Mearls on Balance in D&D

[el-remmen]

Depending on the DM-player dynamics in question, the DM may well make a snap decision that it's ludicrous and forbid it from happening. Going from all the stories of DMs kiboshing ideas that are "totally different", I say this is more likely than not.

Right, it is all about dynamics, not rules. . . See above.

In my case, if I thought something was totally whacked, I would look to my players and say, "I think this is totally whacked and has a slim to no chance of working, wanna go over your thinking about it again, so I can see if I am missing something?"

And after we talk about it a bit, if I still think it is too nuts, I say "You can try it, but the level of difficulty I imagine is going to mean you will need to be lucky to pull it off (i.e. high DCs or frequent checks, or some combination). . . And if they still want to do it, they do it and deal with the consequences.

And if not, then not. . . we move on and they think of something else. . it is part of the reason why the GM is also called referee. . . They accept it because they also trust me to keep an open mind and work with them to keep the game fun.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original.
/M

Yeah, that's why this thing:

didn't sell well at all.

 

[Ranes]

Imagine if there'd never been a B2 for Hackmaster to play on. That's what Maggan was saying.

 

[Felon]

Example:
"That skinny anemic wizard sure is gonna have an extra hard time pulling off being giant child, I'll apply a circumstance penalty."

Anyone else around here watch "Scrubs"?

Anyway, a part of me just wants to vomit when I read these lunchtime campaign reports, even knowing that they're intentionally trying to come up with the most min-maxed, overpowered classes they can get away with in an "anything goes" environment. Notice how consistently the pets are the actual stars of the battle.

 

[jasin]

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),

Taking 20 on the bedpost takes 2 minutes. Taking 20 on even a 10' x 10' room (a rather smallish room, as rooms in D&D go) would take 8 minutes. In a game where powerful spells last in minutes, it is very much worth the effort.

Of course, you could just clear out the dungeon/temple/cave/whatever completely and then systematically take 20 everywhere, but then, you can do that even with descriptive searching. "They're all dead. We search everywhere. Everywhere."

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.

Do you think it works like that in the real world? Do you think a secret service agent or a career criminal couldn't hide something so well that an ordinary person simply couldn't find it, because it's not a skill they live by?

And D&D characters are like secret service agents and career criminal and better.

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")

I agree, but even though having a skill for everything does encourage the abstract approach, ultimately, if the DM and the players want the game to be more descriptive and less abstract, they should be more descriptive and less abstract.

For the specific cases, "I bluff the guard" is too much for me. Tell me what you say, and your roll (modified if appropriate) will decide whether he buys it.

"I search for traps" is just fine, since I don't expect people I play with to know the first thing about searching for traps, and neither do I. But if someone wants to get more specific for colour, that's great. "I slowly tap on the door from top to bottom listening for" &c. &c. won't let you find the trap without a roll, but hey, it won't get you killed without a roll either because I decided that's the wrong way to go about it, so I guess that's even.

"I solve the puzzle" is something I have never, ever seen allowed or expected. We've had a great puzzle last week in our first Savage Tide session (Dungeon adventure, so one would guess this is as close to "default" D&D as possible) and while knowledge skills possibly could have provided more information/clues, ultimately the puzzle had to be solved by player thinking. But then, that was a great puzzle, one that's obvious and puzzling at the same time, so anyone can reasonably solve it, rather than something that's hard for the players, but is just an application of a skill. With a "puzzle" like that, the DM shouldn't be surprised when the players expect to use the skill in question to solve it.

 

[phindar]

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.

This issue is power in this regard: If you have a really good GM, giving him a lot of power is a good thing. If you have a really bad GM, giving him a lot of power is a bad thing. Since most GMs fall somewhere in between, and since any GM can have an off-night, having consistent, agreed-upon rules heads off problems rather than creates them. (You can sub "players" for "GM" in that sentence and it works too.)

Its a lot better to have rules and not need them than to need rules and not have them.

 

[Klaus]

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.

I can actually think of a couple of ways a secret scroll case might be hidden inside a bedpost that someone who's examining it might not find it.

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")...

"I bluff the guard" is actually not allowed by the rules, since it must be determined if the bluff is believable or too out there, which increases the DC. The bluff rules actually *require* that the player states what he's trying to convince the NPC of.

"I search for traps" is fine, although, as I mentioned, I lower the DC for specifics ("I search for traps in front of the fireplace").

"I solve the puzzle" can't be used, because there's no Puzzle Solving skill in D&D. To be fair to a player whose character has Int 18 or something, I might call for Intelligence checks and give out a couple of clues based on the result. Other skills might be used to garner clues, like Knoweldge or Decipher Script (like in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's alphabet puzzle).

 

[Hussar]

Look, I wasn't bagging on the G series of modules at all. My specific beef was T Foster's assertion that some versions of D&D promote role play.

Ballocks.

No version of D&D, including the current one, give any benefit at all to role play. None. Zip. Zero. 3e gives a glancing nod in the direction with ad hoc xp awards, but, even that's buried at the back of the xp awards section. If I role play my cleric to such heights of wonder than the other players (not their characters, but the actual players) instantly convert to the worship of my diety, the rules give me exactly zero reward.

And it never has.

The only thing you generally get xp for is killing stuff. You used to get it for taking its treasure too, but, that's gone now. Even 2e, which gets touted as the "role players D&D" only gave bonus xp to the fighter for killing stuff. Nothing else.

If your group role played your way through G1, more power to you. Bravo. Excellent. That's great. But, it had exactly nothing to do with the system you were playing and everything to do with the group. That my group when Texas Chainsaw Massacre on the giants and everything else in there is good on me. We had a blast. But, in no case did either of us do anything wrong. ((Well, to be honest, in my case, we likely did all sorts of things wrong by the rules, but that's a different issue ))

I find it bewildering when people try to tout any version of D&D as a high rp system. There's a reason D&D has been seen as the quintessential beer and pretzels game. The game has always been about killing stuff and taking its loot, at least the mechanics have been.

 

[Reynard]

No version of D&D, including the current one, give any benefit at all to role play. None. Zip. Zero.

That's kind of dependent on how you define "role play". If you are using a very narrow definition involving amateur acting, then you are correct: there is not and has never beena mechanical benefit in D&D for speaking in a funny voice. (NOTE: Although I am being sarcastic, I happen to be one of those ham it up, funny voice amateur actor DMs, so i am not bagging on it.)

But role-playing goes far beyond the "acting" and doesn't have to include it all. A person can control their character in entirely the third person and still role-play. In the context of the RPG, role-playing is -- and this is as concise a definition as I can give it, and I am sure others will disgree with a fervor -- taking on the role of a character. Even if you treat that roll as little more thana piece on a battle board, you are, in the context of an RPG, still role-playing.

"Grognar flies into a rage and eviscerates the ogre." is just good as "Blaargh! Stupid Oger. You've angered Grognar. Now, DIE!!!aayy!!!"

@nd edition in particular rewarded roleplaying with its XP awards. Each class (role) got bonus xp for actions related to the class (role-playing). 3rd edition has made it easier than ever to support role-playing: it is no longer a matter of whether you kill everything in the room, because XP is gained from overcoming challenges, no matter what they are or how it is done. That definitely facilitates role-playing.

 

[Maggan]

Yeah, that's why this thing:

didn't sell well at all.

It didn't sell? Well, that would just prove my point then.

.
..
...

Ok, seriously, I haven't read The Little Keep on the Borderlands, so I don't know anything about its contents, so I can't juge its merits as compared to Keep on the Borderlands.

/M