Payn's Ponderings; System mastery and the concept of fair fight.

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Well, I would assume given equal attempts at mastery if the results were wildly divergent it would be unfair. For example if starting level was decided by rolling a 1d6. It would be equitable but it would not be fair. If rolling attributes could create radically different power levels then that would apply. Most DMs allow rerolls and stat moves so it becomes fairly fair.
I think you have that reversed. It would be fair, not equitable.
I agree wholeheartedly. How well you play the NPCs and monsters should be driven by your parties playing ability. I had a group once where the people just were not that smart so I didn't play the bad guys super well. I also had a group where anything short of maximal play on my part was letting them down. So DMs need to figure that stuff out.
I think alot of people hate sliding scale difficulty that adjusts to their skill level.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Emerikol

Legend
I think you have that reversed. It would be fair, not equitable.
Well everyone rolling a die for level would be equal treatment. We all roll the die. The result though would not be fair.

I think alot of people hate sliding scale difficulty that adjusts to their skill level.
Well, to me, the DM playing the bad guys full out as well as he can is only for top level players. That doesn't mean they can't out think that attempt. When possible the ideal is for the players to be good players and the DM to play the monsters as if he really were that monster. That means plaything them as smart as they really are. But that level of play IS hard.

I'm primarily talking about having to not play the monsters full out against a bunch of kids or newbs who either aren't that smart or just don't have enough system mastery.

Edit: The point being that playing the monsters fully realistically is the top playing level for the DM but that is a hard level.
 

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
I think alot of people hate sliding scale difficulty that adjusts to their skill level.
I think a lot of people hate the appearance of that adjustment far more than they hate the actual adjustment.

Pulling punches without telegraphing that you're pulling punches is a bit of an art.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Well everyone rolling a die for level would be equal treatment. We all roll the die. The result though would not be fair.
Everyone rolling a die for starting level is completely fair. Would make a poor game mechanic IMO, but it’s fair. If you mean equal outcomes in results, that’s equity.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think a lot of people hate the appearance of that adjustment far more than they hate the actual adjustment.
I don’t think so. Obviously there’s some for which that is the case, but as a whole it completely undermines one play priority, learning how to play better.
Pulling punches without telegraphing that you're pulling punches is a bit of an art.
Sure. But I don’t think most find that players being okay with the illusion of they aren’t aware of it means players are okay with the illusion even if they are aware of it. Making this a poor argument IMO.
 

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
Sure. But I don’t think most find that players being okay with the illusion of they aren’t aware of it means players are okay with the illusion even if they are aware of it. Making this a poor argument IMO.
I think for most players outside the most dedicated (such as the posters on this board), there's less concern for the game as game then there is for the game as participatory improv forum. For most groups (IMX), D&D is like playing a Jackbox game; yea, it's fun to win, and if people were obviously cheating it would be less fun, but the focus is on the play far more than the result.

I roll in the open, so it's not like I'm fudging, but realizing you went a bit overboard with the homebrew monster and "forgetting" to take a legendary action or a passive defense is not something anyone is going to complain about. And I've killed enough characters on fights that should have been "easy" that none of my players think I often scale the combat to them.
 

innerdude

Legend
And this statement is relevant to what goal? Making sure GURPS fans know how unpopular their game is?

Well, in a discussion about balancing encounters, creating "fair" fights, and the role of players and GM in meeting expectations around those subjects, it makes sense to investigate what, exactly, is demanded of the players.

My experience with GURPS overwhelmingly points to the fact that players are expected to spend non-trivial amounts of time away from the game table learning how to "optimize" and "maximize" their individual character potential. Literally every player (other than me) in my GURPS groups would spend hours each week looking through the various magic/psionics/shamanism books. They'd go through the martial arts handbooks. They'd pore through the tech and gear manuals.

Why? I expect it's because they were hoping to "unbalance" and "un-fair" the fights in their direction.

This is an important part of the conversation. If the expectation is that players should spend little to zero time away from the table, then it's on the GM to work to "balance" and "create fairness" for encounters.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Well, in a discussion about balancing encounters, creating "fair" fights, and the role of players and GM in meeting expectations around those subjects, it makes sense to investigate what, exactly, is demanded of the players.

My experience with GURPS overwhelmingly points to the fact that players are expected to spend non-trivial amounts of time away from the game table learning how to "optimize" and "maximize" their individual character potential. Literally every player (other than me) in my GURPS groups would spend hours each week looking through the various magic/psionics/shamanism books. They'd go through the martial arts handbooks. They'd pore through the tech and gear manuals.

Why? I expect it's because they were hoping to "unbalance" and "un-fair" the fights in their direction.

This is an important part of the conversation. If the expectation is that players should spend little to zero time away from the table, then it's on the GM to work to "balance" and "create fairness" for encounters.
Completely agree. That is a very important part of the conversation. However, a comment about how someone just explained why a particular game is unpopular...I just don't see the relevance.
 

Emerikol

Legend
Completely agree. That is a very important part of the conversation. However, a comment about how someone just explained why a particular game is unpopular...I just don't see the relevance.
And let's clear something up. Relatively unpopular. The game has been around for a very long time and still sells a lot of books. It's just not in D&D's league.
 

My issue is calling that fairness. More balanced options isn’t any more or less fair than less balanced ones. It’s a valid preference. It’s not fairness though.

I don’t think most people have a clue what motivates most power gamers. Most power gamers probably don’t either.
I know a power gamer who doesn't come up with his own ideas, just uses an online guide.

He's pretty good at checking with his GM where the guide says he probably should do, but doesn't do so otherwise - he seems to lack the basic understanding to determine for himself whether something is close to, or even over, the line. And heaven forbid that the GM should interpret something differently to the guide.

His GM runs published adventures, which the power gamer generally stomps all over. And then criticises the GM for not providing enough of a challenge.

I find his approach to the game completely weird - and I'm a power gamer myself. So maybe we have different approaches to fairness?
 

Remove ads

Top