TrippyHippy
Hero
I wouldn't necessarily say that finding perfect balance in classes is boring.
It's anal.
It's anal.
I think it is a potential mistake to assume that mechanical variations in resolution are the key to producing dramatic and rewarding differences in the fiction of the sort that you mention.
For example, in my own experience 4e is quite good at producing those differences, despite the similar mechanical frameworks for PC build and action resolution. Better than classic D&D, to be honest. But even for others who have had different experiences, it doesn't follow that mechanical differentiation of the sort you describe is going to produce ficitonal differentiation of the sort you seem to want.
Sure. But that seems to me a bit different from the examples that you gave upthread (and that Mearls gives in his column). This seems to be all about mechanical variations supporting different mechanical preferences.Okay, how about this: some players want the ability to have their wizard carefully hoard his spells all day long, so that when a truly challenging fight comes along they can dish out incredible punishment every round. Some want to play a character who never needs to plan ahead further than where his axe is getting buried next round. For those two players to feel useful in combat at the same table while playing the way they want, they need a system that allows for mechanical variety (Vancian wizards and non-AEDU fighters), which they could have gotten from any edition before 4e; but they probably also need some semblance of inter-class balance, which they won't get past level 5 or so in any edition except 4th and, hopefully, 5th.
This would be an example of mechanical variations enabling differences in playstyle at the same table, not (necessarily) rewarding differences in fiction.
That's still fairly intimately connected to life and death though, both pragmatically - high level fighters, especially, tend to suck without their metal gear - and more metaphorically, if gear is seen by a player as part of his/her build.People have tried, at least on the individual scenario/case basis, and players seem to treat it as life or death anyway. Take, for example, an encounter with a rust monster. That's hardly likely to end in death, just the destruction of some gear. But you'd think the DM had kicked the players' puppies if that rust monster chows down on a decent sword or suit of armor.
But their enemies can knock them out rather than kill them. I've used this as a nice alternative to a TPK.Then there is the case of capture. It's pretty rare to see PCs surrender. They'd rather suffer a TPK, it seems, than surrender to their enemies.
I think it is 100% possible to encourage it in the rules (eg the 4e rule that allows 0 hp to be treated as unconsciousness rather than death), and even moreso the GM guidelines for framing challenges and adjudicating failure.These have always been part of the game and alternatives to PC/party death. Yet, players don't exactly embrace them. There may be ways to encourage it in the rules, I suppose.
If spotlight balance is an important element of balance - and I think it is plausible that it is - the game needs to be designed to promote it, or at least to make room for it. And I think that achieving that is somewhat independent of variation in the build and resolution mechanics for class abilities.
I think he's referencing his own experiences. Back in the day he played in a game of 2e AD&D, in which he felt his wizard PC became dominant to the extent that the other PCs were much like his sidekicks, or lackeys."The game is about the adventures of fighters, rogues, wizards, and clerics, not a wizard and his or her lackeys."
It's always great to see the man in charge repeating/promoting one of the core myths of the edition war...not.
SIGH...
Since when was Ars Magicia an edition of D&D?"The game is about the adventures of fighters, rogues, wizards, and clerics, not a wizard and his or her lackeys."
It's always great to see the man in charge repeating/promoting one of the core myths of the edition war...not.
I didn't think it was snarky in the least. And I have done the rough equivalent of let low level parties meet Tiamat in the past; the key is to realise the consequences of goals and context.Thats why it's snarky. No sandbox DM is going to allow a group to meet Tiamat. It's a strawman kind of argument.
It begins to sound to me like what you want isn't a "neutral" voice, but some authority to big-up your play preferences as some kind of "validation". Maybe you are not very convinced of the validity of them yourself? Whatever - I can't see the "slur" here you say you see, to be honest.Edit: it's more a case of him describing my playstyle using the language of a detractor instead of a neutral voice. Thats all. I'm not like enraged or anything. Just annoyed and saddened.
I bagsy playing the queen!!I don't think that's a fair comparison. The PCs should be players on a team not competitors. So, while its important that the same rules apply to all the competitors in Chess, the various pieces on each side function differently. The different type of PC are more like the chess pieces than the chess players, as I see it.
It's a lot less random than many suppose, but, yes, not all the sets are equal. The orange set are the best on the board, by some margin. The randomness always gives variation, as it's supposed to, but you will win more games than anyone else in the long run with good tactics in Monopoly.Monopoly is also boring. It's not exactly Solved, but it is largely random who succeeds and who fails. Park Place is not balanced with Baltic Avenue. Add to that house rules that change the game around.
pemerton said:I think it would help for the designers to consider how a broader range of stakes, and less extreme failure conditions, can be made part of the game.