Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7285698" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>So this is the best description in argument I have seen.</p><p></p><p>I see some common ground here I have been playing since about 1992, when I was younger I didn't know anyone playing and mostly it just was not a something I knew about. We started 3rd edition. </p><p></p><p>So I get what your saying about a river still being a river. I agree with that 100%. I may even start keeping an excel or something common DCs but I would also argue that the same river could change strength with the rain so there is no reason it would always be DC16 just that keeping it as a base for a starting place and looking at it from a story perspective of what is happening and altering it makes since. That said if DC16 is a raging river it already has a good success fail rate and I have 0 contention with you or me have 16DC for a river since even a player with a -1 strength modifier could still roll 17-20 and make it. Also, being sweapt down river is not instant death. There are multiple options there. They could get a boat. If as a GM did something to give them fatigue (-5) and forced them to cross the river now by swimming or die and the whole group has casters with through away strength. I would just argue that the river was lower than last time due to less rain on the mountains and as result the river is calmer with a DC13. If your still running this group with DC16 or drown but they need to get across or die... then they are pretty SOL with basically a -6. Not that they couldn't roll it since disadvantage is not a guarantee -5 but at this point your making the whole campaign about how they all dropped strength and died from it. Alternatively to lowering the DC you could give them a folding boat so that the river DC is the same but your adjustment is just the cause of having a boat.</p><p></p><p>If we invert your example and you said the river was a DC21-25 and your group of all new PC's had 8 or 10 STR and don't have athletics they literally have no chance of crossing the river. If your story is pushing them across now with out time to find a solution they just drown or die to what is coming. I agree "fair" is subjective and you make a good point about removing constancy taking away player otpions which I totally agree with but at the same time don't we expect characters to also take on greater challenges while we still grant them free agency? So sure if they go to the same river they passed a 100 times as levels 1-5 I would expect to keep it the same or close to it. At the same time when I would expect them to go to darker, scarier, more extreme places which I would build up with higher DCs. I would however make sure my building curve for the place I sent them was withing the bounds of there capabilities so that I am not railroading them to their deaths. That doesn't mean the old river should get any harder or that if the group changes and they go back to those harsher environments I would keep the same DC if I know the new group doesn't have the skills to compete with DC21-30 on a task. </p><p></p><p>This is my opinion and I can see merit to what you are saying, I just think we are both talking about the extremes of the same thing. You see lowering or raising for players like meta-gaming and steeling agency where I think its necessary to make the game more engaging but beatable, you make things set in stone and don't change at all and I think placing PCs on a path that they absolutely have no chance of completing takes away player agency because it just means they are doomed to die. </p><p></p><p>Looking at that I think we both see the other side as the extreme and wrong but a little of both would actually mean the most free agency for players. Its taking ether too far that is the problem and in resisting one we may actually cause the other. Knowing this you may have actually made be a better GM with your post today. I will try to make an effort to resolve so base line DCs but ensure that I never make them out of my groups capabilities to the point that I have stolen choice from them the other way.</p><p></p><p>Thank you.</p><p>Daniel</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7285698, member: 6880599"] So this is the best description in argument I have seen. I see some common ground here I have been playing since about 1992, when I was younger I didn't know anyone playing and mostly it just was not a something I knew about. We started 3rd edition. So I get what your saying about a river still being a river. I agree with that 100%. I may even start keeping an excel or something common DCs but I would also argue that the same river could change strength with the rain so there is no reason it would always be DC16 just that keeping it as a base for a starting place and looking at it from a story perspective of what is happening and altering it makes since. That said if DC16 is a raging river it already has a good success fail rate and I have 0 contention with you or me have 16DC for a river since even a player with a -1 strength modifier could still roll 17-20 and make it. Also, being sweapt down river is not instant death. There are multiple options there. They could get a boat. If as a GM did something to give them fatigue (-5) and forced them to cross the river now by swimming or die and the whole group has casters with through away strength. I would just argue that the river was lower than last time due to less rain on the mountains and as result the river is calmer with a DC13. If your still running this group with DC16 or drown but they need to get across or die... then they are pretty SOL with basically a -6. Not that they couldn't roll it since disadvantage is not a guarantee -5 but at this point your making the whole campaign about how they all dropped strength and died from it. Alternatively to lowering the DC you could give them a folding boat so that the river DC is the same but your adjustment is just the cause of having a boat. If we invert your example and you said the river was a DC21-25 and your group of all new PC's had 8 or 10 STR and don't have athletics they literally have no chance of crossing the river. If your story is pushing them across now with out time to find a solution they just drown or die to what is coming. I agree "fair" is subjective and you make a good point about removing constancy taking away player otpions which I totally agree with but at the same time don't we expect characters to also take on greater challenges while we still grant them free agency? So sure if they go to the same river they passed a 100 times as levels 1-5 I would expect to keep it the same or close to it. At the same time when I would expect them to go to darker, scarier, more extreme places which I would build up with higher DCs. I would however make sure my building curve for the place I sent them was withing the bounds of there capabilities so that I am not railroading them to their deaths. That doesn't mean the old river should get any harder or that if the group changes and they go back to those harsher environments I would keep the same DC if I know the new group doesn't have the skills to compete with DC21-30 on a task. This is my opinion and I can see merit to what you are saying, I just think we are both talking about the extremes of the same thing. You see lowering or raising for players like meta-gaming and steeling agency where I think its necessary to make the game more engaging but beatable, you make things set in stone and don't change at all and I think placing PCs on a path that they absolutely have no chance of completing takes away player agency because it just means they are doomed to die. Looking at that I think we both see the other side as the extreme and wrong but a little of both would actually mean the most free agency for players. Its taking ether too far that is the problem and in resisting one we may actually cause the other. Knowing this you may have actually made be a better GM with your post today. I will try to make an effort to resolve so base line DCs but ensure that I never make them out of my groups capabilities to the point that I have stolen choice from them the other way. Thank you. Daniel [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"
Top