Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Mallus]

The problem with this approach is it encourages dump stats and not bothering with anything other than sheer combat power.

Only for players who would have done that anyway. I doubt it would have effect on players' whose focus is on character modeling. At least that's been my experience (I do really run my games like this)

If I'm encouraged, and Mallus did say that I should be actively encouraged, to ignore my character sheet so long as I'm having fun, then I can pretty much make whatever character I want on paper and then play something entirely different.

Play the game the way you like to. If that means your contributions at the table don't necessarily reflect what's on your character sheet, so what? I'm not going to tell a player 'Great idea, but Thud never would have though of it'. I can think of no better way of discouraging engaged and creative play. Which is far bigger concern for me that discouraging dump-statting.

If I choose to ignore the deficiencies of my character, shouldn't the DM be penalizing me for that?

Short answer based on principle: when it comes to player input, no.

Longer answer based on mechanics: the benefits received from dump-statting and substituting a players social and analytical skills for their characters aren't significant in the larger context of the task resolution system as a whole.

It's playing the role you have chosen to play.

Now that's what I find that problematic. It favors character builds over character's built over time in response to in-game events. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but not in the cases where the player and character skills overlap.

Take a character that wasn't designed to be a leader (low CHR, wrong class skill set), but becomes one through events in play (and because the player's been on a roll with extemporized speeches). They will never be a good as one designed for that role from the start. Unless the DM looks the other when it comes to certain skill checks.

Now you can say 'Fine, that's the way it should work. You're stuck with the role you initially chose. Too bad. That'll learn you for trying to have your character grow in response to the events that actually happend in the campaign'.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think some of us just have to agree to disagree.

I've been playing since 1980, and I have to admit that I was relieved when non-weapon proficiencies entered the game, and thrilled when 3e came along and introduced feats and skills.

Personally, I find the evolution away from "DMs take your best guess" and towards "the rules say it's this, but feel free to modify as circumstances dictate" to be A Good Thing (TM).

I don't object to roleplaying-based bonuses as a carrot. But they shouldn't be used to bludgeon players who are bad actors, or trying to play characters smarter, wiser or more charismatic than they are. Or to try to enforce the DM's personal opinion of "what makes the game fun."

For example, I don't mind puzzles, but my last DM gave "hints" to characters with a high INT, or with a fitting knowledge skill. That's fine, as is requiring a diplomacy check, but giving a circumstance bonus to it if the player roleplays it well. To me, that's the essence of what makes the game fun, right there. Rules and roleplaying.

As always, YMMV.

 

[I'm A Banana]

think, on paper, the argument that comprehensive rules leads to better average DMing ability looks good and I bought into it at one time, but after seeing it in practice several times I can honestly say that I see no evidence to support that theory. In my experience, the greatest determinant of a DM's ability to run a good game is inherent within the person (their creativity, attitude, sense of fair play, sense of fun, organizational skills, communication skills, etc.).

The idea is that an "average" DM struggles with designing a fun game on the fly. They may invent a rule that has unforeseen repercussions, or one that hoses a certain character type, or that might bog down the game unnecessarily.

A solid rules base makes sure they don't have to be quality on-the-fly game designers.

Those who *are* quality on-the-fly game designers aren't limited by the rules, and may, in fact, be better with a less codified system.

But most "average" DM's suffer because they have big ideas that they have trouble implementing in the rules in a fair way that has everyone have fun. In this case, the more examples and bases and assumptions they have to divert from, the more solid such a change is going to be.

 

[Mallus]

Personally, I find the evolution away from "DMs take your best guess" and towards "the rules say it's this, but feel free to modify as circumstances dictate" to be A Good Thing (TM).

Bascially, so do I. But 'circumstance' granting a +2/-2 modifier as the rules state isn't enough. Not compared to the bonuses granted elsewhere.

Now you could increase the size of circumstance bonuses (and change DC's on the fly), but there aren't any good guidelines for doing so, and pretty soon your back to relying on the DM's judgment, only you've dressed it up as mechanics by expressing the DM's judgment in terms of numbers.

I don't object to roleplaying-based bonuses as a carrot.

I do. I try to be evenhanded and not offer incentives for a particular playstyle, despite my own personal preference. Which is why I sometimes I use the social skills as written, and other times I use pure roleplay to resolve a situation.

Again, I'm not arguing for either/or. I arguing for the use of both.

Rules and roleplaying.

Exactly. Just not always at the same time...

If someone likes to solve riddles, I'll let them. Then the next time I'll let the other guy who hates solving riddles just roll for it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Bennies = shorthand for "fringe benefits"

Ah, the light dawns!

I thought it was something obscure to do with Benny Hill, and just couldn't picture what it might be

 

[el-remmen]

I thought it was something obscure to do with Benny Hill

Ah, Benny Hill. .. . the height of British Comedy.

 

[Ourph]

Did you read my whole post? Or did you miss this part?

Under this theory, you should replace INT, WIS, and CHA with Perception, Willpower, and Magical Aptitude. This is because trying to model reasoning, memory (except for in-game knowledge), cunning or persuasiveness is pointless in this approach, as the player supplies all those things directly.

I did read your whole post. What I'm trying to point out is that Int, Wis and Cha are already doing what you want Perception, Willpower and Magical Aptitude to cover (plus a few more things). And by the RAW they are NOT doing what you seem to be assuming they should do (i.e. - limit a player's control over how his character acts and thinks). There is no rule that says a dumb, Half-Orc Barbarian can't contribute to solving a puzzle the party encounters or can't come up with a great battle plan.

I would contend that, as written, the balance of the attributes assumes that a low charisma character will suck at charisma skills. Charisma will absolutely become a dump stat for most characters if the player's ability to interact with NPCs isn't adversely affected by a low charisma score.

Every character has dump stats. I think in general, Charisma is still a dump stat unless you're 1) playing a class that derives mechanical benefit other than social interaction from it (Cleric, Sorcerer, Enchantment specialized Wizard, Bard, etc.) or 2) playing a character specifically devoted to Charisma skills. Removing #2 doesn't make Charisma any worse off than Intelligence; which generally gets "dumped" unless the character is an Int based spellcaster or needs lots of skill points.

It's funny, but I bet the same people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" can't figure out why charisma's a dump stat in their games and are upset by it. Like it's that hard to figure out.

:shrug: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "roleplaying" but I could really care less how my players design their characters as long as they are following the rules. When I object to powergaming it's not because I think it's interfering with roleplaying but because it's throwing the mechanical aspects of the game out of whack and ruining other people's fun. I run the game the way I do because it's how my players and I have fun, not because I'm trying to enforce a certain style of play on them because I think it's the "right way" to play D&D.

 

[Voadam]

It's funny, but I bet the same people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" can't figure out why charisma's a dump stat in their games and are upset by it. Like it's that hard to figure out.

I'd take that bet.

Why do you think people who are fine with PCs ignoring stats to roleplay would be upset by Charisma being a dump stat? Or that they couldn't figure out why a stat would be a dump stat?

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" "

 

[Ourph]

The idea is that an "average" DM struggles with designing a fun game on the fly. They may invent a rule that has unforeseen repercussions, or one that hoses a certain character type, or that might bog down the game unnecessarily.

A solid rules base makes sure they don't have to be quality on-the-fly game designers.

Making a reasonable, common sense judgement about the effect of a character's actions isn't doing game desing on-the-fly. That's a strawman and a weak one at that.

But most "average" DM's suffer because they have big ideas that they have trouble implementing in the rules in a fair way that has everyone have fun.

A DM implementing his own houserules is different than a DM just running the system the way it was written and the way it was intended to be used. As I said above, it seems to me that people accept the assertion that a more comprehensive ruleset is a boon to the "average" DM because it has the ring of "truthiness" to it, but I've never come across an actual, real-life, situation where I've found that to be true. As a result, I just don't buy that particular theory anymore.

Extremely comprehensive rules can serve several purposes. They can make negotiating the social contract within a group easier. They can be more fun for people who like complex, granular, "crunchy" systems. They can sell lots of supplemental rulebooks . But I've never seen any evidence that a more comprehensive ruleset improves the ability of a DM to run a fun game. So, until I see some hard evidence in support of this particular myth, I'm calling it busted.

 

[JohnSnow]

What I'm trying to point out is that Int, Wis and Cha are already doing what you want Perception, Willpower and Magical Aptitude to cover (plus a few more things). And by the RAW they are NOT doing what you seem to be assuming they should do (i.e. - limit a player's control over how his character acts and thinks). There is no rule that says a dumb, Half-Orc Barbarian can't contribute to solving a puzzle the party encounters or can't come up with a great battle plan.

It's the "plus a few more things" that's the core of the debate here. Since people were advocating the viability of "disguise yourselves as baby giants" plans, I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you and those who share your opinion long for the days when D&D had no skill rules. Back then, almost everything your PC could do was determined by the player's creativity and the DM's ability to handle "out-of-the-box" plans.

Removing #2 doesn't make Charisma any worse off than Intelligence; which generally gets "dumped" unless the character is an Int based spellcaster or needs lots of skill points.

I didn't say it would. I admit that INT would continue to get points for characters who want skill points, though personally, I never have enough skill points. But that's probably because I insist on putting skill points into bluff, sense motive, and all those other "unnecessary" roleplaying skills.

Making a reasonable, common sense judgement about the effect of a character's actions isn't doing game (design) on-the-fly.

If common sense were common, there'd be no point in a game with rules at all. Everyone would just agree that a particular situation can be resolved X way, and that's that. But what you're talking about is coming up with a rule to cover a situation on the fly. That's game design, whether you believe it or not. And if the rule is used consistently, then congratulations, you've just created a houserule.

Personally, I prefer solid skill rules that an experienced DM can choose to alter, once he's familiar enough with the system. So I'm busting your bust. I am a DM who prefers modifying a comprehensive rule system to coming up with new rules on the fly.

I'd take that bet.

Why do you think people who are fine with PCs ignoring stats to roleplay would be upset by Charisma being a dump stat? Or that they couldn't figure out why a stat would be a dump stat?

Let's see. Consider two statements that one might have seen on a message board or on the letters pages of Dragon magazine:

1) "I want my players to ROLEPLAY at the table. I just wish they'd get more involved in the character interactions."

2) "All of my players are min-maxers!! They spend all of their points on the stats that benefit them in combat! This whole 'designing' for a 'build' paradigm sucks! The only character in my group with a charisma over 8 is the cleric (for the turn bonus). The fighter is a former mercenary captain, but he has a charisma of 8? What the hell!? Whatever happened to creating a personality?"

Would you say that:

A. 1 is a statement often made by the "roleplaying over rollplaying" crowd.
B. 2 is a statement often made by the "roleplaying over rollplaying" crowd.
C. A but not B.
D. B but not A.
E. A & B
F. Neither A nor B.

Personally, I think it's E. I think a lot of people would agree with me. And that's where I'm coming from. Do you disagree?