Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6660652" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Well, by definition the group can't use Rule 0, because Rule 0 is a rule conferring power upon the GM.</p><p></p><p>And what stops the GM from using Rule 0 in the games that I mentioned is its absence.</p><p></p><p>Of course the GM, the same as any participant in any game (RPG or otherwise), can cheat, or can try and bully other participants. But breaking the rules of the game isn't an instance of using Rule 0.</p><p></p><p>If you're not familiar with RPGs - such as the ones I mentioned - that have GM-side rules that are as robust and binding as the player-side rules, then I commend them to you.</p><p></p><p>This is not rule zero - it is not a unilateral exercise of authority by the GM. This is the group, by consensus, changing the game rules.</p><p></p><p>I don't see how games without a referee can have a rule empowering the referee to change or suspend the rules. Nor do most sports that do involve a referee have such a rule.</p><p></p><p>All you seem to be asserting is that the referee can break the rules and, perhaps, get away with it. That's true, but its true of players also. A player can lie about his/her attack rolls, for instance, but that doesn't mean the game contains a "rule zero" permitting players to override the results of d20 rolls. It just means that sometimes people cheat and you can't always stop them.</p><p></p><p>The concern is not abstract; it is quite concrete, and is a reason that more than one poster (including me) has quit games or booted GMs.</p><p></p><p>Rather than empowering a GM to handle action resolution by way of fiat, and then having to escalate to social conflict when things go wrong, I prefer to establish a framework of rules that establishes permissible moves for the various participants in the game, including the GM. This is really just a particular instance of the general function of rules, to reduce or ameliorate social conflict by pre-establishing what is permitted and what is forbidden.</p><p></p><p>Wouldn't it be better to actually have decent social resolution rules, rather than some ad hoc GM ruling? It's not as if there are no such rules out there to be emulated!</p><p></p><p>I think you've missed my point. You rebuked another poster for describing something as good and something else as bad, on the grounds that s/he was merely expressing preferences - but here you are again using all this normative language ("not good", "train wreck", "should have been . . ."). What are you doing here but expressing preferences? Which is the very thing you rebuked another poster for doing.</p><p></p><p>Do you mean that you didn't like it? How is that of any relevance to someone like me who did like it? </p><p></p><p>Have you read the original rulebooks recently? Or the closing pages (prior to the appendices) of Gygax's PHB? The whole focus of the game is dungeon exploration; the goal of play is to be a "skilled player" whose PC(s) survive the dungeon and collect treasure, and thereby XP, and thereby gain levels.</p><p></p><p>That's why the game has action resolution rules for finding traps and listening at doors (both dungeon things), but not for (say) predicting the weather (other than a spell) or hunting and fishing. It's not as if traps and doors are somehow more fundamental to an RPG experience than weather and wilderness survival.</p><p></p><p>Pick up your 1st ed AD&D DMG and PHB and read through them. They are full of action resolution mechanics. There are mechanics for combat - they are level dependent. There are mechanics for social interactions and loyalty - they are not level dependent (except when they interact with combat, via the morale rules - in that case, relative HD can matter). There are mechanics for listening at doors, for finding secret doors, for divine intervention.</p><p></p><p>Why do these mechanics make combat more mechanically intricate, and level dependant, than other forms of conflict? Because the game was invented and enjoyed by wargamers.</p><p></p><p>Why is the chance to find a trap or follow tracks level dependent (thief/assassin/monk or ranger level respectively), but the chance to find a secret door or a sloping corridor (the latter for dwarves et al) not? No good reason that I'm aware of, just idiosyncratic allocation of capabilities across elements of PC build that do and don't have a level component to them.</p><p></p><p>Why don't they include other sorts of stuff - say, chances to dance nicely, or chances to compose a beautiful poem, or chances to navigate by the stars? Because this stuff wasn't of the essence of the play the game was designed to support.</p><p></p><p>If all that was required was "DM management" then these mechanics would (i) all be redundant, and (ii) all be immune to critical analysis! But clearly the game designers didn't regard them as redundant: they are the engine of the game. Nor did the designers regard them as immune to critical analysis: the rules are revised between the original supplements and AD&D, and revised again in the move to AD&D 2nd edition, and over the years there are attempts to come up with more-or-less generic and flexible action resolution mechanics (eg roll under stat) although these suffer from not being integrated in any sort of way (let alone a systematic way) with the plethora of discrete abilities idiosyncratically granted to various races and classes.</p><p></p><p>You seem to be confused about two things.</p><p></p><p>First, using a term is not imposing anything on anyone. I have never met you, let alone played a game with you, let alone imposed any approach to gaming upon you. I have simply described some rules. You are describing the very same rules, so presumably don't begrudge me the liberty of doing likewise.</p><p></p><p>Second, because the AD&D rules were broken for single-PC-per-player, character/story focused RPGing, I stopped GMing D&D in the late 80s, and GMed Rolemaster almost exclusively for nearly 20 years. I returned to D&D as my main game in 2009, when an edition was published which supported the sort of RPGing experience that I was looking for.</p><p></p><p>My fairly extensive <em>play</em> of 2nd ed AD&D in the early and mid-90s confirmed my view that it's mechanics did not facilitate the sorts of play that most people (or, at least, most people I knew at the time) were trying to achieve with it. The result was widespread GM force to bend mechanical outcomes, and to plug mechanical gaps, so as to achieve consistency with stylistic/aesthetic desires. I don't regard this as a very satisfactory form of RPGing, and on two occasions it led me to abandon campaigns. I was also able to recruit "refugees" from such games to my RM game at the time.</p><p></p><p>For someone who accuses others of "imposing limits", you speak very dogmatically. What is your textual authority for the claim that "magic is supposed to be powerful and versatile in D&D" in a way that non-magical PCs are not? And why am I wrong to think it's a problem? How do you know whether or not I have found dominant casters to rend other PCs irrelevant in practice? And why is <em>irrelevance</em> the threshold in any event? Why should a player who wants to play a Lancelot or Conan be able to impact the fiction of the game any less then one who wants to play a Ged or Circe?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6660652, member: 42582"] Well, by definition the group can't use Rule 0, because Rule 0 is a rule conferring power upon the GM. And what stops the GM from using Rule 0 in the games that I mentioned is its absence. Of course the GM, the same as any participant in any game (RPG or otherwise), can cheat, or can try and bully other participants. But breaking the rules of the game isn't an instance of using Rule 0. If you're not familiar with RPGs - such as the ones I mentioned - that have GM-side rules that are as robust and binding as the player-side rules, then I commend them to you. This is not rule zero - it is not a unilateral exercise of authority by the GM. This is the group, by consensus, changing the game rules. I don't see how games without a referee can have a rule empowering the referee to change or suspend the rules. Nor do most sports that do involve a referee have such a rule. All you seem to be asserting is that the referee can break the rules and, perhaps, get away with it. That's true, but its true of players also. A player can lie about his/her attack rolls, for instance, but that doesn't mean the game contains a "rule zero" permitting players to override the results of d20 rolls. It just means that sometimes people cheat and you can't always stop them. The concern is not abstract; it is quite concrete, and is a reason that more than one poster (including me) has quit games or booted GMs. Rather than empowering a GM to handle action resolution by way of fiat, and then having to escalate to social conflict when things go wrong, I prefer to establish a framework of rules that establishes permissible moves for the various participants in the game, including the GM. This is really just a particular instance of the general function of rules, to reduce or ameliorate social conflict by pre-establishing what is permitted and what is forbidden. Wouldn't it be better to actually have decent social resolution rules, rather than some ad hoc GM ruling? It's not as if there are no such rules out there to be emulated! I think you've missed my point. You rebuked another poster for describing something as good and something else as bad, on the grounds that s/he was merely expressing preferences - but here you are again using all this normative language ("not good", "train wreck", "should have been . . ."). What are you doing here but expressing preferences? Which is the very thing you rebuked another poster for doing. Do you mean that you didn't like it? How is that of any relevance to someone like me who did like it? Have you read the original rulebooks recently? Or the closing pages (prior to the appendices) of Gygax's PHB? The whole focus of the game is dungeon exploration; the goal of play is to be a "skilled player" whose PC(s) survive the dungeon and collect treasure, and thereby XP, and thereby gain levels. That's why the game has action resolution rules for finding traps and listening at doors (both dungeon things), but not for (say) predicting the weather (other than a spell) or hunting and fishing. It's not as if traps and doors are somehow more fundamental to an RPG experience than weather and wilderness survival. Pick up your 1st ed AD&D DMG and PHB and read through them. They are full of action resolution mechanics. There are mechanics for combat - they are level dependent. There are mechanics for social interactions and loyalty - they are not level dependent (except when they interact with combat, via the morale rules - in that case, relative HD can matter). There are mechanics for listening at doors, for finding secret doors, for divine intervention. Why do these mechanics make combat more mechanically intricate, and level dependant, than other forms of conflict? Because the game was invented and enjoyed by wargamers. Why is the chance to find a trap or follow tracks level dependent (thief/assassin/monk or ranger level respectively), but the chance to find a secret door or a sloping corridor (the latter for dwarves et al) not? No good reason that I'm aware of, just idiosyncratic allocation of capabilities across elements of PC build that do and don't have a level component to them. Why don't they include other sorts of stuff - say, chances to dance nicely, or chances to compose a beautiful poem, or chances to navigate by the stars? Because this stuff wasn't of the essence of the play the game was designed to support. If all that was required was "DM management" then these mechanics would (i) all be redundant, and (ii) all be immune to critical analysis! But clearly the game designers didn't regard them as redundant: they are the engine of the game. Nor did the designers regard them as immune to critical analysis: the rules are revised between the original supplements and AD&D, and revised again in the move to AD&D 2nd edition, and over the years there are attempts to come up with more-or-less generic and flexible action resolution mechanics (eg roll under stat) although these suffer from not being integrated in any sort of way (let alone a systematic way) with the plethora of discrete abilities idiosyncratically granted to various races and classes. You seem to be confused about two things. First, using a term is not imposing anything on anyone. I have never met you, let alone played a game with you, let alone imposed any approach to gaming upon you. I have simply described some rules. You are describing the very same rules, so presumably don't begrudge me the liberty of doing likewise. Second, because the AD&D rules were broken for single-PC-per-player, character/story focused RPGing, I stopped GMing D&D in the late 80s, and GMed Rolemaster almost exclusively for nearly 20 years. I returned to D&D as my main game in 2009, when an edition was published which supported the sort of RPGing experience that I was looking for. My fairly extensive [I]play[/I] of 2nd ed AD&D in the early and mid-90s confirmed my view that it's mechanics did not facilitate the sorts of play that most people (or, at least, most people I knew at the time) were trying to achieve with it. The result was widespread GM force to bend mechanical outcomes, and to plug mechanical gaps, so as to achieve consistency with stylistic/aesthetic desires. I don't regard this as a very satisfactory form of RPGing, and on two occasions it led me to abandon campaigns. I was also able to recruit "refugees" from such games to my RM game at the time. For someone who accuses others of "imposing limits", you speak very dogmatically. What is your textual authority for the claim that "magic is supposed to be powerful and versatile in D&D" in a way that non-magical PCs are not? And why am I wrong to think it's a problem? How do you know whether or not I have found dominant casters to rend other PCs irrelevant in practice? And why is [I]irrelevance[/I] the threshold in any event? Why should a player who wants to play a Lancelot or Conan be able to impact the fiction of the game any less then one who wants to play a Ged or Circe? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
Top