Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7834676" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>It was a commercial failure, for a veritable perfect storm of reasons, including the nerdrage that surrounded it making it less likely new players would even try it.</p><p>But concluding that balanced games are bad, and, conversely, broken games are good, is not valid . Not just because it's <em>ad populum</em> reasoning, though that's enough, by itself.</p><p></p><p>Nope. Never. (Yeah, that wont' get me in trouble; at least I didn't say "Stormwind Fallacy" ...oops. ) If you have to work around the system to get the desired RP results, it's just proof of either a bad system (as has consistently been the case with D&D - I'm sorry, I love the game, but I love in <em>in spite of</em> it's many, deep, and abiding flaws) or a system with design goals incompatible with the desired RP results.</p><p></p><p> Two very strong points that argue to exactly the opposite of the conclusion it sounds like you might be aiming for. </p><p>A <em>hero</em> 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.</p><p>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....</p><p></p><p>TBF, it was a smaller part of the defending side of the Fighter SUX arguments on Gleemax… and I was too often forced to use it, myself. So there's some bitterness in there. ;(</p><p></p><p>Without going into too much detail, the broad-strokes panorama of the sorta-consensus we came up with back then, on keeping casters & non-casters, in general, and the LFQW with the elegant-design, but Tier 5 fighter as the L (also, honorable mention to the much less inferior Tier 2 Sorcerer), and CoDzilla and God-Wizards as the Q, often abbreviated as "Living World" was for the DM to devote the campaign to making spell prep & cast choices /exceedingly difficult/ via profound time-pressure, uncertainty via downright telegraphing some threats and presenting equally trustworthy seeming disinformation, and a constantly-changing tapestry of challenges. The idea was to balance the Fighter by either/both making the 'day' drag on so long that the casters were tapped out of their best combat spells for multiple combats, relying on the fighters through some important battles, or, were so uncertain and so fearful of needing spells later that they passed on casting them even at ideal moments, letting the fighters shine (but not the party die), then being left holding spells they ended up not needing later afterall. Similarly, BTW, wizards could be goaded into taking slates of highly situational spells that turned out to be useless due to disinformation, allowing the sorcerer a chance to shine spamming some generally-useful spell that was OK in the situation, while the wizard cursed himself for not prepping the /ideal/ spell. ...at the extreme fringe of that, there's "but what if the DM isn't doing a good enough job forcing the time pressure" and "well, your <em>fighter</em> as the 'natural party leader' should talk the party into showing some heroic fortitude and bravely pressing on!" Which, actually, sounds kind good - especially after selling the Living World concept all through a long thread - but, which, really, when considered for the perspective of designing for a <em>cooperative game</em> is quite dysfunctional.</p><p></p><p></p><p> That /is/ the right pressure, yes. I should've made it clearer that it wasn't as simple as always applying exactly the /same/ pressure.Yeah, see, you get it.</p><p></p><p>That's the idea, the problem is that it rests on grinding down the resource-heavy characters, and reducing the overall effectiveness of the party, in order to glorify the low-contributing character.</p><p></p><p>The bottom line is that kind of balance-by-pacing mechanism both restricts the kinds of stories the game can produce, from the narrative side, and is dysfunctional as a cooperative game, on the system side.</p><p>If it weren't so enshrined by decades of tradition, the hobby would regard it like modern doctors revisiting the possibility of using leeches*.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>* example chosen advisedly, because, yeah, actually, there are a few legitimate medical uses for leeches!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7834676, member: 996"] It was a commercial failure, for a veritable perfect storm of reasons, including the nerdrage that surrounded it making it less likely new players would even try it. But concluding that balanced games are bad, and, conversely, broken games are good, is not valid . Not just because it's [I]ad populum[/I] reasoning, though that's enough, by itself. Nope. Never. (Yeah, that wont' get me in trouble; at least I didn't say "Stormwind Fallacy" ...oops. ) If you have to work around the system to get the desired RP results, it's just proof of either a bad system (as has consistently been the case with D&D - I'm sorry, I love the game, but I love in [I]in spite of[/I] it's many, deep, and abiding flaws) or a system with design goals incompatible with the desired RP results. Two very strong points that argue to exactly the opposite of the conclusion it sounds like you might be aiming for. A [I]hero[/I] 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.... TBF, it was a smaller part of the defending side of the Fighter SUX arguments on Gleemax… and I was too often forced to use it, myself. So there's some bitterness in there. ;( Without going into too much detail, the broad-strokes panorama of the sorta-consensus we came up with back then, on keeping casters & non-casters, in general, and the LFQW with the elegant-design, but Tier 5 fighter as the L (also, honorable mention to the much less inferior Tier 2 Sorcerer), and CoDzilla and God-Wizards as the Q, often abbreviated as "Living World" was for the DM to devote the campaign to making spell prep & cast choices /exceedingly difficult/ via profound time-pressure, uncertainty via downright telegraphing some threats and presenting equally trustworthy seeming disinformation, and a constantly-changing tapestry of challenges. The idea was to balance the Fighter by either/both making the 'day' drag on so long that the casters were tapped out of their best combat spells for multiple combats, relying on the fighters through some important battles, or, were so uncertain and so fearful of needing spells later that they passed on casting them even at ideal moments, letting the fighters shine (but not the party die), then being left holding spells they ended up not needing later afterall. Similarly, BTW, wizards could be goaded into taking slates of highly situational spells that turned out to be useless due to disinformation, allowing the sorcerer a chance to shine spamming some generally-useful spell that was OK in the situation, while the wizard cursed himself for not prepping the /ideal/ spell. ...at the extreme fringe of that, there's "but what if the DM isn't doing a good enough job forcing the time pressure" and "well, your [I]fighter[/I] as the 'natural party leader' should talk the party into showing some heroic fortitude and bravely pressing on!" Which, actually, sounds kind good - especially after selling the Living World concept all through a long thread - but, which, really, when considered for the perspective of designing for a [I]cooperative game[/I] is quite dysfunctional. That /is/ the right pressure, yes. I should've made it clearer that it wasn't as simple as always applying exactly the /same/ pressure.Yeah, see, you get it. That's the idea, the problem is that it rests on grinding down the resource-heavy characters, and reducing the overall effectiveness of the party, in order to glorify the low-contributing character. The bottom line is that kind of balance-by-pacing mechanism both restricts the kinds of stories the game can produce, from the narrative side, and is dysfunctional as a cooperative game, on the system side. If it weren't so enshrined by decades of tradition, the hobby would regard it like modern doctors revisiting the possibility of using leeches*. * example chosen advisedly, because, yeah, actually, there are a few legitimate medical uses for leeches! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes
Top