Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Neonchameleon]

However, let's say I look at a map of Canada/USA. Vancouver, LA, Chicago, Montreal - they're all there just like they should be. But the PCs are in Lake Geneva Wisconsin, so I zero in on that bit of the map and bring it in way closer. The fact I'm now looking only at the map of Lake Geneva doesn't invalidate the map of Vancouver's existence, nor does it invalidate Vancouver itself - it's still there, even though I can't see it on a map of Lake Geneva.

Same thing with NPCs - the 5th-level NPC Cleric the party bought cures from last night was a 5th-level Cleric yesterday morning and is still a 5th-level Cleric today even though she might - for all we know - never interact with the PCs again. The laws of the game dictate what her being a 5th-level Cleric represents in terms of abilities, h.p., etc; and she's reflected as such on the map whether you happen to be looking at that particular bit of the map at the moment or not.

Put another way, if a bar brawl starts before the PCs walk into town, then the PCs arrive and interact with it somehow, absolutely nothing should change about the parameters of the original brawl. Sure, more dice are going to get rolled if the PCs interact with things than if they don't, but from the point of view of a participant in the original brawl the presence or absence of a PC (who, for sake of discussion, does nothing but stand back and watch) should make no observable difference at all to what happens.

Lan-"brawling with a 5th-level Cleric in Vancouver"-efan

The above is all based on two premises, both of which I find artificial.
1: Levels have a direct rather than an indirect meaning in the game world
2: Everyone develops the same way.

The NPC cleric will always be someone who has been empowered by the Gods. He won't change. But the Gods don't normally do production-line empowerment, and unless you actively go adventuring becoming higher in the favour of your deity does not automatically equate to getting better at wielding a sword. The term 5th level may refer to his level of initiation in a mystery cult - but does not necessarily refer directly to anything in the gameworld.

The NPC cleric is a person with relationships, skills, and divine abilities. And ultimately is too complex to trap in a simple statblock. Any more than writing Lanefan, Level 0 CN Human (or whatever) captures the reality of Lanefan.

And I wouldn't want to straightjacket you to the rules of any RPG.

As for the bar brawl, very little changes whether the PCs are there or not. Or everything changes because the PCs are scary interlopers.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Again swimming upthread. Name three. Name three games which have no conception of balance at all.

House, Whose Line is it Anyway, and Sim City.

And, for that matter, most roleplaying games. Does anyone look at d20 Modern and think that a strong hero is balanced with a charismatic hero? That a CoC professor of archaeology is balanced with a soldier? That a BSG knuckledragger is balanced with a fighter pilot? Of course not. They're different animals entirely, and their usefulness is dependent on circumstance. Why someone would expect anything different from their D&D equivalents is an ongoing question. The kind of balance you're getting at is not inherent to the concept of roleplaying games but is really grafted on to serve a particular traditionalist element.

Chess is about as balanced as it can be. Yes, not all pieces are equal, but, both sides are perfectly equal. The only difference here is player skill.

Yes, exactly. That's the way in which 4e isn't balanced; it's apparently only concerned with making the pieces equal, not between the players and their opposition. A version of chess in which all the pieces on one side were knights (and on the other side they were all the normal layout) would be, as you're defining it, more "balanced".

If you think balance between player choices is a tertiary consideration, you haven't actually read a whole lot of RPG books. Balance is a primary concern, even going back to 1e. Let me ask you this, then. If balance isn't a concern, why do classes have different xp requirements in AD&D? What's the justification, if it isn't balance?

Probably to make magic seem more exclusive and esoteric because it's harder to learn. But even if such a rule was created with the sole purpose of balancing those classes, it would only prove my point, as it's a rather tangential tacked on (and inherently optional) element after all the class abilities and core mechanics have already been built.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gameplay convenience suggests that off-screen things carry their stats with them at all times as they could become on-screen at a second's notice. The Ogre hiding in ambush in its cave has 45 h.p. before the party meet it, 45 h.p. when the party meet it (though probably not after the party meet it!) and 45 h.p. if the party never meet it at all.

This much is true in 4E. You only reset the zoom at most once every four levels.

And while if you know the party are never going to meet it you might not bother rolling up its actual h.p. total it still undeniably *has* a h.p. total; you just don't know what the actual number is.

No. No it doesn't. The ogre has a physical form. Hit points aren't an inherent part of the game world. Hit points are about as real as contour lines on a map. And the ogre's game mechanics are a representation of this. Which doesn't mean they should be the same for all purposes.

 

[Lanefan]

This really is the fundamental issue isn't it? That one group of players wants the mechanics to be able to be applied regardless of the presence of players or not. The DM might not roll the encounter, and very much most likely won't. The orcs ambush the caravan and kill the guards and burn the caravan. We don't bother actually rolling through that without the players present. But, it has to be possible.

Exactly!

To me, the mechanics are only required when there are player's present. Any other time, it's pure free form and whatever I want to happen, happens. For example, in my next adventure, a bunch of demonic constructs have bubbled out of the crypt beneath an abbey and killed everyone. That's what has happened. I'm certainly not going to try to actually roll it out. Heck, I don't even know how many priests were in the abbey at the time. It's not important.

If the PCs are never going to interact with any of it, sure - free-form it. But keep in mind that if the PCs ever do interact with it you'll want to know how much damage the priests inflicted on the constructs on their way out, whether or not any of the priests got any sort of warning out, etc., etc.; and those results probably should be within the boundaries of what could happen if it all *was* rolled out.

My very serious question though is, if this is what you want, why on earth do you play D&D? D&D has never, ever actually presented this as a way of play. Play has always assumed that anything off screen is done free form.

Perhaps, but I've always assumed at least some correlation to the game mechanics for the small stuff such that whatever comes of the free-form is at least possible within the mechanics. (when gods etc. get involved who knows what's gonna happen, but that's another thing entirely)

If you think it was, what AD&D, or OD&D mechanics account for the Rain of Colorless Fire?

No idea. In fact, I've no idea what the "Rain of Colorless Fire" is. (if it's something out of a setting canon, it's something I've ignored)

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Probably to make magic seem more exclusive and esoteric because it's harder to learn. But even if such a rule was created with the sole purpose of balancing those classes, it would only prove my point, as it's a rather tangential tacked on (and inherently optional) element after all the class abilities and core mechanics have already been built.

See, this is why it's so hard to have this conversation. FIGHTERS need more xp than casters in AD&D. How in the heck are the XP requirements tangential or inherently optional? This is a new one. You're now claiming that the Xp requirements for different classes is an optional rule and there exists some form of standardised advancement table in AD&D? That's a neat trick. Could you point it out to me, I'm having a bit of a tough time finding it.

No idea. In fact, I've no idea what the "Rain of Colorless Fire" is. (if it's something out of a setting canon, it's something I've ignored)

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6323384#ixzz364dkMZso

The Rain of Colorless Fire is a seminal event in the development of Greyhawk and is the primary motivator for how most of the nations in Greyhawk came to be. IOW, it's probably the biggest single event in Greyhawk's history.

 

[Neonchameleon]

House, Whose Line is it Anyway, and Sim City.

Whose Line Is It Anyway isn't a game. It's the name of an improv comedy show. House, I've no idea about. Sim City is a solo game - and it's balanced the way solo games are, meaning that there is no one dominant strategy.

And, for that matter, most roleplaying games. Does anyone look at d20 Modern and think that a strong hero is balanced with a charismatic hero? That a CoC professor of archaeology is balanced with a soldier? That a BSG knuckledragger is balanced with a fighter pilot? Of course not. They're different animals entirely, and their usefulness is dependent on circumstance.

In terms of overall usefulness yes I believe they ought to be.

Why someone would expect anything different from their D&D equivalents is an ongoing question

"The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals.​"
- Gary Gygax, The Strategic Review

I've already quoted this a few posts ago.

Yes, exactly. That's the way in which 4e isn't balanced; it's apparently only concerned with making the pieces equal, not between the players and their opposition. A version of chess in which all the pieces on one side were knights (and on the other side they were all the normal layout) would be, as you're defining it, more "balanced".

You confuse balance with symmetry. 4E is asymmetric. Like e.g. Fox and Geese. Or any wargame I can think of. Or any fighting game. 4e is balanced between PCs like a fighting game. (Who's stronger? Any good fighting game will have a lot of viable fighters) and between PCs and NPCs like Fox and Geese. These are both forms of balance.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If you think about it, a focus on balance is kind of against the spirit of D&D.

The concept of balance under discussion really applies mostly between different PCs and their builds. The concern is the possible resentment if one PC out-performs another, or if one PC is noticeably weaker. You can't "balance" a fight between four PCs and a huge dragon - you can only try to make it a fair fight.

In the D&D game in spirit, the PCs are supposed to be a team, not competing with one another for who does more damage to the monster. Who cares if the thief did much damage to the skeletons - we wouldn't have gotten the secret door open without him.

I'd say balance is not nearly as important to game design as making sure a thing you designed does what you and your players expect from it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If the PCs are never going to interact with any of it, sure - free-form it. But keep in mind that if the PCs ever do interact with it you'll want to know how much damage the priests inflicted on the constructs on their way out, whether or not any of the priests got any sort of warning out, etc., etc.; and those results probably should be within the boundaries of what could happen if it all *was* rolled out.

So basically you estimate based on the strengths of the sides how battered the winning side gets? I can live with that. And you can do exactly the same thing without needing the exact mechanics as long as the strengths are realistically known.

Perhaps, but I've always assumed at least some correlation to the game mechanics for the small stuff such that whatever comes of the free-form is at least possible within the mechanics.

4E has this.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing is, I don't think it does fall apart. When the view of hit points is that their inflation is caused by the increasing skill/magic/luck of the target - it is for all humanoids - then 4e minions make some sense, in that they're supposed to be employed only when their "base form" is thoroughly outclassed by the PCs. The tricks they've learnt to avoid dying aren't good enough any more, and their hit points drop accordingly. Very simply, competing in your own class gives even results, competing against much weaker or much stronger opponents and you'll look like a god/chump accordingly. So, Minions (and Solos and Elites).

Which again destroys consistency. Let's take a "base form" Giant as an example, and make him a suitable opponent for about 12th-level types...then see what happens against parties of widely-varying level:

If a Giant (Elite) has 95 h.p. against a 3rd-level party that same Giant has to have 95 h.p. against a 20th-level party, even though those 95 aren't going to last nearly as long.

If a Giant (Minion) has 1 h.p. against a 20th-level party then that same Giant has to have 1 h.p. against a 3rd-level party, whcih is ridiculous, of course.

If a Giant (Elite) has 95 h.p. against a 3rd-level party but that same Giant has but 1 h.p. against a 20th-level party then your game-world's mechanical consistency just went out the window; also ridiculous.

Lan-"this is all a hazard of there being too much difference between low level and high"-efan

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you think about it, a focus on balance is kind of against the spirit of D&D.

This would be some version of D&D that has nothing to do with Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson? For the third time on this thread:

"The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals.​"
- Gary Gygax, The Strategic Review