[rant] Balance schmalance

[S'mon]

A good example of Balance on a TV-adventure show that I think applies to D&D is Stargate: SG1, with 4 'PCs'. Even though one of their actors is the star & a producer, O'Neil never overshadows the other characters in the way eg Kevin Sorbo insists on all his characters doing. What makes SG1 D&D-like to me is that all the characters are combat-capable, perhaps implausibly so, yet they're all given different 'schticks' that enable them to contribute in turn.

O'Neil is the leader, ex-special forces and the best tactical fighter, but is cheerfully ignorant of the scientific & archaeological esoterica that his survival depends on, so he needs

Carter, who knows the science stuff, and fights pretty good too, but not as well as

Teal'c, who is the physically strongest character, a great warrior and is also an inspirational leader among his own people, and familiar with the world the SG1 has to deal with, although he lacks the detailed theoretical knowledge of

er, that other guy, the one with the glasses. While he knows nothing of science (that's for Carter), he knows vast amounts of history, and it takes both their knowledge pools to deal with the threats they confront. Plus he can fight well enough to defend himself.

Would this setup work in a regular D&D game? If not, is it because killing things is so central to D&D that any significant disparity in the killing-power of the PCs is an inherent cause of player frustration?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Of course there are things in the world that the PCs can't yet handle, but I wouldn't rub it in their face, or use it to teach lessons.

But is that what really happened? I never have an issue using encounters that, in a combat sense, are too much for the party. I also expect players at my table to do more than assume, "well, in a balanced game, we should be able to defeat it, so we can do something stupid and whine about getting our arses handed to us for it." I don't think so. It's coddling to the players, who feel justified to believe (incorrectly) that anything in front of them is their combative equal and that attacking is always an equal option.

I don't consider what Acid Crash describes to be rubbing it in the player's faces so much as the players raising up a big neon sign saying "we're idiots, eat us." Granted, perhaps the warning should have been given at the beginning of the campaign rather than after a near tpk (that's generally when I give it), but the player's automatic assumption that they "can take it" is one of the primary failings 3E's pet buzzword. I have no pity or mercy for anyone that makes this incorrect assumption, particularly since I rarely found the need to give such warnings prior to 3E; indeed, prior to 3E, most players came to the table already aware of it, with only absolute newbies to RPGs (usually those just converted from CRPGs and thus having a lot to learn about P&P games) needing such warnings.

 

[Numion]

But is that what really happened? I never have an issue using encounters that, in a combat sense, are too much for the party. I also expect players at my table to do more than assume, "well, in a balanced game, we should be able to defeat it, so we can do something stupid and whine about getting our arses handed to us for it." I don't think so. It's coddling to the players, who feel justified to believe (incorrectly) that anything in front of them is their combative equal and that attacking is always an equal option.

Not at all, I don't think Acid Crash rubbed it in their face. Bad choice of words, I should've put the weight on the 'teaching lessons' part, maybe. Or not mentioned it at all. Sorry Acid Crash for implying such What I was trying to say .. is that the encounter was really as pointless as your players were stupid in charging it.

I don't consider what Acid Crash describes to be rubbing it in the player's faces so much as the players raising up a big neon sign saying "we're idiots, eat us." Granted, perhaps the warning should have been given at the beginning of the campaign rather than after a near tpk (that's generally when I give it), but the player's automatic assumption that they "can take it" is one of the primary failings 3E's pet buzzword. I have no pity or mercy for anyone that makes this incorrect assumption, particularly since I rarely found the need to give such warnings prior to 3E; indeed, prior to 3E, most players came to the table already aware of it, with only absolute newbies to RPGs (usually those just converted from CRPGs and thus having a lot to learn about P&P games) needing such warnings.

Bendris Noulg, have you read the adventure design guidelines in the DMG? Those that are presumably the root of evil in this balanced encounters debate. The guidelines state that 15% of encounters should be +1-4 ELs above the average party level, and 5% should be 5+ ELs above. Now, if you follow those guidelines, you'll end up with situations similar to the Hill Giant episode. It's actually enforced by the DMG adventure design section.

So I'm a bit surprised that 3e would've been start of players whining about too tough encounters. They're expected and encouraged in the 3.0E DMG.

EDITED for clarity

 

[Umbran]

... yet the writers managed to give her strong characterisation and plenty to do - in D&D terms it was a successful campaign.

Literature and TV analogies have a weakness - how interesting the show was to watch does not translate into how well the show would have been to play through.

Think back a bit about Xena. Think about the ratio of screen time between Xena and Gabrielle. Most of each show was Xena on screen. There are frequently entire episodes where Gabrielle doesn't appear. If it had been an RPG, that's all time spent by Gabrielle's player sitting at the table doing nothing. Do you like sitting and waiting through hours of game where you don't do anything?

 

[kenjib]

If you want to teach them a lesson, why don't you just tell them that it works that way up front when you start the campaign, rather than killing them off and then telling them how things work afterward. It's called social contract. In my opinion it's also called good communication and manners. It's not very fair to test players on something that they have no reason to know about beforehand.

Running from certain encounters may seem like common sense to you, but first of all you might not know what expectations of how things are supposed to work your players bring from previous games. Second, the rulebooks really do make it seem like the game operates under certain assumptions regarding what kind of challenges a party is supposed to face, DM fiat notwithstanding, so a player with limited gaming exposure really might expect this. Third of all, it relies on people having read the monster manual, remembering various creature's stats, and applying that out of game knowledge while playing in-character which is again a matter of social contract and what kind of game your players think you are running. I prefer, for example, to play in games where this type of behavior is discouraged.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Bendris Noulg, have you read the adventure design guidelines in the DMG? Those that are presumably the root of evil in this balanced encounters debate. The guidelines state that 15% of encounters should be +1-4 ELs above the average party level, and 5% should be 5+ ELs above. Now, if you follow those guidelines, you'll end up with situations similar to the Hill Giant episode. It's actually enforced by the DMG adventure design section.

Actually, no, it isn't...

DMG, Page 100

Encounters>Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels
A monster's Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-Level characters...

Page 101
What's Challenging [Side-Bar on the bottom]
...By contrast, an encounter even one or two levels above the party level might tax the PCs to their limit, although with luck they might be able to take on two such encounters before needing to recover. Remember that when the EL is higher than the party level, the chance for PC fatality raises dramatically.

So, no, it doesn't encourage it. It actually warns against it with words of caution that, more than advise the GM, scare players into perceiving what is "appropriate" and what isn't despite any other considerations that experienced GMs can easily work around.

So I'm a bit surprised that 3e would've been start of players whining about too tough encounters. They're expected and encouraged in the 3.0E DMG.

The problem is that previously, most of the players that have joined my table have known that a good number of encounters are too dangerous for obvious methods (i.e., combat) to be effective and that these encounters must either be avoided or dealt with in other ways. By 3E's balance, following the guidelines in the DMG ensures that "proper" encounters can be dealt with by any means (charge, stealth, magic, or otherwise) while still drawing about 15%-20% of the party's resources.

What is on the rise is that, when the above isn't the case, new players (especially those that came into D&D after 3E's release) tend to cry "foul" and pull out the balance shovel to prove it. This, then, results in poorer GMing skills, as GMs (not allowed to tinker with things or break the mold) are unable to determine for themselves what works and what doesn't and must cling to the training wheels provided by WotC because players are uncomfortable with other possibilities.

It's really at the point (for me) that, if I've one open spot at my table, I'd take an veteran that's never played 3E over a player that knows 3E by heart but never played another edition, game, or system. I'm fairly comfortable that the vet won't have any preconceptions about the importance of balance (beyond the definition of fairness) and thus won't be pulling out a calculator every time I make an encounter to ensure I'm doing it right. I don't have that assurance with newer players; it's more often likely that they'll distrust any deviation rather than embrace it and adapt.

 

[Numion]

So, no, it doesn't encourage it. It actually warns against it with words of caution that, more than advise the GM, scare players into perceiving what is "appropriate" and what isn't despite any other considerations that experienced GMs can easily work around.

Yes it does. 3.0E DMG, page 102, Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty

.
.
.
15% Very Difficult EL 1 to 4 higher than party level
5% Overpowering EL 5+ higher than party level

"Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty shows (in percentage terms) how many encounters of a certain kind an adventure should have."

There . Emphasis mine. That part in the DMG clearly encourages difficult challenges as a part of D&D.

The problem is that previously, most of the players that have joined my table have known that a good number of encounters are too dangerous for obvious methods (i.e., combat) to be effective and that these encounters must either be avoided or dealt with in other ways. By 3E's balance, following the guidelines in the DMG ensures that "proper" encounters can be dealt with by any means (charge, stealth, magic, or otherwise) while still drawing about 15%-20% of the party's resources.

Maybe they changed it in 3.5E, but that isn't relevant as you said that this started with 3.0E. I quoted to you a part of 3.0E that directly contradicts waht you said. Overpowering ancounters are an encouraged part of the 3.0E D&D experience. YMMV.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

There are frequently entire episodes where Gabrielle doesn't appear.

Actually, there are more than a few when Xena doesn't appear or appears at the beginning and then again at the end.

If it had been an RPG, that's all time spent by Gabrielle's player sitting at the table doing nothing. Do you like sitting and waiting through hours of game where you don't do anything?

Actually, while the show doesn't often focus on Gabrielle away from Xena (during the first 3 Seasons that is, as Gab's screen time increased dramatically after the whole Dayhok deal). Of particular note was the episode when Xena died (finally died, that is) and Gab sought Xena's head and had to master Bushido to defeat him. At any rate, another consideration is that of side-quests. While you see an episode focusing on Xena as a game with Gab sitting around bored, I see a solo adventure where Gab doesn't even show up, followed the next week by a session where Gab plays and Xena stays home.

Of course, I do this kind of thing all the time, so it likely just seems more natural to me for it to occur. Consequently, when you have a level desparity, solo-treks are a great way to seal it up. For instance, IMC, a 7th Level Channeler (Wizards with Fatigue Rules) decides she wants to go to her Mistress' tower and create a magic item. What does the 4th Level Fighter do for the next month of game time? Simple! An invite to an NPCs home turns into a search for an abandoned mine to reclaim a lost blade of legend. Now, the two reunite after the month is up, the Fighter at Level 5 and the Channeler not likely to reach Level 8 any time soon. Do this 2-3 more times, and the Fighter is up to the Channeler. 2-3 more times, and the Fighter can easily surpass the Channeler (barring Level Drain or death/death-cure effects).

So, I don't think the show presented a bad gaming situation, it just primarily focused on Xena's participation. Considering all the stuff it presented with Xena and Gab and the Karmic Circle, being that they were destined to remain together (and adventure) for the rest of time, and that at least one of those incarnations has Gab as a suave and gallant middle-eastern prince while Xena's an old wise woman, it's fair to say that their adventures present a good but incomplete picture of the whole story, while a D&D game can deliver everything the show did as well as the rest of the story.

 

[D'karr]

Yes it does. 3.0E DMG, page 102, Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty

.
.
.
15% Very Difficult EL 1 to 4 higher than party level
5% Overpowering EL 5+ higher than party level

"Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty shows (in percentage terms) how many encounters of a certain kind an adventure should have."

There . Emphasis mine. That part in the DMG clearly encourages difficult challenges as a part of D&D.




Maybe they changed it in 3.5E, but that isn't relevant as you said that this started with 3.0E. I quoted to you a part of 3.0E that directly contradicts waht you said. Overpowering ancounters are an encouraged part of the 3.0E D&D experience. YMMV.

Just because the encounter exists does not mean that combat is the only solution to it.

I have no problems with balance because the players in the campaign already know that there will be encounters that they cannot defeat with mere brawn.

Living to fight another day is something a DM should let his players know is an acceptable option. He should let them know this long before the first TPK ever happens.

 

[Desdichado]

For instance, let's look at Pirates of the Carribean. Sure, Jack Sparrow was quite a few levels up on Will Turner, but in the final battle in the treasure cave, was Will Turner left twiddling his thumbs while Jack Sparrow fought the BBEG? No, Turner had plenty of other tasks to accomplish during the same span of time (i.e., villains and challenges properly rated for him). And, in the end, it was Turner's own actions that ended the curse and won the fight.

TANGENT ALERT!!!!111!! Actually, I'd say Will and Jack were fairly equal level. They fought each other to a standstill when they first met -- their combat prowess brought them to an impasse. Given Will's capabilities, they arguably could be a from similar swashbuckler class. I'd say their differences in abilities stem more from Jack probably having a higher INT score, and having spent his skill points in other places, whereas Will had fewer skill points to mess around with in the first place and sunk a fair amount of what he did have into Profession (blacksmith) and Craft (weapons) or something like that.