Andor said:
No, I don't really accept that basic premise. First because a single villain challanging the entire party is presumably at a higher level so that by the time my character has learned enough to pull off that stunt it's not that big a deal.
Except the math just doesn't work out. If I can do 10 damage now and I have 40 hitpoints, it works out perfectly if enemies have 40 hitpoints and do 10 damage to me as well. We each have around 4 rounds to win and luck pulls us through one way or another.
Now, if hitpoints go up by about 4 per level and damage goes up about 1 per level, it keeps everything even. Unfortunately, if you figure out that math based on that, then one creature who is the same level as the PCs dies in the first round(possibly before acting) against 4 ore more PCs of the same level.
Alright, so as you suggest, we use higher level monsters then. If hipoints go up at 4 per level as I suggested, then in order to be able to survive against 4 PCs doing 10 damage a round for 4 rounds then it needs at least 160 hitpoints. Which means it would have to be 30 levels higher than the PCs. Sure, you're thinking to just increase the number of hitpoints you gain per level to fix this. However, if you do, you must also increase the damage being dealt in order to make up for the extra hitpoints. Which ends up keeping the math the same.
Since the monster is 30 levels higher than the PCs, it is now doing 40 damage per hit, as it gains 1 damage per level. Which is enough to kill a PC on a single hit. Which creates a problem when the PCs are doing 10 less damage each round as they have one less member attacking each round.
On the other hand, if you let the creature follow different rules than the PC, you can create a creature that only does 20 damage per round but still has the 160 hitpoints. This make it a good enemy to fight the PCs. But it would make a really bad PC if the formula stays the same. Since you always need to account for the fact that 4-6 PCs are fighting against the one enemy.
Area of Effect attacks can break the math even more and become more complicated still.
Andor said:
Secondly 'game-breaking' in my experience almost never means that one player is monopolizing the table which would be bad, usually it's GM code for "Wah! They now have the power to change my world in ways I didn't think of and I want sole control over everything!"
Game-breaking could be either. Being able to do 200 damage to the enemies when enemies 30 levels above you only have 150 hitpoints is game breaking. Being able to find the villain and teleport to their location from anywhere on the planet is also game-breaking, just in a different way.
I dislike the fact that you've written off all DMs who want control of their games. In my game, I don't want FULL control over everything. I do want to have control over the majority of events happening in my game. I want to give the players options and then let them choose amongst what they think is the best option.
It's just a lot easier to DM a game where you can plan an adventure and know that at least 80% of what you plan will actually happen in game.
Especially for newer DMs coming up with a game that involves going through a couple of dungeon corridors and beating up monsters is a lot easier to keep track of than one where the PCs could visit any city in the entire universe on a whim and decide to come up with their own adventure whenever they wanted to.
Anything that helps the DM keep the PCs on track and doing what he had planned makes life easier for DMs. I know a lot of DMs here will probably make fun of anyone who can't adapt on the fly or who isn't skilled enough to plan an entire adventure based on what the players do. I don't think that DMs without these skills are somehow lesser, though.
