The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Savage Wombat]

What started out as a discussion about verisimilitude now seems to have turned into a discussion of balance. But as [MENTION=12037]ThirdWizard[/MENTION] points out, once you bring balance in as the main consideration there's no clear reason to think that the sniping halfling who can hide at will (with a successful roll) is a problem.

But from a game perspective, verisimilitude and game balance are inherently in tension. Because reality is rarely balanced.

 

[Bluenose]

But from a game perspective, verisimilitude and game balance are inherently in tension. Because reality is rarely balanced.

It's not as if there's an objective measurement of what exactly a seventh level character should be capable of. They get whatever the designers choose to give them. Thus, if it turns out through play-testing that the abilities given to a seventh level Fighter put them behind the curve, while the abilities given to a seventh level Wizard put them ahead of it, then you can give the seventh level Fighter some of the abilities they would have got at eight level, and delay the Wizard's acquisition of some of theirs. Verisimilitude retained, balance improved.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But from a game perspective, verisimilitude and game balance are inherently in tension. Because reality is rarely balanced.

Reality is rarely /fair/ (and games need to be). But, reality does present us with a lot of difficult choices, which is one of the things balance tries to deliver.

It's entirely possible to have a game that presents quite realistic choices about your character, for instance, including some choices that are very clearly much better than others - it just needs a mechanism to weight those choices differently. Hero and GURPS are examples: you can choose for your character to be a Mage, or you can choose for your character to be a plumber, or you can choose for your character to be blind. They're not at all 'balanced' choices, but they're weighted differently - the first might cost you 60 build points, the second 3, and the last might give you 20 extra points to spend on something else.

 

[pemerton]

But from a game perspective, verisimilitude and game balance are inherently in tension.

OK, but that's an argument, then, to have casters make checks to cast their spells.

It wouldn't hurt verisimilitude to make a caster make the same check to speak the words of a spell as a bard has to make to engage in an oration. And that could also restore balance.

 

[pemerton]

When I sit down to play a role playing game with other people, when the rubber hits the road so to speak, what I really care about is running an enjoyable game for the players, getting to the action (whether that be playacting or murderhoboing), and creating an exciting play experience.

One of those things that is important is player telegraphs, and one way you can read players is by looking at their character sheets.

<snip>

the rules as I see them exist so that when a player wants their PC to do something that is risky, we have a common framework to see if that thing is successful. They aren't there to make DMing decisions for me or to constrain events that occur without PC interaction.

<snip>

If an old man is trying to sneak past a goblin, and neither is a player's character, then I don't see why it would matter to the players or the DM whether the result of that action was resolved randomly or by fiat.

<snip>

For me and my games, the player is the important thing, not the NPC or the world or anything like that. Beyond the player everything else is secondary. I want rules that give the players lots of agency, and I think it is important to run a game with an eye toward giving the player abilities lots of spotlight and fun. NPCs are important to me so long as they are important to the players, and rules for them I can take or leave, whatever fits the situation.

This is all true for me as well.

One minor caveat: if a player puts Diplomacy or Perception on his/her PC sheet, maybe s/he wants to play a social/investigative character; or maybe s/he wants to build in insurance that his/her PC won't be thwarted by invisible enemies or by crazy NPCs who don't pay attention to what the PC has to say. So build choices can be flags, like you describe, or can be insurance.

 

[Pentegarn]

This is something that's been bothering me in the discussion about the halfling sniper, and I think it deserves its own discussion.

I personally feel like the rules for hiding in 5th edition are fairly clear; if the enemy can't see you, you can use the Hide action. Some special abilities, like the halfling's Naturally Stealthy, allow for exceptions to this general rule. So far, so clear, right?

However, because Hide is not a supernatural ability, it becomes subject to the dreaded unwritten verisimilitude rules. Rules which seem clear per the RAW are now subject to whatever the group decides is believable for heroic characters in a world full of dragons and wizards to accomplish.

Certainly, it's an understandable tendency. However, it often has the unintentional side effect of neutering martial characters in comparison to spellcasters. No one ever forces the wizard to come up with a new situation where he's allowed to cast his Magic Missile spell he has prepared. No one ever forces the cleric to come up with a believable explanation for why he can cast cure wounds a second time during an encounter.

What can be done to counter the tendency for mundane skills to be overshadowed by always-works magic? Is the only solution to say "all skills are magical so characters trained in them can do them whenever the skill says they can"?

Why is it you felt this subject needed it's own thread? Why does there need to be an argument over these rules to begin with? You play it the way you and your group enjoys it, and leave others to do the same. Simple as that.

Some players might feel hiding behind another player and popping out for advantage and sneak attack is simply too gamey, and flavor their interpretation of the rules based more on the narrative story. Take the old 3.5 Manyshot feat for example. A player could use this with every attack. But think of it from a story point of view, such as the shot Robin Hood made in the old "Prince of Thieves" movie. He bit off the fletching on one side of an arrow, and fired two arrows, one into two different opponents. It seemed like a rare and impossible shot to make and drop two opponents, which made it appear special, and Robin Hood, skilled. But if he went through the movie biting off fletchings and shooting two arrows with every shot, it would have looked just silly and lame.

Some players might simply see that game as a game, where that type of thing is normal. Either way, it's up to the gaming group. Your opinion doesn't have to be everyone's opinion. You don't have to like the opinions of others. But spending thread after thread, post after post arguing about whose way is better is a pointless waste of time.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For me and my games, the player is the important thing, not the NPC or the world or anything like that. Beyond the player everything else is secondary. I want rules that give the players lots of agency, and I think it is important to run a game with an eye toward giving the player abilities lots of spotlight and fun. NPCs are important to me so long as they are important to the players, and rules for them I can take or leave, whatever fits the situation.

I don't think we're too different in our goals, except in that I need consistent rules for PCs and NPCs in order to establish context.

If my character has Athletics/Climbing +15, then what does that mean? She has an 80% chance to climb a wall that's DC 20. So what does that mean? Where does it come from? Why is the bonus +15, and not +10 or +20? Is +15 even good? What's the default chance for some random merchant to climb a wall?

If the answer, anywhere in there, comes down to the fact that my character is a PC rather than an NPC, then that's a problem. The designation of PC or NPC isn't a thing that exists in-game, (unless it's something like Exalted, where it does). Attributing an in-game characteristic to an out-of-game factor would violate causality, and it's literally impossible for me to suspend disbelief that far and still take the game seriously.

 

[Savage Wombat]

OK, but that's an argument, then, to have casters make checks to cast their spells.

It wouldn't hurt verisimilitude to make a caster make the same check to speak the words of a spell as a bard has to make to engage in an oration. And that could also restore balance.

Don't disagree. I suspect there's either a "cut down on rolls" or "we've never done it that way" involved.

You could say that the assumption is that the wizard takes 20 to prep spells, which is why it takes so long - and then just create a mechanic for if they try to prep in less time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If my character has Athletics/Climbing +15, then what does that mean?

It means your modifiers total +15. You might be 10 STR, trained, and 20th level in 4e, or 20 STR with 10 ranks (and at least 6th level, but possibly much higher in 3e). It means you're not playing AD&D, where your character might have an 85% climb walls percentage /and/ a non-weapon proficiency that lets him roll under his 14 STR to climb, or 5e, where you top out at +11, regardless.

She has an 80% chance to climb a wall that's DC 20. So what does that mean? Where does it come from? Why is the bonus +15, and not +10 or +20? Is +15 even good? What's the default chance for some random merchant to climb a wall?

Since merchants rarely train in Athletics/climg. In 3e or 5e, his STR mod. In 4e his STR mod + 1/2 his level. In AD&D, undefined - unless he has a class, non-weapon proficiency, or arbitrarily-assigned by the DM special ability, since NPCs could sometimes just be a few numbers and equivalancies jumbled together (Uras the Spectacular has 60 hps, attacks as a 4th level fighter, saves as 13th level thief, and can cast Chariot of Sustare 1/year - why? Because I'm the DM and I said so.)

If the answer, anywhere in there, comes down to the fact that my character is a PC rather than an NPC, then that's a problem. The designation of PC or NPC isn't a thing that exists in-game, (unless it's something like Exalted, where it does). Attributing an in-game characteristic to an out-of-game factor would violate causality, and it's literally impossible for me to suspend disbelief that far and still take the game seriously.

Honestly, that's absurd. You choose your character's race, that's an in-game thing that is determined by an out-of-game factor (you absolutely cannot choose your parents!). That's just one example. You're just being selective in what you let freak you out.

 

[pemerton]

Don't disagree. I suspect there's either a "cut down on rolls" or "we've never done it that way" involved.

You could say that the assumption is that the wizard takes 20 to prep spells, which is why it takes so long - and then just create a mechanic for if they try to prep in less time.

Another way to go would be to have a more over prep/training mechanic for martial PCs: practice your move for a few hours before adventuring, and then perform it X times over the course of the adventure as auto-successes.