Game balance and 3rd edition implications

From a discussion that developed the "What was player skill" thread and went of topic.

Sanguinemetaldawn said:

This touches on an issue that has recently come into my game.
It is only in the last several years that I have enountered players saying "this isn't balanced"

I know I sound like a grognard, but in the old days, I never heard a player say that. If we encountered something completely out of our class (which happened quite frequently...so much for the old tables of monsters by level) we would either run, try to negotiate (including wagering stuff in riddling contests), or fight the battle pulling out all the stops and using everything we could think of to win.

When I ran Forge of Fury for my players, I ran the Roper as a straight up encounter, nearly killing 2 characters. They ended up killing it by improvising a stalactite as a thrown weapon, doing damage basically as a giant's hurled boulder, with some bonuses. Up to that point, it was looking like they would loose several characters permanently, if not TPK.

Do you know who came up with that plan?

An old school 1st Ed. player.

And who whined about how it wasn't balanced and was an unfair encounter?

The 3E players.

People are entitled to their own opinions, and maybe their experiences are different from mine, but over an over, in the real world (games I play in and run) I see a major difference between between the old school and the new school in play-skill, and the new school pales to the old.



To re-iterate, my point here isn't to bash.
I am attempting to provide an analysis, based on my real world experience and these are the conclusions I am inescapably drawn to.
I suppose I could restrict myself to only saying nice and complimentary things about 3E, but what would be the point of that, other than to spare the sensitive feelings of some?

Don't get me wrong, 3E did do some good things. Flat footed and touch ACs cleaned up some clunky areas of the previous editions. The universal d20 mechanic for challenge resolution, etc.

The problem IMO, is that it also did some really bad things as well, far outweighing the good of the good things. The bad things affected the entire attitude of the game, the fundamental assumptions of gameplay, impacting player skill among other things.

Basically, when I run 3E, I run it like a 1st edition game, changing rules constantly (much to the distress of the rules lawyers, for whom the rules are sacred or something) and totally disregarding the contemptable notion of game balance, both for the monsters and the PCs.

And its a blast.
The above example of player skill demonstrates why pretty concisely, I think.

Click to expand...

I know I really shouldn't answer this, because it's of topic, but please everybody alow me to answer this shortly.

I don't think the problem lies with 3rd edition. It lies with some of the people you picked up with the advent of 3rd edition. Some examples to prove my point:

-You said above yourself you play with rules lawyers. Rules lawyers are always a problem and will always whine. That they have with 3rd edition something that looks like a rule for only encounters they can beat when seen from the right ankle. Nevermind that the same "rules" state that there should be an unbeatable opponent once in a while.

-The adventure you played is one of the first of the 3rd edition adventure path, modules design to showcase what 3rd edition was supposed to be and how it's supposed to harken back to the early days of D&D.

-In my above example I've used no less than 14 goblin level one rogues, 1 level 2 goblin rogue/fighter and a level 3 dolgrim cleric. Against four first level PC's that had wealth above the guidelines. As you can see I've used a unbeatable high challenge and didn't stick to the equipment "rules". Nobody complained about me unbalancing, even though we are all 3rd edition players. And this wasn't the first time either. I've thrown people into encounters way over their had, took away and destroyed equipment and played low magic games. And never once did anybody complain, and while sometimes things I did where plain bad DMing, my players would propably agree that some others of these actions where examples for my best DMing to date. And no one of us knows anything but 3rd edition.

-Look at the wotc boards, where some of the games main financiers post- Young kids without a cluethat buy almost every wotc book and play games that most of us here would see as abysmal. However, they have fun and when you compare their stories with those many old timers tell of their first games. Sure, some of them bitch and whine about a lack of balance, but that's just some word they picked up to help their bitching and whining, they would have done it in earlier editions as well. But many will enjoy telling you stories of going up against an overpowering monster or some ad hoc ruling their DM did.

It's my strong believ that for a good RPG game you need a group that is willing to have fun in a grup, step back for each other and trust their DM. If you do have such a group you can play any system the way you prefer. If you want that to be OD&D that's cool,but you can play 3rd edition that way as well (and as you said you actually do so, so I don't understand why you say one can't).

But I think many people don't understand the term of balance as it is used in todays D&D design. Placing a CR10+ Roper in a 4th level dungeon isn't unbalaced. Designing said Roper and declaring it a CR4 is unbalanced design.

So, my answer to this is: You may not have heard "this isn't balanced" earlier on, but the people that use this argument to whine where there before and if you haven't met them before you're a lucky guy.

Discuss and please don't turn this into a edition war everybody, because right now, it isn't.

Gold Roger said:

So, my answer to this is: You may not have heard "this isn't balanced" earlier on, but the people that use this argument to whine where there before and if you haven't met them before you're a lucky guy.

Discuss and please don't turn this into a edition war everybody, because right now, it isn't.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. Those who look at an encoutner and gripe that it isn't balanced do not understand the term "game balance" in the way I do. Balance isn't about the encounters - balance is something to be maintained among the PCs, to help make sure the players all have a good time.

It really isn't the game rules fault. The DMG suggests a spectrum of encounters, a notable percentage of which are supposed to be "run away or you will die", sorts of things.

I find it quite funny that some players will cry foul and say that an encounter is unbalanced when they lose.

However, how many of them say the same thing when they win? "No fair, that encounter was unbalanced!! We won too easily!!! waaaaaaa!!!

Umbran said:

I tend to agree with you. Those who look at an encoutner and gripe that it isn't balanced do not understand the term "game balance" in the way I do. Balance isn't about the encounters - balance is something to be maintained among the PCs, to help make sure the players all have a good time.

Click to expand...

Gaah! It seems that someone is always giving my answer before I get a chance to post. Yeah, I think "game balance" is a term that gets misused a lot, especially by those who have a beef with 3e and/or dislike 3e.

But "balanced" is used to refer to encounters, and it generally refers to the same concept used as far back as D&D's roots - challenges commensurate with the level of the PC or PCs. It seems a lot of old-school gamers forget that monsters were divided up by "dungeon level" back in the old days. That is, monsters were classified according to what level of a dungeon they would be appearing on, and these dungeon levels somehow corresponded to the level of the PCs. If you threw a monster at the PCs which was obviously not of their level, believe me, you'd hear some griping. So the notion that this concept is somehow new to the latest edition of the game is just plain wrong.

Umbran said:

It really isn't the game rules fault. The DMG suggests a spectrum of encounters, a notable percentage of which are supposed to be "run away or you will die", sorts of things.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, one which is often forgotten.

I agree with pretty much most of the above points. This, though, deserves some comment, imho:

...changing rules constantly (much to the distress of the rules lawyers, for whom the rules are sacred or something)...

Click to expand...

Rules-lawyering is a bad thing and should be avoided and quashed where it appears. The other side of the coin, however, is the need for a certain amount of consistency. Players have certain expectations when they play a game, and an understanding of the rules is one of these. House-rules are fine (I use them myself) but they need to be announced before play starts. Ad-hoc decisions are fine, but they need to have some consistency and happen for some reason other than just for the sake of making ad-hoc rulings. A game where DM whim predominates is as bad as a game where the rules are slavishly followed in every instance.

I've played every edition of the game and one thing that I appreciate about 3e is that it reduces the need for ad-hoc judgment calls. I'd rather put my energy into other things (like pacing, plot, characterisation, thrills, spills and chills) rather than into remembering how I last handled grappling a giant octopus while balancing on a seaweed-slick mast afloat on a stormy sea. One of the advantages of a tight rules-set is that it quickly fades into the background, allowing for the real meat of gaming to predominate.

I can say that without a doubt, all of this balance crap has nothing to do with any particular edition of the game. It is and has always been about whiny people. I have gamed through every edition of D&D (except OD&D) and have been fortunate to game with really cool people through all the editions. As a DM I do design encounters that the PC's cannot win straight up. There is enough foreshadowing to make such encounters obvious. Sometimes the PC's will try thier luck anyhow and occasionally beat the odds. Most of the time they just die in those situations and then say " Wow, that was stupid".The same types of things happen when I am on the other side of the screen. I have to say that the greatest feeling comes from winning those unbeatable combats. Dying 9 times out of 10 when facing those encounters is well worth it for that one unforgettable, pull it out of your a**, end zone dance victory.

Gold Roger said:

But I think many people don't understand the term of balance as it is used in todays D&D design. Placing a CR10+ Roper in a 4th level dungeon isn't unbalaced. Designing said Roper and declaring it a CR4 is unbalanced design.

So, my answer to this is: You may not have heard "this isn't balanced" earlier on, but the people that use this argument to whine where there before and if you haven't met them before you're a lucky guy.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, a strong enough point.
I guess at issue here is what/who creates the definition - cost/benefit definition of balance rather than the scenario design view. Perhaps the error of definition is mine, but regardless of the sematics, I suspect the overall point still stands.

Its my conclusion that player expectations for challenge for a game are defined by writers of the game, as it is expressed directly (in the DMG), and implied (in the published adventures). In the DMG, they call this Status Quo versus Tailored.

When page 48 of the DMG says "If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this.", I think the implication is pretty dang clear.

Eh?
Is that writer serious? Why would I ever run anything else? Yet there it is, the assumption that everything will usually be "tailored" (instead of "balanced") for the PC party, and that if it isn't, I should let the players know.

Lower part of the same page...
"To balance [there's that word again] an encounter with a party...<snip>...You want the party's level to match the level of the encounter..."

Eh...no I don't. I want to create an encounter according to a variety of goals. And balance isn't one of them.


The published adventures speak in exactly this way as well. Whether its Dungeon magazine giving adjustments to the scenario for party level or the published adventures themselves, the implication is quite clear and repetitive.

Then on page 50 of the DMG, description of encounter difficulties....
"Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose..."

Oh, I see. So I guess they can't negotiate with the encounter, using flattery to play on the ego of a dragon. And I guess a bribe to let them pass is out of the question. So is sneaking past the encounter. Or baiting and leading it into an environment/situation that gives the characters a combat advantage. Or engaging in a riddling contest, so that it is a contest of wits rather than physical might. Or attacking to cripple or trap the creature rather kill outright, so that it can be bypassed. Or a million other possible ways of dealing with an encounter besides killing it.



Folks, I am not trying to be disagreeable. Maybe you and I are looking at the DMG and seeing two different things. But when I look at the rulebook and the modules what I see is:

1) Melee and killing (or running, if necessary) is the proper method of dealing with encounters (except traps)
2) Thus every encounter should be balanced for the party level

It seems to me this is written into 3E, through and through, and I think that is a much worse version of the game.

I mean thats the thing that gets me, that really burns me. I really do think that 3E is in many respects a remarkably worse version of D&D, and it frustrates and angers me. I suppose the designers honestly believed they were making they game better, but they made it worse, and I have to deal with that at my game table. And of course since its the latest version of D&D players think "it must be the best version, so thats the version I want to play".

Arrggggg...man it chaps my hide.



As contradictory as it sounds, I don't really consider this an edition issue. Its more "design philosophy baggage that came along with the edition change". Its not really rules specific at all, except to the extent that one considers CR a part of the rules. However, it is part of the overall philosophy of scenario design that is put forth, both explicitly and implicity in 3E D&D, and it bears directly upon the development of player skill within the ruleset.

Were I to write my ideal version of the rules, it would, in fact, include many 3E innovations (such as the aforementioned FF/touch ACs, d20 universal mechanic, etc.). I would drop much of the mass of rules, that serve as so much fodder for the rules-lovers.


I suppose thats part of the problem here. That is, I have not articulated my views on 3E as well as I might, and my criticism is that taken as "hate" or "bashing". I am certainly ambivalent about 3E, and on points where, IMO, 3E falls far short, all I express is that negativity of opinion.

However, based on WotC's published work, statements and philosophy it expresses, I do think that in the area of scenario design and development of player skill, 3E D&D falls significantly short of the quality (inconsistently) established in 1E.


That is simply an honest assessment. If that assessment is wrong, then I really would like to know, and thus improve my game and employment/enjoyment of the 3E ruleset. But based on what I have seen, my assessment seems accurate.

ColonelHardisson said:

So the notion that this concept is somehow new to the latest edition of the game is just plain wrong.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, thats interesting. I guess I just started with a relatively good groups, but that mentality is something I never encountered until 3E.

At the very least, when we were outclassed, we dealt with it and didn't consider it an issue. I wonder about these other players you guys reference, where did they develop these expectations? When I started, encountering something that outclassed us made the game more exciting, it didn't provoke complaints.

Stinks for you guys (and for me too, now).

Sanguinemetaldawn said:

Hmmm, thats interesting. I guess I just started with a relatively good groups, but that mentality is something I never encountered until 3E.


Stinks for you guys (and for me too, now).

Click to expand...

So you are playing with different people now? Its always about the people. I bet if you played a game of 3Ed with your old group you wouldn't have some of these issues.

Hmmm...

So, if having an encounter that is tougher than the PCs can face in most situations isn't necessarily unbalanced (and I more or less agree on this point), is there a time and place for such encounters?

In a recent side trek we were doing in my group, we were sent to retrieve a valuable gem from someplace far away. We get there, trek through a plain, and then arrive at our destination only to be met by some halflings and there t-rex. Actually, the t-rex was hidden until combat began (though I knew it was there, as I had the magazine the adventure was from, though I hadn't read it in a long time, and I didn't tell anyone about this, and I didn't use my knowledge to my advantage...). Anyway, we didn't necessarily have to fight the halflings, but our paladin diplomat couldn't convince them (with high extremely high mod), and sneaking past them wasn't an option, what, with our dwarf and said paladin. Not to mention sneaking past them meant going underwater. And we essentially couldn't pretend to go away and come back at night... They could see for miles in every direction.
So... here we are, 7th and 8th level, and we engage... the halflings weren't really much of a challenge, but once the t-rex entered melee, I knew it had to go down as fast as possible, or we'd likely all die. So, with my level 8 rogue, I flank it and attack, doing some damage. Then it attacks me. I take damage. Not so bad, yet, but then there is improved grab. I fail. Even if I had had max ranks in escape artist, its bonus still would of been at least 12 more than mine. So, I take more damage from crunching, then I'm swallowed whole. End of story. My character dies an ignoble death in the belly of the beast. So, the dwarf cleric gets attacked next, he too is swallowed. And, if not for the 14 pts of subdual damage I did with my unarmed strike while in the beasts mouth, which I couldn't of actually done, because it wasn't denied its dex because I was the one being grappled, he would've died too (we got him with one round before death).
Anyway... essentially, it seemed like this particular encounter was kind of unbalanced. If we had known it was a t-rex, maybe we could of blasted it from afar and worn it down before it got to us... but using that knowledge would of been cheating. So, we essentially had a monster that would kill whoever it got to first, with zero chance of survival. And a t-rex is CR 8, so theoretically, it should of been an appropriate challenge... But like I said, in this situation it seemed worse than a save-or-die spell. It was die-or-die. And this was the first encounter of this adventure.
Now, I don't blame the DM, I think it was kind of poor design on the part of the adventure. Am I being one of those whiny people, or in that kind of situation is it something for genuine concern?