Game Balance

[hong]

But in D&D 3rd Edition are not such characters considered duds?

Are they? Point me to where it says in black and white that every character MUST be combat-effective. You are confusing common D&D practice with what's actually written in the rules.

Is it not common for a player to re-roll if they recognize that the character statistics don't match the requirements for effective use of the class abilities?

Non sequitur.

[How many players actually use the 3d6 "straight-down-the-line method for stats?

Who cares how many players use 3d6 (or, equivalently, use 15-point buy)? You're not playing in my game, and I'm not playing in yours. The only thing that matters to you is what YOU use.

So sure, it's possible to create a character that can't contribute meaningfully in combat, buts it's hardly an issue because such characters are usually scrapped and re-rolled from the outset.

Perhaps then you should rethink your policy of scrapping them. If you don't scrap them, then what the heck are you talking about?

The point is that there are systems which allows for character creation wherein the character may not seem "broken" because there is no class requirements against which to judge his/her effectiveness.

Eh. Play any game for long enough and you'll get an eye of what constitutes "effectiveness" within that system (which may or may not involve combat). It's not exactly hard to figure out that a GURPS character with DX 9, IQ 15 and 20 points in Diplomacy is going to be less combat-effective than someone with DX 14 and 20 points in Broadsword. On the other hand, the former character is probably going to be much MORE effective when it comes to courtly intrigue. Which of these has greater relevance for a given campaign (basically, who gets bored first) is dependent entirely on what direction that campaign takes.

Right, and such characters in D&D would not be considered viable I'd imagine or would be at a disadvantage. This is because 3rd Edition is a combat-oriented game from the get-go.

3E is a combat-oriented ruleset, but that on its own does not mandate combat-oriented play.

In other systems a character who puts his points into high INT and CHA at the expense of combat ability would not always be at a disadvantage. Why? Because maybe the Game Master does not focus on combat.

But may focus on other things instead, which leaves the underlying problem intact, only shifting the labels around.

I consider D&D games that do not focus on combat to be against the design of the system in spirit, although there is nothing wrong with it in practice.

Who gives a frick about "spirit"?

I only feel that other game systems lend themselves better to more "role-playing" intensive styles.

So?

Exactly. The focus of 3rd Edition is power, combat prowess and being effective as a combat unit. It doesn't make too much sense to me to create a "diplomat" character to travel with the typical D&D party.

Then make up an atypical D&D party.

That is why I shake my head at the idea of a Call of Chutulu D20 game. Has anybody played that game and felt that it worked with D20?

Since when has d20 CoC been equivalent to D&D?

So again I state that "game balance" is a concern of those who enjoy combat-oriented games for the most part.

Any given campaign is going to feature heavier emphasis on some aspects of gaming than others, whether it's combat, diplomacy, or growing magic mushrooms in the dark. A character that isn't particularly good at the chosen focus of the campaign is by definition ineffective, and one that's very good is overpowered. A brutish barbarian in an intrigue-heavy campaign is just as out of place as a foppish courtier in a dungeon crawl. The issue is how much rope the rules give players to hang themselves with, by creating such out-of-place characters.

 

[Nathal]

Are they? Point me to where it says in black and white that every character MUST be combat-effective. You are confusing common D&D practice with what's actually written in the rules.

All characters go up in hit points, saving throws, attack bonuses, etc. All characters have access to feats that make them more effective in combat, or in surviving in such situations. Everything in D&D is geared toward that, regardless if it is acheived through thief like skills, raw combat power, spells, or whatever. It's obvious.

[Non sequitur..

Not so. I AM talking about common practice, which players and GM take up because of the nature of the rule set. Sure, you can play a different kind of game if you want by using the rules in a way that is not in total alignment with the focus of their design. And that's just fine. But D&D would not be my first choice for a gritty, realistic, "high-risk of death" sort of campaign with a simulationist bent to combat.

Who cares how many players use 3d6 (or, equivalently, use 15-point buy)? You're not playing in my game, and I'm not playing in yours. The only thing that matters to you is what YOU use..

Non sequitur. I am not talking about how you personally deviate from the spirit of the rules or how you run your game.

Perhaps then you should rethink your policy of scrapping them. If you don't scrap them, then what the heck are you talking about?.

Sure, allow a character with a 6 or a 5 in most statistics run through the average adventure module and see how well he fares...

Eh. Play any game for long enough and you'll get an eye of what constitutes "effectiveness" within that system (which may or may not involve combat). It's not exactly hard to figure out that a GURPS character with DX 9, IQ 15 and 20 points in Diplomacy is going to be less combat-effective than someone with DX 14 and 20 points in Broadsword. On the other hand, the former character is probably going to be much MORE effective when it comes to courtly intrigue. Which of these has greater relevance for a given campaign (basically, who gets bored first) is dependent entirely on what direction that campaign takes..

In D&D that character with a focus on Diplomancy would still have enough hit points at a given level to remain consistent with the group power level. Not so in GURPS. What I'm talking about is not a condemnation of D&D! I'm pointing out that certain games have "failsafes" against party members being too weak against the average level, while other systems have no such failsafe. Thus D&D is more combat oriented. It's very simple.

3E is a combat-oriented ruleset, but that on its own does not mandate combat-oriented play. .

I know that.

But may focus on other things instead, which leaves the underlying problem intact, only shifting the labels around. .

What is the underlying problem in your opinion?

Who gives a frick about "spirit"? .[/B]

Uh, the designers of the game! The WOTC artists, the brand managers, etc.

So?.

What do you mean, "so?" Its a simple observation that D&D as a class-and-level system allows characters whose focus is not entirely combat to still survive along with the group because they get more powerful...without effort or point allocation.

Then make up an atypical D&D party. .

I think it would be easier to play in a system like GURPs a game that is less than of heroic proportions. I'm not saying it can't be done with D&D, but at that point you are FAR away from it's spirit and focus. No condemnation of that fact here, mind you, it's a simple and obvious fact.

Since when has d20 CoC been equivalent to D&D? .

It is D20 and a class and level system. Characters get more powerul, right? I may be wrong if PCs do not gain extra hit points and attack bonuses at higher levels, but I doubt it. Such is not the case in the Chaosism system judging by what I've been told (death rate is very high in that game by all accounts).

The issue is how much rope the rules give players to hang themselves with, by creating such out-of-place characters.

That is what I'm talking about! You've hit the nail on the head. That amount of rope you speak of is the measure by which I judge the games focus on combat issues. Nothing more than that.

 

[the Jester]

Right, and such characters in D&D would not be considered viable I'd imagine or would be at a disadvantage. This is because 3rd Edition is a combat-oriented game from the get-go. In other systems a character who puts his points into high INT and CHA at the expense of combat ability would not always be at a disadvantage. Why? Because maybe the Game Master does not focus on combat. I consider D&D games that do not focus on combat to be against the design of the system in spirit, although there is nothing wrong with it in practice. I only feel that other game systems lend themselves better to more "role-playing" intensive styles.

I disagree with this. The bard is not designed for maximum combat ability, for instance; it's innately more social. In fact, during my recent cross-country adventure I played two characters in one-shot games that were intentionally not maximized for combat, Pepto (a rogue) and Sarcastro (a bard).

The reason (imho) that many people think that 3e is combat-oriented has to do with the xp system, and that's why I've house ruled xp in my campaign. I give half the recommended xp for combat and overcoming challenges; at the end of every session I give each pc the chance to tell me how they've role-played their class, alignment, race and personal concerns. Each of these earns an award for rp equal to 25 times the character's level.

I think the lack of a system to award xp for role-playing is one of 3e's only real weaknesses.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re

That being said, Lord of the Rings is a novel and now a movie--not a role-playing game. It would be really dull to play Frodo or Sam through the Fellowship of the Ring.

Roll initiative. . . . Frodo what do you do? "I sit around trying not to look bored or get killed and wait for Gandalf, Legolas, Aragorn, Boromir and Gimli to win the battle.". . . . Frodo, you feel an urge to put on the ring. Make a will save. "A '1' dang it!" [Insert all of the competent members of the group yelling at Frodo for being such an idiot and putting the ring on--now they'll have to fight ringwraiths]. . . .OK, we're out of combat but we've got to cross a mountain pass. Boromir, what do you do? "Well, I had the foresight and strength to carry firewood with me so I'll start a fire and use my strength and my shield to clear a path in the snow for the little ones." Aragorn "I will use my amazing ranger skills to try to light the fire." Gimli "My dwarven skill with stone tells me that this path is unstable, we should take the mines of Moria." Legolas "I'll walk on top of the snow and scout." Gandalf "I know the way and I can use magic to start a fire when even Aragorn and Boromir can't". Hobbits "We'll walk behind Bormir and shiver pathetically as we begin to freeze to death."

Yeah, that sounds like a lot of fun to role-play. About as much fun as role-playing Harry Potter if he spent all his time locked in his closet with the Dursleys--and forbidden to use magic on the pain of expulsion from Hogwarts.

Game balance is essential so that all of the characters can contribute to the story and aren't simply left in the shadows while the powerful characters played by the lucky players make all of the decisisions of consequence and accomplish all of the difficult tasks. Lord of the Rings could work as a D&D campaign but the hobbits would either have to be dramatically powered up or treated as NPCs. (Not too unreasonable since a group with nine players would get unwieldy anyway).

I personally don't care about game balance. I find that worrying about game balance can ruin roleplaying.

When I think of a story, I don't see balanced characters. For example, Frodo was not as good as Aragorn at just about anything and Gandalf was heads and tails above everyone. Could you really run something like this in a standard D and D campaign while worrying about game balance?

This is a role-playing game, and the only time game balance should matter is when it interferes with the story. Other than that, the story and adventure comes first.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Ranger Wicket asked how do systems encourage role-playing? One way is to make combat very deadly. The easier it is for characters to solve their problems via combat, the more often they will do so. If, on the other hand, they clearly can't defeat the opponent in a straight-up fight, they'll have to be more creative. If they don't have a cleric with easy access to healing spells, they'll pick their fights more carefully. The D&D system, however, encourages solving problems through combat and always has.

It's important to remember that D&D began as a variation of rules for fighting battles with miniatures. D&D has always had a focus on combat, forcing DM's and players to go against the system if they want less hack 'n slash in their games. Of course, it can be done, but with the core system so strongly focused on combat, it's difficult. Everyone in the group - especially the DM - has to reward playing "weak" characters, or players will simply learn not to do so.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Re: Re: Re

That being said, Lord of the Rings is a novel and now a movie--not a role-playing game. It would be really dull to play Frodo or Sam through the Fellowship of the Ring.

Thank you for pointing this out. One of the last groups I played in had horrible party ballance, and actively enforced it in various ways. It was (unsuprisingly) the player of the single most powerful and important to every plot character who would throw out LOTR and claim that it was "good for the story".

In my not terribly humble opinion the only ways that a variety of power levels can be good is if you are either a bunch of sychophants stroking a couple guys egos, or you have a good enough DM to ballance multiple levels of power to make the characters equally significant and worth playing in the long haul. Having a character who was weak in combat terms but very important in the political or social parts of the gameworld could work, but only if those types of interactions were ballanced. It would also involve a lot of house rules to work in D&D obviously, because the ability to be good at anything scales with combat ability, due to the class level system. (Yeah, you could have a diplomat bard who wasn't much good in a fight. But you can have a rogue who is just as good a diplomat but IS good in a fight too. because of the caps on skill points per level, amoung other issues, you can't gain non combat advantage by giving up the physical abilities the way you do in a points based system.)

One of the reasons that I enjoy roleplaying is that it is generally a cooperative rather than competitive game. If you don't ballance your campaign, you are likely to create resentment amoung the players. The point of the game is for everyone to enjoy themselves, after all. Ballance is crucial to that.

LOTR, while a benchmark for fantasy, is really awful to use as a roleplaying guide. Unless you are playing games with very few players, most books are, because there are few good ensemble plots out there. (Notably, the only ones I can think of are based on roleplaying games...)

Of course, if the "plot" requires someone to be significantly more powerful or weaker, its the job of the DM to include those elements, unless one player volunteers to take a less powerful role. In LOTRs the PCs are probably the non-hobbits except gandalf. And its still not very good because there are too many NPCs who are too crucial to the plot. Good roleplaying may be like interactive storytelling, but not all good stories are like roleplaying...

Kahuna Burger

 

[jdavis]

You are still not going to get me to buy that D&D is totally combat oriented. If it was then there would be three classes and four or five feats and no skills, because there is a ton of stuff that is not usefull in combat. The experience point system is balanced that way but there is also CR ratings for hazards, traps and problems. You also have to take into account that everybody gets the same experience, if it was totally combat oriented why would you give equal experience regardless of how balanced the PC's are? Wouldn't the Fighter get the lions share of the exp, he did the most fighting.
If you look at it in a total combat view then anybody who makes a Bard is a moron, rogues are bit players who will never be on a equal level with the fighters, Clerics/Druids are only useful if they are combat oriented, and Wizards are the load a party has to carry for the first 5 levels before they are useful. D&D was not designed to be based totally on combat, third edition is even farther away from that. There is alot of problem solving that is involved and worked into the "spirit of the game", locks and traps are a major part of the game, the vast majority of the skills are not combat related at all. If the creaters of the game meant for it to be a combat simulation then they could of saved themselves half the Players handbook.
D&D was created and written to be played in several different ways, picking locks is just as important as swinging a sword, decifering the magic text is just as big a part of it as getting a critical. Just because there is a bias towards combat doesn't mean that it is only about combat. If it was only about combat then the rules would prevent you from making a character that wasn't good in combat, the very fact that you can make a character that isn't death on wheels prroves that there is more to this.

Chaosium CoC is aimed so much against combat that if you ever get caught fighting half the monsters out there then it is too late for you. COC is also designed in a way that your character will die or go crazy, eventually no matter what you do, it's dark roleplaying against a force you can't win against, you are just trying to delay it.

 

[Nathal]

You are still not going to get me to buy that D&D is totally combat oriented. If it was then there would be three classes and four or five feats and no skills, because there is a ton of stuff that is not usefull in combat.

I never used the word totally nor did I write anything about only brute strength and toe-to-toe close melee combat being the only way to be useful on the battlefield. I DO say that "game balance" is of major concern to D&D within the context of battle and that the phrase has little utility outside of that context to most players. One way you can tell that D&D is geared toward combat is by noting how each class goes up in hit points, attack bonus, etc. This prevents even the least melee capable character from getting killed in a single swipe of an enemy's sword. It does not matter that some classess are less inclined to do massive damage in close combat with melee weapons; all classes in D&D have the potential to do serious damage to their foes in their own way. None can be made deliberately weak by the player unless the GM allows them to play an NPC commoner or something. Would you play an NPC expert over a Fighter class? Does not the DMG recommend against that sort of thing?

The experience point system is balanced that way but there is also CR ratings for hazards, traps and problems. You also have to take into account that everybody gets the same experience, if it was totally combat oriented why would you give equal experience regardless of how balanced the PC's are? Wouldn't the Fighter get the lions share of the exp, he did the most fighting.

No, the reason everybody gets the same experience is because the game is combat oriented. If the lions share of the xp went only to those fighting in close melee combat, did not consider supportive roles such as sneak attacks, magic and healing magic, then it would be a more deadly game system. Why? Because characters would quickly be of disparate levels which kills game balance in the context of combat. Campaigns with wildly varying levels tend to be deadly for the lower level characters. A GM would be unwise to run a combat-heavy campaign with a group of characters who were not near to each other in level.

D&D was not designed to be based totally on combat, third edition is even farther away from that. There is alot of problem solving that is involved and worked into the "spirit of the game", locks and traps are a major part of the game, the vast majority of the skills are not combat related at all.

Again, I did not claim that D&D had no other aspect to its play than combat. I wrote that it is a combat-oriented game because it assures no one character is too weak when compared to others of equal level. Not all games have such safeguards against a quick character death and the reason is that those systems are less combat oriented and thus more deadly to characters who rush into battle.

Just because there is a bias towards combat doesn't mean that it is only about combat. If it was only about combat then the rules would prevent you from making a character that wasn't good in combat, the very fact that you can make a character that isn't death on wheels prroves that there is more to this.

Not to sound like a broken record, but anybody that makes the claim that D&D is "only" about combat is wrong. I do not make that claim. I say it is VERY combat oriented. That leaves all the other aspects of a role-playing game in there of course, but the class-and-level system itself promotes a sort of game balance in combat that favors a battle-heavy sort of game. Point based systems allow a player to make a character that would not only be less effective in battle, but would likely die from a single strike of an experience warriors sword! Game Masters would either have to advise players against players creating weaklings or rogue scholars in such a game or keep actual battle to a minimum. Most D&D campaigns are not all about mystery and intrique with very little battle, and if it is then it is played that way in spite of its primary focus (but NOT its only focus).

I've played in D&D games where combat was very much downplayed and the DM was excellent in some ways, but my statistics really didn't matter much and neither did advancement. He didn't even bother giving out experience points for battle and because battle was so deadly it didn't really matter if I was 1st or 10th level.

I would have prefered to dump D&D in that case for a system that was point-based and with a wider selection of skills for the sort of situations he put us up against. It wasn't that D&D was a bad game or couldn't handle his DMing at all, no! The problem was that advancement in D&D grants character power ascention, but in his world greater power meant only greater threat and required more caution.

In most D&D campaigns the characters tend to be become rather cocky and brazen in their dealings with NPCS as their power grows. DMs are then forced to come up with house rules to deal with situations like the capture a 13th level character by a band of 1st level warriors who have him cornered with crossbows aimed and ready to fire at his throat if he so much as twitches. I don't care what class that high level character is, chances are he could take a full round of every one of those warriors firing on him at point blank range and still kill several of them (if not all) in return before running of to safety. In a gritty, realistic game that character would be dead if he was corned with soldiers with crossbows. D&D is about heroic fantasy and supports that sort of game best. Campaigns that deal less with battle, valor, monsters, and traps may do better with a different rule set.

Chaosium CoC is aimed so much against combat that if you ever get caught fighting half the monsters out there then it is too late for you. COC is also designed in a way that your character will die or go crazy, eventually no matter what you do, it's dark roleplaying against a force you can't win against, you are just trying to delay it.

Right, so I imagine that the outcome of CoC would be very different when adapated to D20, although I have not played it and would be interested in some response to this idea. Chaosium CoC is a good example of a game whose idea of "game balance" is not what most players think of when creating a character in something like D&D.

 

[jdavis]

Ok I'll go with you more on that line but there is still alot more to it. I have played games where the one who made the kill was the one who got the experience, heck i think D&D might of been that way at one time, but I cannot remember if it was the rules or a house rule in the first group I played with (I sold my first edition books in college for food money). I think 3rd edition has made huge strides to try to get away from being combat based. I also think that it is real easy to get characters who have no business in combat. Yes they all get stronger every level, but they really don't stay all that equal there is alot of diversity designed in. Most rogues just are not all that good in combat with the exception of the sneak attack, they are more suited to other task than combat. I could go on but I already have before.

I will agree with you totally on characters getting cocky as they get stronger, I am not a real fan of hit points myself, I am sort of partial to the strory teller damage system, you can only take so many hits no matter how strong you are. But D&D scales to get harder with levels too so the extra hit points are balanced by stronger monsters. Yes survival is built into leveling up to a certain extent but fighting skills, physical or magical, just vary too much. I think how much combat based the game is relies more on who is running and who is playing than on the general rules.

Combat has been a big part of every rpg I have ever played, the vast majority of games are at least half conflict based, Even the Chaosium COC has large sections of the book related to combat, because it will happen. I have never looked at d20 COC so I can't speak on how it relates. I have never played a role playing game of any type that didn't have combat in it. the systems differ, the danger differs but they all have it and it normally turns out to be a important part of it. D&D characters all can fight but it is up to the person making the character on how well they can, and that goes for just about every game out there.

 

[LostSoul]

I rolled up some really good stats the last time I rolled (I may have cheated, too; I don't recall ), so instead of using those stats I lowered them to balance my character with the other PCs.

To provide game balance.