Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Hussar]

@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.

The only bonus xp a fighter got in 2nd edition was for killing stuff. Wizards got bonus xp for casting spells (yeah, that was a hard bonus to get ).

Even playing entirely in the third person, at no time in the game has a PC been rewarded by the mechanics for talking to an NPC. My cleric could rise to become the grand high mucketymuck of his church, but, from a mechanics point of view, I would receive nothing.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I think its important for the game designers to look at the game from that perspective. If they just stick to the 25 point buy iconic characters like they were in the beginning, then they won't be able to accurately judge how all the new material interacts with itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess I disagree with that. The rules create a framework to describe the action, and when action falls out of the framework (which it often does), it is the job of the DM to create a quick patch on the fly and move on.

The two aren't incompatible. That framework minimizes the chances that there are two valid interpretations: the rules tell you what the valid interpretation is (and how to create quick patches that follow the same principles as the basic rules).

 

[Ourph]

Similarly, is it smart tactics or foolishness to try to dress up as a giant if you're not? I think it's just silly. Someone else might think different. That's what the rules are for, to minimise the chances of conflicting assumptions. So I might think it's silly for the ordinary joe, but if you have Disguise +20 then you're clearly not an ordinary joe and I'll give it a chance.

I hear all the time here on ENworld that the PCs are supposed to be heroes. They are supposed to have above average ability scores, they are supposed to have significant stories in their backgrounds other than "he was a pig farmer", they are supposed to be special.

If these are heroes (and if we're talking about Steading, these aren't some green 1st level nobodies, they're name level or very nearly so actual heroes) why would you treat their disguise attempt as if they were "ordinary joe"? Why do you need a specific number on the character sheet to tell you that these people are special?

Also, you'll notice that I mentioned above the disguise attempt was coupled with the use of 1) Magic (Enlarge Person, and 2) PC "stacking", so it's not as if the characters were all walking around at their normal height assuming the giants were just going to overlook it.

 

[Ourph]

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.

Except that's not what T. Foster was saying, at all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, you'll notice that I mentioned above the disguise attempt was coupled with the use of 1) Magic (Enlarge Person, and 2) PC "stacking", so it's not as if the characters were all walking around at their normal height assuming the giants were just going to overlook it.

PC Stacking? Scooby Doo / Alvin and the Chipmunks style?

-Hyp.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

At first blush, the "disguise ourselves as giants" thing seemed kind of silly, to me. However, I changed my mind about that, for the following reasons:

1 giants aren't the brightest bulbs around
2 there's a literary tradition where heroes take advantage of #1
3 magic could help

I think the PC heros disguising themselves to fool the giants "fits." It puts me in mind of Molly Whuppie tricking the giant's wife into the bag, or Gandalf keeping the trolls arguing until sunrise, or Jack the Giant Killer tricking the third giant into stabbing himself at breakfast. Et cetera.

 

[phindar]

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.

Well, I agree with you here. Its in no way an indictment of the 1e rules for bluffing, disguising or sneaking through the G Series; since you can't indict something that doesn't exist(see Keyser Soze).

A GM who thought you had a chance to impersonate giants (or hide a man in full plate carrying a 6' sword behind a barrel) would let you do it. One who didn't, wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with it other than its completely dependent on the GM, and so success and failure is based entirely on what one guy at the table thinks.

And GMs are human, so sometimes their idea of what will and won't work is entirely wonked. I've played in games where the gm decided on the correct course of action and would punish the party for not doing it (and not consciously, just if you deviated from what he thought was 'right', it was skewed against you). All I can say is, for a group of players, it’s not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.

 

[Ourph]

PC Stacking? Scooby Doo / Alvin and the Chipmunks style?

-Hyp.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Scrubs "Worlds Most Giant Doctor".

And GMs are human, so sometimes their idea of what will and won't work is entirely wonked. I've played in games where the gm decided on the correct course of action and would punish the party for not doing it (and not consciously, just if you deviated from what he thought was 'right', it was skewed against you). All I can say is, for a group of players, it’s not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.

I've played in several games like that too. Many of them using 3.0 or 3.5 rules. As I said above, I don't buy the notion that more comprehensive rules is somehow a protection from bad DMing.

 

[Mallus]

A GM who thought you had a chance to impersonate giants (or hide a man in full plate carrying a 6' sword behind a barrel) would let you do it.

Yes.

One who didn't, wouldn't.

Yes.

There's nothing wrong with it other than its completely dependent on the GM, and so success and failure is based entirely on what one guy at the table thinks.

Yes. However, like I said before, it's a trade-off. The more you simulate --emphasizing the character's skills-- the less enjoyment the players get from solving problems themselves. Putting it another way, which do enjoy more, outcomes or the process through which those outcomes are achieved?

For me, playing RPG's is all about that process; the kind of inspired-yet-half-witted brainstorming sessions that produce plans like "I know, we'll disguise ourselves as giant midgets!"

If I wanted a sensible game, I'd stick to chess.

And GMs are human, so sometimes their idea of what will and won't work is entirely wonked.

Yes. But how is that any different from a DM who sticks to the RAW? Ultimately, the scenario's logic is tied to the DM's conception of things, unless, of course, they never deviate from someone's else's script.

You're still hosed with a bad DM who obeys the rules. Just in a different way (from one who sometimes ad-libs the task resolution system).

...it’s not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.

Then don't.