D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

Who said it should be ignored?

Edwards apologised and retracted. By his own testimony, he spoke personally to John Nephew.

The pathology he was alleging was a creative pathology. He thought that certain RPGs damage, seriously and permanently, the creative capacities of those who played them. He wouldn't be the only cultural critic in the history of cultural criticism to have that sort of strong view of a cultural artefact or cultural practice that he disliked. And though he apologised for using the phrase "brain damage", with its particular pejorative connotations, I don't think he apologised for or retracted his judgement of the cultural situation he was commenting on.

Ought he to have? I think that board rules preclude expressing an opinion on that.

I don't know that he should or shouldn't. But I do disagree with the conclusion he draws, that certain styles of play cause lasting damage on a person's creative capacities. And I think the toxicity of the brain damage comment goes beyond word choice. The idea behind the choice of words is what is so objectionable. I just think it takes judgments of play style way too far.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
As I see it, an RPG that attempted to be as full-bore gamist as possible would in the end not particularly resemble what would traditionally be considered a pen-and-paper RPG. It would very much look like some other entertainment form we already have, such as a tactical minis game, an MMORPG, a board game, or a collectible card game. The fact that such a product might be highly thematic, with distinct mechanical "roles," with "character-like" entities filling those roles, wouldn't magically convert the end product into an RPG. It would just remain a highly thematic "non-RPG" designed to aid players in "stepping on up."

<snip>

an RPG only works as an RPG at all when there's something offered besides pure gamism. There HAS to be something else going on

<snip>

Even those who like gamism don't play RPGs because they like "gamism," they play RPGs because they like gamist RPGs. Without the other aspects that make an RPG and RPG, gamists wouldn't bother with them at all.

<snip>

that "something else" [is] provide character-driven, evolving narrative structure to play.
Adding to what [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] said upthread, the "other aspect" of an RPG is a shared imaginary space, with the consequence that characters have fictional positioning that is relevant both to (i) the possible scope of action declaration, and (ii) the resolution of declared actions.

There doesn't have to be a "narrative structure" in any stronger sense than that.

what WotC has been trying to sell players as "adventures" for the last 5 years: a "delve" format of loosely-linked combats, where the only "narrative" involved is the GM swapping out one set of dungeon tiles for another.

<snip>

In this light, it makes perfect sense to me that 4e's audience shrank dramatically within 18-24 months of release, because gamists are the absolute easiest RPG audience to lose.
There is more even to the HPE adventures that the "narrative" you describe here.

And the A, G and D modules, which come from the original heyday of D&D's popularity, have no greater narrative structure.

(I'm also not sure that 4e's audience shrank "dramatically". Didn't DDI subscriptions grow?)

In some ways, there's probably a portion of frustrated gamists trying to get their "fix" from RPGs that like my acquaintance, would be better served by one of the many fantastic miniatures games out there. That way, they wouldn't have to deal with the "non-optimizers" messing up their "step on up" victories, nor sit and listen to the narrativists and "actor-stancers" moan and complain when they say they're tired of two-hour-long combats
Careful, you're agreeing here with Ron Edwards! From here:

I think that Magic: the Gathering is best described as a portable, customizable wargame - and that part of its popularity may be ascribed to the fact that the customers of the day had never seen a wargame before. Unsurprisingly, a whole sector of people who were involved in role-playing suddenly discovered the hobby they'd been looking for.​
 

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer
well it sounds like you did a lot of things we didn't... no minis were used until the last 6 months of 3.5... so no battle map no minis, just DM describe and say Roll intiative... then I would lay my D20's out with the modified number (at higher level 2d10 for numbers of 20) then I would say "Anyone before my XX" and if so we would jot down (sometimes me sometimes another PC doing it) then they would tak there action... set up and roll less then a minute most of the time...
There's no way my players would stand for that. After all, how do you know which squares are threatened? How can you place yourselves in a way that prevents the enemies from running past you without provoking opportunity attacks? How do you know if you hit 3 or 4 orcs with that burning hands? Ask the DM? What if they screw you out of one of your free attacks by forgetting the exact location of all the enemies and PCs? What if you say "I'm moving beside the barrel" and the DM assumes the wrong side of the barrel?

The rules clearly stated which squares people had to be in to be threatened and where they could move to without provoking. These things were important to my players. Failing to follow the rules precisely could mean life or death if an extra enemy could be included in an AOE or an opportunity attack could take place.

Minis were needed for these situations to make everything fair.

One of our DMs used to just say "Anyone higher than <the highest initiative rolled by an enemy>?" Until someone pointed out that knowing the highest initiative of the enemies could give the players an unfair advantage since they'd know how many of them get to act before the enemies do and change their tactics accordingly. This resulted in the "DM writes down everyone's initiative and calls them in order" method.
we used to throw CR 15's at single digget level parties... we almost never did low EL...
I'm not entirely sure how they survived that. Though, CR being a really poor judge of difficulty, I can understand some of this being possible. However, it was my experience that using an encounter with EL more than 5 above the Average Party Level was instant death for all but the most min-maxed group.

wow our devish normaly was more of I roll X +y hit Z didthat hit? yes, ok my damage was XXX, I move and tumble past and made the DC, then rolled X +y hit z did that hit? way under tne minets... did you guys really call every bonus every time? Most times we just called I hit an X....
Have the time we had to because of all the bonuses that were temporary. We didn't necessarily say them out loud but we certainly spent the time to calculate them.

My cleric that I played in Living Greyhawk who ended at 15th level literally had a chart on his character sheet that said:
Unbuffed: +14, 2d4+4
Divine Favor: +17, 2d4+10
Divine Favor and Bless: +18, 2d4+10
Greater Magic Weapon: +18, 2d4+8
Greater Magic Weapon and Divine Favor: ....

You get the point, it went on that way for some time.

It didn't include any bonuses that might be given to me by other characters(and since it was Living Greyhawk, the entire makeup of the party was almost always different from one adventure to the next, so I couldn't predict what anyone would cast on me) or temporary bonuses given by things like Flanking or Power Attack, which I had.

I was fairly fast, most of my turns took less than 2 minutes. However, the Dervish had to check and double check the path he was walking on the board to see how many tumble checks he needed to make since each one became more difficult. He needed to plan a path on the board that would cause the least number of tumble checks. He'd often be part way through his turn and say "Wait...I should have moved here instead of here, it didn't make any difference yet, but it will allow me to move 5-ft closer to the enemy I want to attack, so I'm going to back up and change that. That way my 5th attack can be made on the guy way over here." He'd have to check on each one of his attacks if he had flanking or not, because god forbid he miss out on +2. Since he didn't know which square he was going to move into until he resolved the attack for the square he was in, the numbers always had to be decided on the fly.

Also, you need to check if you are in range of the Bard Song and Prayer spells each movement you make, because you might be moving in and out of range.

And some people are MUCH better at doing math than other people. Trust me, I had at least a couple of friends that if you told them to roll a dice then add +12 then minus 3 from it, it would take them 30 seconds to figure it out. If you told them just to add 12, it would take them 2 seconds. Each modifier made the calculation exponentially larger.

In all my years role playing I've only found a few dozen unavoidable encounters...ever
It definitely sounds like you play entirely different games that I do or were written for Living Forgotten Realms or Living Greyhawk before it.

Rough example:

The PCs were told that someone is missing, captured by goblins. They are asked to save them. They travel on their way to the goblin stronghold. Along the way, they are ambushed by goblins patrolling their home and the goblins fight to the death to protect their home and can't be reasoned with. Then you can get to their village where you need to fight more goblins who are protecting their home. They likewise are evil, vicious and need to be killed or you'll never save the person you are supposed to rescue. You find out that the boy you are looking for is already dead and bring back proof of his death. End of Adventure.

That's the average adventure we play in: Get something. There are monsters in the way that must be killed to do so. OR Stop something from happening. Bad guys are willing to give up their life to make sure it happens.

if all that is there is treasure, most of the time you could either curb stomp them or trick them or negotiate with them or sneak past them or anything else... if it is only money do those monsters really want to throw there lives away? DO the PCs?
The monsters are often mindless and don't fear death. They are golems told to guard a spot and kill anyone who approaches. They are undead who hunger for the flesh of the living with no thought to their own safety. They are evil creatures fighting for what they believe in above all else(their god, their family, their ideals, or something else). They are hungry and the PCs look tasty and are too dumb to know better.

The PCs are never afraid of throwing their lives away, they are heroes who have overcome every single challenge put in front of them up until this point, there is no reason to believe that the 256th fight will kill them when the previous 255 didn't. They constantly show that their fighting skills and mettle are way better than the average person and they keep getting better the more they adventure. They are the heroes of the story. And more than that, they know the game only continues as long as one of them stays alive so the DM has good reason to refrain from killing ALL of them.

I've so very rarely heard someone say that... I mean you get XP or not, do you guys go looking for fights just for money and XP??? that sounds like the worst Murder hobo jokes???
I'd argue that the entire profession of "adventurer" is looking for fights for XP and money. The PCs likely don't know about XP, so maybe it's more fair to say "looking for fights for money".

The typical PC in a D&D game is basically a murderer for hire. People pay them to rescue people from dangerous creatures, to defeat monsters that have been terrorizing a town, to recover an object that normal people couldn't recover because of the dangerous creatures guarding it, to solve a mystery that requires vast magical resources and time(and is likely protected by a mysterious cult who will stop at nothing to make sure the mystery stays unsolved).

The entire point is that they are people who fight monsters for money, fame, satisfaction of killing things, or for the benefit of others.

But, I'd say they don't go LOOKING for fights just for this purpose. They instead just happen to be assigned missions where fighting things are a virtual guarantee. The players also want to get cool new powers and advance in levels. So they do everything in their power to make sure they get there as soon as possible.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
Fortunately for the industry the Forge has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its founders. The most popular non-D&D game on the market right now (Fate) comes from deep within the Forge. The Forge did a lot of good and some harm. The harm is being buried with it. The good (Fate, Fiasco, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World -> Dungeon World etc.) is thriving.

I don't know that Fate (my personal fave rpg) is the most popular non D&D game on the market right now...although there are probably some good reasons to think so. Savage Worlds also has a pretty good following, and the two circles don't seem to cross much in either distribution or playerbase, so comparisons would be very hard to make without sales data. (I'm also assuming we are considering Pathfinder to be a "D&D game".) Even $$ sales wouldn't help because Fate is available as "Pay what you want". Additionally, both Fate and Savage Worlds are both complete games and engines for running several other games...I don't know how you would want to count those, as even some Fate folks argue about what counts as Fate or not. ICONS and Strands of Fate, for example are often not considered Fate by the Fate community, but are often sold or referred to as Fate systems by others.

I will however balk at the idea that "Fate comes from deep within the Forge". Fate is most definitely an evolution of Fudge, which existed well before the Forge, and most of its evolution seems to be from and through that community. The evolution of Fate from Fudge started with Fred Hicks & Rob Donaghue about 1999 and are related to Fred's Amber games. The first relevant discussion on the old Fudge mailing list with discussions about how to "solve" Fudge's problems with people wanting attributes to modify skills as they do in so many other games. The first published efforts towards Fate were in a small e-zine called Fudge Factor, the first articles were called "the Case for Aspects" published, IIRC in 2001. Forge language isn't really a part of that evolution, as far as I can tell (or remember). Evil Hat didn't join the Forge forums until after the first versions of Fate were published. Its fairly obvious from their archived forum posts that they were joining as part of an Indie Press thing, not in the interests of further developing Fate vis-a-vis Forge theory.

Which is not to claim that the Evil Hatters are somehow ignorant of Forge theory or anything. Of the games they produce, however, I'd have to say that Fate is the least influenced by the Forge (at least blatantly). I should note here that I have no actual idea whether they were thinking of Forge theory while designing any of their games. You'd have to ask Fred or Rob. However, an indie publisher having a forum on that site isn't, by itself, indicative of coming from "deep within the Forge".
 

Iosue

Legend
"expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against" - Yup, I think so. A high level Cook-Marsh Expert Set Fighter might conceivably pound a dragon to death over several rounds (taking tons of breath wpn dmg) but you can't kill a dragon in one blow within the bounds of Moldvay Basic D&D. You can't survive a red dragon at all, I'd say. :D
But that has nothing to do with expectations and design as far as Moldvay goes. Moldvay was never meant to be independent of the Expert set, it certainly doesn't present itself as such, and at Expert one can indeed fight and slay red dragons with powerful magic swords.

If there is a disconnect, I would say that the foreword does present a very heroic fantasy feel, while B/X is BTB really a game about exploration. However I don't think a bit of disparity between the foreword and the design, especially of the degree being talked about here indicates a disparity in concept and presentation vs design. Foreword aside, B/X is very upfront about its exploration focus, unlike say, 2nd Ed., which very much presented throughout as a game of heroic fantasy, but still had an exploration-focused core.
 


S'mon

Legend
P2, the Drow one, isn't hopeless. I also had some fun with H2, but it needs serious revision/adaptation.

*******************

I've been running P2 since September. I'd have to say it was the best (with H2, which I own but haven't run) of a bad bunch. Decent idea, appalling layout, major structural problems*. Players have expressed some dissastisfaction. We are now probably two sessions away from finishing it, which I think everyone will be happy with.

*The biggest problem was that it has a nice "Fistfull of Dollars" setup with two opposing
evil sides, but if the PCs take advantage of that by recruiting drow, then the encounter balance breaks down. If the drow are still a significant force in their own right, then drow + PCs = easy
win vs Orcus. If the drow are just a tattered remnant, why the hell are they still hanging
out in the Orcus-conquered city? Why not leave? Things have gone better since the PCs reached Deadhold a couple sessions ago, they took the diplomatic approach and avoided most of
the combat encounters, often the key to a good 4e experience. :lol:
 

S'mon

Legend
I don't know that he should or shouldn't. But I do disagree with the conclusion he draws, that certain styles of play cause lasting damage on a person's creative capacities.

Me, I think playing or GM linear railroad campaigns can cause lasting damage to a player's creative ability in-play, or to a GM's ability to empower player protagonism. I really, really dislike the '90s RPG style of linear campaigns, watcher PCs, and endless Metaplot. None of that is relevant to pre-Dragonlance D&D.
 

S'mon

Legend
But that has nothing to do with expectations and design as far as Moldvay goes. Moldvay was never meant to be independent of the Expert set, it certainly doesn't present itself as such, and at Expert one can indeed fight and slay red dragons with powerful magic swords.

If there is a disconnect, I would say that the foreword does present a very heroic fantasy feel, while B/X is BTB really a game about exploration. However I don't think a bit of disparity between the foreword and the design, especially of the degree being talked about here indicates a disparity in concept and presentation vs design. Foreword aside, B/X is very upfront about its exploration focus, unlike say, 2nd Ed., which very much presented throughout as a game of heroic fantasy, but still had an exploration-focused core.

I agree, yes (except that even in Cook-Marsh you can't kill a typically-hitpointed red dragon n one blow with any sword in the game). I think Moldvay/Cook-Marsh is a brilliant game, my favourite iteration of D&D. I'm GMing it online tonight. :D
 


Remove ads

Top