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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6660838" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>No it hasn't. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Your version of Rule 0 is at odds with any conception of it I've ever seen. Rule 0 is about the DM's power to change the rules. Not about the table's power. A game without a DM doesn't have a DM to change the rules.</p><p></p><p>To clarify, <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+0" target="_blank">four</a> <a href="http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Rule_Zero" target="_blank">of</a> <a href="http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_0" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://geek-related.com/2013/10/12/rule-zero-over-the-years/" target="_blank">first</a> <a href="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22715/is-there-a-limit-to-rule-0" target="_blank">five</a> searches for Rule 0 talk about how it's explicitly the DM's ability to change the rules. (The fifth is the 1d4Chan link and isn't about changing rules so it irrelevant other than it references the normal rule 0).</p><p></p><p>So you can define Rule 0 however you like - but if you define it in the way you are it means you are talking about something completely different from the rest of us.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. That's a house rule (and a terrible one). Unless you are somehow doing it without consulting the other players - and in that case it's either making a mistake because you thought it was part of the rules or cheating.</p><p></p><p>And if we take your definition of Rule 0 then no game anywhere, even the most competitive boardgame doesn't need balance because it can always be fixed by the players. Riiiigghhhht.</p><p></p><p>Now we've established your definition of Rule 0 is different from the normal Rule 0 can we drop this tangent?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In short because a landmine is not stepped on it's not a problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or because things are extremely aggravating and that causes tempers to flare.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good. Because no RPG has ever done this. You can't eliminate player skill without first eliminating player agency.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. I'm assuming it's the best tool we have available due to the empirical evidence supporting it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Given that Rule 0 requires a GM, no it isn't. Your ideosyncratic definition of Rule 0 that might be confusing the conversation might be.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, I was waiting for the edition warring to get explicit. No, it wasn't a total train wreck - although it was released early. And given the spectacular changes 3.0 made to D&D at a conceptual level (in many cases reaching at least as far as the 4e changes) this isn't much of an argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that was never a design principle. The thief always had more utility than the fighter out of combat.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I.e. longer than 3.0 or 3.5 lasted. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>ANd 3.0 is <em>vastly</em> different from 2E.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's because people who actually care about understanding the game, and those who care about skilled play (a deliberate design goal of Gygax) are more likely to post on forums.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1E wasn't the early days.</p><p></p><p>oD&D: 1974. 1e: 1977-1979.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The intended playstyle of oD&D, and 1E through to about 1985 (with Dragonlance) was a game of player skill to rob the dungeons blind and in which you wanted to avoid combat because you gained 1XP for each GP - this was deliberate. It was also competitive, player skill was prized, and even Ernie Gygax got shanked by other players for artifacts. In short it was a game designed for competitive tabletop wargamers looking for a challenge that meant thinking outside the box.</p><p></p><p>DL1 and the like were hacks to a gritty system to let people play heroic fantasy. And did it through means such as the Obscure Death Rule. 2e actively advocates fudging the dice because the rules are not fit for the purpose 2e was intended to be used for. It also relegated the XP for GP rule way outside the default rules (turning 2e into a hack and slash gamme where the best source of XP was slaughtering monsters).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And what sort of cost that would have in terms of player agency and player immersion. There's nothing broken about FATAL that can't be resolved by DM management - including the bad taste that game was written in.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except not. In oD&D and D&D, magic wasn't that dominant. There was a level soft-cap at level 10. Teleport gave you a serious chance of dying. Spells took a minute to cast - and saving throws were based on the intended effect and got easier to make rather than harder as both sides leveled. The 2e wizard was made of tissue paper - the oD&D and 1e wizard were intended to be surrounded by hirelings.</p><p></p><p>Also 3.X was aimed at rebalancing the fighter and wizard - and ended up with a wizard that was level with a fighter at L1, an evoker that was level with a fighter at L5, and not realising they'd screwed up the saving throws.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem is that you think that 3.5 is the way D&D was intended to be. It isn't. Gygax made a vast array of tweaks for game balance including attempting to balance the fighter with the wizard and cleric using everything from XP tables to loot tables (why do you think there are so many magic swords on them and magic swords get better numbers than other weapons?) - <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?201122-Computers-beat-up-my-role-player/page3&p=3657389&viewfull=1#post3657389" target="_blank">and using Unearthed Arcana to attempt to rebalance them when extra years of playtesting showed the fighter wasn't strong enough</a>.</p><p></p><p>The game was intended by Gygax to be balanced. You can play an unbalanced one if you like. But be aware when you are doing so that the wizard-dominance is not what D&D was intended to be.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6660838, member: 87792"] No it hasn't. Your version of Rule 0 is at odds with any conception of it I've ever seen. Rule 0 is about the DM's power to change the rules. Not about the table's power. A game without a DM doesn't have a DM to change the rules. To clarify, [URL="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+0"]four[/URL] [URL="http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Rule_Zero"]of[/URL] [URL="http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_0"]the[/URL] [URL="http://geek-related.com/2013/10/12/rule-zero-over-the-years/"]first[/URL] [URL="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22715/is-there-a-limit-to-rule-0"]five[/URL] searches for Rule 0 talk about how it's explicitly the DM's ability to change the rules. (The fifth is the 1d4Chan link and isn't about changing rules so it irrelevant other than it references the normal rule 0). So you can define Rule 0 however you like - but if you define it in the way you are it means you are talking about something completely different from the rest of us. No. That's a house rule (and a terrible one). Unless you are somehow doing it without consulting the other players - and in that case it's either making a mistake because you thought it was part of the rules or cheating. And if we take your definition of Rule 0 then no game anywhere, even the most competitive boardgame doesn't need balance because it can always be fixed by the players. Riiiigghhhht. Now we've established your definition of Rule 0 is different from the normal Rule 0 can we drop this tangent? In short because a landmine is not stepped on it's not a problem. Or because things are extremely aggravating and that causes tempers to flare. Good. Because no RPG has ever done this. You can't eliminate player skill without first eliminating player agency. No. I'm assuming it's the best tool we have available due to the empirical evidence supporting it. Given that Rule 0 requires a GM, no it isn't. Your ideosyncratic definition of Rule 0 that might be confusing the conversation might be. Ah, I was waiting for the edition warring to get explicit. No, it wasn't a total train wreck - although it was released early. And given the spectacular changes 3.0 made to D&D at a conceptual level (in many cases reaching at least as far as the 4e changes) this isn't much of an argument. And that was never a design principle. The thief always had more utility than the fighter out of combat. I.e. longer than 3.0 or 3.5 lasted. ANd 3.0 is [I]vastly[/I] different from 2E. That's because people who actually care about understanding the game, and those who care about skilled play (a deliberate design goal of Gygax) are more likely to post on forums. 1E wasn't the early days. oD&D: 1974. 1e: 1977-1979. The intended playstyle of oD&D, and 1E through to about 1985 (with Dragonlance) was a game of player skill to rob the dungeons blind and in which you wanted to avoid combat because you gained 1XP for each GP - this was deliberate. It was also competitive, player skill was prized, and even Ernie Gygax got shanked by other players for artifacts. In short it was a game designed for competitive tabletop wargamers looking for a challenge that meant thinking outside the box. DL1 and the like were hacks to a gritty system to let people play heroic fantasy. And did it through means such as the Obscure Death Rule. 2e actively advocates fudging the dice because the rules are not fit for the purpose 2e was intended to be used for. It also relegated the XP for GP rule way outside the default rules (turning 2e into a hack and slash gamme where the best source of XP was slaughtering monsters). And what sort of cost that would have in terms of player agency and player immersion. There's nothing broken about FATAL that can't be resolved by DM management - including the bad taste that game was written in. Except not. In oD&D and D&D, magic wasn't that dominant. There was a level soft-cap at level 10. Teleport gave you a serious chance of dying. Spells took a minute to cast - and saving throws were based on the intended effect and got easier to make rather than harder as both sides leveled. The 2e wizard was made of tissue paper - the oD&D and 1e wizard were intended to be surrounded by hirelings. Also 3.X was aimed at rebalancing the fighter and wizard - and ended up with a wizard that was level with a fighter at L1, an evoker that was level with a fighter at L5, and not realising they'd screwed up the saving throws. The problem is that you think that 3.5 is the way D&D was intended to be. It isn't. Gygax made a vast array of tweaks for game balance including attempting to balance the fighter with the wizard and cleric using everything from XP tables to loot tables (why do you think there are so many magic swords on them and magic swords get better numbers than other weapons?) - [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?201122-Computers-beat-up-my-role-player/page3&p=3657389&viewfull=1#post3657389"]and using Unearthed Arcana to attempt to rebalance them when extra years of playtesting showed the fighter wasn't strong enough[/URL]. The game was intended by Gygax to be balanced. You can play an unbalanced one if you like. But be aware when you are doing so that the wizard-dominance is not what D&D was intended to be. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
Top