Mearls on Balance in D&D

[I'm A Banana]

I'm saying I don't think that a more comprehensive ruleset can take a bad DM and make him into a good one. By definition, a bad DM doesn't have strengths to play to. You're looking at it as a problem of resource management (i.e. the DM is bad because he doesn't have enough attentional resources to distribute to fixing all of his problems). I don't think that's an accurate model. IMO bad DMs are bad not because they don't have adequate resources to be better, but because they specifically make wrong choices. If that's the case, he won't "pay more attention to his weaknesses" because he doesn't recognize them as weaknesses in the first place.

If you re-define a bad DM to be someone who simply can't play a D&D game effectively at all, then you've basically made the term meaningless. Just like if you re-define a good DM to be someone who creates such a rich, evocative world that people would pay him money just to let him run a game. It's far too extreme of a definition to be useful.

I've been using the more realistic version of "A Bad DM is a DM with flaws that get in the way of the group having a good time in their games." Perhaps a mediocre DM is one that this happens to every once in a while. If a system eliminates or minimizes these flaws, they've made the DM better.

It's not about the extreme outliers and making game quality a straight line, it's about moving the whole bell curve a little more toward a quality game. Most DMs have flaws that they struggle with, and if a game system can address these flaws (while enhancing what a DM already does well), it'll make the DM better.

That's what I take issue with. I've never seen a more comprehensive ruleset take a DM weakness and fix it. As far as my experience goes, bad DMs are bad no matter what system they are using.

And I'm telling you from firsthand experience that 3.5's comprehensive ruleset takes at least MY flaws (in awarding ever-increasing power complexity) and addresses them (for instance, by giving an expected treasure award per encounter). When a game does the work for you, you are free to concentrate your energies on making other parts of the game as enjoyable as possible. I don't think I'm unique in this position, though I certainly could be. Either way, it's at least ONE direct counter-point: D&D has taken me, and made me better at running a game, than any rules-light system ever could, because no rules-light system I've seen addresses ever-increasing power complexity as well as D&D does. Its an area that I want to include in my games (because it's fun to get new cool abilities) but that I don't balance well on the fly (leading to hogging the spotlight-time), so D&D's comprehensive and effective method of doing that (with character wealth guidelines) makes me a better DM (not having to worry about paying attention to the powers they get, I can pay attention to the growing threat of the Evil Overlord or whatever).

Is it really so hard to accept?

 

[Ourph]

If you re-define a bad DM to be someone who simply can't play a D&D game effectively at all, then you've basically made the term meaningless. <snip> It's not about the extreme outliers and making game quality a straight line, it's about moving the whole bell curve a little more toward a quality game. Most DMs have flaws that they struggle with, and if a game system can address these flaws (while enhancing what a DM already does well), it'll make the DM better.

As a matter of fact, it is about outliers. Refresh your memory about what was posted upthread and you'll see that the original issue was bad DMs, not mediocre DMs, not average DMs, not good DMs with a few weak points but bad DMs who make bad calls and aren't able to use their own judgement to make rulings that seem fair to their players. Other posters made the claim that a system that relied on DM judgement was weak because it allowed DMs with really poor judgement to make players miserable. My counterpoint is that I've never seen a DM with really poor judgement become a good DM just because he's using a different ruleset. All rulesets still require the DM to use judgement and if a DM's capability in that area is poor his ability to use any system will still be poor, in my experience.

And I'm telling you from firsthand experience that 3.5's comprehensive ruleset takes at least MY flaws (in awarding ever-increasing power complexity) and addresses them (for instance, by giving an expected treasure award per encounter).

As I said above, I take you at your word.

Is it really so hard to accept?

Not at all, but your points really don't speak to the issue that I was addressing anyway. You keep telling me D&D does X for you, so how can I not believe that D&D is capable of doing X. But I'm saying I've never seen D&D do Y. And since you don't seem to have a problem with Y or need help with Y, your experiences don't convince me of anything to do with Y.

 

[dcas]

To me the answer is "yes".

Always?

 

[mearls]

If you find the time, could you please expound on the philosophy behind the shift of the game in this direction?

I have a meeting in 4 minutes, but let me get the basics of its strengths out there.

The key to per-encounter resources is that they are easier to balance against classes. Per day resources are a lot funkier, because a designer (and to a lesser extent a DM) can't predict the rate at which a player goes through them.

For example, let's say that the wizard has enough spells to outshine the fighter or rogue three times per day. If the party only engages in three encounters, then it ends up looking like the wizard is better all the time.

Even worse, from a story perspective the wizard's flexibility in choosing which encounters to excel in allows him to cherry pick key moments in the adventure. Let's say that the party faces six encounters:

1. Beat up the guards outside Throll's hideout.
2. Trick Throll into revealing the location of the demonscab.
3. Defeat a pack of trolls sent by Myciner.
4. Destroy the demonscab.
5. Defeat Myciner's lesser minions.
6. Slay Myciner.

As with most adventures, this sequence has rising and falling dramatic tension. The wizard gets to pick when he uses his spells. If he focuses on encounters 2, 4, and 6, he gets a lot more "screen time" even though the fighter and rogue excelled in just as many encounters. The key encounters, the important parts of the story, all featured the wizard.

I have to run to a meeting, but that's the main tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of tricks a DM can use to try to balance that out, but at the end of the day you have to ask whether it's worth asking DMs to go through such hoops in order to keep the game fun.

Your points about making per-encounter feel better are all good ones, and I think they point out the necessity in making such mechanics sensible in light of how D&D works. The factotum, as an example, handles it a bit clumsily.

More later...

 

[Maggan]

Always?

I am afraid language barriers might create some confusion here.

Yes, a designer that comes after an original designer can always be called "better".

If he is better, of course. I'm not saying that all that come after another designer are better than him/her. Just that the possibility exists and that the merits of game designers aren't decided on the basis of who's design was the first.

/M

 

[T. Foster]

I disagree totally with this. When I first saw it, I found B2's lack of direction and storyline to be confusing. Coupled with the lack of any npc details, it just seemed like an unfinished product. As a novice DM, I didn't know how to make this work.

I did have fun running it for a C&C game a couple of years ago. I just don't think its ideal for a beginner.

B1 was a much better module for new DM's IMO.

It seems strange to me that someone coming into the game for the first time would expect it to have a "storyline" -- IME that's always been a concern that comes along later, after people have been playing for awhile and for whatever (IMO misguided) reason decide they want the game to be "more than a game." In B2 it's clear that the PCs want to find the Caves of Chaos and then raid/explore them, in order to (stave off the bad-guy threat to civilization/take their stuff), and any motivation of "plot" behind that is, at least IMO, entirely superfluous. As for the lack of detail in the NPCs, the module specifically instructs the DM to add his own touches here -- perhaps some more specific advice or examples might have been in order (instead of the page of blank graph-paper, perhaps), but I'd hardly consider this a fatal weakness.

I agree that B1 is also a very good instructional aid for novice DMs (and IMO a better and more interesting actual dungeon than the Caves of Chaos, which gets to feeling a little same-y with its endless caves of humanoids) but B2 still gets the edge for me because of its larger scale, incorporating the home-base, a bit of wilderness, room for expansion, and the "living dungeon" element with its sections on monster organization and rivalries and how they'll react to repeated PC incursions. B1 shows you how to design a dungeon with tricks and traps and mazes and colorful/fun incidental detail; B2 shows you how to do everything else (except for large-scale wilderness adventuring, which is covered in X1).

 

[Henry]

I have a meeting in 4 minutes, but let me get the basics of its strengths out there....

A-HA! This is the kind of thing I've been waiting for...

I'd love to see the rest of your thoughts on this when you get any free time, Mike, whether it's this afternoon or next week. I'm on the negative side of the fence for this shift, but I too want to see the thinking on it, particularly on the "what constitutes an encounter" problem, and the finagling (or as Robin Laws puts it, "shilly-shallying") a player does to make "more than one encounter."

I also have a prejudicial dislike of the display of power at all times of the day and night that the new idea creates, but I'm willing to discount that as prejudicial bias on my part...

 

[Voadam]

I'm on the pro per-encounter side of the fence. I dislike the pull back to camp and rest up paradigm after the spellcasters use their magic. I dislike having to do resource management on a per day basis as a PC. I prefer options like UA's recharge magic where you can keep going doing the interesting things and feel free to use your big options in combat. In core D&D fighters, rogues, and monks do this no problem while the other classes have to hold back for future combats or have the party pull out after they use their big guns.

I love the psionic focus and soulknife style of mechanics.

 

[dcas]

I am afraid language barriers might create some confusion here.

Yes, a designer that comes after an original designer can always be called "better".

If he is better, of course. I'm not saying that all that come after another designer are better than him/her. Just that the possibility exists and that the merits of game designers aren't decided on the basis of who's design was the first.

I don't disagree, necessarily, but what about the case in which the work of the later designer (whom I called "X") is derivative of the work of the original designer ("Y"). For example, I don't think one might say that "Monte Cook is a better game designer than Gary Gygax because 3e is so much better than 1e." The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise because 3e is derivative of 1e. (I won't get into particulars of who wrote/designed what and just assume that Monte was the primary author/designer of 3e just as Gary was the primary author/designer of 1e, whether or not that's actually true.)

Still keeping in mind that "better" is subjective.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As a matter of fact, it is about outliers. Refresh your memory about what was posted upthread and you'll see that the original issue was bad DMs, not mediocre DMs, not average DMs, not good DMs with a few weak points but bad DMs who make bad calls and aren't able to use their own judgement to make rulings that seem fair to their players. Other posters made the claim that a system that relied on DM judgement was weak because it allowed DMs with really poor judgement to make players miserable. My counterpoint is that I've never seen a DM with really poor judgement become a good DM just because he's using a different ruleset. All rulesets still require the DM to use judgement and if a DM's capability in that area is poor his ability to use any system will still be poor, in my experience.

Again, if you define a "bad GM" to exclude most GMs in existence, the phrase isn't very useful. It's not WRONG to say "D&D can make bad DMs better," you just embrace a definition of "bad DMs" that includes only those who are truly incapable of running a game, rather than those who just don't run good games.

To phrase it in a way that matches your own definitions, without getting into buzzwords or catchphrases, "A rules-heavy game system can mitigate a DMs weaknesses and enhance their strengths, making their game more enjoyable than it would be using a different system."

This is what I, at least, mean, when I say "D&D can make bad DMs better."

Can we accept that as a common ground? Regardless of the semantic debate about what constitutes a bad DM for each of us?