Mearls on Balance in D&D

[el-remmen]

Take, for example, The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (the module Mike Mearls and his lunchtime crew were playing through as, seemingly, one big combat). You can run this module as a straight-up melee hack-fest, and I daresay that's how most groups over the years have run it (note the objections to my claim earlier in the thread that I don't view the module as purely a combat exercise) -- wading more-or-less straight into the Great Hall and opening a can of whup-ass on the assembled giants until either all of them or all of the party are dead. But it doesn't have to play out that way -- if you read carefully (and a bit between the lines) you'll see there's an entirely different implicit storyline running through the module, involving the party infiltrating the place by stealth and trickery, disguising themselves as juvenile giants, making friends with various disaffected groups of maids and servants to gain information, picking off drunk giants one by one as they wander away from the party, perhaps even enlisting the aid of the cloud and stone giants (it's not specifically mentioned in the module-text, but why couldn't this happen?), inciting the orc slaves in the basement into a full-scale insurrection (a great diversion!), burning the place to the ground (which is definitely considered possible, even likely, to happen in the module -- going so far as to say who takes refuge where once it does), etc.

Actually, back in the when I ran through that module as a player that was exactly how we handled it. . . Well, that and lots of fights with giants. . .

 

[T. Foster]

So instead of fighting, you'd rather sneak around (Hide and Move Silently) and gather information (Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Disguise)... so as to avoid rolling dice?

-Hyp.

Well, I also happen to greatly prefer a style of game that doesn't reduce those sorts of things to die rolls either (which is just the style for which G1 was written, incidentally -- note that per the text of the module if the party thinks to disguise themselves as juvenile giants their ruse will be successful as long as the observer doesn't come within 20' -- no "disguise" or "bluff" rolls required ). I'm ambivalent enough about "find traps" being a die roll (that's what your 10' pole, your ball of twine, and your bags of sand and marbles are supposed to be for!), the idea of "gather information," "sense motive," and "intimidate" being abstracted into die rolls makes me almost queasy...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, I also happen to greatly prefer a style of game that doesn't reduce those sorts of things to die rolls either (which is just the style for which G1 was written, incidentally -- note that per the text of the module if the party thinks to disguise themselves as juvenile giants their ruse will be successful as long as the observer doesn't come within 20' -- no "disguise" or "bluff" rolls required ). I'm ambivalent enough about "find traps" being a die roll (that's what your 10' pole, your ball of twine, and your bags of sand and marbles are supposed to be for!), the idea of "gather information," "sense motive," and "intimidate" being abstracted into die rolls makes me almost queasy...

I'm not saying reduce them solely to die rolls; however, the die rolls should be a part of it.

If a party thinks to attack a giant with a sword, we don't decide their attack will be successful; similarly, if they decide to disguise themselves as teenie giants, their skill in such endeavours should have a bearing on whether or not it works.

A low-Cha fighter shouldn't be as competent at dressing up and pumping giant maids for information as the bard or rogue who's put a lot of effort into getting good at it. If we assume automatic success, it makes that effort meaningless; if we want to make the effort meaningful, we either rely on DM fiat ("You reckon the bard could pull that off, but not the fighter"), or we include mechanics that test that skill.

But as soon as we utilise those mechanics, and roll a die, you consider you've lost.

-Hyp.

 

[Maggan]

This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.

IME most of the rules of any edition of D&D covers what you can or cannot do in combat, or dealing with the repercussions of combat. And then there are some rules for avoiding combat.

It's has been a staple of roleplaying games since the beginning, and I look to Hackmaster nad KoDT as good documentation of that.

So I'm perplexed by your bold assertion. Care to elaborate?

/M

 

[T. Foster]

I'm not saying reduce them solely to die rolls; however, the die rolls should be a part of it.

If a party thinks to attack a giant with a sword, we don't decide their attack will be successful; similarly, if they decide to disguise themselves as teenie giants, their skill in such endeavours should have a bearing on whether or not it works.

A low-Cha fighter shouldn't be as competent at dressing up and pumping giant maids for information as the bard or rogue who's put a lot of effort into getting good at it. If we assume automatic success, it makes that effort meaningless; if we want to make the effort meaningful, we either rely on DM fiat ("You reckon the bard could pull that off, but not the fighter"), or we include mechanics that test that skill.

But as soon as we utilise those mechanics, and roll a die, you consider you've lost.

-Hyp.

First off, I'm talking ideally/theoretically about avoiding combat and not rolling dice -- in actual play we pretty much always have at least some combat in each session, and I roll lots of dice in both combat and non-combat situations. I just like to de-emphasize both where possible, and practical.

That said, the issue of how much roleplaying and problem-solving should be abstracted into die-rolls vs. actually played out by the player is a very old debate which that isn't the propoer venue to rehash (and I don't feel like rehashing it anyway). Suffice to say I have a difference of opinion with you regarding the role of "non-combat skills" in the game and the way such situations should be handled in play -- you prefer quantified skills and die rolls, just like in combat, where I prefer a more freeform player-centric approach. My approach is currently unfashionable, and isn't supported at all by the current edition of the game, but it was the default for many years, including those years in which the game was at the height of its mass popularity.

 

[Hussar]

The primary focus of the game has almost always been on combat with groups I've played with too, but I daresay that's more because the groups I've played with have, on average, not been all that good, and not because the game necessarily works that way. Combat is the "easy" way to play the game -- it requires the least thought, you can just sit back and let the dice take care of everything (or at least you could in the old days), and even if you fail it's not really your fault, it was just bad luck (or a cheating DM throwing unbalanced challenges at you ). Avoiding combat while still finding ways to "win" and prosper is much more difficult, and requires much more thought and care. I also happen to find it a lot more fun (as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread).

Take, for example, The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (the module Mike Mearls and his lunchtime crew were playing through as, seemingly, one big combat). You can run this module as a straight-up melee hack-fest, and I daresay that's how most groups over the years have run it (note the objections to my claim earlier in the thread that I don't view the module as purely a combat exercise) -- wading more-or-less straight into the Great Hall and opening a can of whup-ass on the assembled giants until either all of them or all of the party are dead. But it doesn't have to play out that way -- if you read carefully (and a bit between the lines) you'll see there's an entirely different implicit storyline running through the module, involving the party infiltrating the place by stealth and trickery, disguising themselves as juvenile giants, making friends with various disaffected groups of maids and servants to gain information, picking off drunk giants one by one as they wander away from the party, perhaps even enlisting the aid of the cloud and stone giants (it's not specifically mentioned in the module-text, but why couldn't this happen?), inciting the orc slaves in the basement into a full-scale insurrection (a great diversion!), burning the place to the ground (which is definitely considered possible, even likely, to happen in the module -- going so far as to say who takes refuge where once it does), etc.

Some players might view this a boring way to play -- sneaking around gathering info when you're supposed to be throwing-down with the baddies, and it's certainly harder and requires more care, thought, and discipline, but at least to me it's a much more engaging and rewarding style of play, and much more fun. I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...

Sneaking around? Other than the thief, no one could. Disguising yourself as a young hill giant? That's pretty far outside the scope of the module and stretching believability an awful lot. Particularly if your group had an elf, dwarf or halfling. And, even if you do do all of this, you still have to go into the main hall and face all those hill giants.

You played this way, and fair enough, but, I think that you are very, very much in a minority position here.

 

[Tetsubo]

I've GM'd the Steading module a number of times. It is one of my favorites. In every case the PCs started out by sneaking in. They often ended the module with a slugfest in the main room. One group even started a fire in a far corner as a distraction to aid their sneaking endeavors...

This is possibly a stupid question: Is the updated Steading module available?

 

[phindar]

Its not really fair to say that Bluff and Disguise skills weren't required in the module, since the rules for those skills (and any other) didn't even exist yet. (That's kind of like saying, "In Colonial America, space travel was against the law.")

 

[Ranes]

That said, the issue of how much roleplaying and problem-solving should be abstracted into die-rolls vs. actually played out by the player is a very old debate which that isn't the propoer venue to rehash (and I don't feel like rehashing it anyway). Suffice to say I have a difference of opinion with you regarding the role of "non-combat skills" in the game and the way such situations should be handled in play -- you prefer quantified skills and die rolls, just like in combat, where I prefer a more freeform player-centric approach. My approach is currently unfashionable, and isn't supported at all by the current edition of the game, but it was the default for many years, including those years in which the game was at the height of its mass popularity.

Well, you just can't have your cake and eat it. In the years when the game was at the height of its popularity, the most popular columns in magazines like Dragon and White Dwarf were those that featured new monsters. Your claim that your preferred style of play was the default doesn't stand up to a nanosecond of scrutiny. Similarly baseless is your contention that this style of play "is not supported at all by the current edition". On the contrary, it is supported far more now than it was in previous editions. Now everyone can climb a wall, to avoid combat, not just the thief.

 

[hong]

The primary focus of the game has almost always been on combat with groups I've played with too, but I daresay that's more because the groups I've played with have, on average, not been all that good, and not because the game necessarily works that way.

There's a certain platonic something about this argument that I find most, well, platonic.