D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

Undrave · Oct 18, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
A hero in a world of magic, is one who makes a difference in spite of the many challenges posed by that magic. Not one who's just a pawn in a game of wizards, whose decisions and actions make no difference, who's readily replaceable with a golem or summoned monster or off-the shelf mercenary.
The point of a cooperative game is, similarly, for everyone to contribute to winning the game. You don't win that game by making choices to keep another player down for your own glory. Making good choices needs to stand out as a good contribution - even if, say, they're sacrifices. An option in a cooperative game that requires the player to make decisions that net harm the overall chances of winning, in order to appear to be making an important contribution, is a trap option....

Can I just say this is extremely well put? Love it.

Balance-by-pacing CAN make sense in various contexts, even purely narratively, but not in a cooperative TTRPG game if you ask me.

Tony Vargas · Oct 18, 2019

Undrave said:
Can I just say this is extremely well put? Love it.

Thanks.

Balance-by-pacing CAN make sense in various contexts, even purely narratively, but not in a cooperative TTRPG game if you ask me.

I think balance-by-pacing is pretty awful when it comes to balancing equally-weighted, long-term, player-side choices, like 'Class' in a D&D-style RPG, certainly. OTOH, as an encounter-balancing tool, it can make some sense. That is, it's not a bad thing if a game can make a long enough series of modest encounters as dangerous as one very difficult one - it opens up more possible sources of drama & challenge.

Garthanos · Oct 18, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
What's an example of a very - nigh 'perfectly' - balanced game?

Rock paper scissors Roshambo almost utterly balanced feels pointless to most people except it can be sort of "cheated" as people outguessing one another is a real thing. A better example since its less cheatable - tic tac toe - who goes first?

Tony Vargas · Oct 18, 2019

Garthanos said:
Rock paper scissors Roshambo almost utterly balanced feels pointless to most people except it can be sort of "cheated" as people outguessing one another is a real thing. A better example since its less cheatable - tic tac toe - who goes first?

Wasn't asking you. ;P

But, I was half-expecting tic-tac-toe. It's a solved game. The only way to win is for your opponent to make a mistake, otherwise it ends in a draw. It's also not a balanced game as there are few viable choices in correct play (nor is it even fair, as starting first is an advantage - you have more potential opportunities to take advantage of an opponents error), and fewer meaningful choices than there appear to be (the first move appears to be a choice of 9 positions, but the 4 corner positions are equivalent, as are the 4 sides, so there's only 3 meaningful choices).

Campbell · Oct 18, 2019

I come from the perspective that a GM should not be dictating pacing. The length of the adventuring day should be based on decisions players make based on the details of the scenario.

Pacing based balance feels hallow to me because the player gets their moment in the sun because it was given to them. I do not want anything to be given to me. I want to earn it.

Tony Vargas · Oct 18, 2019

Campbell said:
Pacing based balance feels hallow to me because the player gets their moment in the sun because it was given to them. I do not want anything to be given to me. I want to earn it.

You can earn victory, as a party, by carefully choosing your battles so that you're always at maximum resources. The essence of "CaW" style play.
...of course, if you plan to play that way, only resource-heavy classes are viable choices, so pacing-based class balance becomes moot.

Campbell · Oct 18, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
You can earn victory, as a party, by carefully choosing your battles so that you're always at maximum resources. The essence of "CaW" style play.
...of course, if you plan to play that way, only resource-heavy classes are viable choices, so pacing-based class balance becomes moot.

Exactly so. I am not personally a fan of the "Combat as War" terminology, but you get the general sense of what I am looking for. Cooperative play where we tackle the scenario using the tools we have together in the manner of our choosing.

I am not opposed to some characters being more tactical while others are more strategic, but the more tactical characters should have access to gameplay that the more strategic characters do not.

Undrave · Oct 18, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Thanks.
I think balance-by-pacing is pretty awful when it comes to balancing equally-weighted, long-term, player-side choices, like 'Class' in a D&D-style RPG, certainly. OTOH, as an encounter-balancing tool, it can make some sense. That is, it's not a bad thing if a game can make a long enough series of modest encounters as dangerous as one very difficult one - it opens up more possible sources of drama & challenge.

Balance-by-pacing could make sense in a competitive tactical game where you command multiple units in limited quantities and the advantage of both need to be weighted carefully.

Garthanos · Oct 18, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Wasn't asking you. ;P

Raspberries to you too... and yes Roshambo is by the way the very first "die" rolling method that Arneson used for D&D so its even in context

It has a form of read the adversary going on that causes some people to actually still like it.

Tony Vargas · Oct 18, 2019

Garthanos said:
Raspberries to you too... and yes Roshambo is by the way the very first "die" rolling method that Arneson used for D&D so its even in context

Funny, they were still doing that in early LARPS, too.