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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Flat math ability scores vs roleplay considerations
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6039831" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The paladin, at least, disrupts things in a different way (I think) - it doesn't seem to favour any particular action resolution pillar.</p><p></p><p>I lose track of which threads I see people posting on, so I'm not sure if you're following some of the threads that are chock-full of rogue anguish in relation to the current packet. There seems to be a lot of concern that a PC who trades of combat effectiveness for exploration/social effectiveness is, in the end, just ineffective. And this in relation to a rogue who <em>is</em> (until 6th level, at least) "almost as good at beating people up".</p><p></p><p>In the real world, in many situations there are strong constraints - social (eg external constraints, internalised norms) and emotional (fear, shame, affection, etc) - that limit the escalation of non-violent conflict into violent conflict. In a traditional fantasy RPG basically none of these constraints is in operation. Which means that a player whose PC is one-sidedly weak in social but uber in combat can almost always escalate situations into ones in which the weakness won't matter.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, because D&D emphasises party play, and because the consequences of losing combat in D&D are typically PC death, this puts a lot of pressure on the GM. If the GM responds to the escalating PC with lethal force, the other PCs either have to dissociate from him/her (thus wrecking party play) or else have to help take on the lethal force, which is actually more dangerous to them than to the one-sided PC.</p><p></p><p>It should be noted that other RPGs, which either don't emphasise party play so strongly, or which don't emphasise the lethality of force so strongly, or which have various sorts of mechanicsms to discourage escalation to violence, aren't necessarily vulnerable in the same way. (Which is not to say that they're better RPGs. Just different from traditional D&D.)</p><p></p><p>Whether the barbarian and the "evil" PC are disruptive in the same way as the one-sided PC would depend on whether they default to violence. If so, then probably they are.</p><p></p><p>As you can see from the above, I think the issue is not just about character creation. It is about action resolution, and the mechanical and fictional context within which the GM frames challenges.</p><p></p><p>The history of RPGing, and of debates over "munchkins" and "power gamers" suggests that social contract is not enough. If character building is to be balanced <em>across</em> the 3 pillars (ie the flexibility that you mention) then there need to be mechanical features of the game that prevent, or at least strongly disincentivise, escalation of all conflicts to violence. The only version of D&D to come close to having such mechanics has been 4e (because of its skill challenge mechanics and corresponding XP rules for non-combat conflict resolution and goal attainment).</p><p></p><p>It could be suggested that strong alignment rules (and comparable mechanics like strong honour rules in Oriental Adventures) have played this role in D&D, but in my own view those systems are at least as dysfunctional as the problem they are meant to be solving.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6039831, member: 42582"] The paladin, at least, disrupts things in a different way (I think) - it doesn't seem to favour any particular action resolution pillar. I lose track of which threads I see people posting on, so I'm not sure if you're following some of the threads that are chock-full of rogue anguish in relation to the current packet. There seems to be a lot of concern that a PC who trades of combat effectiveness for exploration/social effectiveness is, in the end, just ineffective. And this in relation to a rogue who [I]is[/I] (until 6th level, at least) "almost as good at beating people up". In the real world, in many situations there are strong constraints - social (eg external constraints, internalised norms) and emotional (fear, shame, affection, etc) - that limit the escalation of non-violent conflict into violent conflict. In a traditional fantasy RPG basically none of these constraints is in operation. Which means that a player whose PC is one-sidedly weak in social but uber in combat can almost always escalate situations into ones in which the weakness won't matter. Furthermore, because D&D emphasises party play, and because the consequences of losing combat in D&D are typically PC death, this puts a lot of pressure on the GM. If the GM responds to the escalating PC with lethal force, the other PCs either have to dissociate from him/her (thus wrecking party play) or else have to help take on the lethal force, which is actually more dangerous to them than to the one-sided PC. It should be noted that other RPGs, which either don't emphasise party play so strongly, or which don't emphasise the lethality of force so strongly, or which have various sorts of mechanicsms to discourage escalation to violence, aren't necessarily vulnerable in the same way. (Which is not to say that they're better RPGs. Just different from traditional D&D.) Whether the barbarian and the "evil" PC are disruptive in the same way as the one-sided PC would depend on whether they default to violence. If so, then probably they are. As you can see from the above, I think the issue is not just about character creation. It is about action resolution, and the mechanical and fictional context within which the GM frames challenges. The history of RPGing, and of debates over "munchkins" and "power gamers" suggests that social contract is not enough. If character building is to be balanced [I]across[/I] the 3 pillars (ie the flexibility that you mention) then there need to be mechanical features of the game that prevent, or at least strongly disincentivise, escalation of all conflicts to violence. The only version of D&D to come close to having such mechanics has been 4e (because of its skill challenge mechanics and corresponding XP rules for non-combat conflict resolution and goal attainment). It could be suggested that strong alignment rules (and comparable mechanics like strong honour rules in Oriental Adventures) have played this role in D&D, but in my own view those systems are at least as dysfunctional as the problem they are meant to be solving. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Flat math ability scores vs roleplay considerations
Top