Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=82160]hanez[/MENTION], do you have any way to get access to old Dungeon issues? I'd be interested in how useful you would find some from that #20 to #40 timeframe.

"I specifically said in my previous post that players could add roleplaying to it if they wished, that's besides the point, I am talkin about the effect it had on my game and the others I have seen. "

Nothing wrong with the second. My point is that the first is misleading. We aren't merely adding roleplaying to a game that otherwise does't have it. We are rather using the things in the game that support roleplaying to help with our roleplaying. I get that you don't see these particular things as supporting roleplaying in games around you. That doesn't mean that they aren't there.

 

[hanez]

@hanez , do you have any way to get access to old Dungeon issues? I'd be interested in how useful you would find some from that #20 to #40 timeframe.

"I specifically said in my previous post that players could add roleplaying to it if they wished, that's besides the point, I am talkin about the effect it had on my game and the others I have seen. "

Nothing wrong with the second. My point is that the first is misleading. We aren't merely adding roleplaying to a game that otherwise does't have it. We are rather using the things in the game that support roleplaying to help with our roleplaying. I get that you don't see these particular things as supporting roleplaying in games around you. That doesn't mean that they aren't there.

I'm looking at Dungeon #25.. a bit too black and white for my tastes lol. Lots of DM advice which is pretty useful, but I am actually having trouble finding adventures, or what I would call an adventure. I was specifically speaking of the 80-110 range that I subscribed to.

As for the things that "help roleplaying" I can grant you that they were there, although I would argue that they were less "there" then in previous editions. This argument is getting abstract here though, and I would say perhaps it just comes down to different situations. I would agree with what some have mentioned that it is less about whats in the rules, and more about how your group reads and interprets them that matters. 4e for my group signalled a shift in priorities in D&D, a shift in focus. I don't think my group is the only group that saw that. I particularly remember the WOTC article stating that it wasn't a big deal that there wasn't necromancy in 4e (at that point) because players could just "fluff" skulls into the powers. This to me is an example of overfocusing on balance and mechanics, and trivialization of the homogenity it created, and less of a focus on (for lack of a better word) roleplaying. You might argue that encouraging players to do their own "fluffing" helps roleplaying, while I would argue it tells them that it all really doesnt matter as long as everyone is doing 1d6 damage, and that the rest is childish fantasy that balance has no care for. Again, it could just be a difference in interpretation.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would agree with what some have mentioned that it is less about whats in the rules, and more about how your group reads and interprets them that matters. 4e for my group signalled a shift in priorities in D&D, a shift in focus. I don't think my group is the only group that saw that.

Sure. You can't really shift a bit towards, say, swords and sorcery (e.g. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser) without also shifting away from, say, the more "psychological novel" style, a strain more popular in some recent fantasy. (You can see it in Tad Williams. It's stronger elsewhere, but Williams slant is about as much as I care for it.) If I'm doing the world of "Green Angel Tower," I'd prefer 3E over 4E. If I'm doing Lankhmarr, I'd prefer 4E over 3E. (If those are my only two choices. I might prefer something else for either, depending upon the exact focus. Nor are those the only things you can do with either game, of course--merely good examples of where I find each system clearly better than the other. Nor is this the sub total of the shift.)

If the genre-appropriate character development in sword and sorcery doesn't interest you, trying to play that 4E game might indeed turn into tactical skirmish. Likewise, if you find "Green Angel Tower" a little too focused on the inner thoughts of the characters, you might turn it into a "strategic build" game--which is what some minimalist 3E games turned into.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Go ahead. They said all kinds of things. You''l get no argument from me.

Can I take them as authoritative? You're doing it to 4e.

I'm really talking about core. You can call out some crap WotC 3X splats. I won't even begin to dispute that. And I won't offer an opinion on WotC 4E splats.

I'm talking about core 3.X too. The rule that NPCs and PCs use the same rules. You, however, seem to not want to talk about Core 3.X but about BryonD 3.X. These are not the same game.

You said that the monk is "the load". Either admit that isn't a truism or admit your are saying my experience doesn't exist.

Or continue to claim that it's option C. You are as a DM doing the work that the designers of 3.X ed up. The Monk in straight RAW 3.X is the load. The monk in your custom version isn't. But this is not what you play. As DM you have to go in and fix the game. You yourself admit it.

Now you are just playing word games. 3E will let you screw up and provides a lot of freedom and added value for those who don't.

I absolutely am not playing word games. There is a significant difference between no safety net - i.e. things only go wrong when you make what the book judges to be a mistake, and greased rungs - i.e. things go wrong when you play exactly by the book. The Monk is pathetic out of the box. The fighter is simply weak.

But "safety net" and "greased rungs" are just differently slanted analogies for the same point.

No they aren't.

Again, you insist on a lot of things that MUST happen in 3E and I'm saying they don't. The monk is not "the load". The greased rungs are there for a reason.

I agree that 3E expects the DM to go tuning instruments. That is part of the greatness of it.

You say greatness. I say design-incompetence. And that you've redesigned 3.X drifts it from core 3.X.

No, you are just trying to bait and switch what your previous position was with a new position you feel more comfortable defending.

No, you now understand my position rather than are accidently mischaracterising it. A good DM can make a good game out of just about anything. I am separating the design from the DMing. The design of the 3.X monk sucks. The class is broken and is the load. A good DM can make up for this or for any other shortcoming of the system. And with the right writing, even Scrappy-doo can occasionally be useful. This doesn't make Scrappy a good character. (Actually Scrappy Doo is a bad example - he apparently saved Scooby Doo from cancellation).

You are saying my game does not exist. That is not a mischaracterization of your position.

Yes, that is a mischaracterisation of my position. You just nailed it. I am not saying that your game doesn't exist. I'm saying that you yourself acknowledge that you have done a lot of tuning and patching of 3.X. This doesn't make it RAW 3.X. This makes it BryonD D&D 3.X. And the amount of tuning you needed to do shows the problems with 3.X

Case in point right there. I said that 4E fans reject the rules/DM synergy. There you go.

Rules/DM synergy to me means something else. I don't reject rules/DM synergy. There are many games I play that have them. I reject the notion that "The DM must fix the game" is rules/DM synergy. When there is synergy the DM is a better DM than he would be without the rules. Dread has such synergy. WFRP 3e has such synergy, the resolution mechanic drawing effects into the game. 3.X, from your own description, doesn't enhance you running the game, it forces you to do a lot of extra work to tune the system to make it the game you want. Now, you could call this training. But being forced to tune the game isn't synergy when there are already tuned games.

I personally completely reject this point of view. On the high end a rule set that is designed to support a really good DM will be free to achieve a lot more without being burdened by the presumption of propping up the DM.

On the low end, quality DMs grow on systems that challenge and push their boundaries and expectations. They don't grow when the system tells them they don't have to. Again, we had a healthy strong community of great DM that grew up playing 1E, OD&D, whatever. It was complex system that gave us what we have.

You seem to think that "sink or swim" is the only method to teach. It isn't. And you had a community of DMs that grew up playing 1E. But you also had a lot of players who would not DM under such a system. I know a lot of the old school DMs I know casually mentioning that they were the only one at the table who wanted to DM. In 4e I have never played at a table where fewer than 50% of the players DMd. And the single hardest threshoold for DMing is the first adventure.

We already talked guitars. Go take a $100 beater from a pawn shop and put it in Satriani's hands. It will sing. But he still plays his custom Ibanez. The final product comes from a synergy of the skill of the artist and the quality of the tool.

Oh, absolutely. But that is not what we have here. I don't claim to be Satriani. And I don't think you do either. And 4E certainly isn't a $100 beater. Nor is it a custom Ibanez. What it is is a good mid-end guitar with tricks like robot-tuning.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that the ability to not just tune a guitar but to actually design and make your own custom guitar is essential to good DMing. I reject this idea.

 

[BobTheNob]

This is not helping though. Even a cursory glance through the 4e rules shows this to be false. If you're going to criticise the edition, at least have the good grace to actually read the book.

Thats interesting Hussar. I didnt actually say 4th edition, I made a general statement about what over balancing does. (Please...go back and read my post)

Why did you come to the conclusion I was referring to 4th edition? Do YOU think 4th edition had this effect?

 

[BryonD]

I'm talking about core 3.X too. The rule that NPCs and PCs use the same rules. You, however, seem to not want to talk about Core 3.X but about BryonD 3.X. These are not the same game.

Huh? No I'm not.

Or continue to claim that it's option C. You are as a DM doing the work that the designers of 3.X ed up. The Monk in straight RAW 3.X is the load. The monk in your custom version isn't. But this is not what you play. As DM you have to go in and fix the game. You yourself admit it.

When did I "admit" that I fix the monk? You seem to be confusing the point that you can fine tune anything however you want with a claim that I fine tune the monk. I don't.

Does my game exist?

(Hint: Yes)

No they aren't.

If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

You say greatness. I say design-incompetence. And that you've redesigned 3.X drifts it from core 3.X.

Again you find yourself forced to make baseless claims about my game in order to prop up your point.
I *can* retune 3E all kinds of ways. I can also *NOT*.

No, you now understand my position rather than are accidently mischaracterising it. A good DM can make a good game out of just about anything.

If you expreseed yoruself that badly before, I can't help that. This isn't what you said then.

The design of the 3.X monk sucks. The class is broken and is the load.

So you are saying my game doesn't exist. Ok.

Yes, that is a mischaracterisation of my position. You just nailed it. I am not saying that your game doesn't exist. I'm saying that you yourself acknowledge that you have done a lot of tuning and patching of 3.X. This doesn't make it RAW 3.X. This makes it BryonD D&D 3.X. And the amount of tuning you needed to do shows the problems with 3.X

Again, show me where I said I needed to change the monk. You can't.

I can.
I have, on occasion changed the monk so as to make it soemthing a bit different. I also use the monk exactly as-is out of the box.

I EMBRACE the fact that I am happy to tinker with the game in lots of ways. But I also go back to core and start over all the time and I can use 3E right out of the box. Your presumption is invalid.

Rules/DM synergy to me means something else. I don't reject rules/DM synergy.

Fair enough. My point is simply that you are proving the point I made earlier when *I* used that term.

I reject the notion that "The DM must fix the game" is rules/DM synergy.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between the DM can rebuild the game into a thousand variations and "must fix". You substitution of "must fix" may very well apply to you, but you are confusing your personal experience with universal truth.

You seem to think that "sink or swim" is the only method to teach

Nope. But it works better than putting a cap on potential achievement. I'm all for making some tools that help beginners. But don't try to have a one size fits all for newbies and experienced DMs.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that the ability to not just tune a guitar but to actually design and make your own custom guitar is essential to good DMing. I reject this idea.

Hmmm. I wasn't really saying THAT, but I might buy it. It is a bit hard for me to imagine a really good DM not by default developing a lot of skill at adapting. But I'm saying that you can't learn a skill you never use and if a system tries to take that burden off you as a starter, you will always be a starter with respect to that particular burden.

 

[BryonD]

We've gotten pretty far afield.

The bottom line is the 4E approach didn't work on the market scale.

 

[Neonchameleon]

BryonD;

Argue against what you want to. Take the most uncharitable reading you possibly can of Mearls' statement.

I stand by what my own statements were. 3.X is a broken game. This does not mean you can not have fun with it. You can have fun with splatbook-heavy RIFTS and run campaigns in it. And mechanically that game is broken sideways. I have explained this, and that I know this and that I have been able to explain this demonstrates that it is highly improbable I meant what I said the way you took it, especially when there are other valid readings. Now if you had accepted my clarification I would have apologised for overstating my case. But you seem determined to stand by your reading that is neither the only way of reading what I have written nor what I actually meant.

Mathematically and mechanically the Monk is The Load. This doesn't mean that with DM tuning he will always work out that way. It is possible to tune a game so that a Commoner will outshine a mage. This in no way means that a Commoner would be other than The Load in a party of PCs. It would be using Rule 0 to fix problems. "Tuning." A.k.a. Favouritism. 3E at least has the decency not to present Commoner as a PC class, but every single argument you have made about the viability of the monk could apply to a well played commoner supported by DM tuning.

Do you really think that this would make the Commoner class other than The Load? This does not, contrary to your assertion, deny that your game exists. Any more than pointing out that Rifts is mechanically broken sideways denies that people have fun with that game. It merely shows that you are a good enough DM to overcome flaws in the system. I have said this repeatedly and meant it every time. Yet you persist in your reading that is dubious from the text you quote and explicitely denied by my FATAL and RIFTS comparisons.

But I'm done. You are taking me as uncharitably as you seem to be able to. And deciding what my arguments are so you can have them to argue against. When I point out what I mean you claim that I should have to stick with your reading of my original words. Which is singularly uncharitable to the point that after I've explained what I've meant and how it is in line with what I actually said, your version of my position, although it may have initially been a fair reading, has long been a straw man. And I simply can't be bothered to engage with you further.

Oh, and as for 4e taking the burden off you for adapting, this is a significant overstatement. It doesn't force you to adapt. But to adapt is human nature. I don't know any DMs who haven't adapted 4e on campaigns after (or even durging) their first one. It simply allows you to not have to adapt when you are busy learning the basic stuff like managing a table. It's something you do (and just about everyone tries) - but not something you are forced to in the sink or swim school of teaching.

 

[hanez]

Originally Posted by Neonchameleon
You are mis-summarising Mearls. What the actual quote was was “In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’” says Mearls. “But there’s other ways to play guitar.”

This does not mean that Thrash Metal is all 4e can do. Or that Mearls thinks that Thrash Metal is all 4e can do. It means that Encounters, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Scales of War were geared to Thrash Metal - and that's where most people got their introduction. It's like the designers of 4e were superb instrument makers who also put out beginners primers for how to play - and the primers all spoke about thrash metal and used almost all their examples as Thrash Metal.

I have no clue how you got your interpretation out of that quote. I won't bother offering mine, but I will say that yours seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[Hussar]

We've gotten pretty far afield.

The bottom line is the 4E approach didn't work on the market scale.

Bryond perhaps you could help me out. My tea leaves don't seem to be working. Is it better to use chicken or goat entrails when seeking the "truth"?