Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[ExploderWizard]

True, but those numbers are generated and manipulated by a person. Plus in some cases it's more appropriate to challenge the entity created and defined by those numbers, depending on how much you want the play to be about the players-as-characters rather than the players-as-themselves.

The characters aren't real. The character won't recognize or appreciate being challenged. The player might appreciate it.

Theres also an irony in that this can be read as "I don't like balanced encounters as the game isn't *enough* of a tactical wargame".

What has balance (or lack of it) got to do with using (or not using) tactics?

DM fiat is, in my experience, a tool. It can be used well or badly. If I have crunched the numbers and set up my abilites such to execute a plan well and it is fiat-failed, then this is probably a bad use of it. If I am setting a situation up to deliberately fail (maybe its a appropriate to my characterisation) and it fiat-succeds, this is also a probably a bad use of it.

You have to trust your DM, and part of that is trusting them to rule consistently. Otherwise you risk playing Mother-May-I.

Mechanics are also tools that can either aid gameplay or interfere with it.

Honestly, I don't agree. If, in fiction, a plan has a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then it will always work. In the game, if the players make a plan with a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then surely they should either a) ride those odds, its their plan after all and to do otherwise is to negate thier choices and actions or b) come up with a plan with a better chance of success.

If that was a roundabout way of saying the players have a chance to pull off the caper of a lifetime or go down in flames depending on the merits of the plan and its execution then I agree.

No, it doesn't. But a game that does not run smoothly does not always equal a rewarding or satisfying game either.


Essentially, thats why I prefer a balanced/smooth running game - I'm more interested in the journey than the mechanics. If I can trust the game to run with minimal input from me, then I can spend more time worrying about worldbuilding or whatever.

This is where we differ. I don't plays these games to passively sit back and enjoy the ride. Thats what a movie or a book is for. RPGs are interactive shared entertainment which, to me, means the more interacting and participation by all involved the more fun and rewarding the experience can be.

We simply have different expectations/goals of play.

 

[Ariosto]

Thanks, Gimby!

Although I obviously cannot speak for ExploderWizard, that kind of "DM fiat" -- a kind I have seen called "the rule of cool" -- is probably not what's meant by 'rulings' in that context. The rules-litigation argument against the "terrible evil" is much more often one-sided, casting the DM as a villainous foe of players whose only defense is the dice and quotation of chapter and verse from The Book. It would be extraordinary for a rules lawyer to argue against a "rule of cool" ruling; possibly dangerous as well, considering the likely reception from fellow players!

EW's point, I think, was that the field of things permitted by rigidly quantified rules is necessarily as a drop in the ocean next to all that cunning players might conceive. That is, I think, not only one of the reasons for having a Game Master in the first place but a key distinction between the basic assumptions of the RPG field and those of the wargame hobby from which it emerged. A wargame GM might also permit actions unanticipated in the written rules, but that is much less central to the game form.

 

[Garthanos]

By the way DM fiat works fine even for melee combat stuff (if your DM knows what he is doing).

 

[ExploderWizard]

So the non-charismatic player doesn't get to experience the power of being charismatic .... even if his character is conceived a charismatic because the game doesn't include mechanics for it... he has to rely on DM fiat to give him it ... because the game designers didnt consider that to be a valid goal (he is supposed to be here to kill monsters and take there stuff thats what all the challenge and rewards are defined in terms of if not he must be an "inferior player" who doesnt want to be challenged).

Why do you assume the attributes of the character are not considered in the resolution of things unless they are prepackaged into the results of predictable dice fests?

Reaction bonuses based on the CHA of the character don't count as rules now?

What part of player driven challenges and rewards are you not getting?
The game designers let the participants determine what were valid goals.

The original intended goals of treasure and fame can be obtained through means other than combat if the players decide that the use of wits and charm will be thier primary methods used in achieving these goals.

Ironically, a player who wanted to do nothing but kill monsters and take thier stuff was the inferior player because the law of averages would make for a short lifespan.

Meanwhile the superior players were figuring out all kinds of ingenious ways to take stuff without having to bleed for it.

 

[Ariosto]

If your plan is actually good, then you *haven't* beaten the overwhelming odds. You have adjusted the odds until they are in your favour and then beaten those new, favourable odds. This should require no fiat-success.

I have no idea where you get this notion that I have any concern with "beating overwhelming odds". The simple fact is that either

(A) you permit the DM to make rulings; or
(B) you are stuck getting told, "No, you can't do that. It may make sense, but there's no rule for it."

The thicker you make your rules-book in response, the greater the handling time -- and the greater the role of the rules-lawyer. At the end of the day, you will still be left with a world of things not pinned down precisely.

 

[Garthanos]

The characters aren't real. The character won't recognize or appreciate being challenged. The player might appreciate it.

You missed the point... Players wanting to vicariously experience the abilities of characters with abilities that do not correspond to there own.... are un supported by DM fiat based on player ability.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I see some people using "DM fiat" or "Mother may I?" in what appears to be a derogatory sense, and they really shouldn't.

It presupposes a heavily antagonistic playstyle where players can't trust DMs to make good decisions and ensure the game remains enjoyable for all.

It is almost a case of using (inventing?) terminology to rule out the possibility of DMs using their narrative control to support players/characters/smart ideas/whatever.

Taken to its logical extreme, you would replace a DM with a computer, and let it run all the numbers because it is frankly unable to effectively make narrative decisions that are worth anything.

So rather than allow the discussion to end up being framed as 'mother may I' on one side and 'just play a CRPG' on the other, can we avoid using loaded terms.

Thanks

 

[Gimby]

The characters aren't real. The character won't recognize or appreciate being challenged. The player might appreciate it.

Some players appreciate their characters being challenged, but not themselves being challenged. Its the old wanting to play character substantially different from self idea.

What has balance (or lack of it) got to do with using (or not using) tactics?

In that the challenge in a tactical wargame is always the player being challenged, rather than the units.

Mechanics are also tools that can either aid gameplay or interfere with it.

Indeed, I'll certainly agree. The only advantage that they have over fiat is that they are written down and accessible to all participants in the game. Disadvantage being inflexibility, of course.

If that was a roundabout way of saying the players have a chance to pull off the caper of a lifetime or go down in flames depending on the merits of the plan and its execution then I agree.

Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it. Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario.

This is where we differ. I don't plays these games to passively sit back and enjoy the ride. Thats what a movie or a book is for. RPGs are interactive shared entertainment which, to me, means the more interacting and participation by all involved the more fun and rewarding the experience can be.

We simply have different expectations/goals of play.

If I took the Kawasaki out and passively sat back, I'd crash at the first corner. Its not the difference between actively and passively experiencing to the game, its between enjoying the game for the game's sake and enjoying what results from the game.

The Norton is interesting as a machine, but focuses attention on the machine. The Kawasaki is boring as a machine, so allows focus on other things.

Personally, I've found that a game balanced/siloed so that a player may always make a meaningful contribution at any point promotes participation more than individual spotlights, but I'm aware this isn't universal.

I do expect we've got different goals/expectations though, yes.

 

[Ariosto]

So the non-charismatic player doesn't get to experience the power of being charismatic ..

Says who?

What's wrong with just getting a charisma bonus the same as you get a strength or dexterity bonus for attacking with a weapon?

Why is it so horrible an imposition to expect a player to specify what he's doing just as much in a parley as in a melee?

The logical response, of course, is that combat should likewise present no chance for choices. After all, we can't have players performing better than the statistical models of their characters, either, can we?

Why, indeed, do we put up with this nonsense of having 'players' at all? That was well and good back before we had ubiquitous computers to take the place of dice-rollers -- but it's not the 1970s any more!

 

[Gimby]

I see some people using "DM fiat" or "Mother may I?" in what appears to be a derogatory sense, and they really shouldn't.

Sure, sorry. As I see it, DM fiat has a useful place in a game, "Mother-May-I" is the degenerate case where it's overused to the detriment of the game. Doesn't happen under ideal conditions, but we were all bad/new/tired at some point.

-edit

It would be extraordinary for a rules lawyer to argue against a "rule of cool" ruling; possibly dangerous as well, considering the likely reception from fellow players!

Lawful Good rules lawyers do exist, even if they are rare

EW's point, I think, was that the field of things permitted by rigidly quantified rules is necessarily as a drop in the ocean next to all that cunning players might conceive. That is, I think, not only one of the reasons for having a Game Master in the first place but a key distinction between the basic assumptions of the RPG field and those of the wargame hobby from which it emerged. A wargame GM might also permit actions unanticipated in the written rules, but that is much less central to the game form.

Very much so - but I'm of the opinion that it should be reserved for those cases where there are no rules already in place or similar ones where the rule can be reasonably extrapolated. That includes the game context as well as "common sense" - a good example of this would be a chap recently on RPG.net attempting to figure out the damage for a steampunk weapon on some kind of impulse/HP conversion rate. IMO, you should stick to something "level appropriate" because of the rest of the game context. "Realistically" your weapon should be really powerful, but "realistically" if I stick a sword in you you die. Thus we should look to existing rules rather than appeal to "realism", if you see what I mean.

I have no idea where you get this notion that I have any concern with "beating overwhelming odds". The simple fact is that either

(A) you permit the DM to make rulings; or
(B) you are stuck getting told, "No, you can't do that. It may make sense, but there's no rule for it."

The thicker you make your rules-book in response, the greater the handling time -- and the greater the role of the rules-lawyer. At the end of the day, you will still be left with a world of things not pinned down precisely.

Its not your idea really, its just a pet peeve - kill 500 guys in a shooter? 500-1 odds, right? No. likely 500x 1-1 odds where you had a massive mechanical advantage. Not really applying that to you.

So yes, a DM must make rulings, but I think its best if they have a framework to make them in. Helps keep things consistent and better allows players to formulate plans that are likely to work.