Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Hussar]

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.

That's the point though. While it may punish bad role play, it in no way rewards good role play. If I am average, or just good enough to not be bad, or I am an astounding actor worthy of distinction, the game couldn't care less. This is the point I've been trying to make for a while now. When people talk about how one edition favours role play more than another, I just shake my head.

 

[Kishin]

See post #36 on page 1; I linked it again later in the thread.

A better game designer than Gary? That sounds pretty darn ridiculous. How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?

Thanks for pointing that link out. I guess I just missed it.

Attributing D&D's success to Gary alone is like giving Paul all the credit for the Beatles. He gets credit for laying the groundwork, but it was a group effort that perfected it.

Maybe Mr. Mearls better represents 3E D&D's philosophy.

This is almost certainly the case. I'll avoid causing this to degenerate into another Edition Wars thread, but I feel like the Mearls' work is a lot more mechanically innovative and balanced than anything Gygax has ever done. I'd almost argue he's a better storyteller, too, but that was never Gary's intention in a D&D game. (Although, Greyhawk definitely charms me).

I'm sure this is a largely a taste issue anyway.

 

[T. Foster]

That's the point though. While it may punish bad role play, it in no way rewards good role play. If I am average, or just good enough to not be bad, or I am an astounding actor worthy of distinction, the game couldn't care less.

Sure it does. Here's the pertinent quote from the 1E DMG:

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:

E - Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S - Superior, deviations minimal but noted = 2
F - Fair performance, more norm than deviations = 3
P - Poor showing, with aberrant behavior = 4

Those are ratings based on quality of role-play and the numerical values translate directly into how much time and money is required for the character to gain a level -- a player who is "just good enough to not be bad" is likely to find himself required to spend 2-3x the time and money to gain a level as someone "worthy of distinction." Given the already onerous BtB training costs (1500 g.p./week/level) this makes a huge difference -- so huge, in fact, that no one I knew ever used these rules as written (we always ignored the performance ratings and assigned 1 week of training time to everybody). But just because few people used them doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[painandgreed]

People love to Mearlsbash because his views and design decisions are controversial, particularly amongst the old guard element.

No, you've got it all backwards. His ideas are controversial because his views and designs get bashed by many but not all people. We love to Mearlsbash because we really don't find any merit in his designs yet he is in a postion to force them down our throats. It's "speak now or forever hold your peace" time so we're speaking. It he was still off in 3rd party land coming up with controversial ideas, nobody would care.

 

[hong]

Given the already onerous BtB training costs (1500 g.p./week/level) this makes a huge difference -- so huge, in fact, that no one I knew ever used these rules as written (we always ignored the performance ratings and assigned 1 week of training time to everybody). But just because few people used them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I again find something, you know, platonic about this. It's like, you know, platonic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

It's not really an indictment, because, like you say, it's not like you NEED those rules to have a good RPG.

D&D elects to have them, because D&D is interested in keeping ever-advancing players challenged with ever-advancing adversaries (for instance).

I happen to enjoy the feel of ever-advancing power in the hands of both the enemy and the party.

If I were to try to grant ever-advancing power in very rules-light system, it would be more difficult for me, because I would have no way to adjudicate how Awesome Ability X measures up to Awesome Ability Z with any reliability (even point-based systems have the famous min/max flaws that often create very binary characters, which are a problem for players).

I can easily grant ever-advancing power in D&D, and even change or eliminate it, and be better able to tell what the repercussions are. This makes me a better DM, because it means that more of my ideas and stories and challenges can be brought to the game without resulting in a lack of balance.

 

[Hussar]

Wealth by level guidelines - One man's crutch is another man's tool.

 

[Maggan]

A better game designer than Gary? That sounds pretty darn ridiculous. How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?

Is popularity the only metric for being a better game designer? In that case, there are tons of games out there that have been or are more popular than D&D at the height of its popularity. Such as Pokemon, World of Warcraft, Trivial Pursuit and what have you.

That would place GG quite far down the ladder when judging leet game design skills, actually.

Which in my opinion, shows why using the popularity of one designers efforts to "prove" that he is a better game designer than another one, is fraught with difficulties.

/M

 

[Reynard]

ISo clearly, 3E is not the game for me. If it is for you and you're having fun with it then bully!

Well, hong's D&D 3E may not be the game for you. But extreme views often result in extreme reactions. While 3E does have some very defined design philosophies built into it, it actually supports a very braod definition od what is Dungeons and Dragons.

Hate the players, not the game.

 

[Ourph]

I'm sorry, but this is untrue. The +x DR of 1e pretty much necessitated certain magic items by certain levels.

No, I'm sorry, but it didn't. And there was no +x DR there was +x or you couldn't even hit the creature, period. But the rules don't suggest or even assume that a character of a certain level will have a weapon with a certain bonus. What they do assume is that a party who encounters such a creature but have no weapons able to hit it will either rely on other means to defeat the creature or simply run away, either to come back when they have the necessary tools to take it on or to avoid the creature altogether and face other challenges. This is covered numerous times in the advisory text in both the PHB and the DMG.

Certainly that was taken into account when designing adventures.

Just because some adventures included monsters that required +2 weapons to hit and some did not doesn't indicate the rules assumed certain wealth by level guidelines. Of course adventures designed for low level characters avoided those types of creatures, those creatures were tougher, had more HD and were too great a challenge for low level characters regardless of their equipment.

In addition, if you actually look at some of the pregenerated characters for AD&D adventure modules designed for high level characters you'll see that there was quite a bit of disparity between the total monetary value of equipment between one character and another. If these modules are using some sort of wealth by level guideline, why aren't all the individual characters equipped with roughly the same value of treasure?

Yes, the wealth by level was never specifically called out, but, it was most certainly there. There's a reason why tough monsters had better treasure. You were at a level where you needed those magic weapons, so the chance of finding them goes up with tougher monsters.

I think you're making quite a few unfounded assumptions here. There are plenty of reasons for tougher monsters to have better treasure other than an assumed wealth by level rule. It should also be noted that not all tougher monsters did have better treasure. There are plenty of high HD unintelligent monsters who have crappy treasure tables (Owlbears) and quite a few low HD monsters who roll on the really good ones (Bandits).

If your PC died and a new PC came in, did they always come in at level 1 or at 1 level back from the rest of the party. We did 1 level down. And, we always gave a higher level character magical treasure.

Am I strange in doing this?

I don't know if you're strange, but the rules certainly don't suggest or even support this way of playing. In fact, the AD&D books make it pretty clear that the assumed style of play is bringing in new PCs at level 1 (or allowing the player to pick up play of one of the assumed party henchmen who may be higher level and may already have some magical treasure). In my experience with AD&D that's always been the case except on a few very rare occasions. Even in the very few instances when new PC were brought in at a higher level, they were certainly NOT given magical treasure at character creation. Any magical items they started play with were the product of redistribution of items within the party after they joined (and these PCs almost never ended up with the equipment their former PC used).

In addition, even if such a guideline were intended, I think it would be pretty well impossible to implement wealth by level in actual play with AD&D if the DM was using the RAW. Random treausre generation based on treasure type instead of CR, failed saving throws that regularly destroyed magical equipment, large variances in the cost of training and the non-standardized multiclassing rules would make any formalized wealth by level system unworkable without the DM stepping in and just assinging specific treasure values to specific PCs. The fact that no effort was made to guide the DM past these many pitfalls indicates very strongly to me that the rules silence on the issue is intentional.