Imbalance is good and playing planet of the apes, all in one thread

[WhatGravitas]

But my childhood was not strongly structured. After school, I did my homework and then I did whatever I wanted, visiting my neighbour, playing with matchbox and SIKU cars or Lego, reading a book, and later playing computer games.
And I still love what I see in 4E. Maybe I an an outlier, but I just don't believe that. I am not _that_ special.

Almost the same here, with two exceptions:

1) I'm younger (21)
2) SIKU cars are cool, matchbox cars are trash.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Almost the same here, with two exceptions:

1) I'm younger (21)
2) SIKU cars are cool, matchbox cars are trash.

Cheers, LT.

Matchbox sometimes had cars not available with SIKU. SIKU took a long time to get the Ferrari, for example...

And, off course, as I child I also needed some "crash cars" - matchbox cars where well suited for that. (Picture an 8 year old trying to lift his large bed, using his right hand to put the soon-to-be-crash-car under a leg, and then drop it to put a nice dent or buckle into it...)


Oh, and if you wanted to have KITT a nice Trans Am, you had to get a matchbox. But SIKUs quality was just better, and everything was to the same scale (no trucks with the same size as an average sedan), until they sold out/jumped the shark when they introduced "heavier" vehicles with the wrong scale.

Oh, and i forget to mention TV. I also watched that. Sesame Street, Sending mit der Maus, Alf, Knight Rider, A-Team and what else came up then.

It's amazing how much TV shows I already forgot about, and which actually stuck...

[/off-topic child memories]
I must be getting old...

 

[Byronic]

I agree with parts about DnD, especially the part about class imbalance.

 

[wayne62682]

The big problem that everyone is forgetting though is that the imbalance between classes is exactly what caused problems in 3rd edition.

each person in the group had different skills and a different use, a different role to play, and all did their share to contribute to the overall goal. a thief knew he was a thief, and he did thieving type stuff. that was his part. a cleric knew his role was to heal up his comrades and help protect them from really really scary evil crap. a wizard was a master of mysteries (who easily got his ass kicked unless protected by the fighters) who could solve problems with spells. the fighters valiantly fought in the front lines, protecting and slaying for his cause.

This never happened, though. What ended up happening was there was such an imbalance between the Wizard and everyone else that, while this might work in theory, in the hands of any capable player (I'm not even talking about a powergamer; I'm talking about anyone competent enough to look through the damn book) the Wizard himself could do everyone else's role via magic, without breaking a sweat. Take it from personal experience: While in theory it's all well and good that everyone will have their own role, it's no fun to be the guy that can be replaced with Spell X and Spell Y.

the real problem with 4e in my opinion is the total focus on combat abilities and skills. the 4e books are written like the ruleset to a computer game that rogrammers to use to write the combat code of a mmorpg.

D&D was always focused on combat abilities, just that older editions never spelled things out and left it entirely up to the DM if you could disarm or bull rush or whatever; the "Mother, may I?" factor, which is complete nonsense in and of itself. I'm glad that they started to give rules for certain options - it prevents the DM from deciding for you if something is possible or not.

its as if the dm doesnt exist. creativity on the players and dm's part is either assumed not to exist or ruled out. for example, look how they nerfed all creative spell use during combat through rituals and taking away so many traditional spells.

They nerfed creative spell use because opening spell use to "creativity" allowed crafty (read: optimizers/rules-lawyers) players to "break" the game. That's the whole problem with 3.x - it's easy to break the game by using these so-called creative spells to do weird things that nobody could ever expect. Reigning them in helps bring balance by disabling the main trick of those players. You call it stifling creativity, but I call it keeping everyone on the same page.

everything now revolves around damage dealt during the almighty combat round, and by god everyone had better do the same amount of damage every round, because we dont want people whining. heavens forbid!

Yes, heaven forbid someone being utterly useless during the majority of the game because they made some bad choices.

People didn't wine because they didn't do the same amount of damage, people whined because any decent player could figure out the optimal choices and render someone who didn't useless/ineffective. Again, speaking from experience, it's not fun to watch the rest of the group doing damage, and you not being able to because you chose poorly and didn't build for combat. This was a flaw of the game system. It was a noble flaw, since it was trying to avoid making everything combat based, but still a flaw because combat is the main part of the game in all but the extreme fringe cases.

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but IMO you're looking at it in the wrong way. Everyone always seems to point out that the 4E rules focus on combat - just how do you focus on roleplaying, something that doesn't require any rules at all in the first place? Of course the rules would focus on combat; that's the part that actually requires rules to be in place!

 

[WhatGravitas]

And, off course, as I child I also needed some "crash cars" - matchbox cars where well suited for that. (Picture an 8 year old trying to lift his large bed, using his right hand to put the soon-to-be-crash-car under a leg, and then drop it to put a nice dent or buckle into it...)

Pah, I used aluminium foil to produce "crash cars", because I could never damage anything willingly. Not even the matchbox cars people have brought me as gifts (because they never got that SIKUs were superior! Stoooopid adults!).

And... you haven't watched Disney Club!?

Eh, I'll stop now.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I used aluminium foil to produce "crash cars"

Interesting. Kids these days, they are way smarter then they should be! (Assuming it actually looked "realistic" enough for my childish desires )

This never happened, though. What ended up happening was there was such an imbalance between the Wizard and everyone else that, while this might work in theory, in the hands of any capable player (I'm not even talking about a powergamer; I'm talking about anyone competent enough to look through the damn book) the Wizard himself could do everyone else's role via magic, without breaking a sweat. Take it from personal experience: While in theory it's all well and good that everyone will have their own role, it's no fun to be the guy that can be replaced with Spell X and Spell Y.

Unfortunately, the analogy in the original post with carpenter, electrician and plumber doesn't work so well to illustrate this, but maybe I can try:
Let's assume that the education to become a carpenter, an electrician or a plumber costs money and time. And now, someone comes around and can get the education for all 3 for the time and money of the education for each individual one. And just because he is who he is, he gets it, while the rest is stuck with what he got, and had to spend additional time and money to expand.

D&D was always focused on combat abilities, just that older editions never spelled things out and left it entirely up to the DM if you could disarm or bull rush or whatever; the "Mother, may I?" factor, which is complete nonsense in and of itself. I'm glad that they started to give rules for certain options - it prevents the DM from deciding for you if something is possible or not.


They nerfed creative spell use because opening spell use to "creativity" allowed crafty (read: optimizers/rules-lawyers) players to "break" the game. That's the whole problem with 3.x - it's easy to break the game by using these so-called creative spells to do weird things that nobody could ever expect. Reigning them in helps bring balance by disabling the main trick of those players. You call it stifling creativity, but I call it keeping everyone on the same page.

Creative abuse of spells can still be a source of fun. But usually it is more fun for the single one that can abuse the, in constrast to the fun for a whole group.

Yes, heaven forbid someone being utterly useless during the majority of the game because they made some bad choices.

People didn't wine because they didn't do the same amount of damage, people whined because any decent player could figure out the optimal choices and render someone who didn't useless/ineffective. Again, speaking from experience, it's not fun to watch the rest of the group doing damage, and you not being able to because you chose poorly and didn't build for combat. This was a flaw of the game system. It was a noble flaw, since it was trying to avoid making everything combat based, but still a flaw because combat is the main part of the game in all but the extreme fringe cases.

The problem is also in the nature in how a game like D&D is played. If you focus your game on combat, and everyone is good at combat, everyone gets an equal amount of "screen time". If someone is not good at combat, his "screen-time" isn't very enjoyable. If you focus on non-combat, anyone focused on combat at the expense at other aspects has less screen-time.
Best solution. Ensure that everyone is good at combat, and nobody is bad at non-combat. But: "Everyone is good at combat" can lead to characters that all play the same. To avoid that, 4E distinguishes roles and power source, to add some notable mechanical and flavor effects to achieve this differentiation.

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but IMO you're looking at it in the wrong way. Everyone always seems to point out that the 4E rules focus on combat - just how do you focus on roleplaying, something that doesn't require any rules at all in the first place? Of course the rules would focus on combat; that's the part that actually requires rules to be in place!

My caveat: Combat _is_ role-playing. It only involves combat roles, for sure, but that is still a role you can play. (And you can roleplay badly in combat, too. If you're playing a Cleric, and don't heal your allies, or if you're playing a Fighter and don't protect your allies, you're bad at playing your role. Just as if you're trying to play a pacifist and consistently suggest killing your enemies and taking their stuff is a good idea, or playing a shy character constantly trying to bluff and intimidate people)
Role-playing is ("these days") more then just the combat role. We add "social" roles (loremaster vs faceman vs bully), personality traits and similar stuff to define a character and role-play this, too.

Upping the rules page count doesn't make the "acting" part of role-playing better, though. It just makes the game-part of the role-playing game more interesting. Even if you introduce a 150 page chapter on "social combat", you won't get better at the acting part. You only get better at the game part.

 

[el-remmen]

1) I kind of agree about a certain amount of imbalance being beneficial to the game experience - but then again, I believe a lot of things that mark me as having unusual opinions - for example, too much choice is worse than not enough choice when it comes to race/class/feat options.

2) You should really be careful about trying to universalize your childhood experience - there are as many different experiences as there are people - and I bet even some other kids you grew up with an did those things with you remember it differently.

 

[GlassJaw]

COMBAT WASNT THE FOCUS AROUND WHICH EVERY RULE REVOLVED.

Actually, combat is the primary focus for virtually all the rules in any edition of D&D. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

But I agree with you that don't need class balance across the board. In an MMO you do, but in PnP gaming, not so much.

In an MMO, you need class balance primarily for PvP. It's also a constant struggle because achieving numerical balance while still offering different classes with a variety of abilities is like the holy grail of game design. The thing it, the closer you get to absolute balance, the less "different" the classes feel.

And there is a difference between class balance and class role. All classes should have a role, but they don't have to be numerically balanced against each other. Roles give players unique things that their characters can do. Having things to do = fun.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, combat is the primary focus for virtually all the rules in any edition of D&D. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

But I agree with you that don't need class balance across the board. In an MMO you do, but in PnP gaming, not so much.

In an MMO, you need class balance primarily for PvP. It's also a constant struggle because achieving numerical balance while still offering different classes with a variety of abilities is like the holy grail of game design. The thing it, the closer you get to absolute balance, the less "different" the classes feel.

And there is a difference between class balance and class role. All classes should have a role, but they don't have to be numerically balanced against each other. Roles give players unique things that their characters can do. Having things to do = fun.

Class balance can be important for PvP, but I don't think it is achieved in 4E - simply because it's not needed.

It is not important that the Wizard can kill hordes of Minions with a single spell, or that he can fly. It's not important that the Fighter can take way more hits then the Wizard and can stop enemies from moving past him. The important thing is that in any given situation, both classes will contribute (baring special circumstances) and you don't want to miss one, unless you have to. That you need the other.

If you kept combat to a minimal, less involved aspect in a game, inter-combat balance would not be as relevant. You could compensate with non-combat abilities, and create an overall balance.

Basically, if you reduce combats to the complexity of skill challenges (no more then 15 rolls total per challenge), things would work fine.

On the other hand, if you create a social combat subsystem with the complexity of "real" combat, you need to balance classes within each subsystem, because use of each subsystem will be involved and take a lot of time. This can also work.

 

[joethelawyer]

basically it seems a lot of people agree with my point that when combat is the main focus, or takes so damn long to resolved that it seems like the main focus, people worry mostly about combat damage balance between the classes. when you have a more balanced game with a variety of different scenarios where all classes can have their moment to shine, the balance of classes is not as important. of course for a dm to have the creativity to make a challenging adventure on many levels other than combat scenarios, that goes to the other part of my original post in this thread regarding the lack of creativity in people these days.

btw, in my campaign that i dm, i dont allow flank attacks for thieves to backstab. theives dont backstab in combat, and hardly take part in combat at all in my games except to shoot some arrows from the background maybe, and amazingly enough the thief player still has fun. i have no desire to make my thief like an everquest rogue type who deals damage repeatedly from behind. it just stupid to me that someone can get behind someone else and repeatedly stab them in the ass without them ever catching on.


joe