Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Voadam]

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?

I do.

I would say C.

The second statement is a bit of an inconsistent rant. He has a character playing a fighter with a background and he's complaining about the stat allocations. He complains about people appointing points for a "build" but then complains about players not appointing points to a social mechanics build. He ends by asking whatever happened to creating personalities as if assigning points to charisma equals creating a personality.

IME the people wanting more roleplaying would say "I've got a player whose fighter's background was as a mercenary captain. This gives me some hooks I can use in game for interactions. Old employees, employers, and adversaries are possible connections we can use in game then. I wonder why he's a former captain? Is he still motivated by greed, did things go bad and he needs a fresh start?" etc.

 

[Ourph]

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.

I wouldn't say I "long for the days when D&D had no skill rules", I just disagree with the notion that having the DM adjudicate the success of disguising yourself as a young giant is inherently more susceptible to the depredations of a poor DM than having a specific, rules-defined, DM-adjudicated probability of success for it (and no matter what all the extra numbers, descriptions and rules concerning the Disguise skill say in the books, it's ultimately still up to the DM to determine how easy or hard it is for your PC to succeed, so "DM-adjudicated" is completely appropriate and warranted in that description). In my experience, a DM who is incapable of handling the former to create a fun game isn't going to suddenly improve because he's got a few more pages of rules to memorize.

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.

No, the rule is already present, it's "listen to what the players tell you their characters are doing and then use common sense or your best guess to make a reasonable judgement call as to the result". It's just as much a rule as "roll d20 and add modifiers, compare to the opponent's AC".

Yes, theoretically, you could design a game system where the only rule was "DM makes the call". There are, in fact, game systems that do almost exactly that (Amber and Prince Valiant come close). They work just fine. I don't use those systems because I prefer having specific rules for certain things (combat, poison, saving throws) but not others (searching for treasure, bluffing an NPC). But the skills that make someone a good 3e DM are, IME, the exact same skills necessary to be a good DM for those other systems, so I would expect anyone decent at running one game would be equally good at running the others. Conversely, if you can't run Amber (one of the simplest games ever created) effectively, I don't see how adding a boatload of rules complexity is going to improve your skills as a DM. I've seen several examples of the opposite, however, where the added complexity made an already poor DM worse.

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 didn't mention anything about personal preferences above. I'm talking about the ability to be a decent DM. You may prefer a more comprehensive rulesystem and that's fine, that's great, go with what works for you. But I'm sure, if asked to run an AD&D game, you'd do just fine (assuming you're a decent 3e DM and you weren't purposely tanking to prove a point ) at making an enjoyable game for the players. Whether you would enjoy doing so is completely beyond the scope of my point.

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

I think you're making the mistake of shoehorning this discussion into a "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" debate in your own analysis of it. It seems to me that it's more of a challenge the player vs. challenge the character issue, which has very little to do with the segment of the RPG community that's super-concerned with character development, verisimilitude and immersion (i.e. what I would generally consider the "pro-roleplaying/anti-rollplaying" group). IMO, those people probably consider BOTH positions being discussed in this thread undesirable. One (the challenge the player position) breaks both verisimilitude and immersion. The other (the challenge the character position) puts too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of the character.

They probably think of this discussion as "the thread where the powergamers are fighting over the best way to be a powergamer again".

 

[Mouseferatu]

They probably think of this discussion as "the thread where the powergamers are fighting over the best way to be a powergamer again".

I wouldn't go that far.

I would say, however, that I feel any discussion that treats "challenge the player vs. challenge the PC" as a binary option--or any discussion that treats "DM fiat vs. a comprehensive rules set" as a binary option--is roughly akin to a discussion saying "Which do you like better, pizza or Star Trek? You have to pick one, and picking one means you automatically dislike the other."

In other words, it's a non-issue, or at least a non-binary issue. AFAIAC, both questions are a continuum, and any good DM must, perforce, recognize that fact. If the game has rules for social interaction, those rules should come into play--in addition to the PCs RPing out said interaction, and modified by said RP, not instead of them.

But I've held off, since this discussion didn't really look like it would welcome a middle-of-the-road response all that much.

 

[Ourph]

In other words, it's a non-issue, or at least a non-binary issue. AFAIAC, both questions are a continuum, and any good DM must, perforce, recognize that fact.

I completely agree. I choose a point on that continuum based on what I and my players find gives us the greatest amount of enjoyment. My comments are in no way intended to imply that there's a "one true way" that every group should strive for.

If the game has rules for social interaction, those rules should come into play--in addition to the PCs RPing out said interaction, and modified by said RP, not instead of them.

I don't think it's necessarily wrong to ignore the rules for social interaction as a mutually agreed upon house-rule if that's what the group enjoys. Nor do I think it's wrong to simply use the rolls with no playing-out of the interaction whatsoever. In general, I think most people will tend to enjoy some option in between those two extremes, but I'm not sitting in judgement of what people find fun in their own games.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have no problem with this statement except to say that I don't think it's necessarily wrong to ignore the rules for social interaction as a mutually agreed upon house-rule if that's what the group enjoys.

Well, sure. Nothing's inherently "wrong" in playing D&D, assuming everyone in the group is having fun and none of the house rules involve property damage or the harming of small animals.

But when one choose to ignore the rules completely, then one is--for better or worse--choosing to challenge the players completely, at the expense of any effort toward challenging the PCs, at which point the suggestion that the stats don't serve any purpose is a valid one. Again, cool, if that's what everyone wants, but it does certainly make choices made during character creation far less important.

 

[Voadam]

. . . but it does certainly make choices made during character creation far less important.

Putting the emphasis on choices made during the playing of the game. Definitely a play style preference question

 

[Mouseferatu]

Putting the emphasis on choices made during the playing of the game. Definitely a play style preference question

Again, I disagree that this is a binary issue. I've run many a game where choices made in-play are paramount, without making choices made during character creation worthless. It's all about finding a balance between player and PC challenge, between the use of pure RP and the use of the rules. I reject the notion that either extreme is preferable to a solid (and group-appropriate) mixture.

 

[Ourph]

But when one choose to ignore the rules completely, then one is--for better or worse--choosing to challenge the players completely, at the expense of any effort toward challenging the PCs, at which point the suggestion that the stats don't serve any purpose is a valid one. Again, cool, if that's what everyone wants, but it does certainly make choices made during character creation far less important.

Well, most of this discussion has been focused on one set of rules where the default assumption is to challenge only the players (OAD&D/Classic D&D) vs. a system that shifts the emphasis toward challenging the character (3e), rather than on changing one system to do the other, so it hasn't really centered around the ramifications of changing the rules that much.

I think in 3e Int, Wis and Cha certainly serve enough non-RP purposes to continue to make them important factors in the game even if you choose to challenge only the players. Does it modify their function? Yes. But, in my experience it doesn't really impact the rest of the game that much when using standard character generation methods (roll and arrange or DMG point buy). Of course, my experience is with groups of gamers who generally don't put a lot of emphasis on RP skills in character creation anyway, so... grain of salt and all that.

 

[JohnSnow]

I agree this is largely a play style question and a debate about challenging the player vs. challenging the character. I don't think it's a binary issue either, so basically, I totally agree with Mouseferatu.

I apologize for bringing up the "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" thing, but I do know that I've seen those two statements I mentioned tied many times. To the comment about how could anyone not recognize the two are connected, well, people don't always see the forest for the trees... Moving on, I'd like to address a couple points.

But I'm sure, if asked to run an AD&D game, you'd do just fine (assuming you're a decent 3e DM and you weren't purposely tanking to prove a point ) at making an enjoyable game for the players. Whether you would enjoy doing so is completely beyond the scope of my point.

I suppose I have to say that's perfectly true - NOW. When I was an AD&D DM, I could handle things like that, but I always felt like I was shooting in the dark. Now, I was much younger then, so maybe that plays into it, but I also feel that the more comprehensive rules in 3e have made it easier for me to make those kind of calls. And one of my concerns is the game being designed in such a way that new gamers can pick it up. I think 3e makes better DMs than 1e did, although it would be nice if there was a way to teach DMs "out of the box" thinking as well. Other than just practice, that is.

On the other hand, I'm personally a mix of the gamist and creative type, so I like the game better with a synthesis of the two than with one or the other. I'd hate a straight rules-based game - partly why my feelings are mediocre about computer games. On the other hand, I do enjoy the GAME aspect of D&D as well, even in social situations.

Like I said, my personal preference is for somewhere in that mix Mouseferatu talks about. However, I don't think I'd like a game where that mix shifted from pure roleplay to pure dice rolling depending entirely on the situation. I think the inconsistency would bug me. And quite honestly, if gamists can learn to roleplay, than roleplayers can learn to game. And we'd all be better players for it. So, there's my two cents.

Now, if only we could get this thing back on topic. What was it again?

 

[T. Foster]

Maybe I've just been exceptionally lucky in the people I've played rpgs with, but I've never had the kind of "player actions don't match the character's stats" game-breaking problems that seem to be such a big concern in this thread (at least for the last couple pages).

In my experience, players are always more than willing to portray low-stat characters as such, even to an exaggerated degree beyond what I would want or expect -- a player with a charisma of 7 or 8 (or lower) is probably going to go out of his way to be gauche and/or offensive when dealing with NPCs, one with an Int or Wis in the same range is likely going to proactively have his character do stupid or rash things, and so on. Such characters generally tend to have short life-expectancies, which isn't usually that disappointing to the player -- the get to have some fun role-playing a doofus for a couple sessions, and then are happy to start fresh with a "real" character (note: I don't use point-buy systems, so when such characters come up it's by chance, not player choice (and if the player really objects to playing such a character to the point I think it'll interfere with his fun I'll usually let him roll a replacement)).

For characters with average scores where the players act exceptionally (Int 11 character always solves puzzles, Cha 10 character whose player is a natural diplomat, etc.) I fall back on something like John Snow's (facetious?) suggestion -- that Int actually represents Mnemonic, Wis Willpower, and Cha Personal Magnetism -- the character's a genius at solving puzzles, but doesn't have the memory to learn extra languages or spells, he gives good tactical advice but doesn't have a bonus on saves against spells, he can talk a good game but people aren't naturally drawn toward him. (Alternatively, we also sometimes do what Henry (I think) mentioned earlier, which is to "assign" the success to the character with the best stats regardless of player -- e.g. if Player A solves a riddle but his character is a dwarf with Int 7, we might declare that in-game the riddle was actually solved by Character B, the Int 17 magic-user, even though Player B had nothing to do with solving it; likewise if Player C makes a particularly compelling speech, we might declare "character D (the high-Cha paladin) says that").

For characters with very high stats, the same logic applies in reverse -- just because you have a near-eidetic memory doesn't mean you're necessarily good at solving puzzles, you can still be rash or foolish even if you have a strong will and spirit, people are still drawn to you even though you're introverted or socially awkward; and, in the case of Int and Wis, I'll also tend to give extra hints to the players with the high scores -- "maybe you could try doing x," "do you really think that's such a good plan?," etc. (or, alternatively, the character is given credit in-game even when another player is actually responsible for the success).

This style of play has worked very well for me as both DM and player across 20+ years and various different player groups (and various different rpg systems as well -- replace stat-names with skill names (Orate, Fast Talk, Spot Hidden, Liaison, Streetwise, etc.) in the above and you've pretty much got how I've always played and DM'd such situations in skill-based games (RQ, CoC, Traveller, Mythus) as well).