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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7001263" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Ex ante (before the fact) vice ex post facto (after the fact) is the better way to do it. Ex ante changes are ones done beforehand, often with the intent to drive a theme or play experience. These are generally good, as the players can anticipate the effects and play accordingly. If, however, you're changing the baseline of your campaign because of player build choice, that's ex post facto and reduces the expected outcome of player choices in a way that the player cannot predict. IE, if you adopt selecting higher ACs in general to offset the player choice of SS which makes lower ACs less viable, then you've changed the game from the one the player made a choice in to a different game where perhaps a different choice would be better.</p><p></p><p>Further, by making the change ex post facto, your still doing it for balance reasons, only you're hiding it from yourself. A decision to change the rules to level expected outcome prior to play is far better than a decision that changes the baseline assumptions of the game to control the effects of player choices after those choices are made. Rule wise, at least. So, if you're choosing to outfit humanoids with better armor because the CE SS archer needs a better challenge, that's metagaming ex post facto, and IMO a poor choice. If humanoids start wearing armor because the CE SS archer convinced the party that the humanoid raids on armor shipments wasn't worrisome, that's not ex post facto, that's consequences. There's a difference and it's important. Changes should evolve in the fiction due to player choices in the fiction, not because the mechanical choices mean you feel the need to balance things. </p><p></p><p>Given that a standard response to complaints that SS is unbalanced is to suggest ex post facto solutions, I think people aren't putting enough thought into it. Upping ACs to offset SS is just like having a bunch of fire resistant critters show up all the time because your mage likes fire spells. Every now and again, as it makes sense in the game, this works well, but as a solution to an issue it's bunk. You shouldn't be in the business of punishing player choices because it's easier than looking at rules tweeks beforehand. </p><p></p><p>So, if SS is an issue, (and I think it is small one), the better response is to discuss how to make a change before play rather than take the player punishing route of hiding the fact that your correcting the issue by picking more critters with high ACs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7001263, member: 16814"] Ex ante (before the fact) vice ex post facto (after the fact) is the better way to do it. Ex ante changes are ones done beforehand, often with the intent to drive a theme or play experience. These are generally good, as the players can anticipate the effects and play accordingly. If, however, you're changing the baseline of your campaign because of player build choice, that's ex post facto and reduces the expected outcome of player choices in a way that the player cannot predict. IE, if you adopt selecting higher ACs in general to offset the player choice of SS which makes lower ACs less viable, then you've changed the game from the one the player made a choice in to a different game where perhaps a different choice would be better. Further, by making the change ex post facto, your still doing it for balance reasons, only you're hiding it from yourself. A decision to change the rules to level expected outcome prior to play is far better than a decision that changes the baseline assumptions of the game to control the effects of player choices after those choices are made. Rule wise, at least. So, if you're choosing to outfit humanoids with better armor because the CE SS archer needs a better challenge, that's metagaming ex post facto, and IMO a poor choice. If humanoids start wearing armor because the CE SS archer convinced the party that the humanoid raids on armor shipments wasn't worrisome, that's not ex post facto, that's consequences. There's a difference and it's important. Changes should evolve in the fiction due to player choices in the fiction, not because the mechanical choices mean you feel the need to balance things. Given that a standard response to complaints that SS is unbalanced is to suggest ex post facto solutions, I think people aren't putting enough thought into it. Upping ACs to offset SS is just like having a bunch of fire resistant critters show up all the time because your mage likes fire spells. Every now and again, as it makes sense in the game, this works well, but as a solution to an issue it's bunk. You shouldn't be in the business of punishing player choices because it's easier than looking at rules tweeks beforehand. So, if SS is an issue, (and I think it is small one), the better response is to discuss how to make a change before play rather than take the player punishing route of hiding the fact that your correcting the issue by picking more critters with high ACs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.
Top