Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Ranes]

Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually solve it.

Says who? How do you know that the player who decides to make Int his key characteristic isn't happy that it pays off when the time comes for his character to shine, especially when the player knows he isn't the world's sharpest tool in the box but wants to roleplay a character who is?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Bad Philotomy Jurament! Attempting to retroactively change one's mind about a decision that needs to be made on the spur of the moment!

Nah, it's a decision that can be made on the DM read-through.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.

To bring this thread back to Mearls, his Book of Iron Might includes a D&D-oriented version of the stunt and challenge rules he would later incorporate into Iron Heroes - rules which allow any character to attempt any action, with balanced tradeoffs that don't really require adjudication via on-the-spot DM fiat.

So, not all rules are exclusive, though I grant that a lot of rules seem this way. That Third Edition D&D, for instance, doesn't have a "wild swing" option like a lesser version of Power Attack, akin to fighting defensively as a lesser version of Combat Expertise, is a real shame and a small weakness in the system. Coincidentally, the Book of Iron Might does include a Power Attack-lite among its combat challenges.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.

Finding the balance between the two is, for me, where good DMing lives. The kind of DMs I prefer say "yes" a lot more than they say "no," even in a rules-heavy game.

QFT.

In a rules-light system, the DM would make a ruling (not necessarily invent a new rule that must be perpetuated). In a rules-heavy system, a non-qualified character might still be able to swing on the chandelier, but not as well as a qualified character could (which might also require a ruling).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

To bring this thread back to Mearls, his Book of Iron Might includes a D&D-oriented version of the stunt and challenge rules he would later incorporate into Iron Heroes - rules which allow any character to attempt any action, with balanced tradeoffs that don't really require adjudication via on-the-spot DM fiat.

I think Iron Heroes has a lot going for it; I much prefer a "stunt" or "maneuver" approach (where any character can attempt the action) over a feat-based approach, in most cases.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Yes. The Book of Iron Might/Iron Heroes approach can be summed up as: anyone can pull off a fancy trick, but feats are available to make fancy tricks easier or more effective if you want to really excel.

 

[hong]

Nah, it's a decision that can be made on the DM read-through.

Bad Philotomy Jurament! Attempting to conduct a DM read-through after the game is over!

 

[Glyfair]

I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.

Finding the balance between the two is, for me, where good DMing lives. The kind of DMs I prefer say "yes" a lot more than they say "no," even in a rules-heavy game.

I agree, but everyone can't find the sort of DM you prefer (or at least get in their game). I believe that most of the players here are used to having access to quality DMs and forget that it's not necessarily the norm.

I've seen plenty of games where "anyone can swing on a chandelier" isn't true. If there aren't rules for it, either a DM defaults to saying you can't do it, or it depends on his mood or how he envisions the encounter flowing. These aren't horrible DMs either, they just are middle-of-the-road DMs with flaws and strengths.

With a great DM the rules set used isn't important. With a poor DM, the rules set doesn't matter either. With a middle-of-the-road DM, rules help them (assuming the rules are good rules, and that's another complete discussion).

 

[Mallus]

"Solving problems" = make up any "half-witted" nonsensical "plan" and browbeat the DM into agreeing that it will work????

You've put a lot of words in my mouth, allow me to take some out...

I didn't say "any", or "nonsensical". I didn't say (nor imply) that the players should browbeat the DM. The situations I'm talking about are collaborative.

If you disagree with my characterization of (what has been my experience of) typical D&D play, then let's discuss it. Don't get all riled up over words I didn't use.

Without the rules setting a system that the problem works in, there is no real problem.

So problem solving can't exist without a formal set of rules? Who decides what constitutes a formal enough set? What about all the problem-solving I did back in previous editions of D&D (or in 3.0+ when the DM set aside the written task resolution system and allowed player input/knowledge to solely decide the outcome)? Did that not really happen because it occurred "outside a system"?

If you don't want sense, then by definition you want nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense...

Every D&D campaign I've ever seen, at some level, resembled a violent cartoon, in which characters used outlandish strategies to overcome often equally outlandish obstacles. Unlike a more sensible game, like chess.

If somehow surreal absurdity...

Again, every campaign I've ever seen or heard of contained an element of the absurd. It's inherent in the game.

...noncohesion...

Where'd this come from?

But the supposed raw slave/bull in the china shop comparison does not hold up in reality.

My point was that the rules don't insulate players from a DM with poor judgment.

 

[Mallus]

How do you know that the player who decides to make Int his key characteristic isn't happy that it pays off when the time comes for his character to shine, especially when the player knows he isn't the world's sharpest tool in the box but wants to roleplay a character who is?

Simple...

It was my example, and in it the hypothetical player (let's call him "X") likes solving riddles. I understand that not every player shares "X"'s proclivities, but I was talking about people who do.

If you want someone that hates solving riddles, make your own hypothetical player.