Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[The_Universe]

A good exapmle of this would be the weapon mastery optional rules in the rules cyclopedia. You can add this option in (which lets you do more and more neat tricks the better you get with a weapon) if the added time/complexity is to your liking. Since it is an optional rule, however, there are no classes, or other rules that rely on it being in your game.

Actually, this is exactly what I was talking about. Adding in weapon mastery rules, all alone, still unbalances the game since it favors characters whose particular idiom depends on the use of weapons - Fighters, rangers, etc.

If you're running that game, you then either have to accept that Fighters and Rangers and other primary "weapon users" are going to out-power magic users, or you have to come up with another, equivalent rule that gives the non-weapon users something special. You're back to game design, rather than game play. Admittedly, it's only an issue if you care about balance. If you don't, it's a non-issue.

Once more, all IMHO.

 

[fredramsey]

Well, you young whipper-snapper...

"Game Balance" usually, but not always, refers to balance between characters. That Joe's 5th level Necromancer and John's 5th level Fighter are about equal in power. This is rarely the case, but that is the goal. In my mind, the DM has to contribute to that balance, by having things that the Necromancer can do that the Fighter can't, and vice-versa.

I've been playing for 25 years. It is my opinion that the D&D we have now is the best D&D that has ever been. My group and I have a blast with it. Sometimes we're silly, sometimes we're serious, sometimes we're "role-playing", sometimes we're heavily into a tactical combat. But most of all, we have FUN. And that, in the end, is what really counts.

Hey watch it bud I'm only 27!!!

But in anycase sure, I see where you're coming from, but look at 3e. One of the things they did was create "balance"

Great I thought upon hearing that... But then I thought, balanced against what? I thought D&D wasn't a competition? There are no winners or loosers in D&D.

So why does balance become such an issue? And that's what to me begins to foster the idea that it IS a competition.

And therefore from the VERY begining, the game instills the idea that you WIN when your character gets to the end of the campaign.

Does that make sense? Who knows maybe I'm nuts. I hope I am.

 

[Scribble]

Actually, this is exactly what I was talking about. Adding in weapon mastery rules, all alone, still unbalances the game since it favors characters whose particular idiom depends on the use of weapons - Fighters, rangers, etc.

Well true for that example. But why would it be impossible for the designer of whatever optional rule is in question to come up with something balanced?

Like Let's say we have a game system that does not have feats... If we make up an optional rule called "Feats" and say every 3 levels you get to pick a feat. Now, you've added a new rule. It's balanced because EVERYONE gets one at every 3 levels, but there's nothing inherently depending upon the use of that rule in the game. SO if you don't use them, no harm done. If you do, you're adding a balanced optional rule to the game at the possible sacrifice of speed of play...

 

[Maggan]

1st, 2nd & 3rd

My fear is that because soooo many feats are coming out new players see collecting feats and "stating up" their character as the way the game is played. It becomes basically a competition like MTG.

I find these discussions very interesting, even though I don't really understand the issue at hand.

In Sweden, the pre-dominant RPG is based on a translation of BRP from Chaosium. Very light on rules.

So here, all versions D&D (and AD&D), have largely been viewed as too much balance (first time I heard about the almighty "balance" was in early Dragon I think, I'm pretty sure the concept was around before 3e), too many options, too many extras to boost your PC. Too little of the roleplaying aspect, if you will.

So to me, D&D3e is doing the same thing that D&D has been doing all along (which is why I like it). But of course, this comes from someone who would never describe AD&D2e or 1st as "rules lite". Compared to rules lite systems, they are elephants.

So is D&D3e really MtG? I wouldn't know since I've never played MtG, but it doesn't feel that way to me, if I compare what I know of MtG and compare that to our style of play. We use the rules to create cool stuff, much as we always have.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Scribble]

"Game Balance" usually, but not always, refers to balance between characters. That Joe's 5th level Necromancer and John's 5th level Fighter are about equal in power. This is rarely the case, but that is the goal. In my mind, the DM has to contribute to that balance, by having things that the Necromancer can do that the Fighter can't, and vice-versa.

Editions aside, I still stand by my point. If you create something that says "balanced for fairness" then you create the question balanced against what? You say against eachothers characters, well ok, but why? Are they competing?

Balanced so that the monsters that the DM throws at the party aren't superpowered?

I can see where the designers were going wioth it. It's balanced so that the DM can pick certain monsters and know it's not going to be a TPK or that it will challange his group...

But can you see where I'm coming from? It also has the negative effect of fostering the competative side.

"Hey, it's balanced, get a better character and you'll beat the monsters..."

 

[fredramsey]

No, it's so Player 1 does not feel that he was shafted by his choice of character since he's always standing in the back while Player 2 gets all the screen time. Simple, really.

 

[Scribble]

No, it's so Player 1 does not feel that he was shafted by his choice of character since he's always standing in the back while Player 2 gets all the screen time. Simple, really.

Again, I can see what they designers intended, and why that was a good thing, but at the same time I still think it (albeigt unintentionally) creates the need to compete.

 

[fredramsey]

Compete for what? Unless the DM is encouraging party discord (not my style - it makes it more a first-person shooter than an RPG), the party is working together to defeat enemies. In my game, the other players are quite happy when someone uses a special ability to help the party defeat their enemies, or negotiate a lower price for an item, or figures out the puzzle, etc.

So I don't see what competition you are talking about. It's not part of the game. If it is, I fault the DM.

 

[Henry]

Editions aside, I still stand by my point. If you create something that says "balanced for fairness" then you create the question balanced against what? You say against eachothers characters, well ok, but why? Are they competing?

Actually, they are, and always have since the game was created. What they're competing for, IMO, is face-time. One of the big problems with Player's Option stuff was that there were elements of certain books (skills and powers have the most if I recall correctly) that far outstripped the other options available. There were certain clear combos that one took if one wanted to have a very powerful character; Fighters took the weapon specialization options in Combat & Tactics, for example, and bulked up the base damage dice and to hits of their weapons. Mages took the elementalist or force mage "kits" from Spells & Magic, and got much and gave little. Rogues.. well, were screwed in those books, I believe. While specifics escape me after years of leaving those books behind, there were clear paths to take that were more unbalancing, and DM's had to be on their toes to keep players from abusing the rules horribly.

Even in the 2E Player's handbook, a fighter with his ONE weapon specialization (yes, he was only supposed to have ONE) was very lackluster compared to his bard/mage/cleric/druid friends.

What this means is that every group had one or two rules abusers who knew every little trick, and it was built into the rules. Nowadays, even the most egregious Wizards of the Coast Prestige Class still compares favorably to the higher levels of the core classes. No one is so unbearably lopsided in face-time due to abilities their characters lack inherently.

Now, there were always solutions to this, the ones I hear often - incompatible play styles (find another group), DM control (DM don't be a pushover), only use core rules (DM's take control!) etc. but these didn't address the advantages of a system were 7th level MEANS 7th level, and not having to balance a 7th level fighter versus an 8th level mage, or a 9th level thief. Both were certainly valid, but for the layman, who wants to put together a 9th level party and bust heads, it offers the advantages of saying, "go home, make 9th level characters with 25-point buy, 15,000 gp of gear, and see me next saturday" - and the DM can reasonably expect a group of characters of similar power level, without looking at something so off-the wall it blows up his session, or one player can do so much the other players sit bored while one person dominates.

My 2nd edition games suffered from that a lot; and for that I am grateful to messrs. Cook, Tweet, and Williams.

 

[The_Universe]

Well true for that example. But why would it be impossible for the designer of whatever optional rule is in question to come up with something balanced?

Like Let's say we have a game system that does not have feats... If we make up an optional rule called "Feats" and say every 3 levels you get to pick a feat. Now, you've added a new rule. It's balanced because EVERYONE gets one at every 3 levels, but there's nothing inherently depending upon the use of that rule in the game. SO if you don't use them, no harm done. If you do, you're adding a balanced optional rule to the game at the possible sacrifice of speed of play...

It's definitely *possible* to come up with balanced optional rules - just pointing out that the particular example was not one. Of course, then you also need to add feats to a bunch of monsters that don't have them - but at that point it's a work/time issue rather than a balance one.

"Game Balance" usually, but not always, refers to balance between characters. That Joe's 5th level Necromancer and John's 5th level Fighter are about equal in power. This is rarely the case, but that is the goal. In my mind, the DM has to contribute to that balance, by having things that the Necromancer can do that the Fighter can't, and vice-versa.

That's what I was specifically referring to, yes - Balance between characters. However, there's the additional issue of ensuring that characters are balanced with the rest of the game. If the PCs have feats and no one else in the world does, they've "outgrown" their potential opponents - I don't think that's good, either.

It's so Player 1 does not feel that he was shafted by his choice of character since he's always standing in the back while Player 2 gets all the screen time. Simple, really.

Exactly my point.

Editions aside, I still stand by my point. If you create something that says "balanced for fairness" then you create the question balanced against what? You say against eachothers characters, well ok, but why? Are they competing?

It's been said over and over for the last few posts, but they compete for a piece of the story, or "screen time" if you prefer the movie analogy.

Furthermore, while everyone gets a kick out of those moments when someone else in the party does something really interesting or cool, eventually even that can get old. In even the most mature gaming groups, if Bob's Paladin does everything while Steve and Edna sit around twiddling their thumbs, the game is not living up to the promise of its concept. That's why we desire balance in a game, ESPECIALLY between Player Characters.

Henry says it better than I. Read his post.