Achieving Balance

[Leatherhead]

True, but it has gotten a lot better now!

I think the issue is that combat has more and more become divided away from everything else. Not MMORPG, think more jRPG. You're walking along when suddenly CSHHHH*sound of broken window* *seizure inducing closeup and blue effect* RANDOM ENCOUNTER!

Non-combat character traits such as rogue/scout sneakiness or bard knowledge would be more useful if, I'm being quite serious here, the game were more MMORPG-esque. The rogue sneaks up to see where the enemies are so the team can ambush/avoid them. The bard sees the big enemies and knows exactly what their weaknessess are and tells the players how to fight it, or they know where in the dungeon the treasure is.

This is because combat is the one of the few things everyone can theoretically contribute to.

If your party consists of a plumber and politician, how many scenarios can you create where you will need to use both of their specialties? Sneaking around to avoid combat only works if everyone is able to sneak. But in this case it seems as if you are applying non-combat skills to combat, which makes it a form of combat balance anyway.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If your party consists of a plumber and politician, how many scenarios can you create where you will need to use both of their specialties?

What if the plumbers want to form a union?
What if the plumber's union is just a front for the mob?
What if the plumber's union is trying to get an important plumber-based law passed?
What if an assassin after the mayor disguised him/her self as a plumber?
What if the mayor needs the plumbers' union endorsement?
What if the bathroom breaks during a major polictial convention?
What if the city is doing a major sewage project?
What if all the plumbers go on strike?
What about Joe the Plumber?

 

[Ariosto]

Combat balance matters when you have a whole lot of combat.

Yes, and I think "a whole lot" has a whole lot less to do with number of incidents per session than with amount of real time in big chunks per session. If getting into a fight ties up the next hour, then it's probably a good idea for everyone to be a fighter. It's a "spotlight balance" issue.

There's also the matter (as in all of this) of the kinds of players involved.

Gaming is not a spectator sport and any mechanic to forces players to be spectators is poor design IMO.

Well, that's how I feel playing these games in which a combat round (just one round!) easily takes five minutes or longer -- all that time waiting for my chance to do something.

That's a matter of too much, though. Realistically, most time in a face-to-face RPG session involves paying attention to just one player or another; everyone talking at once simply does not work! The problem is cycling rate. That can slow down on occasion as Player X takes the spotlight. If it's really warranted, then it should usually be entertaining for Player Y as a spectator; and the shoe will be on the other foot when it's Player Y's turn.

There is usually something one can do in a fight, even if one is not as good at doing it as the fighters. If one keeps one's head and isn't stuck on joining the stabbing or shooting for which one is ill-equipped, then more opportunities open up.

If one would play a magic-user in old-style D&D, then intelligence really is a prerequisite. Where would the balance be if you were just as good at being a big, dumb bruiser as the warriors -- and got to do cool stuff they simply can't do? One solution, of course, is to take away that cool stuff (or make everyone a magician) ... but not being a fan of that is one reason I prefer the old game.

I think another thing to do here is to take a note from some - though admittingly very few - RPGs, and remove combat experience altogether.

I know of at least one DM who does that, and I have considered it. I see the little awards for fights in old D&D mainly as a consolation prize for those adventures that fail to attain goals because they get bogged down in combat.

 

[Ariosto]

I have always believed that achieving player defined goals is the best method for rewarding XP. The old XP for gold was just a type of this system that rewarded the universal goal of acquiring wealth. Substituting specific objectives for gold works great.

Care has to be taken not to force players to follow a pre-determined path to earn experience though. Allowing players to choose goals with a variety of risk vs reward helps keep the reward system from becoming DM hoops the PC's must jump through.

I thoroughly agree!

[edit] Should one desire a touch of realism, then some requirement of funds and time-management for training (not necessarily the AD&D formula) can add that. Plus, trainers can add meaningful relationships of continuing campaign interest.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, and I think "a whole lot" has a whole lot less to do with number of incidents per session than with amount of real time in big chunks per session.

This.

The bane of WotC-D&D.


RC

 

[jasin]

This.

The bane of WotC-D&D.


RC

WotC-D&D?

 

[ExploderWizard]

WotC-D&D?

3E.................................and beyond!!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just lost a long post......grrrr.

The gist was that the more time spent on anything within a given game session, the more need for it to be balanced in order to make that session fun. WotC-D&D, with its oh-so-long combats perforce works hard to equate "balance" with "combat balance". It must.

IMHO, the best thing that a game can do to promote fun at the table is to make play fast, so that many things can be done in a single session, so that the "balance" falls across many (rather than few) factors.


RC

 

[jasin]

3E.................................and beyond!!

I might have been unclear: I know what editions were meant, but I am incredulous of the implication that prior editions were different in that regard.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I might have been unclear: I know what editions were meant, but I am incredulous of the implication that prior editions were different in that regard.

There are a whole slew of threads about that. Everyone has games that play faster or slower for thier group. IMHO, no edition of D&D plays faster in real time than B/X without minis.