? Or work as a team to hold an opponant unable to act, while others deal the damage? Yet somehow people always boil it down to "I punch you, you punch me"
-When I say that most players I have seen are lazy, its because that is what I see. Perhaps I am unlucky and dont meet very many not lazy players, yet the most popular games are those that focus on the attributes lazy players gravitate towards, some even deny the ability to be smart and creative to win instead requiring the use of lazy tactics to win.
-3.x didnt emphasize optimization, it was a bit simulationist, and of course, real life is very much in favor of optimizers and imbalance. I had plenty of fun without optimizing, plenty of fun even when I had to start 3 lvls behind everyone else. Probably because it wasnt my goal to win and be the best at something, rather my goal was the characters goal, to survive or focused on some IC goal which was almost never "kill all enemies!"
-90% of the time everyone I see is being mentally lazy, whether at work or at play, they always take the the most obvious route, not the easiest or the best, but rather the most obvious. It is uncommon for me see otherwise anywhere in life and I have travelled a bit, lived in several states and even joined the army for awhile.
-play a soldier who is good socially? Exactly why I hate classes. In a skill based system you would simply split training between the two. Being stuck with classes presents a problem for one who wants to have a nontraditional character, but that is an issue unrelated to balance, but impacts balance in that making things balanced requires limiting characters and what they can have, so they cant have any combos that are overpowered.
-part of your problem is that you see a character with +5 as being pointless beside a character with +30 and really, in most situations that isnt true. Of course if you get a GM who likes to fudge the DCs to always make them challanging rather then reflective of the actually difficulty of the task, then you might have problems bu in that case the GM isnt useing the system as intended, thus no amount of good system design can help. Better and clearer writing of rules maybe.
Rolling against a DC 10 a +5 will still have a great chance of success, so how is that pointless?
Do you really need to compare your bonus to everyone else in order to feel good about it?
|
-People have the ability to be many times more intelligent then they commonly are. I see glimses of that intelligence on rare occasions, yet they almost never utilize it not in games nor in life, as though they themselves dont realize its there. What other word is there for not useing what is available to you?
Assuming what you say is true, there may be reasoning behind not making the effort to use what is available to you that therefore doesn't deserve to be labelled with what many would call a derogatory term.
Not everyone plays RPGs for the same reasons, for some its a chance to have some fun without having to think too hard - a change of pace from a busy workday which has been taxing your brain. For these people, having to put in the effort to think very creatively, master the tactics of the game, and come up with ways for their character to shine even when mechanically inferior to other PCs actively reduces their enjoyment of the game.
Yes you could call them lazy, but if not being lazy defeats the purpose of playing then I would hardly call that laziness; if you want to call that laziness then I would label the alternative (i.e. having spend the extra effort to utilise the extra intelligence) to be "stupidity".
Let me use a different example that hopefully will allow you to see things from a different perspective.
Some people see food as just fuel for the body, for them eating a meal is just something to get through as quickly as possible so they can get on with their day. Let's call such a person, Adam.
Other people however see eating as a pleasure, they like to take the time to savour the food, enjoy the tastes, and prolong the pleasure. Let's call such a person Brenda.
Adam maybe can't understand why Brenda doesn't want to eat as quickly as possible so that she can get on with her day and labels her a "lazy eater".
But just because Brenda has the ability to eat as fast as Adam, choosing not to do so is not laziness. If Brenda was to eat as quickly as Adam she loses a lot of the pleasure she would obtain from eating.
Now, we're not saying Adam is doing anything wrong for eating quickly, but I would argue he is wrong to label Brenda a "lazy eater" for not eating in the same way he does.
And so with RPGers, some don't want to have to put in the extra effort to level the playing field because their PC is mechanically inferior, they would prefer it if the system levelled the playing field for them as much as is possible, that way they enjoy the game more.
-if both players are not lazy, then each contributes greatly to the game in their own way. Neither being outshined by the other
So before you said that someone applying intelligence whilst having a mechanically inferior build could outshine someone playing with a mechanically superior build but not playing so intelligently.
Now you are saying that when both play as intelligently the player with the mechanically superior character will not outshine the player with the mechanically inferior character, yes?
So I am guessing you don't believe system matters much at all. From what you say even if Amy is playing a Level 20 wizard and Barry is playing a Level 1 Rogue with both playing intelligently, Amy's character won't outshine Barry's character, correct?
think Naruto and Sasuke. Does either outshine the other even when one has greater power then the other?
I am afraid those names mean nothing to me - I am guessing they are in some Anime or Manga? :)
-Well, I dont know of a better word for it. No disservice intended. If they want to be that way, let them. It is better if they understand though.
-Well I was never good with words, so my apologies.
No worries, it sounds like you don't feel the term "lazy" carries any negative connotations, but I can tell you many people do feel it does.
I think you just have to accept that whilst balance in an RPG is "superfluous" to you it isn't superfluous to others.
I don't feel negatively towards balance (except that usually "balanced"implies stricter, less flexible rules for characters). I just find superfluous.
So when you ask the following...
So if our RL isn't balanced, why do we need games about life to be balanced? Doesn't make sense to me.
The answer is simply that not everyone who plays RPGs is like you.
|
|
@Mathew
-What you are talking about aren't discrepencies. And consider the reasons why many GMs like 4e for storytelling, they like the lack of rules for out of combat things. With fewer rules they dont feel constrained to follow them. A lack of rules isnt balance, its freedom for the GM to do something they desire without feeling like they are fixing things. A GM can legitimately make the same call in either 4e or 3.x, but appearently they feel relunctant in 3.x because there are rules already thus it feels like fixing things, but in 4e the rule doesnt exist so its not fixing something, so doing the exact same thing is somehow more acceptable to them. Took me awhile to catch on to this one.
-Dont see how you can possibly have a +20 at second level, not without some ridiculous allowences by the GM, such as having really high point buy for stats plus really crazy synergizing magic items. Of course if its magic items, then its not the character, its the item.
Really starting with a +4 from ability plus 5 max ranks, plus assuming human so two feats and those being persuasive +2 and skillfocus +3 and still get only 14. Thus if you are playing with people having 20+ for bonuses your GM better not be complaining cuase its their choices that are allowing it.
-just because a system works doesnt make the world plausible. Plausible comes from the world being consistant not the rules of the game. There is no way to have swinging asword be better then slinging lightning bolts. By the very nature of the two, lightning wins. There are limits to what can be done with pointy sticks, this world knows well what those limits are. If you want magic to overshadow pointy sticks, then you must make magic subtle and weak, incapable of manipulating large base energies. You cant have it both ways, you cant have powerful awesome magical effects while being weak enough to be overcome by pointy sticks.
I have never read a fantasy in which magic didnt do more then pointy sticks. Some didnt use magic to its potential, but obviously for reasons of story, things get ignored.
Pointy sticks exist, you cant really change what can be done with them, but magic doesnt, you have to change what can be done with it, but you need to be consistant or frustration builds. The whole hatred of wizards being better then fighters is because magic was made powerful, yet the fighter was designed to never use it, thus the fighter came with expectation that it should be powerful since it went to lvl 20 but that was not consistant with the design. This inconsistancy is the problem, the fighter and wizard were designed with differing assumtions, which is inconsistant.
Further, very few players catch on to the fact that heros like Aragorn or Conan should be lvl 4-5 so they assume that such heros should be max lvl characters and make them as such then complain when the system doesnt fit, an incosistancy between their expectations and the reality of the design.
-Strength is never mighter then intellect. Never. Cant break that rope? Use something sharp. Cant lift that rock? Use ropes and pulleys. Intellect created the gun, now the very idea of warrior is so far dead most soldiers dont even understand it anymore. Intellect made the gun to defeat the sword. Intellect always beats strength.
Note, I wouldnt mark magic knowledge as somehow seperate from knowledge in general, no more then saying that knowledge of carpentry is seperate from knowledge of physics.
-perhaps I gave a bad example. Yes I know there some optimizers who do things other than damage, I have only seen two. I dont consider that a significant number, and doubt that the ratio of those I met are *excessively* far from total population.
-I dont think you understand how people are lazy. If a characters performance is only minorly affected by mechanics, then the imbalance of the reality between players renders any balance of mechanics moot. Seeking balance in mechanics is avoiding the work involved in useing ones intellect to guide the character to success, also in thinking enough to realize how the disjoint between player and character affects decisions, and in the lack of thinking beyond the first answer, and perhaps most importantly, in how people deal with their emotions and how they allow those emotions to guide decisions.
If people werent what I am calling lazy, then they wouldnt be relying so much on the mechanical build of their character, and thus would find the system balance to have far less if not no effect.
@digitalmage
Your example with Adam and Brenda sucks, as Brenda isnt even remotely being lazy. She does have something that she isnt using. Adam isnt useing something Brenda isnt either. Adam eats fast to spend more time on other things, Brenda is utilyzing her time to enjoy eating.
When I say people are being lazy in thinking, its because they arent thinking, its not that they are thinking differently, its that they think less, less in amount, less in depth, less in detail.
-They can indeed both enjoy playing. To enjoy playing being the goal yes?
-yes from Naruto, the first few seasons were good. After that, still good but things start to get ridiculous. Naruto has a monster sealed inside giving him great amounts of raw power, Sasuke does not, yet both characters are important to the story, and neither truly outshines the other even though Sasuke feels like it sometimes.
-well of course not everyone is like me, but they certainly have the potential to be, but instead they stick their heads in sands and complain about getting sand in ther eyes.
-you know, its funny where conversations can eventually lead too. So far from the initial point.
|
|
3.5 had synergies to Diplomacy. +6, = 20.
Strength is never mighter then intellect. Never. Cant break that rope? Use something sharp. Cant lift that rock? Use ropes and pulleys. Intellect created the gun, now the very idea of warrior is so far dead most soldiers dont even understand it anymore. Intellect made the gun to defeat the sword. Intellect always beats strength
You don't need to be smart to use tools only invent them. Children can use guns. If someone has acess to tools and is unable to use them due to lack of intellect than that person probably wouldn't be able to dress himself. Cavemen used tools, and some tools like the pulley require strength to use.
@DarkLightHitomi
I think you greatly overestimate the power Intelligence has over other capabilities. Like Matthew stated, knowing how to use the lever, doesn't necessarily give you the Strength to operate it. Just like knowing EXACTLY how to swing a sword for maximum effect does not give you either the speed or power to do so. Knowing and doing are two very different things, and so often in both the real and game worlds doing succeeds in many places where knowing does not. Knowing the mathematical precision and equations required to perform every function on a football team does not allow you to throw the perfect spiral or block an incoming tackle.
As for the laziness, yes it was highly offensive, because I don't want balance so I don't have to work as hard. I want balance so that equal effort offers equal results, if I work harder I should succeed more, not end up leveling the playing field. That's what balance is, an equalizing of the different aspects. It's a wasted effort to play games where you have to modify it in play and in rules just to find equality amongst the players. Why not have a game that succeeds at it without having to waste that effort, therefore allowing my efforts to be spent on playing said game instead of fixing it?
I am often the strategic planner in just about every group I've played with, and tend to play intelligent and charismatic PC's over others just because I come up with the plans and am followed more often than not. Sadly, planning does not change die rolls or numerical modifiers. The game has hard rule sets, where actions are adjudicated by rolling dice and adding modifiers. No amount of planning or strategy will give my character the desired die result, nor the total modifiers needed to succeed with what I rolled.
This is where the balance issue comes in, since that means that I am forced to take classes, options, or abilities that I do not want to play, in order to achieve a closer proximity to the results I need. This is where optimizing ends up trumping planning. Having an almost foolproof ambush planned does not stop the targets from making their saves, or the ambushers from failing their attack rolls. Sadly, the only way to assure that is by focusing on the mechanics to up your power.
When the rules are leveled it allows me to play what I want to play and the optimizer to take the abilities they want to take, while keeping us as fairly close to equals within the party. That's when the game allows me to be the character I want to be, instead of the sidekick to the person that stacks all their numbers for best results. It is a team game, and all members should be able to provide equal degrees of success and performance to the goals of the party, based on the amount of work they produce.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And consider the reasons why many GMs like 4e for storytelling, they like the lack of rules for out of combat things. With fewer rules they dont feel constrained to follow them.
Funnily enough I think that 4e has quite a few extra tools to support out of combat play than 3.5 or PF, stuff like Skill Challenges and Rituals.
-just because a system works doesnt make the world plausible. Plausible comes from the world being consistant not the rules of the game. There is no way to have swinging asword be better then slinging lightning bolts. By the very nature of the two, lightning wins.
Yeah, its already been said, but there are loads of ways to balance slinging lightning bolts with swinging a sword - basically by making the ability to sling that lightning bolt more difficult.
Having slinging a lightning bolt require a minute of chanting means the swordsman gets time to stab you and disrupt your magic (this method is used in Earthdawn where it can take quite a few rounds to weave the threads of some spells).
Alternatively, have slinging a lightning bolt require rare material components so you can maybe sling just one or two. Or maybe it requires sacrifice and you simply cannot move about and keep twenty virgins by your side to sacrfice in order to lightning bolt the mercenary company hacking down your door.
Or maybe you can sling lightning bolts but to have them hit a target requires you to have placed a magical item on them - then you have to know who your enemies are beforehand, find a way to slip such an item onto their person (or trick them into taking it) and hope they don't discover the item or its purpose before you can sling the lightning bolt.
Or maybe slinging a lightning bolt is severely draining and difficult to control - if you don't take out the fighter with the first bolt you are severely fatugued, and if you miss with the second you are unconscious.
So yeah, plenty of ways that things can be given an in-game reason to be balanced.
-Strength is never mighter then intellect. Never. Cant break that rope? Use something sharp. Cant lift that rock? Use ropes and pulleys. Intellect created the gun, now the very idea of warrior is so far dead most soldiers dont even understand it anymore. Intellect made the gun to defeat the sword. Intellect always beats strength.
I disagree, given enough time to plan, given enough materials or tools etc, then intellect can maybe triumph all the time (and even then it is never a guarantee).
But throw a 7 stone genius into a pit with a 16 stone ultimate fighter and tell them only one is coming out alive, then yeah I think you might find that strength may triumph over intellect there.
Your example with Adam and Brenda sucks, as Brenda isnt even remotely being lazy.
That is the point.
She does have something that she isnt using.
Yes, from Adam's perspective she isn't using her jaw muscles to chew faster, she isn't using her teeth to break the chocolate rather than allow it to melt in her mouth, she isn't multitasking by cutting up the rest of her steak while chewing the piece she just put in her mouth. From Adam's perspective, where the goal of eating is to fuel the body as quickly as possible, Brenda is being very lazy.
Adam isnt useing something Brenda isnt either.
I am not sure I am with you here, what aren't either Adam or Brenda using?
Adam eats fast to spend more time on other things, Brenda is utilyzing her time to enjoy eating.
Exactly, they get different things out of eating, they attach a different level of importance to things.
Adam would probably argue that seasoning and presentation of the food are superfluous - that you don't need those to eat your food and fuel your body; just like you feel balance isn't necessary in an RPG to enjoy the game with the goal you have in mind.
Brenda, however things plain, boringly presented food is just not a good thing - and while she could enjoy the meal to some degree without that, she enjoys it much more with.
When I say people are being lazy in thinking, its because they arent thinking, its not that they are thinking differently, its that they think less, less in amount, less in depth, less in detail.
Or maybe they are thinking in a different way? Maybe they are thinking about how cool it would be if their barbarian PC could jump out of the assembled throngs attending the evil villain's wedding to the princess and challenge him to a fight.
Maybe, they are imagining the sights and sounds of the scene being described by the GM, and composing the songs in their head that their bard character will sing about the fight later.
And maybe, some people are thinking about tactics and ways to overcome the villain without the need for a fight.
well of course not everyone is like me, but they certainly have the potential to be, but instead they stick their heads in sands and complain about getting sand in ther eyes.
Seriously? You seriously wrote that? You wrote that and can't see how your posts are coming across as seeming to imply "One True Wayism" and that others are having BADWRONGFUN with their balanced RPGs?
Seriously? I think you need to start applying some of that intellect of yours to reviewing your posts and examining them for phrases that could be taken as being very condescending and / or insulting. Because if you can't see how that last quote of yours could be taken as such you must be incredibly egocentric.
I know I preview my posts, re-review them, edit them and sometimes even delete them altogether before posting (I am considering whether I am being too harsh on you as I write this now), but by your reasoning you must be a "lazy" poster if you cannot be bothered to think as much about what you post, yes?
|
|
-if you cant use a lever, get a longer lever. A long enough lever will let a one pound weight lift a two ton truck. Strength only applies if the lever is sideways or you have something to brace against. Bracing vastly increases the power output and is a result of intellect. Sure the intellect needs to be usable and preferably practical, a smart individual stays fit, which is more than enough to handle anything that can be handled by people.
-equal effort rarely gives equal results, this is why I dont care about balance. This actually mirrors some financial advice "dont work harder for money, make money work harder for you" aka putting more effort into one way can be surpassed by less effort in another way. Equal effort generally only gets equal results when the effort taken is nearly identical by nearly identical people.
There are no identical people so rules cant be used that way, someone is going to use them differently, and part of the GMs job to fit game to the group that is playing, this is the biggest reason to actually need a GM.
-a question to consider, what is your goal in playing the game? To kill every last enemy? Or to portray a character? What are these results you "need" and why do you need them? Do you somehow feel inadequate if have a 30% chance of failure rather then 5% chance of failure? Do you feel inadequate if you encounter anything at all that your are not suited or preppared to deal with? Do not people learn more and show their true mettle when dealing with obstacles that they dont know how to deal with? Is a game only fun if you never encounter failure, if you never have to backtrack, rethink your strategy, and try again?
-properly designed rules reflect the IC world you are playing in. DnD is not properly designed, this is why it seems so horrible. Designing the wizard, magic is assumed to be very powerful and easy, but designing the fighter made no consideration for the world the fighters inhabit, thus they were poorly designed to handle the world. IfDnD suddenly became real and followed the IC rules of greyhawk, there would never be straight fighters as the class, instead soldiers and other fighter types, would lean to deal with what the world had to throw at them, including magic and superior ranged attacks. Castles would be designed very differently, and the world itself would shift away from how it was written because it was inconsistant.
This boils down to one thing, are you designing a character for the world in which the live or are you designing a character seperatly then dropping them into the world? If you do the latter, then you should expect problems, which should be taken as IC motivations for your character to change what and how they do things.
-digitalmages post
- I should have included the word "reletivily" because yes they are there but they are seriously reduced down to almost nothing. Skill challanges are neat but definately rules light way of handling things, and rituals are a serious backstep which make direct support casting nonexistant, and severly discourages magic outside of combat. Casting alarm around the camp every night goes from being a regular duty of the group wizard to a an expensive thing that doesnt even require a caster at all and is prohibitivly expensive unless you actually have encounters everyday with merchants all over the place to turn loot into ritual componants. Most of the spells I used dont even exist anymore, and some non combat spells could still be used in combat for creative tactics, but not anymore. This is a severe hindrance to creative combat casters.
-all these ways of balanceing lightning bolts are changes to the game world itself. There is a difference between the game world, and the game system. A good system reflects the world. Making lightning bolts take three minutes instead of one action, is a change in the world, and causes a butterfly effect, as IC casters, fighters, castle designers, plus many others, suddenly need to change their expectations and strategies. It isnt just the PCs that get affected by game world changes, its everybody, NPCs included, and then the system needs changing to reflect the game world changes.
As I said, a good system reflects the game world. DnD is in this sense, not a good system because many of the rules, particularly the classes, were not designed within the design of the game world but rather they were designed independantly.
-I am 130 lbs, in the army and was the lightest person (well there one girl who weighed only 124, but was only in my unit for a short time) and in three years, I have never lost. Never. Not to the combat instructers, not to the 245 lbs fitness fanatic, I never lost. If the 7 stone guy has brains, he will win. This particular point comes from experience.
-adam and brenda, you obviously completely missed my point, there is a difference between not spending money that you have, and spending that money in a different way. I made a claim the people had something (metaphorically money) that they didnt spend, you countered with an example of money spent in a different fashion. Thus your example was not really fitting of the debate.
-example, I was in charge of a task to stack cases on pallets. Most of these cases were light or empty. We got straps to hold them down, one guy tried to wrapped the straps horizontally around the side so the cases would be tied into seperate layers and none tied to the pallet itself. I said it wasnt tied adequatly and they fall when the forklift turned, he asked why, so I tried guiding him through it,
"do the cases fit together real well?"
"No"
"Are the cases tied to every other case?"
"Yes"
"Look at the straps, how are the cases at the top attached to the ones at the bottem?"
"I dont know. Why would they fall?"
"Because they are strpped in layers and each layer can slide easily on the layer underneath."
"So how is that gonna make them fall?"
"The exact same way you go sliding sideways in the car when it turns too fast."
I have had similar discussions on other occasions with other people, and even when I dont, I like asking people why they did something or why they think something, and the number one response, even from full grown adults, is "I dont know, I didnt think about it" and when they do give another answer, it is usually shallow and straightforward (not always the simplest either)
-one, I never said it was bad wrong fun, to have balanced games, and even said that playing lazily (regardless of how you define the term) was a perfectly acceptable and legitimate way of playing, and I just wished that it wasnt always the center of discussion with rules.
Two, communication is non-logical and relies primarily on all prticipants having similar views, culture, experiences, and preconceptions to each other. The less similar these are the more difficult communication becomes and the greater chance of misunderstandings. Obviously you and I have significantly disimilar [everything listed above].
|
|
Oh, you have to be careful referencing fiction, as story takes precedence over continuity or even common sense.
I.e., indiana jones, when he stole the stones from the temple of doom, he had a pistol yet he only shot one guy, and that was only because harrison ford was sick that day and ad libbed after messing up several takes. If he had a pistol with ammo, why didnt he use it more? Because it would have been bad for the story.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casting alarm around the camp every night goes from being a regular duty of the group wizard to a an expensive thing that doesnt even require a caster at all and is prohibitivly expensive unless you actually have encounters everyday with merchants all over the place to turn loot into ritual componants.
The benefit I found with Rituals, is that you didn't have to prepare them and thus didn't have to guess what you might come up against at the start of everyday.
Also you don't have to choose between preparing a spell that would be very likely to be useful at some point in the day (e.g. a combat spell) versus one that is unlikely to be used unless you encounter a specific type of obstacle, but if encountered the spell would be very useful.
The nearest 3.x got to this was with scrolls, but you need to pre-emptively invest XP, time and money to prepare that specific scroll at some point, whereas with Rituals you can carry some generic Alchemical Reagents (the investment) and should the need arise use them to cast the ritual.
Overall I feel this encourages greater use of the more unusual spells out of combat and means that the GM doesn't have to foreshadow or telegraph to the players what is up ahead so that they can prepare the correct spells.
For example, if a GM wants his villain to teleport the PCs to the middle of a desert as a means to get them out of the way while he assassinates the prince he can do this in 4e as a complete surprise and still know that the PCs will be able to use the Endure Elements ritual to cover 5 PCs as long as they have mastered the ritual and got 20gp worth of components on them.
In 3.x the GM would have to really hint at such a fate early on for the magic user to prepare 5 Endure Elements spells or purchase / make 5 such scrolls (costing a total 125 gp / 62.5gp respectively).
That is the sort of thing that I mean by rituals supporting out of combat stuff - they are more readily available for use in 4e.
-all these ways of balanceing lightning bolts are changes to the game world itself. There is a difference between the game world, and the game system.
Yep I agree, my examples were in response to your comment that
Plausible comes from the world being consistant not the rules of the game. There is no way to have swinging asword be better then slinging lightning bolts. By the very nature of the two, lightning wins.
In a world where magic is more difficult to use, and where the system supports that, there is definitely a way (in fact several as I illustrated) for swinging a sword to be better then slinging lightning bolts, or at least more balanced.
I have never lost. Never. Not to the combat instructers, not to the 245 lbs fitness fanatic, I never lost.
Are you referring to physical bouts? If so that is very impressive as I imagine combat instructors are not exactly easy to best. But can I assume then that you have undergone some considerable martial training and that it is not just having a decent brain that allowed you to do that? If not, then perhaps you could give an example of one of the ways that you bested one of the instructors when they were better trained and stronger than you?
If the 7 stone guy has brains, he will win.
You seem to believe strongly that this is a black and white, clear cut thing. Seriously, to use an absurdly extreme example to try to get the point across - if Stephen Hawking and Arnold Shwarzenegger (in his prime body building days) were put into a wrestling ring and forced to fight one another, would you really expect Stephen Hawking to win? Even without any wrestling training I would expect Arnie to win myself.
adam and brenda, you obviously completely missed my point, there is a difference between not spending money that you have, and spending that money in a different way
No, I think you actually completely missed my point, I was responding to your statement:
People have the ability to be many times more intelligent then they commonly are. I see glimses of that intelligence on rare occasions, yet they almost never utilize it not in games nor in life, as though they themselves dont realize its there. What other word is there for not useing what is available to you?
In my example Brenda had something that was available to her; the jaw muscles to chew quicker, the teeth to bite the chocolate rather than let it melt, and the ability to cut up steak while eating a mouthful. And yet, Brenda wasn't using that which was available to her - by your definition she was being lazy. But as I hopefully showed Brenda's unwillingness to use what she had was not motivated by laziness.
Basically, your use of the term "lazy" carries with it an implication as to the motivation for the lack of action that will simply not always be true. If a player isn't applying his intelligence it isn't always because they can't be bothered with the effort:
Sometimes people are playing to the genre, e.g. in a Dead of Night con game I did "dumb jock stuff" because that was my character stereotype, I also purposely had my character get mouthy with the local sheriff explaining out of character to another player "Here is where we alienate the local law enforcement".
Maybe someone is player a barbarian with Int of 7, below average, and they feel to use their own above average intellect to direct their character's actions would be bad roleplaying.
And even when someone doesn't want to put the intellectual effort into the game because they use their brain all day and just want some mindless violence in their game to blow off steam (but wants the system to balance things out), that is not necessarily a bad thing, or something that shouldn't be catered for.
one, I never said it was bad wrong fun, to have balanced games, and even said that playing lazily (regardless of how you define the term) was a perfectly acceptable and legitimate way of playing
Not explicitly, but the content of your posts did seem to imply that, with such choice comments as:
The only time balance is noticed is when people are being lazy
...and...
well of course not everyone is like me, but they certainly have the potential to be, but instead they stick their heads in sands and complain about getting sand in ther eyes.
Anyway...
and I just wished that it wasnt always the center of discussion with rules.
I think this is the root of your issue, you feel that because balance isn't an issue for you, that it should not be discussed as much as it is, or be seen as the "Holy Grail" of game design.
The thing is, if so many people are discussing it, it would appear to be important, and if it is so important, maybe is should be discussed.
And whilst I think design teams see balance as important, I don't necessarily think that it is a goal that sit above all others.
By all means put forth a different opinion, an alternative to having a system balance things out, but try to do so in a way that doesn't (intentionally or unintentionally) belittle those who don't play your way - choose your words carefully. That is all I ask.
-a question to consider, what is your goal in playing the game?
To take a break from the rigors of every day real life and enjoy some time with friends playing make-believe. Beer would be nice, also.
-I am 130 lbs, in the army and was the lightest person (well there one girl who weighed only 124, but was only in my unit for a short time) and in three years, I have never lost. Never. Not to the combat instructers, not to the 245 lbs fitness fanatic, I never lost. If the 7 stone guy has brains, he will win. This particular point comes from experience.
At what? Checkers?
I.e., indiana jones, when he stole the stones from the temple of doom, he had a pistol yet he only shot one guy, and that was only because harrison ford was sick that day and ad libbed after messing up several takes. If he had a pistol with ammo, why didnt he use it more? Because it would have been bad for the story.
Indiana was attempting to be stealthy through most of the "Temple of Doom", and firing off a pistol would have been extremely loud and drawn unwanted attention to his position.
And the scene to which you are referring, in which he shoots the swordsman, is actually from "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
You can always choose inferior options if you want. If you want a near sighted archer you could choose a class that is not proficient with a bow in 4E and end up with a virtual loss of +2 to +4 depending on the type of bow to attack meaning you will miss around 10% to 20% of the time over a character that is built to use a bow. Then you can say your character is near sighted or whatever. You can easily do these kinds of things within the rules of 4E...I was just confused as to what house rules have got to do with anything.If I were to add some self-imposed penalties to some of the options in a balanced game (as you whispered) I'd be houseruling it to get around my issue with it.
You can always houserule a game to make it closer to what you like, but that doesnt change the fact that the hypothetical balanced game, as written, doesnt suit my preferences (contrary to lokiare's intimation that it shouldnt matter to me).
Yeah, I know. I didnt mean to imply I couldnt. I realise that I can always tweak a game to make it closer to what I'm looking for (the same is true for those who prefer a balanced approach and find a game to be unbalanced).
My point was that effort put into balancing a game is not invisible, nor inconsequential to those of us who prefer unbalanced games. That was all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience claims that 4E is less "realistic" than 3.5 (or any other version of D&D) are often dubious. Sure, I suppose a fireball in 3.5 is "closer" to a sphere than a Fireball in 4E, that's kinda like arguing that three is closer to a million that two is. Technically true, but neither one is anywhere close. All the authors of 4E did was dispensed with what typically amounted to simulationist pretense in older editions of D&D in order to focus on delivering a better play experience.
Of course, whether or not they were successful is entirely subjective. :)
|
|
So much to comment on O.O I will have to pick and choose I guess.
@ matthew
Part of being smart is prepardness. Being a fat couch potato slob is not intelligent, and no strength means your heart doesnt have the strength to pump blood, so of course some strength, and by some strength I mean near average, as in not from a gym but not unhealthy either.
You shouldnt take my comments to extremes. Extremes will always be there but they are hardly helpfull in discussing 99% of cases.
As for what you describe as what you want from games doesnt require balance. Besides even if you play beside smeone who was allowed to break their character, when asked what you do, it doesnt matter if they have +30 and you have +5, you still have a great chance of success, and someone elses chance doesnt change your ability.
Besides, a situation with multiple avenues of success means you can do what you ae good at to move on, but yet you support every character being good enough at everything that they have no weakness such that you only encouter situations with one way to succeed which isbad on the writers and GMs part, and allows you to be lazy, taking the obvious route because you dont have to worry about being weak. What you ask for is god characters.
Next point, so combat magic should be free of charge, but the more commonly used magic should cost more then most nonadventurers make in several months for each use? Making certain spells usable as rituals is fine, making anything not combat focused a costly ritual is not fine and it breaks the IC continuity, what do you think most spellcasters spend their time doing? Why were thise rituals even made, copied, and sold? Adventurers are a tiny part of population, and the "action" sequences of their lives are miniscule compared to the drudgery of everyday. You think zo much work and expense goes into researching the least often used magic without researching more beneficial magic?
Skill challenges are neat but bland and repetative. They also dont reflect the skill very well in most cases, sometimes it works, like for diplomacy, but not for most cases. And at least in DnD each DC represented an actual difficulty compared to an objective standard, 4e doesnt. That is becase then they can let you have all kinds of numbers without it saying anything about your skill compared to anyone else, nor can you make any juxgements about the world based on your results, basically the numbers become meaningless so they can keep adding them to give you that sense of improvement more often while ignoring the world your characters live in. Perhaps this rather lazy approach suits you, but that doesnt make it great, awesome, or the best thing since sliced bread. There is no relation between what is acheived and what is normal for the world and its inhabitants, thus any sense of balance only applies to your party, an illusion of balance.
As for my experience with never being defeated, if other guys get beat up because they are small its because of not just what they know but also what they cant figure out, what they cant see, what they choose to do, and perhaps most importantly what they believe.
Implying tha people would play like me if they lived up to there potential was not intended, but if they lived up to their potential they would understand what Im saying and realize how system balance is nothing but an illusion that shatters under intelligent play of any sort.
@ digital mage
Preperation of magic is something I have always disliked about DnD casters, that however is why I play sorcerers, however, when it comes to daily life for a wizard, the same daily life spells are likely to be used repeatedly and thus be easy choices, its the combat and unusual situations that often require guessing about what to prepare. Of course, combat isnt suiable for rituals.
And while I do like rituals, what I dont like is any and all out of combat magic being rituals including the ones that are likely to be used commonly or repeatedly, except for suddenly being ridiculously expensive by IC normal peopl standards.
As for winning unarmed combat matches, no I dont believe its black and white, I do however believe its closer to black and white then most people are willing to believe. People in general are instinctual creatures they see big muscles and respond instinctually with the belief that guy could easily beat anyone smaller then him. And while they might be true of those who have never expected to face a real fight, anyone trained, or very smart can easily overcome Mr muscles.
No I do not have extensive training, I do have a more disiplined mind which renders pressure points moot, and I use preprogrammed (for lack of better terminology) reponses to avoid strikes and blows while I focus on analyzing my opponant and the environment and update my responses and make offensive attacks based on what I see of my opponant. Using this however requires the intelligence to foresee possibilities and account for them.
As for Benda, you are getting to specific. Its like complaining about useing two fives instead of a ten, you have to back off a bit and look at generalities, the input of effort vs the available options. Taking the option that uses the least amount of effort is lazy unless it is the best of all available options. So when better options are present but someone doesnt pick them, its laziness. Brenda isnt picking a less optimum option.
I did also mention that Im not sure people ralize that they can do better.
My comment about balance being noticed only by the lazy, is quite simply based on the fact that if you arent being lazy in your thinkingthen you would realize tnat tbe choices of the player have orders of magnitude more effect on outcomes then the system, which merely facilitates implementing random chances of failure. This is why a GM is needed because the system has such limits to what it can handle.
I blame video games because in a video game you cant allow options except for those explicitly allowed in programming, thus people get used to thinking in terms of what the system allows rather then thinking beyond that to what the GM can allow.
@
Sebastrd
That is the point that makes being lazy a legitimate way of playing.
At unarmed combat.
Ill have to watch them again but I was pretty sure it was when he was runjing towards the bridge, but in any case, just before the bridge, he had them all chasing him, no need for stealth then. Besides, error or not on my part can you not understand the point I was making?
@ Lokiare
Do that and you will find tactics has a significantly larger effects then abilities and skills.
Choosing inferior options or self imposed penalties is always more difficult then choosing one option but not another. Self imposed penalties are also houseruling in which we come to square one of the whole houseruling shouldnt be needed issue.
Lightning doesnt just go to ground, lightning is when you have two areas, one suffused with positive ions, the other with negative ions, and when a path connects the two. Lightning guns dont exist because we cant remotely produce an area with negative or positive ions. The ground usually has a fair amount of ions somehwere and so occasionally if a path is available it will balance out. It is just like how pressure between two areas will balance out if they can. Lightning just has a harder time connecting two areas to balance out.
Although, why dont modern soldiers use swords? Because the guns invented by intelligent people have ranged, speed of attack, penetration, and ease of use. All of which overcome any disadvantages of guns. Technology is comparative to magic.
Im out of time, ill be back later.
|
|
@ bugleyman
What most dont know about 3.x is that most DCs and secondary rules are based on reality. Even carry capacity is based on reality, 3.0 jump DCs are based on reality. People often claim otherwise because they try to make elite individuals as lvl 20 when the max of human ability is lvl 5.
4e does away with any pretense of even trying to compare to reality or plausability not even within the game world itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At unarmed combat.
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm definitely not willing to take your word for it.
Besides, error or not on my part can you not understand the point I was making?
Your spelling and grammar are so terrible I often find it difficult to understand the points you are trying to make. I find that fascinating given that you constantly seem to be complaining about the intellectual laziness of others.
|
|
Part of being smart is prepardness.
But preparedness doesn't mean access to infinite resources though. Sometimes people will get caught unprepared, either because it is physically impossible to prepare for every eventuality that you are able to foresee, or because something happens that you simply couldn't reasonably foresee (because you aren't omnipotent).
So yeah, you don't always have, or can't always get, a lever that is long enough.
You shouldnt take my comments to extremes. Extremes will always be there but they are hardly helpfull in discussing 99% of cases.
But you are taking things to extremes by saying that Intellect will always overcome Strength. That not using intellect means someone is lazy.
I think most people would happily admit that with the right circumstances intellect could defeat strength in a contest where strength would naturally be an advantage. Also I think people would agree that some people are lazy and don't want to, or feel the need to act smart when roleplaying (even when their character is meant to be smart).
Making certain spells usable as rituals is fine, making anything not combat focused a costly ritual is not fine and it breaks the IC continuity
Firstly, sometimes it is considered better to make a game more fun even if it is at the expense of IC continuity.
Secondly, the designers could perhaps have provided a mechanism for having rituals and spells be treated the same. Maybe something similar to the 3.x spell slots system, but allowing spells not prepared as At Will / Encounter / Daily powers to be cast as Rituals costing a certain level of components maybe (10gp x level for At Will / 50gp x level for Encounter / 200gp x level for Daily)
Rituals could be prepared as At Will / Encounter / Daily powers without component cost using the same cost formula, e.g. Consult Oracle, a level 16 ritual with a material component cost of 3,600 gp would have to be prepared in your level 16 Utility power slot as a Daily spell (Daily because the component cost of 3600 / level = 225gp which is closest to the Daily x200 multiplier).
However whilst this could then totally explain how a wizard could cast combat spells without cost, and rituals with cost without breaking IC continuity, if the end result was:
a) players rarely used their At Will / Encounter / Daily powers as rituals (because 200gp to use Sleep as a Ritual that takes 10 minutes to perform makes it impractical)
...and / or...
b) players rarely prepare rituals as powers because it limits their combat options on the off chance that it may come in useful (e.g. Endure Elements as a 1st level At Will power on the off chance that the PCs may get teleported to a desert by the villain)
...then maybe those rules were wasted space in the rulebook but were just enough that it could cause major issues without putting in extra clauses for using as a ritual as a power.
E.g. problems like allowing the Raise Dead Level 8 ritual to be cast as an Encounter power, meaning no one is ever likely to die (note that in Essentials Resurrection was made a level 8 utility power but it was a Daily power and had the extra restriction of only being able to restore to life those who died in the last 24 hours).
Its the same reason there aren't rules for crafting items or running a business - 4e has a very much more focused design that doesn't try to simulate the reality of a whole world, but rather provides the rules to play heroes on an adventure who routinely confront evil with spell and sword.
So in summary, games designers could add rules to justify the focused design of the game in the in-game continuity but it could cause the game design to lose that focus and become bloated with rules that would rarely be used, and create more design headaches for the future.
Skill challenges are neat but bland and repetative. They also dont reflect the skill very well in most cases, sometimes it works, like for diplomacy, but not for most cases.
I can see how it might take a little more effort and creativity for some GMs to make some skill challenges work (but then you should be fine with that), but I have found them useful for running investigations (finding who stole a Night hag's Heart Stone), escape attempts (getting out of a Thrane jail, recovering their gear and potentially getting intelligence on the plot) and scouting missions (tracking a courier who had to jump off a lightning rail).
And at least in DnD
Um, 4e is D&D :)
And at least in DnD each DC represented an actual difficulty compared to an objective standard, 4e doesnt.
Although Essentials did veer more to the way you are saying (which annoys me no end) 4e actually has many objective DCs e.g. for breaking down doors, to listen checks to sensing magic.
basically the numbers become meaningless so they can keep adding them to give you that sense of improvement more often while ignoring the world your characters live in.
4e provides guidance on the sort of DCs a DM should use to present relevant challenges to PCs of a certain level. 4e allows the DM to add the fluff that explains why the DC to do that sort of task is that DC.
So if a DM is setting a Hard DC for a PC to make an Acrobatics check to avoid the dangers of a townhouse that is on fire, a level 1 character may face a DC of 15 (using p42) whereas a level 11 character may face a DC of 21 whilst a level 21 character may have a DC of 27!
But that doesn't mean they are facing the same in game challenge but with different DCs, rather the DM can describe the level 1 PC's challenge as being entering the townhouse in the early stages of fire where curtains and a patch of floor where an oil lamp has overturned are ablaze.
The level 11 character however, would be facing a fire much more in progress where the furniture is ablaze, the floor is weakened and patches of the ceiling looks close to collapse. Smoke is hindering visibility.
And the 21st level PC is facing a raging inferno, where smoke makes visibility nil, fire roars from every surface and ceiling beams have already collapsed allowing blazing furniture from the floors above to rain down on the hapless PC.
Where 4e doesn't provide static DCs for tasks it provides guidance on how a DM can assign challenging DCs and leaves the DM to explain that in game.
But maybe some DMs don't want that responsibility to provide that explanation and would prefer the system do it for them - but I imagine you would just consider such DM's lazy, right?
Perhaps this rather lazy approach suits you, but that doesnt make it great, awesome, or the best thing since sliced bread.
Hold on, so you are complaining that this design approach is lazy? Why aren't the players and DMs the lazy ones for not putting in the extra intellectual effort to provide the in-game context for the numbers the rules provide?
You seem happy to have player's put in the extra effort to make up for what some see as a system's deficiencies (i.e. a lack of balance) and decry those people who don't as "lazy". But for what you see as a system's deficiencies (providing guidelines for DCs, leaving fluff for the DM) you decry the system's approach as "lazy". Isn't that a bit of a double standard?
BTW I just realised navigating through a burning building would be a great place to use a Skill Challenge, skills like Acrobatics, Endurance and Perception would all be useful.
No I do not have extensive training, I do have a more disiplined mind which renders pressure points moot, and I use preprogrammed (for lack of better terminology) reponses to avoid strikes and blows while I focus on analyzing my opponant and the environment and update my responses and make offensive attacks based on what I see of my opponant.
I would love to have seen some of your bouts to see how your intellect compensated for your lack of training and lack of strength (when presumably your opponents had both).
Using this however requires the intelligence to foresee possibilities and account for them.
I imagine it requires a bit more than just intelligence, perhaps a bit of experience, some measure of courage and also fairly good reflexes.
I would like to consider myself to have above average intelligence, but I know when I used to do karate and ju-jitsu that my reflexes are crap and so I didn't do particularly well in sparring unless my training was superior to my opponent. My crap reflexes are the reason I don't play video games, preferring RPGs where my reflexes don't matter - just those of my character :)
As for Benda, you are getting to specific.
NO I just don't think you are getting the point I was trying to make - maybe I didn't articulate it particularly well.
My point was - having something available to you but not using it to do something doesn't necessarily make you lazy. People have different motivations and reasoning so that what appears to be laziness to one person may not actually be motivated by laziness.
Taking the option that uses the least amount of effort is lazy unless it is the best of all available options. So when better options are present but someone doesnt pick them, its laziness. Brenda isnt picking a less optimum option.
And when you accuse other people of being lazy because they want the system to be more balanced maybe you aren't realising that to do as you do is a less optimum option for them.
For the guy who has had his brain fried at work and just wants to blow off some steam by having his half orc barbarian kick some goblin arse, having to put in the extra intellectual effort to make his half orc barbarian do more than mop up the one or two goblins the wizard PC didn't finish off with his first fireball, would mean he wouldn't get what he wanted out of the game - some mindless violence.
By not being "lazy" he doesn't get what he wants, and actually he may be better off simply not playing (he doesn't get the mindless violence but does avoid having to tax his brain some more). He may be better off watching an action movie (some mindless violence, albeit experienced more vicariously, but also no need to think).
But having a game system that balances his half orc barbarian with the wizard would provide a more optimal solution - he can have his fair share of the spotlight and mindless violence, but also not have to put in the intellectual effort.
And of course this also doesn't cover the situations where a player chooses not to use his own intellect because his character has a low Intelligence ability score. Would you really consider this person lazy? If so maybe they would consider you a bad roleplayer for not playing your stats?
Although, why dont modern soldiers use swords? Because the guns invented by intelligent people have ranged, speed of attack, penetration, and ease of use. All of which overcome any disadvantages of guns. Technology is comparative to magic.
But I believe (I am rubbish at history) that melee weapons were still used when gun technology was only at the flintlock or musket stage, when speed of attack wasn't so great due to the time to reload.
If a game world's laws of magic (laws that are completely fictional and so can be whatever the designers want them to be) simply prevent the slinging of lightning bolts to be done any quicker than once a minute (and that minute to include chanting, use of expensive material components and gesturing) then swinging a sword can be balanced (overall) with slinging of lightning bolts.
You don't have to sacrifice in game verisimilitude to have magic be balanced with force of arms.
What most dont know about 3.x is that most DCs and secondary rules are based on reality [...] People often claim otherwise because they try to make elite individuals as lvl 20 when the max of human ability is lvl 5.
Does it actually say anywhere in the 3.5 core books, or the PF core rulebook, that the maximum of human ability is character level 5? That is a genuine question.
If not, isn't it just as likely that the 3.x rules do away with the pretence of comparing to reality (just as you believe 4e does)? Maybe those who wish the rules didn't do so explain this by ruling that level 5 is the limit of what we know as reality and the rules for stuff past level 5 don't need to compare to reality because those characters have undergone some sort of transformation that means they are beyond human?
Basically, when the 3.x system starts seeming out of whack with reality, do people try to rationalise that by making up arbitrary limits on where "reality" extends in the game? If so why isn't that equally acceptable in 4e?
But preparedness doesn't mean access to infinite resources though. Sometimes people will get caught unprepared...
...unless they're Batman. ;)
I always thought 3.5, and by extension as a carbon-copy game, Pathfinder, was a very broken rule system.
I have my issues with both 3.5 and Pathfinder as well, but neither one of them can reasonably be called "broken."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought 3.5, and by extension as a carbon-copy game, Pathfinder, was a very broken rule system.I have my issues with both 3.5 and Pathfinder as well, but neither one of them can reasonably be called "broken."
I'm with you on this. The system can be broken, but that's by systems built on top of systems (I'm looking at you spellcasting), and by combinations never considered by the devs. At its heart though, I don't think the system is broken.
@ bugleyman
What most dont know about 3.x is that most DCs and secondary rules are based on reality. Even carry capacity is based on reality, 3.0 jump DCs are based on reality.
Really... so, one time in 20, a completely average, untrained, non-athlete can jump 20 feet? Abd in the next attempt only be able to jump 1 foot?
Honestly, the jumping figures, like pretty much everything else in D&D were an ass pull. They look fine at a glance, but the system itself fights realism. Then again, any game which had hit points has no business talking about realism.
Now, as for those who balance is unnecessary, how many are willing to take a 1st. level commoner into a dungeon with a 12th level group? Come on, I'll be happy to run an online tour of Pathfinder adapted Tomb of Horrors, and one lucky person can demonstrate how brilliant playing can compensate for a mere 11 levels and character attributes.
Now, as for those who balance is unnecessary, how many are willing to take a 1st. level commoner into a dungeon with a 12th level group? Come on, I'll be happy to run an online tour of Pathfinder adapted Tomb of Horrors, and one lucky person can demonstrate how brilliant playing can compensate for a mere 11 levels and character attributes.
It's not that I think I "play brilliantly" (quite the opposite, in fact). I don't think balance matters, but that doesn't mean a level one commoner can survive a dungeon built for twelfth level PCs. It means I don't mind being the lousy twelfth level fighter with crappy stats and suboptimal equipment in a twelfth level party with super wealthy wizards, clerics and so forth.
I've played a merchant who hired the other adventurers to protect him before. They had combat skills, I had wealth, influence, information and social skills. We weren't "balanced" (no doubt the spell casters could have out socialled me) we just played different roles.
The point of a balanced system is NOT that it is balanced. It is that there is a balanced baseline. From there the players and GM can unbalance it to their hearts content. Pathfinder is difficult for some people because by level 5 you can have characters that are really well optimised and some really badly built characters. And that is never fun, your character is doing less well than others because you didn't know how to build it. Sure some, like Steve above, have fun intentionally playing dump characters. But note the intent.
Why I love 4e is that I can have players build characters and be very sure that they will all have the ability to contribute to the story. And then I go about intentionally unbalancing the party. In my latest campaign the ranger has just had his companion awakened, I have essentially statted it up as an artifact level of power, and it now acts as if it was a separate PC. I have now given that PC two turns per round of combat. And I did it knowing all the implications of that decision.
Contribution to story not equal to, nor even dependant on, power level.
Ill respond to the other after work, depending on whether my connection actually works.
The point of a balanced system is NOT that it is balanced. It is that there is a balanced baseline. From there the players and GM can unbalance it to their hearts content. Pathfinder is difficult for some people because by level 5 you can have characters that are really well optimised and some really badly built characters. And that is never fun, your character is doing less well than others because you didn't know how to build it. Sure some, like Steve above, have fun intentionally playing dump characters. But note the intent.
That's a good point, although I still dont think it matters (to me anyhow). We just dont make that same comparison as to how much we're "contributing" vs how much everyone else is that seems common in these kinds of online discussions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Contribution to story not equal to, nor even dependant on, power level.
It's obvious that your disagreement hinges on differing definitions of "contributing to the story". Why not do yourself a favor and make that the focus of the discussion?
Misrepresenting Alan_Beven's implied definition of contribution in order to drive your anti-balance agenda isn't going to convince anyone.
I'll also point out that using non-mechanical, role-play focused contribution as evidence when we're discussing D&D is disingenuous. If non-mechanical, role-play based gaming is what you're going for, there are plenty of more free-form systems out there to use. Part of the appeal of D&D is the mechanics, therefore inability to contribute mechanically is a valid concern.
Consider that the core of D&D is the six attributes, attack vs. AC, Vancian casting, saving throws, etc. In other words, the mechanics are what make it D&D. Take away any of those and you're playing something else. It stands to reason that when playing D&D, one ought to expect the ability to contribute through those mechanics. Saying that one can contribute outside of those mechanics, while true, completely misses the point.
Clearly you dont understand me. I love dnd, it is very useful and mostly plausable, really the three changes I would make to it would be to go classless, add bellcurve instead of straight d20 and to use spontaneous casting instead of the misnamed vancian casting, or perhaps something truly vancian.
Really, I dont think it would be very noticable IC at all.
I think the big difference here, is I want the rules and rulings to reflect the world, while I believe others want the world to reflect the rules, the suggestion of altering casting times for example is clear that the IC world is less important then their rules balance. Instead of portraying a character who is trying to figure out a way to contribute they want to change the rules to let their "underpowered" characters contribute along the lines of concepts and ideas based on a world with no magic whatsoever, and in no fashion even comparable to the world their characters exist in.
I think the big difference here, is I want the rules and rulings to reflect the world, while I believe others want the world to reflect the rules.
Ooo, I love this definition (I may have to steal it) as it reflects precisely the way I like to play.
When playing an RPG, I decide what my character is doing, and then use the rules to determine whether or not it succeeded, and to what to degree. At no point do the mechanics enter my mind until I've made the decision of what the character is doing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love dnd, it is very useful and mostly plausable, really the three changes I would make to it would be to go classless, add bellcurve instead of straight d20 and to use spontaneous casting instead of the misnamed vancian casting, or perhaps something truly vancian.
Whilst adding more of a bellcurve to the dice rolling may not be too big a deal (Sarah Newton elected to do that in her Monsters and Magic) I think doing away with Classes would be a dealbreaker for many people making such a game "not D&D"; and to some extent also getting rid of Vancian casting.
A lot of people said 4e didn't feel like D&D because of the rules changes it made and yet it had classes and sort of vancian casting (Wizard Daily Spells that could be prepared).
I think the big difference here, is I want the rules and rulings to reflect the world, while I believe others want the world to reflect the rules, the suggestion of altering casting times for example is clear that the IC world is less important then their rules balance.
You are correct to some degree, however I am used to there not being a single D&D "world", rather we have Eberron, Faerun, Athas, Golarion etc, so when you say that you "want the rules and rulings to reflect the world", I would ask "which world?"
For me, changing the rules to fit a setting is pretty normal*, and to be constrained to not make any changes whatsoever would straitjacket the creativity of some writers. Sometimes I wish the writers would bend the rules even more than they have!
Straying away from D&D, all those different types of rules can be made and result in a great "world". Earthdawn is a prime example of how to take all the tropes of D&D and explain them in setting, and also bring about a bit more balance by changing how magic works (having to weave threads that takes time).
*Some examples of D&D rules changing to fit the setting:
In Eberron Clerics don't have to have the same alignment as their deity to allow for more corrupt churches and it also introduces Action Points to make play more cinematic.
In Dark Sun, arcane magic defiles the land and Paizo in their 3.5 conversion for Dark Sun made significant changes to the base races, making them all +1 Level Adjustment.
Freeport adds in Insanity Points and new Madnesses.
Clearly you dont understand me. I love dnd, it is very useful and mostly plausable, really the three changes I would make to it would be to go classless, add bellcurve instead of straight d20 and to use spontaneous casting instead of the misnamed vancian casting, or perhaps something truly vancian.
Really, I dont think it would be very noticable IC at all.
I think the big difference here, is I want the rules and rulings to reflect the world, while I believe others want the world to reflect the rules, the suggestion of altering casting times for example is clear that the IC world is less important then their rules balance. Instead of portraying a character who is trying to figure out a way to contribute they want to change the rules to let their "underpowered" characters contribute along the lines of concepts and ideas based on a world with no magic whatsoever, and in no fashion even comparable to the world their characters exist in.
I don't buy that argument. A huge part of DnD is combat, skill checks and casting magic spells for most groups out there. Of course there are plenty of other play styles out there, but the mechanics of DnD is what makes it DnD. Of course anyone can contribute to the story non-mechanically. What I think works well in 4e is that it's very hard to make poor decisions about mechanics and have your character underperform against the game mechanics. In essence, system mastery is a bad idea. I have no ideas how that leads to your above conclusion about the interaction with the world. The mechanics should be reflected in the setting and be reflective of the setting.
The point of a balanced system is NOT that it is balanced. It is that there is a balanced baseline. From there the players and GM can unbalance it to their hearts content. Pathfinder is difficult for some people because by level 5 you can have characters that are really well optimised and some really badly built characters. And that is never fun, your character is doing less well than others because you didn't know how to build it. Sure some, like Steve above, have fun intentionally playing dump characters. But note the intent.That's a good point, although I still dont think it matters (to me anyhow). We just dont make that same comparison as to how much we're "contributing" vs how much everyone else is that seems common in these kinds of online discussions.
Yep I agree for some groups it's irrelevant. My games feature tons of mechanical interaction (combat etc) and on multiple occasions I have had to alter players characters for them as poor choices made while playing Pathfinder has led to situations where some players were doing 80-90 points of damage per round vs some doing 20-30. As stated some people are fine with this, most of the folks I play with have felt disheartened from it.
You dont seem to understand the complexity involved. The balancing act isnt something that can be used as a baseline with plug and play modules, becuase many of these are based on the basic assumtions the rules are built around.
If there are spellcasters that can cast spells nearly as fast as fighters can swing swords then wizards will seem OP, of course in such a world no self respecting fighter would ignore magic, instead learning techniques to deal with or even use magic themselves. Fighters dont exist to swing swords they exist to win wars.
Many of DNDs issues stem from having different baselines assumtions for the world and each class, the concepts are not integrated when designed thus they dont mesh well.
I really liked the artwork and design of the covers on all the books.
3.0 / 3.5 was just boring to me. All brown and no flair.
I like the idea of minions. I like "bloodied". I like how you get variant monsters right in the monster manual (instead of just "goblin" you have a few different ones so you can make a nice little squad without loads of prep.)
Encounter design in general looks pretty inviting.
I like the art direction towards the end (essentials books for example).
Fey-pact warlock was fun to play in combat. That is all.
What broke it for me was the bloody skill challenge guessing game. Let's see, we're trying to sway a ghost to give us the password without which we can't proceed. We already used diplomacy. Hmmm... arcana? No, that wasn't one of the skills you could use in this skill challenge, that counts as a failure. Now you need five more successes before one more failure or you anger the ghost and fail... WTF!!!???!!!