Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Glyfair]

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).

I've rarely seen the low stat character acting as a high stat character. However, I have seen a lot of the average stat character acting as a high stat character. I find the same charismatic players often tend to dominate those games in roleplaying situations.

However, my main issue with the extremes is that the players who aren't the charismatic players in these games never get to play the charismatic character. When they do they are outclassed by the charismatic players who take the role they want to play.

In those games a player who can't fight gets to play a master of combat if he wishes. But a player who isn't very good at charming other people doesn't get to play "face" character when he wishes (or is ineffective at the role).

 

[hong]

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

Tell us the one about the stacking PCs again, Mr Ourph! If you do, I'll tell you about my lightsabers.

 

[Ourph]

Tell us the one about the stacking PCs again, Mr Ourph! If you do, I'll tell you about my lightsabers.

Go post in the Hot Modron Action thread you weirdo!

 

[Hussar]

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.

Oh, agreed, there is definitely a range here. I tend to lean more on the rules heavy side of things, but, as I said before, I'm not trying to make a wrongbadfun thing out of this.

It seems that we are working by different definitions then, as it appears that you still consider mechanical rewards to be the only rewards in the game. What you call 'the DM giving you bennies' (whatever they are), I call playing D&D.

As was mentioned, it's shorthand for benefits. Or a certain kind of recreational pharmaceutical but that's another story.

However, strictly from a mechanics viewpoint, and that's what I'm talking about, all the rewards that the DM gives to you that aren't dicatated by the rules themselves are actually outside of the scope of the rules. The rules state that if you kill X, you get Y xp. It used to say if you picked up 1gp, you also got 1 xp. Other versions also rewarded certain other actions as well.

However, the rules (and I'm only talking about the rules) have never rewarded role play.

Now, I 100% agree with you that the DM can reward roleplay. And I know that I do and I'm sure that everyone reading this thread probably does as well. However, if you never killed anything and you never picked up a gold piece, the rules would never actually reward you with anything. By kill, btw, I mean defeat.

The game does not reward role play. To a very large extent the game doesn't promote role play either. Now, as gamers, some like to promote role play to greater or lesser degrees in their game, but, that's entirely a personal preference. The rules are pretty much silent on the issue. And always have been.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Really? It isn't? Then what is game design, if not making a reasonable, common sense judgment about the effect of a character's actions (and then expressing that judgment as a game design element)? Whenever the DM has to make up a rule to cover a situation, he's doing on-the-fly game design, and the more rules base you have, the more likely you are to not wildly diverge from it when you catch one of the outlying scenarios.

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.

:shrug: It's the reason *I'm* a good DM. If the complexity of the advancement rules weren't in there, taking into account class abilities, hp, ac, attack bonuses, magic equipment, etc., I would have a tendency to chuck monsters at the party that are too difficult just because they are cool and dangerous (because I'm a sucker for an epic monster battle).

With the amount of different campaign settings I run, having the solid rule base allows me to diverge from it and know my repercussions. I know that if I change the demographic assumptions and make it so that there's only one metropolis on the moon in my setting, and no other towns bigger than a small city, I'll need to provide for high-level adventurer's needs myself, rather than allowing the campaign rules to accommodate them.

My desire to run short, fast-advancing campaigns over long, steady ones would be thwarted, as well. The current complex rules give me what treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power. Simpler rules of "give them whatever you feel works" would result in PC's that are too weak for their level, because my gut says giving someone an entire treasure award for their level after a single adventure is "too much" (when it isn't).

I'd be an entirely worse DM with less structured rules (and have been...my 2e DMing days were pretty abysmal, even though 2e was hardly "rules light").

 

[T. Foster]

The game does not reward role play. To a very large extent the game doesn't promote role play either. Now, as gamers, some like to promote role play to greater or lesser degrees in their game, but, that's entirely a personal preference. The rules are pretty much silent on the issue. And always have been.

Depends on what you mean by "role play" -- the training rules in the 1E DMG specifically address how well the player has been portraying the character in a manner appropriate to his class (i.e. the quality of his role-playing) by means of the "performance rating" system (which, IME, was seldom if ever actually used, but is part of the rules nonetheless) and there are also rules governing character alignment with concrete penalties assessed to characters who change alignment because the DM judged they weren't playing their professed alignment (i.e. bad role-playing). Both of these specifically reward/promote role play (or at least punish/discourage bad role play) in a general sense (playing true to your character's class and alignment). Beyond that (creating backstories, motivations, interpersonal connections, unique personalities, distinctive mannerisms, etc.) the rules are silent, which IMO is wholly appropriate -- if the individual DM wants to encourage that sort of development through concrete in-game rewards it's his prerogative to do so, but those shouldn't be held up as universal ideals or hardwired into the rules, at least IMO. IME players who are interested in that sort of character development will do it anyway, whether they're receiving an in-game reward for it or not (so they'd be basically getting "money for nothing") whereas those who aren't interested will grouse and complain and enjoy the game less, and if forced to do so in order to have an effective character still won't do it very well.

 

[Ourph]

My desire to run short, fast-advancing campaigns over long, steady ones would be thwarted, as well. The current complex rules give me what treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power. Simpler rules of "give them whatever you feel works" would result in PC's that are too weak for their level, because my gut says giving someone an entire treasure award for their level after a single adventure is "too much" (when it isn't).

Again, you're talking about house-ruling around the assumptions built into a system, not using a system where the assumptions aren't there to begin with. This isn't even a problem in other systems (AD&D for example) because there is no "treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power". The rules do not assume that a party at a given level will wield a given level of power. The rules assume and instruct the DM in a certain style of play where this isn't an issue. Saying "I would have this problem if I deviated from the basic assumptions of 3e" isn't an indictment of AD&D or Amber or any other RPG with no guidelines for wealth by level. If anything, it's an indictment of 3e for needing those extra rules.

:edit to add:

Although I'm not even sure I buy the initial premise that wealth by level guidelines are all that important. I've run plenty of 3e games and I rarely paid significant attention to the PCs wealth. My best estimate is that most of the parties I DMed for were somewhat below the wealth guidelines for their level and I never had a problem with the characters being unable to function in the adventures I ran. Even running published adventures, for characters of their level, didn't seem to be a problem. There were occasional encounters that required the PCs to retreat, prepare special tactics and then return to face the challenge, but I assume that would happen even if the wealth/level guidelines were being followed to the letter.

 

[T. Foster]

I've rarely seen the low stat character acting as a high stat character. However, I have seen a lot of the average stat character acting as a high stat character. I find the same charismatic players often tend to dominate those games in roleplaying situations.

However, my main issue with the extremes is that the players who aren't the charismatic players in these games never get to play the charismatic character. When they do they are outclassed by the charismatic players who take the role they want to play.

In those games a player who can't fight gets to play a master of combat if he wishes. But a player who isn't very good at charming other people doesn't get to play "face" character when he wishes (or is ineffective at the role).

I see that as more of a player-level issue (sharing vs. hogging the spotlight) than a rules-issue. If a player wants to be a "face" character and has created his character accordingly, but doesn't have that type of personality in real life, the other players and DM should respect that player's wishes and give him opportunities to shine. This might create some awkwards situations at first, but hopefully as the shy/awkward player gains more experience he'll gain more confidence and the role will come more naturally to him, and also hopefully the other players will realize what's going on and not be jerks about it.

(Also, it should be noted that just because someone is capable of playing a character that's very good in combat (good AC, good attack chance, good damage bonus, lots of hp) doesn't mean he'll be good at tactics, and such a character can easily lose in combat where another, weaker, character played more cleverly might survive. The same principle applies with negotiation and role-playing -- a character can have a high Cha score (with attendant reaction bonus) but still say something stupid or inappropriate and botch a negotiation, whereas another player might have the wherewithal to succeed without the bonuses. I don't see the latter as any more of a problem than the former, and would hope in both cases that player #1 would watch and learn from player #2 and thus improve his own performance (which he already has a leg up on due to superior stats/numbers).)

 

[Korgoth]

(Also, it should be noted that just because someone is capable of playing a character that's very good in combat (good AC, good attack chance, good damage bonus, lots of hp) doesn't mean he'll be good at tactics, and such a character can easily lose in combat where another, weaker, character played more cleverly might survive. The same principle applies with negotiation and role-playing -- a character can have a high Cha score (with attendant reaction bonus) but still say something stupid or inappropriate and botch a negotiation, whereas another player might have the wherewithal to succeed without the bonuses. I don't see the latter as any more of a problem than the former, and would hope in both cases that player #1 would watch and learn from player #2 and thus improve his own performance (which he already has a leg up on due to superior stats/numbers).)

QFT. No matter what character type a player picks, the player is responsible for bringing something to the table if he wants to excel. A beefy fighter (high Str and Con, good equipment, etc.) is not going to be as effective in the hands of a poor tactician as he will be in the hands of a true master of tactics. And that's the way it should be. The player who is better at that aspect of the game will excel. Even if the excellent player has a less powerful character on paper, that doesn't mean that he should be condemned to mediocrity because Buildmaster over there spends more time reading rulebooks than learning how to think tactically.

Suppose you play a character with a high Wis and Int. Should the DM prevent you for doing stupid crap like pulling random levers in the dungeon, or sticking your head into the mouth of a leering green monster carving? Should you get a "Wis Save" to avoid displaying basic incompetence? The same argument applies here as for the tongue-tied guy who can't talk his way out of a $5 library fine trying to play Demosthenes. It doesn't matter what your stats or skills are: if you're incompetent, you're going to mess up (that's what it means). If you have high levels of raw talent (stats and skill points), your disasters may be mitigated, and certainly if you ever did operate with something approaching basic competence your successes could be all the greater... but the player who plays the "face man" is as responsible for bringing basic communications skills to the table as is the swordmaster for bringing basic tactics or Brainiac bringing a modicum of wits or Patriarch Enlightenmentikos bringing some rudimentary common sense.

That's just part of what makes it a game: some people are better players than others and they should be rewarded for that.

 

[Glyfair]

(Also, it should be noted that just because someone is capable of playing a character that's very good in combat (good AC, good attack chance, good damage bonus, lots of hp) doesn't mean he'll be good at tactics, and such a character can easily lose in combat where another, weaker, character played more cleverly might survive.

I agree. Which is why I prefer a hybridized approach to roleplaying situations using both the skill system with modifiers based on roleplaying approach. A charismatic player will tend to play a better social character just like a better tactical player will play a better combat oriented character. However, both can be effective in their weaker roles.

In my experience, when system is thrown out the window for social encounters then the players poorer at that sort of thing are left in the dust. I've never seen a true RPG where the combat system is completely thrown out the window.