Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

We've just had pages and pages of discussion about playstyle differences, and how different mechanics have different implications within different playstyles, and then we have these two posts which proceed as if that discussion never happened, and there is only one way to play the game, and anyone who doesn't play that way is inept or being ridiculous.

I don't see where you'd get that one. I assume that anyone not advocating this particular position is doing fine. That's pretty much everyone in the world at large. I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't play a particular way is doing something wrong.

I am saying that anyone who has an issue that the rest of us-who play with all sorts of styles-do not have is doing something unusual that causes that issue. If they're doing so unintentionally, that is kind of inept.

Look at it this way. Someone has a car crash. They conclude that cars are fundamentally defective, and that the crashing is a natural result of driving the car. They demand that all motor vehicles be replaced with bumper cars.

I look at the millions of people driving down the road happily, and conclude that cars do not always or even usually crash. I conclude that anyone who did crash likely did something abnormal. Are they all equally at fault? No. Some are rampaging drunks, some made a tiny error in judgement, some are innocent victims who were hit by someone else. Some of them are due to mechanical errors, but that doesn't invalidate the use of cars! Rather than turning the road into bumper car arena, I advocate incremental improvements in training and safety features derived from evidence.

(i) are highly concerned with protagonism (ie actual presence of the PC in play at the table) and (ii) do not want storyteller-style GM devices to ensure that sort of "spotlight time" but rather want it to emerge naturally from the PC build + action resolution mechanics.

What you're suggesting goes way beyond that though. You're suggesting that if two players design characters that are different, the mechanics should either correct for or ignore those differences completely.

There's nothing that stops two players in 3e from building virtually or actually identical characters. You're suggesting that to accommodate these indie/wargamers, players have to be forced to do that, and that building characters of different power levels should be essentially banned. You're also suggesting that the in-game nature of those characters is completely irrelevant; a dirt farmer PC has every right to equal "protagism" as a demigod PC, simply by virtue of being controlled by a player. It's really quite a radical idea.

You're also suggesting that the role of the DM and the DM/player dynamic have to be essentially dissolved. These indie/wargamer people as you call them really have a lot of needs!

In practice, these ideas are extremely destructive to other basic aspects of the game, including the simulatory aspect, the dynamism of meaningfully different characters, and the satisfaction of building an effective character in the absence of being defaulted into one.

There is nothing inept about wargaming and indie groups who find 3E to suffer from balance problems.

Not necessarily. However if their reasons for doing so are flawed, then there is.

In my view, at least, it's not a game well-suited to their playstyles.

That may be. Though I suspect they could do a lot worse.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I disagree. I think that a balanced game is achievable by adherence to the rules. I think it is facilitated by techniques but that balance is inherent into the rules as written. It doesn't matter how many pages of contrary opinion there is, I still believe this.

Given where 3e and PF are at the moment, it's hardly a radical opinion. No amount of message board trolling has stopped us from enjoying those games, nor will it bring 4e back.

 

[ImperatorK]

I'm not aware of any consolidated analyses to this effect.

Ah, I see. You're not aware of the Tier System or the internet. That explains things.

Magic can be limited on a per-time basis because its source is not known, and operates according to mystical and arbitrary rules. Because it's not real, and by definition is disparate from reality. Everything else comes from some known source, and operates according to rules that are, to some extent, based on reality. So they're not the same.

Which still is fluff, not rules.

Sure. However, in the absence of some ideal game without flaws, I prefer to use the available game with the fewest flaws. I would prefer it if those flaws were fixed.

Your opposition to the idea of fixing the balance says otherwise.

As I've said before, show me a new age 3e with its flaws fixed, and I'm on board.

Yet you're so adamant that there is no flaw to fix.

Even if that's true, it doesn't justify making the game worse overall to patch it for your preferences.

Um... fixing a game's flaw(s) makes it worse? What? You have to be joking.

If there were such a need, I think it would be; I'm not seeing any other rationale. Since there is no such "need", its hypothetical predicates are irrelevant.

Um... okay... I'm not sure what you're saying. Many people are complaining about balance, so there clearly is need for fixing it. It's not your need, so maybe that's why you're so opposed to it.

However, the actual rules do not make animal companions or druids in wild shape superior to or competitive with fighters of equal levels, so that's more of a hypothetical.

The internet disagrees with you.

Even if it were the case, it would simply suggest that the designers felt that nature was a dominant force in the world and that nature worshippers should be powerful, and balanced the game accordingly. Your dissent would best be manifested by picking up another game whose philosophy more closely matched yours.

So now you're saying it was intended because of fluff? Lol.

Your experience seems to trump the experience of the millions of people who have not attempted to publish fallacious proofs to this effect anonymously on internet messageboards.

Unless you've talked with those millions of people who don't post on the internet and confirmed that their experience is the same as yours, they're irrelevant. Any number of them might share our opinions.

Well, I don't have a problem with my game balance. Therefore yes, the problem lies on your part.

And we're back to "U R DOING IT WRONG" arguments.

My lack of problems, however, does not prove that I must be somehow in the wrong.

If you say there is no balance problem, then yes, you are in the wrong. Just because you don't see the air doesn't mean it's not there.

The problem simply does not exist for me and therefore it is not a universal problem.

Oh, but it exists, you just dealing with it in some way. Try playing a bit differently and you'll see.

Well, changing the game most certainly changes things for people who have no problems. It changes the game and the game experience. I like my game experience for the most part. Why would I want to change it, especially when the suggested fixes are all mostly undesirable for me? I like fighters the way they are in PF.

But who is forcing you to play the new and balanced game? I don't think anyone came to your house and forced you to play 4ed when it came out, did they?

 

[Wicht]

And we're back to "U R DOING IT WRONG" arguments.

I'm not so much accusing you of doing it wrong as I am entertaining the possibility that I have been doing it right, or at the very least in a way that does not create problems. That I do this using the rules, or a close enough facsimile thereof when I wing a calling, seems to me sufficient evidence of the validity of my own experience.

If you say there is no balance problem, then yes, you are in the wrong. Just because you don't see the air doesn't mean it's not there.

But the air is not killing me either and I don't have a problem with the air. Lets say there are two people both breathing the same air. One keeps choking and coughing and sneezing and the other one is not. It is possible that it is not the air that is at fault but a case of influenza.

Oh, but it exists, you just dealing with it in some way. Try playing a bit differently and you'll see.

Okay, that made me laugh. That's like telling a guy to poke himself in the eye so that he can experience the pain everyone else is having by poking themselves in the eyes.

If you can acknowledge that there are ways of dealing with the "problem" or that it might be a playstyle difference creating the problem, then why is it so hard to acknowledge the problem may not be inherent with the game itself. I don't do much fancy to avoid the problem, nothing at all in fact. It just simply is not a problem for me.

But who is forcing you to play the new and balanced game? I don't think anyone came to your house and forced you to play 4ed, did they?

I'm not even sure where that came from? If you want to play 4e, more power to you. Go ahead. It won't hurt my feelings, but it won't convince me that 3x or PF is broken either.

 

[Wicht]

Yet you're so adamant that there is no flaw to fix.

Actually I think he is being adamant that his perceived flaws are not the same as your perceived flaws.

For what its worth, his perceived flaws are not inherently flaws either in my opinion. Everyone has their own tastes and that's valid. Games are mostly a subjective experience.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ah, I see. You're not aware of the Tier System or the internet. That explains things.

The tier system is an opinion that someone made up. It is not an analysis, it does not have thousands of authors, and it is a minority opinion.

Which still is fluff, not rules.

We're back to the dirt farmer/demigod example. Is that distinction just "fluff" too?

In any case, it's not rules. "Fighter" and "wizard" are different classes. That's in the rules. This notion you have that they should be equal in some way is not in any rule I'm aware of. It's just "fluff" so to speak.

Your opposition to the idea of fixing the balance says otherwise.

I'm not opposed to the idea of fixing balance. I'm opposed to the idea of creating your definition of balance. I fix things for balance all the time.

Yet you're so adamant that there is no flaw to fix.

No, I'm adamant that the one "flaw" you're harping on is distinct from the actual flaws that do need to be fixed. Of which there are plenty.

Um... okay... I'm not sure what you're saying. Many people are complaining about balance, so there clearly is need for fixing it. It's not your need, so maybe that's why you're so opposed to it.

Yes, but most of them have definitions of balance that don't require fighters to be able to cast spells, and most of them aren't hung up on this one ludicrous issue that you are.

The internet disagrees with you.

Except for, you know, most of it.

Unless you've talked with those millions of people who don't post on the internet and confirmed that their experience is the same as yours, they're irrelevant.

As I thought. Anyone who didn't write the tier system and is currently playing an ongoing and satisfactory game of 3e, PF, or any of its derivatives (or any earlier D&D, or basically any rpg that doesn't meet your definition of balance) is apparently irrelevant. In other words, essentially the entire gaming community.

I don't need to meet them or have a nuanced understanding of their experience to know that they exist. In this context, not having a fanatical desire to force equality on all characters is a default; a null hypothesis. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I assume that anyone who plays D&D and hasn't expressed an opinion that D&D is "broken" does not have said opinion.

If you say there is no balance problem, then yes, you are in the wrong. Just because you don't see the air doesn't mean it's not there.

Just because you see it doesn't mean it is.

But who is forcing you to play the new and balanced game? I don't think anyone came to your house and forced you to play 4ed when it came out, did they?

Thankfully not.

 

[pemerton]

I think that a balanced game is achievable by adherence to the rules. I think it is facilitated by techniques but that balance is inherent into the rules as written.

The rules as written do not have rules for who gets to determine the nature of adversity (players or GM), what principles are meant to guide the GM's adjudicatin of challenges during resolution (eg who should a given monster attack), how long rests are to be paced and who is to have control over that pacing, and innumerable other factors that contribute to the play experience.

Granted that some playstyles prefer PF over others, that does not mean the game is imbalanced.

Nor does it mean that the game is balanced. There is no such thing as balanced or imbalanced in the abstract. Given the lack of overarching conflict resolution mechanics in 3E/PF (as discussed by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] upthread), there isn't even a feasible way of comparing mechanical effectiveness at action resolution (contrast, say, Marvel Heroic RP or HeroWars/Quest). So much is dependent on GM framing and adjudication of discrete moments of task resolution.

It merely means it is designed to deliver a certain experience and that those who want a Fiasco experience or a Mouseguard experience, or even a wargame experience are not going to like it as much. They should play the game they want instead.

So now those who enjoyed (say) B/X D&D- which is certainly well-suited to a certain sort of wargame-style play - or who liked the high-damage fighter of AD&D 2nd ed (eg [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]), but can't get the same sort of experience out of 3E or PF, are trying to play the wrong game?

 

[Wicht]

The rules as written do not have rules for who gets to determine the nature of adversity (players or GM),

They most certainly do. It is the GM everytime in Dungeons and Dragons in all its variations.

what principles are meant to guide the GM's adjudicatin of challenges during resolution (eg who should a given monster attack),

I'll give you that one, but I think its irrelevant to the discussion. Baseball does not have a rule in the rulebook about what to do in any particular play, but experience and training makes some things rather obvious. In the same way, GM adjucation is, by the nature of the beast, a matter of practice, experience and a certain level of feel and talent.

Now that being said, there are guidelines within the structure of the game suggestive of some actions being the more correct ones. ie. animals are animals with low intelligence and their actions should model this. Experienced mercenaries in a fantasy world should act like they have a clue about flanking, magic, etc.

how long rests are to be paced and who is to have control over that pacing, and innumerable other factors that contribute to the play experience.

Again, this does not speak to game balance, but to experience in the art of GMing. Its irrelevant to the discussion of balance unless games must work exactly the same for everyone regardless of level of mastery. If that's the game experience you want, I suggest Chutes and Ladders, or Candyland. Anything more complex is going to reward some level of system mastery.

So now those who enjoyed (say) B/X D&D- which is certainly well-suited to a certain sort of wargame-style play - or who liked the high-damage fighter of AD&D 2nd ed (eg [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]), but can't get the same sort of experience out of 3E or PF, are trying to play the wrong game?

Well, if they prefer one game to another, then it does make sense, at least for me, that they should play the game they like best. If I don't like a game, I don't try to convince everyone that their game is "broken," I instead try to convince them to play the game I like upon occasion.

 

[ImperatorK]

I'm not so much accusing you of doing it wrong as I am entertaining the possibility that I have been doing it right, or at the very least in a way that does not create problems.

You very clearly said that I'm doing it wrong.

But the air is not killing me either and I don't have a problem with the air. Lets say there are two people both breathing the same air. One keeps choking and coughing and sneezing and the other one is not. It is possible that it is not the air that is at fault but a case of influenza.

Or maybe it is the air, but you're either immune, very resilient against diseases or took an appropriate vaccine?

Okay, that made me laugh. That's like telling a guy to poke himself in the eye so that he can experience the pain everyone else is having by poking themselves in the eyes.

Please, I think you're smarter than that, so no strawmen, okay?

If you can acknowledge that there are ways of dealing with the "problem" or that it might be a playstyle difference creating the problem, then why is it so hard to acknowledge the problem may not be inherent with the game itself.

So you're saying there is a problem? I'm confused. In one moment you're saying there is no problem, the other moment you're saying there is. Either there is or there isn't. If there weren't then we wouldn't have it, now would we, regardless of playstyle. OTOH you say you have ways of dealing with it. The logical conclusion here is that there is a problem, you are just dealing with it.

I don't do much fancy to avoid the problem, nothing at all in fact. It just simply is not a problem for me.

Sorry, but you are DMing. That kinda makes it impossible for you to do nothing.

The tier system is an opinion that someone made up. It is not an analysis

Actually, it is.

it does not have thousands of authors

Actually, it does, a big number at least. Over the years it was fervently discussed and changed a few times.

and it is a minority opinion.

Minority? Hardly.

In any case, it's not rules. "Fighter" and "wizard" are different classes. That's in the rules. This notion you have that they should be equal in some way is not in any rule I'm aware of. It's just "fluff" so to speak.

They are options presented to the players. Nowhere does it say they aren't supposed to be equal. That's an assumption on your part. They take the same XP to gain an equal level. They gain an equal amount of XP and treasure from adventures/encounters. A fighter 10 is the same CR as Wizard 10.

I'm not opposed to the idea of fixing balance. I'm opposed to the idea of creating your definition of balance. I fix things for balance all the time.

How can you fix things for balance when in your opinion the game isn't unbalanced?

No, I'm adamant that the one "flaw" you're harping on is distinct from the actual flaws that do need to be fixed. Of which there are plenty.

Oh, so we're back to "My needs are important, yours are not".

Yes, but most of them have definitions of balance that don't require fighters to be able to cast spells, and most of them aren't hung up on this one ludicrous issue that you are.

Um... I don't know if you're aware, but I'm not just one person that has problems. Actually, there's quite a big number of us.

[Except for, you know, most of it.

I mean, other than just ENWorld.

As I thought. Anyone who didn't write the tier system and is currently playing an ongoing and satisfactory game of 3e, PF, or any of its derivatives (or any earlier D&D, or basically any rpg that doesn't meet your definition of balance) is apparently irrelevant. In other words, essentially the entire gaming community.

Feel free to show me proof that everyone that doesn't post on the internet is playing a satisfactory game of D&D. I'll wait.

I don't need to meet them or have a nuanced understanding of their experience to know that they exist. In this context, not having a fanatical desire to force equality on all characters is a default; a null hypothesis. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I assume that anyone who plays D&D and hasn't expressed an opinion that D&D is "broken" does not have said opinion.

"Everyone who's silent is on my side."
Great argument.

Just because you see it doesn't mean it is.

Just because you don't doesn't mean it isn't.

Thankfully not.

Way to miss (or ignore) the point.

 

[Ahnehnois]

They most certainly do. It is the GM everytime in Dungeons and Dragons in all its variations.

That is rather important. And again, it's right there. And the entire game is designed (and balanced) given that the challenges originate from one omnipotent individual. No one is exercising any "fiat" or "force" by simply doing their job here, it's not a playstyle, it's in the game iteslf. D&D has a DM.

Different DMs may make very different decisions about how to create or adjudicate challenges, but in all cases, they're the ones making the decision, and they are the ones responsible for the outcome.