Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Ourph]

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.

That's fine, but I assume you're not suggesting that a system without wealth by level guidelines can't support ever-advancing power in both PCs and their adversaries. Are you? Because I have to tell you that AD&D, Classic D&D, WFRP, Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., etc. etc. (basically any game that allows PC advancement but lacks a wealth by level guideline - of which there are many) do this just fine.

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.

If you say continuing to challenge the players without the wealth by level guidelines would be difficult for you, I'll take you at your word, but I find that difficult to believe since the presence of those guidelines is hardly the sole determining factor for whether the PCs will be up to a specific challenge in 3e. In my experience, the player's knowledge of the rules, their choices during character advancement and the types of creatures a DM is utilizing to challenge them are all very important, much moreso than a strict adherence to the wealth guidelines. All of those things require just as much, if not more, DM judgement and evaluation of the situation than controlling how much treasure the PCs have. So, it seems odd to me that a DM competent at evaluating and negotiating all the other variables that affect PC vs. challenge relationships in the game would be completely thrown by having to use his own judgement to evaluate the way the PCs equipment affects their capabilities.

Also, I'd like to note that I never said that choice of system can't make an already good DM better by playing to his strengths and giving him tools he likes to use or feels more comfortable using. That's never been the focus of this conversation. The point of contention was whether a more comprehensive system could take a bad DM and turn him into a decent one. I still haven't read anything that would convince me such is the case.

 

[prosfilaes]

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

Why? The point of the game is to have fun, and the same person always hogging the spotlight isn't fun. It's nice to be able to play different characters, and it's nice to be able to stretch your bounds without feeling that you're being punished for it. I don't see any problem with a DM being flexible, so a player with less natural charisma can play a character with more charisma.

 

[Ourph]

Why? The point of the game is to have fun, and the same person always hogging the spotlight isn't fun.

You're assuming that rewarding players for developing skills that help them to do well at the game the way Korgoth runs it equates to one person hogging the spotlight all the time. That seems like a big leap.

It's nice to be able to play different characters, and it's nice to be able to stretch your bounds without feeling that you're being punished for it. I don't see any problem with a DM being flexible, so a player with less natural charisma can play a character with more charisma.

Playing different characters and "stretching your bounds" may be fun for you and a DM being flexible may be necessary for that to happen with your playstyle, but that's not the only way people approach the game. There are plenty of people who see the "point" of the game being the same as the "point" of playing softball or the "point" of playing chess, i.e. - to test your skill against the challenge of the game, to improve those skills through competition, etc. From that point of view, the DM being flexible so that you can more easily play a character that interests you is the antithesis of the "point". Having the challenge be presented to the character, rather than the player, circumvents the entire reason those players are there in the first place.

I call this the dichotomy of Sport vs. Hobby. Some people treat RPGs as a hobby (like model-railroading) where the point is to play with the pieces but not necessarily to compete. They are content to try out new things and explore how all the pieces can fit together without emphasizing the competition aspects of the game. Creating worlds, working their way through plots, developing characters, etc. are the reasons they play the game. Others treat RPGs the same way they do sports (golf for example), where the fun is in measuring your skills against others and improving your skills over time. Amongst the "sports" there are also divisions based on whether people measure skill through rules mastery vs. lateral thinking/problem solving or through some other yardstick.

 

[phindar]

I don't think its one or the other, though. I think every player has a Sports to Hobby ratio. I'd think the solely Sports type or the soley Hobby types are the exceptions rather than the rule.

 

[Ourph]

I don't think its one or the other, though. I think every player has a Sports to Hobby ratio. I'd think the solely Sports type or the soley Hobby types are the exceptions rather than the rule.

This isn't a science and nothing is absolute. I think the distinction is still useful though. We're talking about people and people aren't always consistent in what they want or why they do things, but if you ask someone what they think the "point" of the game is, their answer will almost always put them clearly in one group or the other. The definitions are not exclusionary. Someone can enjoy the act of exploring the imaginary game world and still think the "point" of the game is to test their skill as a player and grow better mastering the game. Conversely, someone who sees the game as a hobby can still get enjoyment from achieving victory over a foe or designing an effective character.

 

[mearls]

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but Korgoth asked for an explanation and I think he deserves one.

My main beef with KotB is that there were already plenty of better modules prior to it, yet KotB is the module that ended up in the basic set. White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, and many others all did a better job of showing off what D&D can do than KotB.

Compare it to my favorite adventure of all time, Temple of Elemental Evil. Temple has a good starting base for a campaign, a challenging dungeon to teach players the ropes, and plenty of interesting material for a DM to use as a springboard. When I ran it back in the day, I had a ton of fun building side temples and plots involving the different NPCs.

It was fun springing Tushuko (sp?) and his fighter buddy on the PCs when they walked back from the moathouse. The assassins who rolled into town to wreak bloody vengeance were a great time. These were all things that made the adventure fun.

In comparison, the Keep just doesn't hold up. The evil priest in the keep is a little interesting, and the temple to chaos is pretty dang cool, but Gary just wasn't on top of his game with the module.

As far as Mearls bashing goes, I don't really care about it. There are some people who, if they bash on something I do, I listen to them. There are other people who can say whatever the heck they want. I simply don't care. It's the nature of the Internet that negative voices amplify and echo. At the end of the day, my job is to make really cool D&D books that make lots of money for Hasbro, distributors, and retailers, while making D&D more fun for as many people as possible.

There are times when complaining is a sign that a design is hitting its aims square in the bull's eye. If no one complained that Nine Swords was too anime or overpowered, that would've been a good sign that we screwed up.

Frankly, people who mindlessly bash away without offering any insight end up on my ignore list. And if that's the price of working full-time on D&D, well, I'm more than happy to pay it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Also, I'd like to note that I never said that choice of system can't make an already good DM better by playing to his strengths and giving him tools he likes to use or feels more comfortable using. That's never been the focus of this conversation. The point of contention was whether a more comprehensive system could take a bad DM and turn him into a decent one. I still haven't read anything that would convince me such is the case.

If there is a difference between "allowing a DM to better play to his strengths" and "making a DM better," I don't see it.

A DM who can better play to his strengths is able to (a) pay more attention to his weaknesses, making sure they are mitigated, and (b)play up his strengths, to better grant the fun.

A DM who is engaged with his game, who is in his element, and whose weaknesses don't ruin the fun? That's a GOOD DM, or at least a mediocre one. If D&D's rules do nothing other than make weaknesses in DMs less of an issue, they have improved the DM.

 

[T. Foster]

So do you reject the notion that these two modules (written by the same person at approximately the same time) aren't just a case of one "being at the top of his game" vs. the other "not" and instead represent deliberately different approaches -- KotB is a skeletal framework, a toolbox for the DM to customize and add to own his own, VoH/ToEE is a more explicitly detailed and 'complete' work -- and that this difference was meant to signify the different approaches of the two games, Original/Basic D&D on the one hand and AD&D on the other? OD&D (and its descendent, Basic D&D) has a minimalist ruleset that leaves much to the discretion of the individual DM, so it makes sense that adventures designed for it would be similarly minimalist and open to DM tinkering and modification, whereas AD&D has a more codified and comprehensive (and, by necessity, complex) ruleset that is better served by more codified, comprehensive, and complex adventures. Must the former be viewed as inferior to the latter and not just different?

 

[Korgoth]

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but Korgoth asked for an explanation and I think he deserves one.

My main beef with KotB is that there were already plenty of better modules prior to it, yet KotB is the module that ended up in the basic set. White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, and many others all did a better job of showing off what D&D can do than KotB.

Compare it to my favorite adventure of all time, Temple of Elemental Evil. Temple has a good starting base for a campaign, a challenging dungeon to teach players the ropes, and plenty of interesting material for a DM to use as a springboard. When I ran it back in the day, I had a ton of fun building side temples and plots involving the different NPCs.

It was fun springing Tushuko (sp?) and his fighter buddy on the PCs when they walked back from the moathouse. The assassins who rolled into town to wreak bloody vengeance were a great time. These were all things that made the adventure fun.

In comparison, the Keep just doesn't hold up. The evil priest in the keep is a little interesting, and the temple to chaos is pretty dang cool, but Gary just wasn't on top of his game with the module.

Thanks, man. I appreciate getting to read your thoughts on this.

I can see your point, for example in comparing the Keep itself to Hommlet or the Caves of Chaos to the Moathouse. And there's nothing in B2 that stands out the way some sections of D3 or S2 do. And I can agree that B2 is probably not Gary's best module.

I do think that part of B2's strength lies in the fact that it is a teaching tool, meant for the DM to see how things work in a base community, a wilderness and an underworld. The module contains all three. The Keep has things like the Tavern which give ideas about hiring mercenaries (including costs for such), hearing rumors and encountering wanderers. It also has notes about mapping out and expanding the Keep's encounter locations. Likewise with the wilderness and underworld, B2 gives options for expansion and gives a number of ideas about how different tribes of monsters will interact, what sorts of things you can do there (destroy the shrine, rescue the prisoners, etc.). I think that the simplicity and the hand-holding nature of it are part of the point. To that end, I personally think that B2 did a good job.

 

[T. Foster]

I do think that part of B2's strength lies in the fact that it is a teaching tool, meant for the DM to see how things work in a base community, a wilderness and an underworld. The module contains all three. The Keep has things like the Tavern which give ideas about hiring mercenaries (including costs for such), hearing rumors and encountering wanderers. It also has notes about mapping out and expanding the Keep's encounter locations. Likewise with the wilderness and underworld, B2 gives options for expansion and gives a number of ideas about how different tribes of monsters will interact, what sorts of things you can do there (destroy the shrine, rescue the prisoners, etc.). I think that the simplicity and the hand-holding nature of it are part of the point. To that end, I personally think that B2 did a good job.

FIFY. As " just another module," B2 is pretty mediocre (though there's some great flavor sprinkled here and there -- "Bree yark," the shrine of Evil Chaos, etc.), but as the first module, an introduction to what the game's all about, a way to show 11 year old novice DMs how to design an adventure and run the game, it's a masterpiece.