Mearls on Balance in D&D

[DeadlyUematsu]

There is merit to what T. Foster is saying. Killing monsters in previous editions was never as rewarding in experience as finding and hauling off treasure. Combat was also not as interesting as it is now.

 

[Mallus]

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

That's a sucker's bet.

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

Isn't sitting at my table.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with always handling puzzle solving abstractly. Just by doing so the players are denied the pleasure of solving the puzzles themselves. Which some people find enjoyable.

Except that it can make for a very uneven gaming experience.

Is uniform synonymous with good?

Your players will never quite know whether investing ranks in a social or mental skill is actually worthwhile.

That's very true. It is a trade-off. In return the players sometimes get cool puzzles to solve, codes to crack, and social situations they can navigate solely by their wits. It's all about making player input more important, givng players the satisfaction of succeeding themselves, not just through good die rolls.

 

[Ourph]

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.

I've had this discussion too many times before to rehash everything again. Suffice it to say that I don't believe extensive rules protect players from bad DMing as much as some people suggest and I've never encountered a situation in all my years of playing AD&D or Classic D&D where a DM would declare that a PC hiding behind a solid, opaque object many times larger than their own body was still visible to creatures on the other side of it. Never. Not once.

If that happened to you, I'm sorry for you, but it's not an indictment against the rules it is a case of the DM you were playing with misunderstanding or misapplying the rules IMHO. If the DM disallowed something like that in an AD&D game he was "breaking the rules" (i.e. - apply common sense) just as much as a DM in a 3e game telling you your natural 20 roll on a Fort save still fails because it didn't beat the DC.

 

[Klaus]

One of the most annoying offences I see coming up in 3e games is where someone says "I search inside the bedposts for a secret scroll case" and the DM says "roll your search check. 12? You don't find anything". In other words, there is no allowance given at all for role-playing through a situation and everything HAS to be reduced to rolls.

Sorry, Plane, but that is just not true. From the DMG, page 32, "General Versus Specific":

However, in the second example, the character has specialized knowledge of the situation. She's asking specific questions. In such cases, always award the character a +2 bonus for favorable conditions. It's good to reward a character who has knowledge that allows her to ask specific questions.

If a player tells me "I search the room", the DC to find the hidden scroll case in the bedpost might be 20 or more. If he tells me "I search the bedpost for a secret scroll case", the DC might drop to 10 or less.

 

[T. Foster]

If a player tells me "I search the room", the DC to find the hidden scroll case in the bedpost might be 20 or more. If he tells me "I search the bedpost for a secret scroll case", the DC might drop to 10 or less.

That's a move in the right direction, at least, and I'd be happier playing in a game where my actions could at least affect the DC of the roll in this manner (though of course Taking 20 on an "I search the room" would grant the same result, so the effort seems only marginally worth it), but it still seems to me that if there's a scroll case hidden in the bedpost and someone specifies that he's searching the bedpost for secret compartments that he should be able to find it without requiring any roll at all.

Which brings up another point that I'm probably remiss for not mentioning yesterday (but I forgot, and that's the true reason -- I'm not just making this up now, shucking and jiving and changing my position in response to criticism, as I've too often been accused of): that as a DM I'll tend to let a player substitute roleplaying (by which I mean not just in-character interaction but also things like calling out specifically how he's doing a search, solving a puzzle, etc.) for die rolls and if he succeeds (finds the trap, solves the puzzle, convinces the NPC) without requiring a roll then he succeeds, but if he doesn't succeed he can still fall back on the die-roll as a second-chance or "insurance" and possibly still succeed (but control is then out of his hands, of course).

I think it's more fun when the players themselves are actively involved, not just calling out abstract actions and rolling dice ("I bluff the guard," "I search for traps," "I solve the puzzle") and want to encourage them to play that way, but I also realize that sometimes you'd rather just cut to the chase and roll a die (especially if your character sheet is better at a particular action than you as a player are -- as a low or moderate-Cha character I'd rather play out negotiations with NPCs, but as an 18 Cha paladin you can damn well bet I'll be wanting to make as many Cha-based die rolls as possible; likewise as a 1st level thief with a 10% find traps skill you can be sure I'll be trying to roll that as little as possible where I can get away with roleplaying out the searches -- "I use my mirror to do x," "I use my ball of beeswax to do y," etc. -- but when I'm 10th level and my chance is 80% I'll be more willing to trust fate (but not totally -- a 1 in 5 chance of instant death (the likely result of most traps at 10th level) is still too much in my book...)).

This approach makes the game a bit easier (since players get essentially two chances to succeed at just about everything -- once as players and as characters) but I don't mind terribly since it allows me to create tougher adventures for lower-level characters, to include more traps and puzzles and secret doors and monsters that must be negotiated with, i.e. more of the things I find fun about the game.

 

[Hussar]

It's actually suggested as a possibility in the module with special rules included to cover what chance the giants have to see through the disguise. So it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch now does it?

See, this is my problem. As a player, how would it even occur to me to do this? There's nothing in the rules to even remotely suggest that I could disguise myself (let alone disguise my halfling thief) as a young hill giant. Unless the DM specifically suggested it to the players, how would they know to do it?

 

[Ranes]

Ranes, I think you are misunderstanding his assertion. If you wish to consider the discussion I'd ask you to use somewhat less aggressive language though.

Thanks

I think otherwise. I think there is merit to some of what TF said but I felt it was couched in terms that were ultimately untenable and framed in language that tended to the disingenuous. I was careful in my response to attack his arguments and not engage in ad hominum. However, I heed your words oh dude responsible for much of my formative D&D experience.

And without quoting line after line of TF's last post on this subject, I get it and can go along with it. So there.

Aren't Mr Mearls's contributions stimulating?

 

[Ourph]

See, this is my problem. As a player, how would it even occur to me to do this? There's nothing in the rules to even remotely suggest that I could disguise myself (let alone disguise my halfling thief) as a young hill giant. Unless the DM specifically suggested it to the players, how would they know to do it?

How can a lack of creativity or imagination on the part of the players be the fault of the rules or the author of the module? You think of it because the rulebooks encourage you numerous times, as a player, to use creativity and problem solving skills to accomplish your goals rather than brute force. You think of it because you're looking for a way to move about the Steading unnoticed and you come across a room full of Giant's cloaks. You think of it because of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser disguising themselves as beggars to sneak into the Thieves Guild or Han and Luke disguising themselves as Stormtroopers to sneak into the Imperial cell block to rescue Princess Leia. It's really not that difficult, is it?

 

[hong]

How can a lack of creativity or imagination on the part of the players be the fault of the rules or the author of the module? You think of it because the rulebooks encourage you numerous times, as a player, to use creativity and problem solving skills to accomplish your goals rather than brute force. You think of it because you're looking for a way to move about the Steading unnoticed and you come across a room full of Giant's cloaks. You think of it because of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser disguising themselves as beggars to sneak into the Thieves Guild or Han and Luke disguising themselves as Stormtroopers to sneak into the Imperial cell block to rescue Princess Leia. It's really not that difficult, is it?

"You're not frickin' giants, now stop faffing around" would be my reply to people trying to pretend to be giants. Even baby giants.

What you call "creativity and imagination" many others call "reading the DM's mind". Or perhaps "bullshtting the DM", since the probability of success of reading the DM's mind seems highly correlated with having a strong personality.

 

[el-remmen]

"You're not frickin' giants, now stop faffing around" would be my reply to people trying to pretend to be giants. Even baby giants.

What you call "creativity and imagination" many others call "reading the DM's mind". Or perhaps "bullshtting the DM", since the probability of success of reading the DM's mind seems highly correlated with having a strong personality.

How can it be "reading the DM's mind" when it is just one of endless possibilities in a game where you can attempt whatever you want?