-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Game Balance
- Thread starter Nathal
- Start date
Frostmarrow
First Post
Gez said:
I tried Vampire on a few occasions but I didn't like it. I don't think we are very different, Gez.
I vote 1 and 2 as well.
"Viability" can mean more than combat skill, but lets face it, combat in D&D is the lowest common denominator --at least in the games I've heard of and the published modules I've read. An RPG is balanced when the greatest number of character types have the greatest number of workable play options available to overcome challenges. In D&D this practically neccesitates giving every class combat options.
The one thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread in this thead are some of the implications of non-violent means resolving conflict. To be overly simplistic: killing stuff is the easiest way to get eveyone in on the fun. I can't imagine a large group --of diverse characters-- who resolve challenges mainly through stealth, or worse, consversation. Its too time intensive. Plus it demands solo play w/the DM. That's great for solo games, but I've never found a away to make that work for a group. Now I realize I'm over-generalizing, but still...
I really like the way 3E's designers handled balance issues. They made every class combat viable while at the same time added the most robust skill system. They gave players both the mechanics to talk their way out of a fight and more options to fight their way out if they want. More options available in more situations. That's balance.
In fact I play a character more at home at a cocktail party than in a dungeon... and while he's certainly less powerful than the groups pure fighter/would be duelist, he can hold his own when it comes time to put down the martini and draw cold steel.
And really, as much as I like to run intrigue and story heavy games that can go sessions without combat, fantasy RPG's are meant to simulate the works of Howard and Tolkien, not Coward or Beckett...
"Viability" can mean more than combat skill, but lets face it, combat in D&D is the lowest common denominator --at least in the games I've heard of and the published modules I've read. An RPG is balanced when the greatest number of character types have the greatest number of workable play options available to overcome challenges. In D&D this practically neccesitates giving every class combat options.
The one thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread in this thead are some of the implications of non-violent means resolving conflict. To be overly simplistic: killing stuff is the easiest way to get eveyone in on the fun. I can't imagine a large group --of diverse characters-- who resolve challenges mainly through stealth, or worse, consversation. Its too time intensive. Plus it demands solo play w/the DM. That's great for solo games, but I've never found a away to make that work for a group. Now I realize I'm over-generalizing, but still...
I really like the way 3E's designers handled balance issues. They made every class combat viable while at the same time added the most robust skill system. They gave players both the mechanics to talk their way out of a fight and more options to fight their way out if they want. More options available in more situations. That's balance.
In fact I play a character more at home at a cocktail party than in a dungeon... and while he's certainly less powerful than the groups pure fighter/would be duelist, he can hold his own when it comes time to put down the martini and draw cold steel.
And really, as much as I like to run intrigue and story heavy games that can go sessions without combat, fantasy RPG's are meant to simulate the works of Howard and Tolkien, not Coward or Beckett...
I don't care that much about balance, but I care about role-playing. I hate power-gaming, I don't care if a character is more powerful than another, but that power from given race/class/feat/prc should be explained in story, & not just taken to be tougher.
I've played a drow in a campaign of all people with no ECLs at the same level as everyone else,
I have also played a goblin, & an avariel with a broken wing (not being able to fly, -4 CON, -2 BAB AC when fighting on ground, -2 if claustrophobic makes me think that without flight the avariel would be an ECL -1 or -2) in a campaign with people obviously stronger than me, but it was that way because of story, not stats.
I've played a drow in a campaign of all people with no ECLs at the same level as everyone else,
I have also played a goblin, & an avariel with a broken wing (not being able to fly, -4 CON, -2 BAB AC when fighting on ground, -2 if claustrophobic makes me think that without flight the avariel would be an ECL -1 or -2) in a campaign with people obviously stronger than me, but it was that way because of story, not stats.
Orias said:
I've always thought that balance and role-playing were related issues. Granted you can always role-play personality --and I'm not trying to minimize that-- but have useful abilites that described via the game mechanics are invaluable to the action-oriented role-playing common in D&D.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Gez said:
No, someone I knew for a few years. We used to call him 'Captain Midnight' due to his working the 12-8AM shift, and spending most of his time programming. If anything, he was criticizing Richard Garriot, but at the time he made this comment, I think only Ultima IV or V had been out.
Frostmarrow, you sound like someone on whom the social skill system has been inflicted badly. Here's how it goes IMC - you roleplay it out. We use the dice for the stuff we can't see at the table.
-- Sense Motive is called for by the player. Basically meaning "What's this guy's body language like? How's the look in his eye?" etc.
-- Bluff is called for by the DM. Its done after you said what you were going to say. How convincing the story is affects the DC. This is a roll to pull off the appropriate 'body language' stuff.
-- Diplomacy is both for negotiation and making a good impression, used much like BLuff described above. Its also partly a knowledge skill - how to address a minor lord, etc.
-- Intimidate I houserule to oppose either intimidate or concentration. I hate the default rules. Modifiers for delivery, demonstrations, etc.
Used properly, these social skills support role play rather than supplant them. We don't use them a whole lot, only when a PC tries something funky or thinks an NPC is giving them a load of goblin manure.
As far as knowledge skills -- what do you propose? How to play a wizened sage who has studied history and geogrphay when the player knows next to nothing about the DM's campaign world? As far as 'having to pretend I don't know something' that sounds like you are complaining that your DM doesn't like metagaming.
-- Sense Motive is called for by the player. Basically meaning "What's this guy's body language like? How's the look in his eye?" etc.
-- Bluff is called for by the DM. Its done after you said what you were going to say. How convincing the story is affects the DC. This is a roll to pull off the appropriate 'body language' stuff.
-- Diplomacy is both for negotiation and making a good impression, used much like BLuff described above. Its also partly a knowledge skill - how to address a minor lord, etc.
-- Intimidate I houserule to oppose either intimidate or concentration. I hate the default rules. Modifiers for delivery, demonstrations, etc.
Used properly, these social skills support role play rather than supplant them. We don't use them a whole lot, only when a PC tries something funky or thinks an NPC is giving them a load of goblin manure.
As far as knowledge skills -- what do you propose? How to play a wizened sage who has studied history and geogrphay when the player knows next to nothing about the DM's campaign world? As far as 'having to pretend I don't know something' that sounds like you are complaining that your DM doesn't like metagaming.
Frostmarrow
First Post
maddman75 said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my DM(s). If that was the case I would say so.
I'm just saying that what I need from a good role-playing game is a kick ass combat system (which DnD's got) and maybe some character traits to role-play. I don't need any social interaction skills. As for knowledge we all know a whole lot more than our character's does. In fact our characters seem to know a whole lot more than the knowledge skills seem to indicate. I don't know how it's in your game but it appears bardic knowledge seem to cover most information the DM wants to pass to the players. Social and mental skills are redundant. (According to me. Gary said I was wrong in a previous thread and I guess I am, but hey! It's my game.)
the Jester
Legend
Frostmarrow said:I don't need any social interaction skills. As for knowledge we all know a whole lot more than our character's does. In fact our characters seem to know a whole lot more than the knowledge skills seem to indicate. I don't know how it's in your game but it appears bardic knowledge seem to cover most information the DM wants to pass to the players. Social and mental skills are redundant. (According to me. Gary said I was wrong in a previous thread and I guess I am, but hey! It's my game.)
Well, the thing about social skills is... lemme give an example. I'm a fairly silver-tongued devil irl, but if I play a character who has a charisma of 6, she won't be. Yet when I role-play, in the excitement of the moment I may "forget myself" and speak well. Should my character get the benefit of my (the player's) higher charisma? Especially since 3e charisma has essentially nothing to do with looks; if it doesn't matter in game terms why have the stat at all?
An even better example is the low-charisma, tongue-tied geek playing the master diplomat. He trips over his words and can't ever seem to say the right thing irl, but his character with a cha 18 sure ought to be persuasive and such. This is where those killer scores in bluff and diplomacy come into play.
I understand where you're coming from about the roleplaying aspect of it- the whole thing about speaking in your own voice- but let me tell ya how I tend to run it and play it. As a player, when I was playing Drendlin, my fighter with the 6 charisma, I'd roll a diplomacy check first (no ranks, net -2 to the roll) and then open my mouth and roleplay the roll. As a dm, when someone tries to persuade an npc, I let them talk, then have them roll the skill check and tell them how it comes out. After all, we all perceive what we say differently than others do. How many times have you seen someone post something snarky, get called on it, then post a response saying, "Whoa, that's not how I meant that!" The same thing happens in verbal communication; when I was a kid my mom used to say, "Don't use that tone of voice with me!" As often as not, I had no clue what she was talking about.
As for knowledge skills, the problem with using your knowledge instead of your character's is that it's often metagaming. Does a first-level fighter know enough to use fire on a troll? What about the weaknesses of a gelatinous cube? Heck, would he even recognize a rakshasa? I would, but would my character? Moreover- if I'm playing in someone's homebrew world for the first time I figure my character ought to know a little about the world, even if I really don't.
Just a difference of opinion- I'm not trying to criticize you here, just pointing out why I think social and knowledge skills are good. After all, if your characters all know everything you know and all speak with your voice, there's not much roleplaying in that- you're playing yourself.
Similar Threads
