Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Nitpick:
What TS is quoting is the square-cube law. If an object retains its shape and you double its length (or any other one dimensional measurement), you will get 4x (2 squared) the surface area and 8x (2 cubed) the mass. Of course, objects of vastly different sizes also tends to have very different shapes and construction.

Square Cube Law

Thank you, nightwyrm.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, yeah. The old "if the game doesn't work for you, fix it yourself" argument. If that had any compelling strength, we wouldn't have new editions of any game.

Not quite. His point is that his interpretation of fluff doesn't match the game mechanics, and therefore the game mechanics must change to suit his interpretation of fluff.

It is the fluff that offends him. If thy fluff offends thee, chop it off.

er... you realize that's exactly his point? game balance stripped away some of the flavour.

No. His point is that his interpretation of flavor ought to dictate game mechanics. My point is that the conflict is in his head, and he can fix that conflict without touching the mechanics. "Balance" hasn't stripped away anything -- it's his own preferences for a how flavor translates into mechanics that dictate what flavor he can allow.

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of the flavor -- my game works just dandy.

That's not what you said- your statement used absolutes in its formulation:

The first statement says that stats "are no longer the only thing" that tells you about a PC's physical & mental talent- implying that there was a point in time when they were the only thing.

The second statement says that "Stats alone never have been" a measure of raw talents- meaning that there was no point in which they were.

Those are contradictory statements.

Ugh, seriously? Logical statements and scoping operations were tested on the LSAT. You ought to be better at this.

First statement: previously, for at least one character, stats were enough to specify at least one mental and/or physical capability. This is no longer the case.

Second statement: previously, not every character's capabilities could be fully specified by stats alone. This remains the case.

Don't latch on to single phrases. Read the whole damn sentence.

Not my job: I'm not the DM nor the Game Designer- I'm just a customer giving an example within 4Ed that illustrates the point of how certain aspects of the game were sacrificed in favor of balance.

I see. It's not your job to remove fluff, therefore you must use fluff that you hate.

Good luck with that. I'm sure you'll enjoy hours of reading before you stumble across something equally absurd buried deep in your edition of choice... like hit points.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Use the rules, don't let the rules use you.

If you are forced to change your story to comply with your mechanics, then your mechanics have already failed.

I do use the rules. My game works just fine with the current flavor, too.

I guess I could turn that around, though: use the flavor, don't let the flavor use you. If you are forced to change your game's mechanics to comply with some character art, then your fluff has already failed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

My fluff is freed up, because Strength doesnt mean just one simplistic thing ... For my Sorceror and Paladin theyre miracles are mighty not because there muscles are ... but rather there muscles are mighty because of their empowerment

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What TS is quoting is the square-cube law. If an object retains its shape and you double its length (or any other one dimensional measurement), you will get 4x (2 squared) the surface area and 8x (2 cubed) the mass. Of course, objects of vastly different sizes also tends to have very different shapes and construction.

I'm aware of that- however, I'm working with the game's actual provided numbers, not reality.

The thing is, when you look at PCs you find that the race with +2 to a stat is an average of 4-6 points higher in that stat (at first level) than the race WITHOUT the +2.

The +2 is only +2, but people then pick their stats to accentuate their strengths, meaning that a racial +2 gives most of the race +more.

A racial +4 vs. a racial +2 would probably be a boost of average about +2.5-3, while a +6 vs. a +4 would be +2

Its not just the +2 in the context of races that don't get the bonus- as I've pointed out, its also the logical disconnect with other races that DO get the bonus.

A Half-Orc, Human, Genasi and Longtooth Shifter all top out in mass under 230lbs on average, and some don't even hit 200lbs. Meanwhile, the "hulking humanoid" Minotaurs (PHB3 p11), "strongly built" Dragonkind (PHB p35) and the "tall and massive" Goliaths (PHB2 p12) are not one bit stronger, despite all starting off at least at 280lbs and topping out well over 300lbs on average.

What is that 70+ lbs? Fat? Hair? In this context, the REAL bruisers are the lightweights who manage to fight far outside their weight class...

I mean- Minotaurs USED to be as strong as or stronger than some Giants, right from the get-go. Now? They're exactly as powerful as Half-Orcs and have to gain XP before they can touch that level of power.

Githzerai USED to be uncannily agile, beyond the grace of even the Elves. Now, they're no different.

(FWIW, I do think that a Str min as suggested by Dausuul would mitigate this to a certain extent...but doesn't quite solve it.)

No. His point is that his interpretation of flavor ought to dictate game mechanics. My point is that the conflict is in his head, and he can fix that conflict without touching the mechanics. "Balance" hasn't stripped away anything -- it's his own preferences for a how flavor translates into mechanics that dictate what flavor he can allow.

No, my point is that the fluff and mechanics are 1) out of synch with each other, and 2) were not so in previous editions' versions of these races, which 3) makes them a prime example of a tradeoff between balance and flavor/evocative elements, such as we have been describing.

In order to make races like Minotaurs or the "Powerfully Built" Goliaths of previous editions balanced with the other PC races, their incredibly high Str or iconic racial abilities were stripped away from them. A PC of neither race will outshine any of the other "strong" races when it comes to raw, brute strength or damage dealing. Indeed, they cannot.

Ugh, seriously? Logical statements and scoping operations were tested on the LSAT. You ought to be better at this.

First statement: previously, for at least one character, stats were enough to specify at least one mental and/or physical capability. This is no longer the case.

Second statement: previously, not every character's capabilities could be fully specified by stats alone. This remains the case.

Don't latch on to single phrases. Read the whole damn sentence.

I did read your sentences. You gave no "at least for one character" type language qualifier. It was a simple absolute.

And the second sentence's use of "never" would eliminate the possibility of such a character's existence.

They still do. They simply are no longer the only thing which does so. You need to combine them with other things -- as listed previously -- to get the whole picture.

This is not some new thing, either. Stats alone have never been enough to fully specify every PC's physical and mental capabilities.

For the record, I'm with you 100% on that second sentence- stats only tell part of the story. They tell you about the PC's raw physical or mental potential, and nothing more. Class and other choices represent the realization of that potential...or in some cases, the rejection of it.

However, that PC's baseline stats have a contextual meaning- PC1 is "stronger than" PC2; PC3 is "more agile than" PC 4. That doesn't mean that PC1 is by necessity the better Warrior or that PC3 is the better Rogue, just that they may have a bigger upside.

 

[Nifft]

No, my point is that the fluff and mechanics are 1) out of synch with each other, and 2) were not so in previous editions' versions of these races, which 3) makes them a prime example of a tradeoff between balance and flavor/evocative elements, such as we have been describing.

In 3e, a halfling can be built who can power attack better -- hitting more often, and for more damage -- than a half-orc with the same weapon. D&D stats have never made sense.

You blame the conflict between mechanics and flavor solely on mechanics. That's a bit one-sided, don't you think?

In order to make races like Minotaurs or the "Powerfully Built" Goliaths of previous editions balanced with the other PC races, their incredibly high Str or iconic racial abilities were stripped away from them. A PC of neither race will outshine any of the other "strong" races when it comes to raw, brute strength or damage dealing. Indeed, they cannot.

My half-orc Barbarian can outshine a human Barbarian on damage dealing, because +1d12 damage is nothing to sneeze at. It's not just his Str score: his racial ability encapsulates some of his brutal power.

That said, not all racial abilities are perfect, but that's not enough to tear down the system IMHO.

I did read your sentences. You gave no "at least for one character" type language qualifier. It was a simple absolute.

I said neither "for every" nor "there exists at least one". Thus, you're left to assume which I meant from context. Since one assumption is nonsense, and the other actually fits into the context, which one do you honestly think I meant?

For the record, I'm with you 100% on that second sentence- stats only tell part of the story. They tell you about the PC's raw physical or mental potential, and nothing more. Class and other choices represent the realization of that potential...or in some cases, the rejection of it.

Agreed 100% about potential. This is a great way to look at ability stats. You may be strong, but if you never train, you can lose to someone weaker (lower potential) who works hard (spends feats & other limited resources).

However, that PC's baseline stats have a contextual meaning- PC1 is "stronger than" PC2; PC3 is "more agile than" PC 4. That doesn't mean that PC1 is by necessity the better Warrior or that PC3 is the better Rogue, just that they may have a bigger upside.

Sure, but only in the most abstract sense. When you actually go to measure your Str against someone else, you most often do so via a check that also shows your training in a skill, or your BAB, or your Fortitude bonus.

IMHO there's no problem describing an NPC as huge, burly, and strong, even if his on-paper Str is middling, so long as any reasonable use of his Str-related checks would get a high bonus.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Doug McCrae]

Danny, you're right that the 4e system for racial stats is less simulationist than 3e's. I'm guessing the change was due to criticism of the LA system which had a major flaw - you couldn't play a creature of LA +X until level X+1. So a minotaur couldn't be played as a character until 3rd level. It's true that Savage Species fixed this but SS was itself very unbalanced imo, to a degree which I think most gamers would find unacceptable.

So what you're really looking at here is a choice between systems with different flaws. Which is always the case with roleplaying games. However I would also point out that for most of its history D&D has chosen playability over realism. That's the case with its core mechanics - classes, levels and hit points - so one could argue that the 4e approach is more true to D&D's history. 3e is something of an aberration, as the most simulationist edition of the game. Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.

 

[Nifft]

Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.

4e is a flumph.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ExploderWizard]

Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.

I don't think so. I think D&D in general has more in common with magical beasts than aberrations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In 3e, a halfling can be built who can power attack better -- hitting more often, and for more damage -- than a half-orc with the same weapon. D&D stats have never made sense.

Sorry, but comparing WotC-D&D with WotC-D&D does not evidence that D&D stats have never made sense, only that WotC-D&D stats have never made sense.

As has already been pointed out upthread, earlier editions of D&D did things like impose level limits, ability score limits, limits on lifiting related to weight, etc., in order to help D&D stats make sense.

It should also be obvious that something which works sporadically is not improved by being made either to work more sporadically, or to not work at all.

"It's new and improved, and it has the benefit of having always been this way!"


RC