Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Campbell]

I would argue that by 3e RAW you are awarded for searching in specific locations. It takes far less time to find what you are looking for if you are more specific, and taking additional time searching an entire room might not always be a good decision. Of course, the 5' x 5' square gradient might not be specific enough for some.

 

[Ourph]

Without rules, these things only worked if the GM let them.

If you read the next few lines of my post you'll see that I pointed out that there ARE rules for such things. Every creature has a Hear Noise chance (covered in the DMG). If characters are making an effort to be stealthy, the DM should be using those rolls (modified appropriately) to see if they are successful. Every creature has a chance to be surprised, the DM should be modifying surprise rolls based on the party's actions (modifying surprise is also discussed in the DMG). As for hiding behind a barrel, I'd say that's covered by the fact that the AD&D PHB and DMG mention several times that the DM should listen to what characters want to do and make appropriate rulings based on common sense when the rules aren't specific. Why would you need a specific rule saying it's possible for a dwarf to hide behind a giant-sized barrel? :\

It seems to me that the fault is not with the rules being uncomprehensive but with the players, in many cases, not bothering to read closely enough or not understanding how to apply what they read. It's not fair to say the rules lack a mechanism for something simply because many people misunderstood how the mechanisms that were there were meant to be applied.

 

[Baduin]

... 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...

Are you a Palainian? (From "Doc" Smith Lensman series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman#Planets_and_Places

 

[phindar]

As for hiding behind a barrel, I'd say that's covered by the fact that the AD&D PHB and DMG mention several times that the DM should listen to what characters want to do and make appropriate rulings based on common sense when the rules aren't specific.

An "appropriate ruling based on common sense" IS the GM deciding. (Saying, "If you hide behind a barrel, the GM decides whether or not you are successful," and, "If you hide behind a barrel, the GM makes an appropriate ruling based on common sense as to whether or not you are successful" is the same thing.)

Bluffing and disguising you're way through the module, or cutting the bottoms off barrels and walking very slowly through the module, only works (in the absence of rules covering those activities) if the GM lets it.

 

[Enkhidu]

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

-Hyp.

I might be off-base on this one, but if I had to guess I'd say that T. Foster might come from the "if you want the PCs to fail, make them roll dice" school of GMing. That would explain the die-rolling minimalist approach he seems to be advocating.

 

[Mallus]

weird double post problem...

 

[Mallus]

An "appropriate ruling based on common sense" IS the GM deciding.

I've often wondered if the issue here is really power.

The GM 'just deciding' is bad because the player objects to the GM having that authority. It chafes to have someone else in the dominant position (even though that power structure is inherent in traditional RPG's, and has been since their inception). Having random chance + rules decide things is fine, because they're not the fat guy behind the screen sitting to your left drinking Mountain Dew. Now if he has power over you --however insignificant-- then we've got a problem...

It's the only way this makes sense to me. Failure is failure, whether that's dictated by GM fiat or a bad die roll. If the end-result is the same, what difference does it make which resolution system is used?

Personally, I like both. Rules and fiat. Because sometimes I want to be challenged through my character ('Make a Bluff check') and other times I want to challenged directly as a player ('It's a cipher all right. You have 10 actual minutes to crack it. Go!').

There's no reason why a game can't incorporate both.

 

[MarkB]

'It's a cipher all right.

"Finally! I knew those maxed-out ranks in Decipher Script would pay off one day!"

You have 10 actual minutes to crack it. Go!

"...Wuh? But my character-!"

There's no reason why a game can't incorporate both.

Except that it can make for a very uneven gaming experience. Your players will never quite know whether investing ranks in a social or mental skill is actually worthwhile.

 

[helium3]

It came in the mail and 90% of the words were rewritten, including everything I thought made it exciting. AEG's jim pinto blamed developer Mearls for the hacking, and I was dissapointed.

90%? That's a lot of re-writing. Might as well have just written it himself.

 

[mattcolville]

I googled this:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

That's probably the one.

EDIT: I read it, and while it is agressive and insulting at times I think the issues raised by Mearls are relevant. If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original. That said, it doesn't read well as a review, it's more of a rant, and probably was written to be a humorous take on the Keep.

/M

I haven't read Mike's review, but I did buy a copy of the D&D red box some time ago and read...well, tried to read, the Keep on the Borderlands module. Now, maybe this was a different version than the one everyone else is used to, but it was nearly unreadable and, I felt, unplayable. I mean, you could certainly use it as a series of encounters, but there was no indication of why anyone in the module was where they were, what they were doing there, what was expected of them, whether they were good guys or bad guys or, indeed, what, if anything, was supposed to happen.