D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I was assuming that, because that's all you described: sailing across water.

The point I'm making is that if it was a deliberate choice to choose sailing over another option then, yes, the players should be weighing the risks/rewards of both (many?) options.

But if it's just something they need to do in order to continue the adventure, then they aren't really making a choice, even if they "elect" to do it. Any more than I'm choosing which card to play next in the card game War.

Forcing a dice roll with potential consequences in that case is not really "playing a game", it's just imposing simulationism.

One could argue that "playing the game" involves some amount of being subjected to simulationism, but why? Why not excise those parts? We all have a finite amount of game time; I'd rather spend those precious minutes having players make interesting decisions.



I thought I had explained that multiple times, but I'll try again: by "given" I mean are there other alternatives, whether or not the GM offers them. And the litmus test is whether the decision is hard. If there are other choices, but not really any that can compete with sailing (in terms of risk:reward), then I would either eliminate the risk, or adjust the options to make them more appealing (maybe by making the sailing even riskier) so that it's actually a tough decision.



My inclination there is to narrate past the uninteresting part. "Yes, you can take the sailboat across the lake. None of you know how to sail so there's a bit of comedy on the way, but you get there, noticeably more damp than before you embarked."

Again, play time is precious. I want to save it for the good stuff.

For me, the simulation and setting logic of the circumstance is the good stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess I'm not interested in playing a RPG that has procedures for water voyages. That sounds dreadfully mechanical.

I play games that have procedures for resolving challenges that arise in response to player actions. If the players say, "We will sail the boat across the bay" and I don't turn that into a challenge, then there's no procedure. If I do turn it into a challenge, where players get to make meaningful choices, the resolution may require some type of skill related to water craft. Then again, it may not. It might require marine biology, or carpentry, or celestial navigation, or something else.

YMMV.

Very much so. I want to play an RPG that has procedures for as many things that can happen in the setting as is practically possible.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, I was assuming that, because that's all you described: sailing across water.

Come on, man, making the assumption that they're doing this blind without any information about the risk/reward factor is at best reading into my statement a far more adverserial approach than I've been doing in 40 years now at least. I'm the guy who strives for as much transparency as a GM as I think I can manage without harming the game excessively.

The point I'm making is that if it was a deliberate choice to choose sailing over another option then, yes, the players should be weighing the risks/rewards of both (many?) options.

But if it's just something they need to do in order to continue the adventure, then they aren't really making a choice, even if they "elect" to do it. Any more than I'm choosing which card to play next in the card game War.

Forcing a dice roll with potential consequences in that case is not really "playing a game", it's just imposing simulationism.

One could argue that "playing the game" involves some amount of being subjected to simulationism, but why? Why not excise those parts? We all have a finite amount of game time; I'd rather spend those precious minutes having players make interesting decisions.

Well, in part because I don't find it a virtue to completely excise those parts. I don't have a super-wide simulationist streak, but its there, and I'd find the game the worse for it if it was gone.

I thought I had explained that multiple times, but I'll try again: by "given" I mean are there other alternatives, whether or not the GM offers them. And the litmus test is whether the decision is hard. If there are other choices, but not really any that can compete with sailing (in terms of risk:reward), then I would either eliminate the risk, or adjust the options to make them more appealing (maybe by making the sailing even riskier) so that it's actually a tough decision.

The problem here is, even finding all options can be part of the play-cycle itself, and I can't always assume players will do the lifting there. I won't always do the lifting there, but I like to think "Are you sure you want to do this? It has a high failure risk given your skill and the failure could be very bad" I'd take that as a hint there were other options out there and I should be looking for them.

My inclination there is to narrate past the uninteresting part. "Yes, you can take the sailboat across the lake. None of you know how to sail so there's a bit of comedy on the way, but you get there, noticeably more damp than before you embarked."

Where I'll be blunt; I don't want to encourage people to make choices that are dumb on both game and simulation grounds and get used to the fact there will be no risks to doing so. I don't find that a virtue just to get on to the next thing.

Again, play time is precious. I want to save it for the good stuff.

I've said before I consider an over-fixation on speed a curse of the hobby. I don't want to waste time, but I don't consider this sort of thing a waste.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Come on, man, making the assumption that they're doing this blind without any information about the risk/reward factor is at best reading into my statement a far more adverserial approach than I've been doing in 40 years now at least. I'm the guy who strives for as much transparency as a GM as I think I can manage without harming the game excessively.

No, I'm not assuming they are doing this blind without any information about risk/reward. I meant that you didn't describe it as a choice between two dangerous things; you only described the one choice, and I think the possibility of other choices is critical to this question.

Whether or not they know the odds and consequences is not really relevant if they don't have other choices.

Well, in part because I don't find it a virtue to completely excise those parts. I don't have a super-wide simulationist streak, but its there, and I'd find the game the worse for it if it was gone.

The problem here is, even finding all options can be part of the play-cycle itself, and I can't always assume players will do the lifting there. I won't always do the lifting there, but I like to think "Are you sure you want to do this? It has a high failure risk given your skill and the failure could be very bad" I'd take that as a hint there were other options out there and I should be looking for them.

Where I'll be blunt; I don't want to encourage people to make choices that are dumb on both game and simulation grounds and get used to the fact there will be no risks to doing so. I don't find that a virtue just to get on to the next thing.

I've said before I consider an over-fixation on speed a curse of the hobby. I don't want to waste time, but I don't consider this sort of thing a waste.

I guess I wouldn't consider getting into a boat and trying to sail it across the water in a fantasy game a "dumb" thing to do. In real life? Sure. But not dumb in the sense of leaping onto a hostile dragon's back or trying to charm a lich or cutting off your own head because you think you found Vecna's Head.

My general test to any action declaration is "Can I turn this into a complication that would result in some difficult/interesting decision-making?" If I can't, then I don't like to ask for dice rolls just because "this would probably be hard IRL".

 

[Bill Zebub]

Very much so. I want to play an RPG that has procedures for as many things that can happen in the setting as is practically possible.

The "practically possible" is the subjective part, huh?

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, I'm not assuming they are doing this blind without any information about risk/reward. I meant that you didn't describe it as a choice between two dangerous things; you only described the one choice, and I think the possibility of other choices is critical to this question.

Whether or not they know the odds and consequences is not really relevant if they don't have other choices.

I also didn't at any point say there were no other potential options. That was the conclusion you jumped to here.

Bad form.

I guess I wouldn't consider getting into a boat and trying to sail it across the water in a fantasy game a "dumb" thing to do. In real life? Sure. But not dumb in the sense of leaping onto a hostile dragon's back or trying to charm a lich or cutting off your own head because you think you found Vecna's Head.

Which is why I'd make to make it clear it was. If at that point you still don't think its a bad idea, again, that's on you. Playing RuneQuest like you were playing D&D is a bad idea, even if both are fantasy games.

My general test to any action declaration is "Can I turn this into a complication that would result in some difficult/interesting decision-making?" If I can't, then I don't like to ask for dice rolls just because "this would probably be hard IRL".

As I said, making everything that isn't interesting just done, no matter how hard or risky, is not a place I'm going to follow you here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The "practically possible" is the subjective part, huh?

Isn't anything that in a game to some degree? Whether its the game system or the GM, someone made the decision as how good an idea and how beneficial it was at some point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The "practically possible" is the subjective part, huh?

I suppose, but I have a hard time believing you don't think rules for a water voyage aren't practically possible.

 

[Tesral]

Have we wandered away from the topic? You know, fighters not sucking at everything else, not universally being Sir Feudalmind.

(This forum has the largest set of smilies I have every seen.)

 

[Marc17]

I'm going to say at 3E. It had a lot of good ideas, but generally I think the execution of game design failed on multiple accounts and a lot of those resulted in the class tier system we saw and how fighters ended up one of the lowest.

Take all the classes and make them use the same XP advancement. Great. Much simpler, allows for multi classing, etc. Take the fighter as the general base. Thieves previously took less XP to advance, so they should get something to make up for it, thus add in sneak attack. Wow, actually lets them contribute to a fight. Magic-users took more XP to advance, so they should be nerfed somehow. Well, that wouldn't be fun, so instead lets give them more HP (along with everybody else as previously fighters got the most HP for high CON), more spells with cantrips, while we're at it, let's not make them spend any time to relearn spells, and let's just let them cast their spells instantaneously so they can pretty much never be interrupted. Now to fighters, our base. Keep them pretty much the same, except lets give them penalties to DEX and skill for wearing armor. Because, ...realism? Changing stats and applying the same to everybody means they lose their STR and CON bonuses that they only got previously. Let's make all but one of their save suck where they previously tended to have the best all round saves in the game. I think feats were supposed to make up for a lot of that, but the feats were usually small incremental bonuses, locked into feat chains, not scalable with level (unlike many spells), and just not really well thought out. Also, they're just a big dumb jock, so no need for skills.

I'm sure I'm missing some other examples of how fighters got shafted. I think I figured out for fighters and clerics to be equal, there would need to be a feat chain where with each feat the fighter lost one HP permanently but got to case the next level of cleric spells as a cleric of their class level.

Skills are sort of another topic all together. Lack of a skill system was one of the major complaints about D&D and causes of people developing their own fantasy heartbreakers (Hello Palladium!). Players want signature abilities, and in 1E, everybody was pretty much differentiated by class and equipment. As with many other things, this was a major house rule system in many people's games. Eventually, Non-weapon Proficiencies got to the point they were good enough. I like and want the 3E skill system, or something like it, but again, I just don't think it was thought out that well. Even as they did it they had to lock down Find Traps(?) so only Rogues could actually fully use it. I think they just came up with a list of skills, some common uses and called it good. No real thought to things like synergy and other bonuses which allowed for some ridonkulous bonuses at times for PCs wanting to exploit such. There were a lot of things that I recognized as exploitable in the 3.0 system that simply disappeared in 3.5.