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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
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="Balesir" data-source="post: 6660122" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>GMs are very useful for injecting imagination, inventiveness and humanity into non-player creatures and organisations in the game. When they start to define how the general "physics" of the game world works, however, I find it to be deeply unhelpful to genuine shared storytelling and roleplaying in the extreme.</p><p></p><p>The "rule 0 fallacy", as I perceive it, boils down to a rejection of broken communication. RPG rules are a communication to the <em>players</em> of how the game world works. Their <em>characters</em> already know this perfectly well; they have grown up in the aforementioned world! But, without detailed communication, the <em>players</em> have no real clue of how the game world is supposed to operate, especially with regards to activities that they are unlikely to have experienced first hand in this "real" world or any other - like fighting with swords, base jumping without the benefit of a parachute or casting magic spells. If the GM modifies or invents the "physics" of the game world on the hoof, the players are left with no useful model of how their character behaviour might affect the world at all. They are being asked to play characters who, we can only presume, suffer from random delusions and flawed memories. While these things are not unknown in the "real" world, they usually come for some reason and associated with predictable patterns...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not really. A lack of "balance" in game rules speaks to something much more problematic than that: it suggests that the world is built on a lie (or series of lies). The rules of how a world works have implications for, well, how that world works. If the rules of the world were stated to be that gravity pulls things down, but all rivers ran uphill, then that would indicate that the "rule" about gravity was false. In this case, (a) how have any intelligent creatures in the world failed to notice this, and (b) what is the rule that keeps creatures and objects from "flowing" up into the air?</p><p></p><p>A world where rivers run uphill might exist - but the rest of the world would assuredly not look just like the "real" world if they did. Balance works in the same way - as a cursory glance at real-world economics will show you. If money buys stuff, then rich people will have more and/or better stuff. If wizards are really more powerful than rogues, then everyone will try to be a wizard and no-one will voluntarily be a rogue (and I'm talking about the people in the imaginary world, here, not the "real" world players sat around the table).</p><p></p><p>As an aside, the growing unrest in the world today is starting to show quite graphically what happens when "lack of balance" starts to become manifest.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Lack of balance in an imaginary world, unless it is taken fully into account in the structures and description of that world, breaks the plausibility of that world. This is irrespective of the group or the style of play the world is intended for. Lack of "balance" in a system is really an incoherence between the system and the game-world that it is described as working in. This means that either the world or the system is a lie - a lie to the players who are supposed to be playing the roles of creatures in it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Quite disconnected from what has gone before, here, I will say that if my character's usefulness in the world and relevance to the story rely entirely on the contrivance of one participant in the game, I'll go and read a book, thanks. Same basic situation, less hassle and probably better writing style/story quality.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, you are literally saying that the GM should lie to the players about the nature of their characters' capabilities as communicated by the rules? That they should say "here are the rules; they tell you what your character's abilities will do, except that I'm lying here and I will arbitrarily declare that you can't do some of it"? Isn't that essentially saying "you can choose to play any character you like but they will all actually be the characters <em>I</em> like because you actually have literally no say in this game whatsoever"? Whatever is the point in me playing in such a "game"?</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, what, all wizards in this world voluntarily eschew the "Knock" spell so that those poor little rogue fellows don't feel useless (even though they are)? Surely, that will last exactly as long as the rogues offer wizards their services for free...</p><p></p><p>This is an example of the "rules" and the description of the game world between them lying or worse. They paint a picture of a world that literally cannot work. The communication that the players have received about how the game world works is valueless - untrustworthy in the extreme.</p><p></p><p>Think for a moment about the "real" world. When I was young, facility in doing repetitive arithmetic was something you could get a job with. There were many skills like it that you might live on - like being a computer operator (basically keeping the computer running by changing storage tapes, running housekeeping software and so on) - that are no longer a meal ticket as they used to be. What has happened? No-one learns those skills any more, that's what's happened. So why, in our imagined roleplaying world, do obsolete rogues persist in learinign lockpicking skills that simply won't earn a crust in the "modern" world?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree - which is exactly what happens when the GM takes control of the physics of the game world without communicating those physics to the players. The real rules that are being played by become distinct from what is written in the rulebook when the GM declares fiat to be the only valid "rule" - and then the players are left with nothing to base their actions upon but a tissue of useless lies and social pressure on the GM - the old, hackneyed "playing the GM rather than the game".</p><p></p><p></p><p>If a player chooses an ineffective character, the main question is how the character has survived so long despite being congenitally unsuited to the world, surely?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Worlds are not run by social skills. I'm not able to walk or do my job because the world is being polite to me and letting me be effective today. If that were true, I would be perpetually filled with anxiety that the world might change its attitude tomorrow... I know that I can do these things because I know how the world works (in very general terms).</p><p></p><p>Likewise, I couldn't win an Olympic sprint next week if I could just convince the world that it could really happen and it would be cool if it did - I would have to train and have a degree of natural aptitude as a sprinter (don't hold your breaths, folks!)</p><p></p><p>In short, social skills are all very well, but creatures living in a world have some actual, experiential knowledge about how those worlds work. By saying that the only real "rules" are the picture in the GM's head of how things should be, you are robbing every player of any analogue to the model that their character must, if they are sane, have of the world they have (presumably) grown up in.</p><p></p><p>If they are not to be implicitly a lie, those rules must fit at least tolerably with the game world as described by the situations and events that happen in the game. They must not, in other words, imply things that the game suggests are untrue. Put another way, they must be "balanced" as the game world represents them to be.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6660122, member: 27160"] GMs are very useful for injecting imagination, inventiveness and humanity into non-player creatures and organisations in the game. When they start to define how the general "physics" of the game world works, however, I find it to be deeply unhelpful to genuine shared storytelling and roleplaying in the extreme. The "rule 0 fallacy", as I perceive it, boils down to a rejection of broken communication. RPG rules are a communication to the [I]players[/I] of how the game world works. Their [I]characters[/I] already know this perfectly well; they have grown up in the aforementioned world! But, without detailed communication, the [I]players[/I] have no real clue of how the game world is supposed to operate, especially with regards to activities that they are unlikely to have experienced first hand in this "real" world or any other - like fighting with swords, base jumping without the benefit of a parachute or casting magic spells. If the GM modifies or invents the "physics" of the game world on the hoof, the players are left with no useful model of how their character behaviour might affect the world at all. They are being asked to play characters who, we can only presume, suffer from random delusions and flawed memories. While these things are not unknown in the "real" world, they usually come for some reason and associated with predictable patterns... Not really. A lack of "balance" in game rules speaks to something much more problematic than that: it suggests that the world is built on a lie (or series of lies). The rules of how a world works have implications for, well, how that world works. If the rules of the world were stated to be that gravity pulls things down, but all rivers ran uphill, then that would indicate that the "rule" about gravity was false. In this case, (a) how have any intelligent creatures in the world failed to notice this, and (b) what is the rule that keeps creatures and objects from "flowing" up into the air? A world where rivers run uphill might exist - but the rest of the world would assuredly not look just like the "real" world if they did. Balance works in the same way - as a cursory glance at real-world economics will show you. If money buys stuff, then rich people will have more and/or better stuff. If wizards are really more powerful than rogues, then everyone will try to be a wizard and no-one will voluntarily be a rogue (and I'm talking about the people in the imaginary world, here, not the "real" world players sat around the table). As an aside, the growing unrest in the world today is starting to show quite graphically what happens when "lack of balance" starts to become manifest. Lack of balance in an imaginary world, unless it is taken fully into account in the structures and description of that world, breaks the plausibility of that world. This is irrespective of the group or the style of play the world is intended for. Lack of "balance" in a system is really an incoherence between the system and the game-world that it is described as working in. This means that either the world or the system is a lie - a lie to the players who are supposed to be playing the roles of creatures in it. Quite disconnected from what has gone before, here, I will say that if my character's usefulness in the world and relevance to the story rely entirely on the contrivance of one participant in the game, I'll go and read a book, thanks. Same basic situation, less hassle and probably better writing style/story quality. So, you are literally saying that the GM should lie to the players about the nature of their characters' capabilities as communicated by the rules? That they should say "here are the rules; they tell you what your character's abilities will do, except that I'm lying here and I will arbitrarily declare that you can't do some of it"? Isn't that essentially saying "you can choose to play any character you like but they will all actually be the characters [I]I[/I] like because you actually have literally no say in this game whatsoever"? Whatever is the point in me playing in such a "game"? So, what, all wizards in this world voluntarily eschew the "Knock" spell so that those poor little rogue fellows don't feel useless (even though they are)? Surely, that will last exactly as long as the rogues offer wizards their services for free... This is an example of the "rules" and the description of the game world between them lying or worse. They paint a picture of a world that literally cannot work. The communication that the players have received about how the game world works is valueless - untrustworthy in the extreme. Think for a moment about the "real" world. When I was young, facility in doing repetitive arithmetic was something you could get a job with. There were many skills like it that you might live on - like being a computer operator (basically keeping the computer running by changing storage tapes, running housekeeping software and so on) - that are no longer a meal ticket as they used to be. What has happened? No-one learns those skills any more, that's what's happened. So why, in our imagined roleplaying world, do obsolete rogues persist in learinign lockpicking skills that simply won't earn a crust in the "modern" world? I agree - which is exactly what happens when the GM takes control of the physics of the game world without communicating those physics to the players. The real rules that are being played by become distinct from what is written in the rulebook when the GM declares fiat to be the only valid "rule" - and then the players are left with nothing to base their actions upon but a tissue of useless lies and social pressure on the GM - the old, hackneyed "playing the GM rather than the game". If a player chooses an ineffective character, the main question is how the character has survived so long despite being congenitally unsuited to the world, surely? Worlds are not run by social skills. I'm not able to walk or do my job because the world is being polite to me and letting me be effective today. If that were true, I would be perpetually filled with anxiety that the world might change its attitude tomorrow... I know that I can do these things because I know how the world works (in very general terms). Likewise, I couldn't win an Olympic sprint next week if I could just convince the world that it could really happen and it would be cool if it did - I would have to train and have a degree of natural aptitude as a sprinter (don't hold your breaths, folks!) In short, social skills are all very well, but creatures living in a world have some actual, experiential knowledge about how those worlds work. By saying that the only real "rules" are the picture in the GM's head of how things should be, you are robbing every player of any analogue to the model that their character must, if they are sane, have of the world they have (presumably) grown up in. If they are not to be implicitly a lie, those rules must fit at least tolerably with the game world as described by the situations and events that happen in the game. They must not, in other words, imply things that the game suggests are untrue. Put another way, they must be "balanced" as the game world represents them to be. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
Top