Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Physical combat has all those things... D&D is hyper obcessive with combat... so lets takeaway all those and watch the fun sky rocket.
Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Physical combat has all those things... D&D is hyper obcessive with combat... so lets takeaway all those and watch the fun sky rocket.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Your game may be hyper obsessive with combat. The same cannot be said with any certainty about everyones D&D game. Combat is one activity that may or may not make up the bulk of play for all groups.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
The games mechanics feature all those... and very nearly none for anything else... wonder if that is a clue.
Stuffed in between "skill challenges" and "traps and hazards" in the 4e DMG is a potential third kind of "noncombat encounter": puzzles. (Of course, all three are reducible to the first kind.)
"Puzzles in a D&D game," according to 4e, "present a unique form of challenge, one that tests the capabilities of the players at the table instead of their characters." The paragraph goes on to identify combat, traps and skill challenges as involving plenty of die rolling.
"Furthermore, puzzles present a challenge to players that's usually independent of their experience with the game." There is indeed a degree to which skill is not synonymous with experience, even in matters dealing directly with peculiarities of the game. Some people learn more quickly than others. I have seen common sense trump purely rules-focused "tactical expertise" often enough. That said, experience at problem solving can be as instructive if arrived at in the game as without.
"The basic nature of puzzles -- that they rely on player ability -- is the reason that some people love puzzles in the game and some people dislike them." Some wisdom there, perhaps? And maybe not just coincidence that different games have been designed with different emphases?
Rather curiously (to an old hand), this is as close as the "Noncombat Encounters" chapter gets to treating what I would call a plain role-playing interaction with a character, or with any aspect of the environment. The apparent reason is in technical redefinition of old D&D terminology: "An encounter, by definition, involves a meaningful risk of failure." Just what that means is suggested in that other puzzles "might be obstacles in the characters' path, but ones they can find other ways around. As a rule of thumb, you can treat a puzzle as an encounter if there's a definite time limit or other serious risk to failing to solve the puzzle in that time. Otherwise, it's not an encounter." (Emphasis added.)
And, of course, "you can always set up a puzzle as a skill challenge." That would make it a non-puzzle, by the earlier definition, but what the hey.
"Puzzles in a D&D game," according to 4e, "present a unique form of challenge, one that tests the capabilities of the players at the table instead of their characters." The paragraph goes on to identify combat, traps and skill challenges as involving plenty of die rolling.
"Furthermore, puzzles present a challenge to players that's usually independent of their experience with the game." There is indeed a degree to which skill is not synonymous with experience, even in matters dealing directly with peculiarities of the game. Some people learn more quickly than others. I have seen common sense trump purely rules-focused "tactical expertise" often enough. That said, experience at problem solving can be as instructive if arrived at in the game as without.
"The basic nature of puzzles -- that they rely on player ability -- is the reason that some people love puzzles in the game and some people dislike them." Some wisdom there, perhaps? And maybe not just coincidence that different games have been designed with different emphases?
Rather curiously (to an old hand), this is as close as the "Noncombat Encounters" chapter gets to treating what I would call a plain role-playing interaction with a character, or with any aspect of the environment. The apparent reason is in technical redefinition of old D&D terminology: "An encounter, by definition, involves a meaningful risk of failure." Just what that means is suggested in that other puzzles "might be obstacles in the characters' path, but ones they can find other ways around. As a rule of thumb, you can treat a puzzle as an encounter if there's a definite time limit or other serious risk to failing to solve the puzzle in that time. Otherwise, it's not an encounter." (Emphasis added.)
And, of course, "you can always set up a puzzle as a skill challenge." That would make it a non-puzzle, by the earlier definition, but what the hey.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Readers bring their own biases to whatever they read. Perhaps it is not Gygax's ideas that are narrow but the baggage you bring to the reading that makes them seem narrow.
For me, Gygax's ideas of a challenging game are very broad indeed, incorporating multiple types of play from combat, to exploration, to social interaction, but all involving consequences for decisions, some more significant than others.
Hussar
Legend
Did you really need to bring edition warring into this?
I should also point out that regardless of how well or poorly 4e balances, is irrelavent to the conversation at hand.
I think (in line with Gygax's own statements) that the case was just the opposite:Garthanos said:
Whether to fight or not, and the consequences, were most significant; therefore, resolution of the outcome was not bogged down in minutia that "have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure."
That view has never been universal among fantasy gamers -- but neither has its opposite!
I can dig that, having had a similar response as a knee-jerk reaction once upon a time. Taking it in fuller context, I see the good sense -- but it is very much a contextual matter. If indeed one has nothing to do with "the game as a whole", then that is disposed of in a moment, eh? If your campaign is identical with this or that set of participants, then there may indeed be no distinction (especially if one plans for the campaign to have a short life in any case).Hussar said:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Right ... you no like challenges my game presents .... you mus wan play kindergartener game. ... yeah I guess I could give benefit of the doubt and assume the challenges of roleplay included some of the following.
I find the ability to differentiate player knowledge and character knowledge and fire wall the two so a players characters are distinct from them-self and other characters they play an awesome player ability. I find the ability to present there characters actions vividly a great player ability. I find the ability to create real feeling goals for their characters and hooks to allow the DM to put a handle on a great player ability. I find the the ability to decide quickly and pay attention another great ability.
Whether the player wants to solve riddles?
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
But there are loads of minutia in AD&D combat. just very very few that allow choices in fight itself ... the kind of choices that help visualize how things are happening are left out especially for the fighter... the one most likely to want choices in combat. See mus for a character type with choices.
Last edited:
