Mearls on Balance in D&D

[MerricB]

Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.

Cheers!

 

[Ourph]

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.

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 interested in better understanding why I think that you might want to look over this article Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assessments, which explains basically that the skills we use to be good at something are also the same skills we use to evaluate our own performance. In other words, if you are a bad DM you don't have the necessary skills to recognize that you're bad or what exactly it is about your performance that is inadequate.

If D&D's rules do nothing other than make weaknesses in DMs less of an issue, they have improved the DM.

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.

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.

I would be interested to hear Mr. Mearls' opinions of B1: In Search of the Unknown and how they compare to B2. B1 is very similar to B2 in intent but of a much more limited scope (not covering "town" or "wilderness" areas) and obviously much more focused. It's still written down to the level of a young, novice DM and is thus, at times, fairly simplistic, but I wonder if this more focused approach makes the simplicity more palatable and less obtrusive?

 

[mearls]

Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. T. Foster and Korgoth like B2 for a variety of reasons, I don't. Working for WotC doesn't give me the ability to absolutely judge what's good and bad.

I don't think anyone is wrong to like B2. I just happen to dislike it. That said, I've been toying with the idea of running a game based on it. I think the concept is great, I'm just not crazy about the execution.

 

[MerricB]

I don't think anyone is wrong to like B2. I just happen to dislike it. That said, I've been toying with the idea of running a game based on it. I think the concept is great, I'm just not crazy about the execution.

Running B2 led into my current (self-created) campaign, as I worked out exactly who those Priests of Chaos were anyway.

I asked Gary about its design back a couple of years ago in one of his Q&A threads, and the design of the caves was meant to pack a lot of fun (that is, killing monsters and getting treasure) into a small space. IIRC, of course!

Personally, I prefer I3 & I4 as examples of adventure design (with the exception of how the efreeti must be freed...)

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

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?

I won't hesitate to claim that Mike, along with quite a few other current designers are vastly better game designers than Gary.

Now it is really quite likely that not a single one of them would have have the stroke of insight to create the RPG concept when it didn't truly exist (as we think of it now) before. Gary gets that credit in spades and always will. He is the father of the genre. He'll be the main attraction at the RPG hall of fame for it and it is well deserved.

But the game systems were fair to midling designs that happened to be latched onto a brilliant idea that a good sized audience was very greatly excited to experience as a new thing. There is a big difference between quality of overall design and brilliance of a new big picture idea.
Both deserve plenty of credit. But they are not the same.

 

[hong]

Just to get back to the original topic....

Mearls, you mentioned that the invulnerable pet caused you difficulties, in that anything that had a chance of hitting it would automatically hit everyone else.

I'm curious about what the dinosaur had on it that made it unhittable? Also, someone mentioned in here that the solution to an unhittable target is to switch to another tactic that doesn't involve (physical) hitting. To what extent do you consider this a valid approach in design terms? Ie, is it good/defensible design to allow someone to get a super ability if it's balanced by a weak spot/Achilles heel somewhere else? Would your answer be the same if it wasn't physical AC but magic-related, eg unbeatable SR?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.

Cheers!

Everybody run for the hills! I agree with Merric!

 

[mearls]

Just to get back to the original topic....

Mearls, you mentioned that the invulnerable pet caused you difficulties, in that anything that had a chance of hitting it would automatically hit everyone else.

I'm curious about what the dinosaur had on it that made it unhittable? Also, someone mentioned in here that the solution to an unhittable target is to switch to another tactic that doesn't involve (physical) hitting. To what extent do you consider this a valid approach in design terms? Ie, is it good/defensible design to allow someone to get a super ability if it's balanced by a weak spot/Achilles heel somewhere else? Would your answer be the same if it wasn't physical AC but magic-related, eg unbeatable SR?

I have no idea what the pet had that gave it such a crazy AC. I imagine it was simply a combination of notoriously.... interesting... mechanics, such as the druid's pet, and the druid in general, along with some stuff from Savage Species. Keep in mind that this game is pretty much an excuse for people to make ridiculous characters to pit against my equally ridiculous giants.

D&D already gives you a trade off of strengths and weaknesses on the class level. Extending it elsewhere is dicey. Races are a good example. A +4 Con isn't balanced by -4 Int and -4 Cha. Anyone who takes such a race simply avoids classes that need Int and Cha.

On a similar level, giving someone a great AC but balancing it with a bad Will save is problematic because it pushes the issue on to the DM. To challenge the character, the DM needs to throw monsters that force Will saves at him. How often is enough? Every encounter? Every other encounter?

The underlying genius of the class system is that it requires the players to work together to mask each others' weaknesses. Trade offs on that level are fine, because the adventure challenges the party as a whole. Trade offs on a PC level are more problematic, particularly when you let someone pick strength A that comes with weakness B. The smart player simply minimizes the weakness and emphasizes the strength, like with the race example I gave above.

I think balance works best when you look at equivalent options and weigh them, rather than by taking an option and putting a counter on it that rests in another area.

OTOH, you can balance by placing the cost in the correct position. A bonus to AC for a penalty to a Will save is bad, because the two aren't really equivalent. The situation that calls on AC has nothing to do with Will, and vice versa. For example, imagine a feat that gives a +1 bonus to AC, plus the option to gain +4 AC against one attack in return for taking a -4 penalty to AC until the character uses a standard action to regain his defensive focus (or whatever). In this case, the penalty ties directly to the area that the feat serves, hopefully provoking an interesting decision.

(Obviously, that's not the best feat in the world, but I hope it illustrates the idea.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think anyone is wrong to like B2. I just happen to dislike it. That said, I've been toying with the idea of running a game based on it. I think the concept is great, I'm just not crazy about the execution.

Hmm... Seems like what you need is someone who's up on current D&D mechanics/philosophies, and who likes the original but recognizes that it has its flaws, to sign up to write an "Expedition to..."-style revisit.

Gosh, where could you find someone like that? Hmm...










What?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Really? IIRC, a wight had 4 hd. Hardly a major player. Gargoyles had 4 HD too. Both have +1 or better to hit requirements. Which is what I meant by +x DR. Sorry to confuse you by mixing a bit of 3e terminology in there. The problems of shorthand.

However, the fact that a fair number of these monsters show up on the same "level" in the DMG points to the idea that they are expected to be fought at that level. Which leads to the assumption that you are going to have the tools in which to do that.

While the tournament characters may have had disparities in wealth, how many 6th level tournament characters didn't have a magic weapon? As I recall, the Dragonlance characters all started out with magic weapons as well at 5th level. I'd be pretty hard pressed to find a 5th level pregen WITHOUT a magic weapon. Yet, I'd be equally hard pressed to find a 5th level pregen with a vorpal sword.

Kind of points to wealth by level don't it? Yes, it wasn't called out. And yes, it wasn't codified. But, it certainly existed.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. Sorry for the massive threadjack.