The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse: Ideas you think D&D's better without

[RevTurkey]

Poorly built characters? Stats written in the wrong order? Head on back to front?
Unoptimised? What does that even mean?

 

[Systole]

It means halfling barbarians, clearly. Sheesh, haven't you been paying attention?

 

[RevTurkey]

Conan Baggins? oh dear, please no.

 

[Greg K]

I also GM, and my players like my games. As a GM, part of my job is to provide challenges that are difficult but ultimately surmountable. Calling this process adversarial is putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say you were adversarial. I said that when *I* read what you wrote, that is how *I interpret* it (based of posters from various boards). Part of the job is to provide difficult challenges, but many DMs feel that *every* challenge is supposed to be difficult and push characters to the limits rather than a variety of encounter levels (often with the attitude that characters not built to deal with are poorly designed).

However, when a character is poorly built (either compared to the rest of the group or just generally speaking) then the line between 'providing a challenge' and 'turning the PC into chunky salsa' becomes smaller and smaller. In my experience, when that line is narrow enough, I end up feeling stressed and no longer enjoying the experience of GMing. Therefore, unoptimized characters are not fair to me as a GM.

Careful with the term *poorly built*. That is a value judgement and when based upon level of power or degree of optimization is a value judgement based on opinion and not fact. Unoptimized is , not poorly built except under specific playstyles (and the same holds true heavily optimized characters). It is built under a different paradigm that is not based on power gaming and/or heavy optimization or minmaxing to reach that level power level which are not . Campaign inappropriate might be a term as appropriate power level and degree of optimization varies with both groups and their individual campaigns (some groups have both campaigns that are heavily optimized and others that are not).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

At this point, I'm sorry I used the halfling barbarian as an example, because everyone seems to be focused on that specific idea instead of the bigger picture.

In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts. We can all agree on that, right? So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are bad or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big? It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.

I feel I've already been pretty clear about my answer to (a). Namely, a system should be subordinate to its players, and not the other way around. If you're arguing (b), then if you'll pardon me, I'm exiting stage left before someone drags out the spreadsheets and the personal anecdotes.

The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there can be -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer. I consider this a good thing. When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group. I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary. To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.

I thought it was actually a good example because it did a good job of capturing the big picture in an easy to understand nugget.

The important point for me is neither your a) nor your b) (although b is definitely true), it's that by making all the races the same you eliminate choices. If race A and race B have different stat mods, then I can make a meaningful choice between them between them based on what I want my character to do. If they're the same, there's no mechanically meaningful choice. Maybe A is optimal and B isn't. I don't really care. I care that my character is effective. Optimal I couldn't possibly care less about. If optimal is what you're going for then there's going to be only one build you can use for any given role, and that sound really boring.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts. We can all agree on that, right? So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are bad or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big? It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.

I'd say (c) it's a shame that those differences aren't bigger, and my players often wish the game supported more diverse character concepts instead of focusing on combat or even adventuring.

Of course (a) and (b) are also valid. Trying to be a halfling barbarian in a game isn't much different than trying to be a 5 foot tall basketball player in real life. Is it possible to succeed in some ways? Yes. Are you on equal terms with someone much larger than you? No.

In 2e, a lot of suboptimal race/class combinations were simply not allowed, and certain minimum ability scores were often mandated to assure a level of competence within a particular class. In 3e, even very suboptimal combinations and builds still play fairly well. It's hard to truly gimp a character even if you tried (and I've had players who tried).

There are some problems where concepts that should be supported aren't, but I see no reason that every concept works as well as every other concept, or that it should. Nor do I see any impetus to ban certain concepts or hack the mechanics to equalize them.

Careful with the term *poorly built*. That is a value judgement and when based upon level of power or degree of optimization is a value judgement based on opinion and not fact.

That's a good call as well. Might as well leave the value judgements out of it. If someone wants to play a barbarian with high Int and Cha and low Str and Con, it's probably not the most mechanically effective choice, but if they understand the rules, they may still enjoy the game playing it.

 

[Systole]

If they're the same, there's no mechanically meaningful choice.

I don't think this is a bad thing, because it makes your choices all about RP.

Look, you woke up today with an idea in your head of what an elf is, and a dwarf, and a halfling and a gnome. Without looking at a PHB, those races are already different in your mind. They have a history and a culture and a predisposition for certain classes like paladin or druid or bard, which you also have ideas about. And given that you know these things already, then you already have ideas about what constitutes a good character. Therefore, you shouldn't need the ruleset to provide mechanical disadvantages in order to tell you what constitutes a good character; you already have the tools to do it yourself. And it is my strongly held opinion that if a game tells a player otherwise, the game is wrong.

Anyway, I've repeated this too many times today, so I'm out. Enjoy your gaming, gentlemen (and ladies, if any are present).

 

[billd91]

At this point, I'm sorry I used the halfling barbarian as an example, because everyone seems to be focused on that specific idea instead of the bigger picture.

No, I think the halfling barbarian example was a good one because it got right to the crux of the matter for me - there are differences effects from the choices you make in many RPGs and that's OK even if it means that some options you may want to pursue aren't as good as others by some particular metric.

In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts. We can all agree on that, right? So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are bad or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big? It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.

Making edit above... Character concepts that aren't optimal aren't "bad" as long as that's the game you're willing to play. You may not do as much damage with melee weapons as the human barbarian when you're a halfling. So what? Play to your character's strengths, be prepared to fall a little short with the same build and same tactics, or invest more to compensate over the long term. Nothing's wrong with accepting any of those outcomes. There are plenty of tables of players who will accept any of those 3 outcomes without requiring that the system put every character on an even footing even when the verisimilitude is a little hinky.

I feel I've already been pretty clear about my answer to (a). Namely, a system should be subordinate to its players, and not the other way around. If you're arguing (b), then if you'll pardon me, I'm exiting stage left before someone drags out the spreadsheets and the personal anecdotes.

For me, the system is subordinate to the players, yes. We use it to make a best fit to what the player is trying to accomplish whether there's a specific rule for it or not. And I'm willing to deviate from the rules to handle an action or choice that we find is reasonable. But I also like that the system already presents some reasonable ways of handling different choices such as character race and so I am happy to apply them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that 3e/PF probably does more of a balancing act between how weak a halfling should be compared to a fully grown human and rates them higher than they should be almost certainly for playability. So I'm OK with doing that, but appreciate the differences they do model.

The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there can be -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer. I consider this a good thing. When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group. I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary. To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.

Well, that's one kind of balance, but I don't think it's the whole enchilada. In fact, I don't even consider it the most important kind of balance out there.

 

[TwoSix]

Anyway, I've repeated this too many times today, so I'm out. Enjoy your gaming, gentlemen (and ladies, if any are present).

No worries, we'll back you up. The Fighters vs Spellcasters thread is pretty much burned out, anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there can be -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer. I consider this a good thing. When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group. I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary. To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.

The problem is, the spectrum isn't merely between "roleplayers" and "powergamers". There's also the "worldbuilders" or the "simulationists". Mechanically balanced, dramatic games hold no interest for them if they also don't cater to their genre versimilitude, and that is often directly antagonistic to the needs of mechanical balancing. Quite simply, one side wants a cow, one side wants a hamburger, and the game can't give us both.