# The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse: Ideas you think D&D's better without



## Libertad (Oct 3, 2013)

What popular game mechanics, tropes, and ideas do you believe are unnecessary or otherwise outdated?

I'd say the Law/Chaos axis of alignment.  We can keep Good and Evil, the other part is just too prone to folly.

Also, the "one cleric, one deity" of pseudo-monotheism.  Lots of polytheists draw inspiration from many gods of the pantheon.  This should be a more common option.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 3, 2013)

All of them. That said, it's a toolbox, not a straightjacket. Maybe I want some Elric-influenced Law v. Chaos game next time out or get inspired to play with some sacred cow I normally am tired of (like the drow, who I've been dealing with since '79).

That said, I like campaigns best with focus and subtraction, so I'm unlikely to ever use everything available.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 3, 2013)

The idea that D&D as a whole has sacred cows that deserve to be slaughtered for no reason other than change for changes sake.

That sort of design should be limited to campaign-specific tweaks, and rarely or never undertaken for a campaign setting that existed prior to sending whatever particular cow to the slaughter.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 3, 2013)

PC races that are too small. Let 'em be bigger than 3 feet tall.

Damage caps on spells - made sense for 2e but became instantly unnecessary with the shift to 3e.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 3, 2013)

First, can you unformat your text color? Black-on-black is... difficult.

Thanks!

But to answer your question, I'd like to do away with the coupling of magic items to character level (hurray, it's happening in 5e!). Also with the expectation that high and low level pcs never adventure together; I would like it to be fun to run (or play) a game where the party is levels 1, 1, 1, 2 and 12.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 3, 2013)

The d20.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 3, 2013)

the Jester said:


> First, can you unformat your text color? Black-on-black is... difficult.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> But to answer your question, I'd like to do away with the coupling of magic items to character level (hurray, it's happening in 5e!). Also with the expectation that high and low level pcs never adventure together; I would like it to be fun to run (or play) a game where the party is levels 1, 1, 1, 2 and 12.




Is this quote directed at me?  I'm looking at my OP, and it doesn't look that way to me.


----------



## Raith5 (Oct 3, 2013)

I really dont like the idea that spells like Charm has to be 1st, Levitation has to 2nd, fireball, fly etc have to be 3rd level because that was the set level in Basic D&D. I wish the level of spells was rethought without reference to questions of legacy. Fly in particular should be a higher level spell.


----------



## Manabarbs (Oct 3, 2013)

Conventional notions about what different scores in abilities represent maybe? In many cases, there's a pretty severe disconnect between how creatures with particular intelligence or charisma scores are presented and what the actual mechanical effect of those scores are. You could come at this from either side, really; you could adjust the resolution mechanics so that somebody with 6 int is actually perceptually dumber than somebody with 13 int, or you could redefine what the numbers signify. I think it's also important to create more space between "human average" and "can't use the ability at all"; a -5 penalty isn't enough gradation to even capture the range of basically normal human intelligence, much less the intelligence of various not-so-bright monster races, beasts, etc. (Alternately, you could make it so that zero isn't the floor, or do away with scores entirely and just use modifiers.)


----------



## Storminator (Oct 3, 2013)

Alignment

XP

Magic items slots

Multiclassing

PS


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 4, 2013)

Libertad said:


> Is this quote directed at me?  I'm looking at my OP, and it doesn't look that way to me.



People can use different templates when viewing the site. Styled text carries across each, so someone with a black background (popular here) won't see your black on black text.

Basically, coloring text on ENworld is a terrible idea and it's a shame that it (apparently) can't be disabled.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 4, 2013)

at Whizbang:

I assume that all OPs are colored black by default?  I didn't edit the text in any way beyond copy-pasting it from another site (it had no color tags there).

The red text shows up well in both Reborn and Legacy, so I edited the text to look that way.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 4, 2013)

Libertad said:


> The red text shows up well in both Reborn and Legacy, so I edited the text to look that way.




Be advised that moderators reserve red and orange text for moderating.  Stick to default.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 4, 2013)

Libertad said:


> The red text shows up well in both Reborn and Legacy, so I edited the text to look that way.




When I need to copy and paste something in, I've taken to just pasting it into Notepad first, and then copying from there.  Seems to strip out any formatting that might be hanging around.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 4, 2013)

Ok, is it fine now for Reborn and Legacy?


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 4, 2013)

The wizard as the default arcane caster...

The wizard really...


----------



## Jester David (Oct 4, 2013)

This topic has begun to make me wary. 

There are literally hundreds or other RPG systems out there. And many are fantasy focused. 
All that separates D&D from these is its name and sacred cows, both story and mechanical.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 4, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> This topic has begun to make me wary.
> 
> There are literally hundreds or other RPG systems out there. And many are fantasy focused.
> All that separates D&D from these is its name and sacred cows, both story and mechanical.



I think there's one other thing: its player base. If we could introduce some different ideas to that big a player base, there's a lot of potential gains there.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Oct 4, 2013)

Characters
Character levels
Dice "checks"
Hand waving stuff
Showing the players the rules
Theater of the mind
Fudging


----------



## Jester David (Oct 4, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think there's one other thing: its player base. If we could introduce some different ideas to that big a player base, there's a lot of potential gains there.



Maybe. It's also a large audience with diverse tastes, making it hard not to alienate or lose someone with every change. 
The bigger your audience the more people you have to lose.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> This topic has begun to make me wary.
> 
> There are literally hundreds or other RPG systems out there. And many are fantasy focused.
> All that separates D&D from these is its name and sacred cows, both story and mechanical.






howandwhy99 said:


> Characters
> Character levels
> Dice "checks"
> Hand waving stuff
> ...




Rarely ever do two posts so perfectly line up like these two. 

Personally, I think there are too many people lining up for divine steak these days. The sheer number of people who want Vancian Magic, Alignment, +1 swords, halflings, elves, bards, arcane/divine split, rogue, and "Insert X here" elements is mindblowing. I mean, I don't like gnomes much but I accept they have a place in the PHB, even if I don't play them. The fact that there are so many "X doesn't belong" threads bothers me; D&D tried "radical change" for its own sake and did miserable for it. If anything, we need MORE sacred cows brought back, not removed.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 4, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> Personally, I think there are too many people lining up for divine steak these days. The sheer number of people who want Vancian Magic, Alignment, +1 swords, halflings, elves, bards, arcane/divine split, rogue, and "Insert X here" elements is mindblowing. I mean, I don't like gnomes much but I accept they have a place in the PHB, even if I don't play them. The fact that there are so many "X doesn't belong" threads bothers me; D&D tried "radical change" for its own sake and did miserable for it. If anything, we need MORE sacred cows brought back, not removed.




Well, sacred cows are sacred for a reason. That said, there does come a time when some sacred cows can be allowed to wander away. Armor class getting better as it gets lower was replaced with a more easily usable alternative so it was time for that cow to go. I think that the reasoning behind capping damage for damaging spells based on their level, introduced in 2e, was undermined by giving monsters constitution bonuses and allowing characters to gain hit dice every level so I think it's time for that to go. Fortunately, I don't really think that's a particularly sacred cow so it shouldn't be as heavily protected.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Well, sacred cows are sacred for a reason. That said, there does come a time when some sacred cows can be allowed to wander away. Armor class getting better as it gets lower was replaced with a more easily usable alternative so it was time for that cow to go. I think that the reasoning behind capping damage for damaging spells based on their level, introduced in 2e, was undermined by giving monsters constitution bonuses and allowing characters to gain hit dice every level so I think it's time for that to go. Fortunately, I don't really think that's a particularly sacred cow so it shouldn't be as heavily protected.




I think there is a difference between damage caps and say, alignment. There is a difference between the rules and the expression of the rules. For example, saving throws is a rule; having saves be vs. spells, vs. Fortitude, or vs. Strength is an expression. Its a fine line to cross. My general theory is you can revamp the math all you want, but you want to keep the feel of the game. 4e changed the feel too much, I'd like to see the pendulum swing back. So far, Next feels like the game I loved so its changes (such as bounded accuracy) don't bother me.

I really just dislike when people want to remove elements that D&D is notorious for: Tolkien races, fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues, nine alignments, +1 items, Vancian magic (at least as an option), etc. These are non-negotiable.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 4, 2013)

The least favorite parts that I have always wanted to strip out are hit points and classes.

But if you take these out the game really doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

I say leave the herd alone and let D&D be D&D.  When I want to play a game with different mechanics there are plenty of other games out there.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 4, 2013)

More than any particular rules element, I would change the tone of the game's writing to emphasize that it's a shared group activity. I'd highlight that everyone sitting at that table with you is an actual human being with thoughts and feelings. I would base the advice in the DMG on organizational research that shows how to be an effective leader and get the best out of your players.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2013)

> I say leave the herd alone and let D&D be D&D. When I want to play a game with different mechanics there are plenty of other games out there.



Agreed.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 4, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> The idea that D&D as a whole has sacred cows that deserve to be slaughtered for no reason other than change for changes sake.
> 
> That sort of design should be limited to campaign-specific tweaks, and rarely or never undertaken for a campaign setting that existed prior to sending whatever particular cow to the slaughter.




Yeah, I think designers and us observers have been too exhilarated with the idea of "fixing" D&D that we don't realize we're destroying what makes it feel like D&D.  The game is a tapestry that if you go pulling at this or that string, you run the risk of turning it into something unrecognizable.  There should be a strive to add to the game, not seek to take things away from it.  I'm not against shoring up the weak spots in the mechanics, but the mechanics-fluff interactions need to be handled with care.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2013)

The idea that just because something was canon before it must always be canon and must never, ever be touched.

If something can't stand up on its own, turn it into hamburger.  Just because it was that way before is, IMNSHO, the worst reason to keep something.


----------



## delericho (Oct 4, 2013)

None. Sacred cows are sacred.

An individual setting can change whatever it wants. An individual group can change whatever it wants - and the rules can certainly be structured to help them.

But the game as a whole? It is what it is.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2013)

Campbell said:


> More than any particular rules element, I would change the tone of the game's writing to emphasize that it's a shared group activity.



Yes. D&D could easily benefit from better GMing advice. For instance, the 4e DMG in dicussing combat encounters has pages and pages of terrific advice on how to set up and adjudicate their tactical dimensions, but has virtually nothing to say about setting up and adjudicating the story function(s) of a combat encounter.



Storminator said:


> PS



Plane Shift? Planescape? I tend to agree with the latter, and also with changing alignment from its AD&D/3E version (I prefer the Basic/4e version, both for story reasons and also because I think it works better at the table).


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 4, 2013)

Ditch "Dark Sun" and "Psionics".
No Drow as PCs.

Start having the people who write the modules read the rules. Especially where portals are concerned. 4E rules clearly state that most portals only link two locations on the same plane, and that portals to other planes are rare. And yet almost every mod has the players bouncing between planes like they're on celestial pogo-sticks.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 4, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> ... like they're on celestial pogo-sticks.




Oooh ... great idea for a new magic item!


----------



## Storminator (Oct 4, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Plane Shift? Planescape? I tend to agree with the latter, and also with changing alignment from its AD&D/3E version (I prefer the Basic/4e version, both for story reasons and also because I think it works better at the table).




My initials? 

PS


----------



## Herschel (Oct 4, 2013)

"Fire & Forget" spellcasting.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 4, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Plane Shift? Planescape? I tend to agree with the latter, and also with changing alignment from its AD&D/3E version (I prefer the Basic/4e version, both for story reasons and also because I think it works better at the table).




On a less irreverent note, while I don't like Planescape and despise the Great Wheel, I see no need to excise either of them. I've been ignoring them for 30+ years, I can keep on. 

PS


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 4, 2013)

delericho said:


> None. Sacred cows are sacred.
> 
> An individual setting can change whatever it wants. An individual group can change whatever it wants - and the rules can certainly be structured to help them.
> 
> But the game as a whole? It is what it is.




Ding ding ding...Winnah!

Thanks for typing this for me.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 4, 2013)

Libertad said:


> What popular game mechanics, tropes, and ideas do you believe are unnecessary or otherwise outdated?





Thinking as a businessperson, why would I eliminate *popular* aspects of the game?



Libertad said:


> I'd say the Law/Chaos axis of alignment. We can keep Good and Evil, the other part is just too prone to folly.




OD&D had Law/Chaos only.  I recall an article on adding the good/evil axis noting that the two were conflated with Good/Evil in the rules and in play, and cited Dr. Who as a clrarly Chaotic, but Good, character and Daleks as equally clearly Lawful, yet also Evil.  



Libertad said:


> Also, the "one cleric, one deity" of pseudo-monotheism. Lots of polytheists draw inspiration from many gods of the pantheon. This should be a more common option.




The non-deity option is pretty clear in 3e.  I think it's GM's deciding it will not be allowed in their games that create this issue.



Mishihari Lord said:


> The least favorite parts that I have always wanted to strip out are hit points and classes.
> 
> But if you take these out the game really doesn't feel like D&D anymore.
> 
> I say leave the herd alone and let D&D be D&D. When I want to play a game with different mechanics there are plenty of other games out there.




Very true.  I also post on the Hero boards, and it is amazing how many posters want to emulate D&D with the Hero rules.  My usual response is "WHY??"  There is no way you will get a better system for playing D&D (whatever edition you are working to emulate) than D&D.  Use the system for its own strengths, not to created a watered-down version of another system.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Oct 4, 2013)

That classes must be equal in power at all levels.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 4, 2013)

I'd be willing to kill off hit points for a different damage mechanic. But other than that, I like D&D as it is. I'm willing to use other systems to get other mechanics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2013)

> Very true. I also post on the Hero boards, and it is amazing how many posters want to emulate D&D with the Hero rules. My usual response is "WHY??"




I don't post on the HERO boards, but I have run D&D in HERO; I answer thusly: FLEXIBILITY. Bbecause with HERO, I can- and have- let individual players run PCs using (a translated version of) their favorite edition's incarnation of a class, race, spell etc. side by side with other players doing exactly the same thing...even if nobody is in agreement.  So I can have a 4Ed Warlock in the same party as a 3.5Ed Psion, a 2Ed Priest & Barbarian, and a 1Ed M-U, Druid and Ranger, and not have much in the way of issues.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 4, 2013)

I could really do without the d20 mechanic.

I don't mean get rid of the d20.  I just mean going back to using different resolution methods for different things, like using 2d6 for reaction checks, and possibly even skill resolution checks.


----------



## saskganesh (Oct 4, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think there's one other thing: its player base. If we could introduce some different ideas to that big a player base, there's a lot of potential gains there.




All you have to do is run a good game and people will show. How many players do you need? What other gains are there?

IMG I have no alignment, at will casting, and no hobbits. To begin with. People come. Just for example. I am not suggesting other people play just like me.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2013)

I like the sacred cows of D&D like classes, good evil law chaos, fire and forget magic, etc.  To me the game would be near pefect if you took the BECM rules, added the unified mechanic, and made classes and races separate.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 5, 2013)

I don't have any sacred cows as it were. My only issue is what they're replaced with.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 5, 2013)

Gary's version of pseudo-Vancian "magic" and armor class. Replace those with a powered down point-style variant, and a scaling defense bonus with AC as DR, and that might be a D&D I'm interested in. The other issue with AC as it currently stands is it contributes mightily to the "Christmas Tree" magic item effect---all those +2 longswords have to countered by +2 half-plate and a ring of protection.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2013)

Storminator said:


> My initials?



OK!


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 5, 2013)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I like the sacred cows of D&D like classes, good evil law chaos, fire and forget magic, etc.  To me the game would be near pefect if you took the BECM rules, added the unified mechanic, and made classes and races separate.




*Cough*

www.basicfantasy.org


----------



## Loren Pechtel (Oct 5, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> The d20.




Yup.  It introduces too much variability in the outcome.

As for the law/chaos thing that started the thread:  I think it has it's place, the problem is that the range between lawful and chaotic is far less than the range between good and evil.  Unfortunately, they are modeled as equally big steps.

A simple test:  Would a Paladin willingly cooperate with a CG?  Yes.  With a LE?  No.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 5, 2013)

Hero system was invented by bored accountants, and it shows. Yes, there are 7 or 8 different ways to get the same effect, but why would you need to?
You want something that can be adapted to anything, quick and dirty, without needing a calculator all the time? Try West End Games' D6 system. Works amazingly well. Two editions of the Star Wars RPG ironed out almost all of the bugs. It is quick and dirty, and can be brutal. Oh, and they have a nice injury mechanic instead of the usual Hit points. I strongly recommend that route over Heroes/Champions, if you don't want to play "real" D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2013)

> Yes, there are 7 or 8 different ways to get the same effect, but why would you need to?




Because sometimes the journey is as important as the destination.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Oct 5, 2013)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> All of them. That said, it's a toolbox, not a straightjacket. Maybe I want some Elric-influenced Law v. Chaos game next time out or get inspired to play with some sacred cow I normally am tired of (like the drow, who I've been dealing with since '79).




My friend, if we ever debate, you can legitimately say that you have been gaming since before I was born  Also, I only recently began to read Elric. The alignment system was the most interesting element I've taken from it; I'd like to see that take on the dynamic more of a focus.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Oct 5, 2013)

Storminator said:


> My initials?
> 
> PS




Yup. PS has to go. Out with the old, in with the new.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Oct 5, 2013)

BlueBlackRed said:


> That classes must be equal in power at all levels.




Actually, yeah. I don't know how much of a sacred cow it is, but I'd personally be happy throw away some of the level-associated straightjackets; wealth is one of them, because it gets in the way of my fantasy. But to be honest it _is_ pretty radical, and probably wouldn't stand up to much debate


----------



## Zireael (Oct 5, 2013)

I'd throw out the sacred cow of "Thou Shalt Not Deviate From What is Written".

Really, people take the rules too seriously. The DMG needs to resemble Gygax's DMG more.


----------



## steenan (Oct 5, 2013)

I'm not sure what the OP really asks about.

Is it how the D&D should change to achieve some abstract perfection? To be played by more people? Or how it should change for me to consider spending money on it? 

I'm nearly sure that to get me to but the game (at the price level I expect for PHB+DMG+MM) WotC would need to slaughter quite a lot of sacred cows and make a lot of people furious. Each time I read about making a game for all playstyles and not alienating anyone (in other words, not really supporting any play style), I'm reminded I'm not in the target group. 

Let's just say that, for me, 4e was a step in good direction, but it didn't go far enough.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 5, 2013)

Zireael said:


> I'd throw out the sacred cow of "Thou Shalt Not Deviate From What is Written".
> 
> Really, people take the rules too seriously. The DMG needs to resemble Gygax's DMG more.




So which is it?  Gygax wrote a very controversial article in a Dragon Magazine many years ago where he stated if you're deviating from the rules, you are no longer playing D&D.  IIRC(AITID), the 1e DMG also suggests a non-DM possessing the book is something less than worthy of an honorable death.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 5, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> Yup. PS has to go. Out with the old, in with the new.




But I'm a sacred cow!

PS


----------



## Dog Moon (Oct 5, 2013)

Does a sacred cows taste better than a regular cow?


----------



## Loren Pechtel (Oct 5, 2013)

Storminator said:


> But I'm a sacred cow!
> 
> PS




Does that give you a *MOO* attack that does 1hp of good damage? <G>


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 5, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> Does a sacred cows taste better than a regular cow?




Oh, the steaks are simply _divine_!


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 6, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> Does a sacred cows taste better than a regular cow?



Just be careful, watch out for random gods toasting you from the sky


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 6, 2013)

N'raac said:


> [/FONT]
> 
> Very true.  I also post on the Hero boards, and it is amazing how many posters want to emulate D&D with the Hero rules.  My usual response is "WHY??"  There is no way you will get a better system for playing D&D (whatever edition you are working to emulate) than D&D.  Use the system for its own strengths, not to created a watered-down version of another system.





I don't play HERO, but I can understand why someone would want to do that.  There are a lot of D&D ideas which I think are really cool, but don't really mesh with the system/particular edition's mechanics in a way which I like.  As a matter of fact, I first learned GURPS by playing in a game where the GM was running a Pathfinder adventure using GURPS 4th Edition.

For what it's worth, I do agree that there are certain aspects of D&D which make D&D feel like D&D.  However, I can also completely understand wanting to take an idea or a concept and placing it into a different set of game mechanics.  

Still, I can't argue with what some have said.  Changing some things would make D&D into something that is no longer D&D.  If that's really what someone wants, then they're probably better off playing a different system anyway.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 6, 2013)

To me, the key is transitioning the feel, rather than the mechanic.  Trying to shoehorn saving throws, for example, into different game systems doesn't always work, but creating a Charm or Fireball spell certainly does.


----------



## Wiseblood (Oct 6, 2013)

Instead of a slaughterhouse you should open a distillery. Then you could get the best sacred cows and put the rest out to pasture.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 6, 2013)

Zireael said:


> I'd throw out the sacred cow of "Thou Shalt Not Deviate From What is Written".
> 
> Really, people take the rules too seriously. The DMG needs to resemble Gygax's DMG more.




Holmes Basic says it is ok to deviate
Moldvay Basic says it is ok to deviate
1e DMG says it is ok to deviate, but certain things must be kept for it to be D&D

Second Edition provides lots of optional rules: For example, in the core books: There are optional non-weapon proficiencies and both Priests of Mythoi and other classes other than the Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Wizard must be approved by the DM for inclusion. Get it into supplements and there are kits, alternate spellcasting mechanics, new mechanics and options, options for single class campagins, single race campaigns, no magic campaigns. Then, look at the different types of settings that have moved away from pseudo medieval. 

Third Edition DMG says it is ok to deviate and gives you numerous options. Then,  you have Unearthed Arcana which is all about tailoring the game and supplements which are about new or additional alternate mechanics. On top of that, there were/are all of the  d20STL and OGL add-ons and variant rules.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 6, 2013)

Perhaps the actual sacred cow is explicit statements that it is OK to deviate!


----------



## Kinak (Oct 7, 2013)

While I personally dislike a lot of the sacred cows (the d20 as a resolution mechanic and Vancian casting being at the top of the list), I don't actually think D&D would be better without them. It would just be a different game, which is why they're sacred cows in the first place.

The question is how to design a game that works with those sacred cows, rather than fighting them. For the d20, I'd like to see large bonuses or mechanics like rerolls or floors to take out some of that randomness. For Vancian casting, I'd also like to see other options, arcane and divine.

I wouldn't like D&D better if it switched to 3d6 or a dice pool system. And I wouldn't like it better if it abandoned Vancian casting in favor of something else. I've got a whole shelf of not-D&D and I don't foresee D&D fighting with them on that basis. It just has to be the best D&D it can be.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Systole (Oct 7, 2013)

I recommend that everyone reading this thread go check out 13th Age.  It is D&D/PF with every single sacred cow slaughtered and turned into tasty, tasty hamburgers.  Seriously, it's the best thing to happen to RPGs since 3rd edition.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 7, 2013)

Systole said:


> Seriously, it's the best thing to happen to RPGs since 3rd edition.



Whoa there, tiger. Let's wait until the archmage SRD comes out.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 7, 2013)

I personally wasn't too impressed by 13th Age, but if it suits your table, have fun.


----------



## Systole (Oct 7, 2013)

<shrug>  Your call.  I've been playing for 25 years.  I like 13th Age because D&D has at long last stopped telling me what kind of character I _should _play, and is instead letting me make the character that I _want _to play.

In AD&D, you had things like humans dual-classing and nonhumans multiclassing.  There were rules and restrictions on what you could and couldn't do that didn't have any good reason for being there except that it the original developers had a vision of the D&D world that was incorporated into the ruleset.  In 3rd ed., the writers stepped back and said (among other things), "Look, why does an elf advance differently from a human?  Wouldn't it be better and simpler if they advanced the same way?  Okay, let's fix that."  And it was awesome because it leveled the field and got closer to the goal of letting players play what they want without feel straitjacketed.  Was it perfect?  No.  But it was a vast improvement over AD&D.

In 13th Age, I feel like the writers have taken that to its logical conclusion.  In PF, for example, halflings have a size penalty and a negative Strength modifier.  That means that if you want to make, for example, a halfling barbarian, you are going to run with a gimped character that is never going to be as good as a human or even an elf barbarian.  So you're sometimes left with this choice of: play a gimped PC, or play a PC that isn't really your first choice.  In 13th Age, you do not have to make that choice, because your halfling barbarian will be every bit as badass as a human barbarian.  Your dwarf sorcerer will be every bit as good as a dark elf sorcerer.  _That's _why I think 13th Age is the best thing since 3rd edition.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm happy that you have found a game you like so much.  I'm pleased as punch about 5e myself.


----------



## Systole (Oct 7, 2013)

Haven't played 5e, to be honest.  I don't like NDAs so I didn't take the chance for a playtest.  But likewise, I'm happy you've found a game you like.  Different strokes and all that.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Oct 8, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Very true.  I also post on the Hero boards, and it is amazing how many posters want to emulate D&D with the Hero rules.  My usual response is "WHY??"  There is no way you will get a better system for playing D&D (whatever edition you are working to emulate) than D&D.  Use the system for its own strengths, not to created a watered-down version of another system.





Yeah. I adapted some stuff - I made a lot of talents that were HERO versions of D&D Feats. My magic system really feels like Rolemaster. I pretty much took elements from games I liked and emulated them in HERO. Got the exact game I wanted.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 8, 2013)

Lord Mhoram said:


> Yeah. I adapted some stuff - I made a lot of talents that were HERO versions of D&D Feats. My magic system really feels like Rolemaster. I pretty much took elements from games I liked and emulated them in HERO. Got the exact game I wanted.




I think hat's a big part of it - not "how do I get this identical result" but "how do I invoke the feel I like".


----------



## billd91 (Oct 8, 2013)

Systole said:


> In 13th Age, I feel like the writers have taken that to its logical conclusion.  In PF, for example, halflings have a size penalty and a negative Strength modifier.  That means that if you want to make, for example, a halfling barbarian, you are going to run with a gimped character that is never going to be as good as a human or even an elf barbarian.  So you're sometimes left with this choice of: play a gimped PC, or play a PC that isn't really your first choice.  In 13th Age, you do not have to make that choice, because your halfling barbarian will be every bit as badass as a human barbarian.  Your dwarf sorcerer will be every bit as good as a dark elf sorcerer.  _That's _why I think 13th Age is the best thing since 3rd edition.




If that works for you, OK. But for fantasy games, that idea doesn't really work for me. I find it's a disconnect if the halfling barbarian can be just as good as a larger race barbarian on the exact same terms. That sort of absolutely unbounded development belongs, in my opinion, in the superhero RPGs - and even then if Puck decides he's going to take on Sasquatch, my money's still on Sasquatch...


----------



## Systole (Oct 8, 2013)

billd91 said:


> If that works for you, OK. But for fantasy games, that idea doesn't really work for me. I find it's a disconnect if the halfling barbarian can be just as good as a larger race barbarian on the exact same terms. That sort of absolutely unbounded development belongs, in my opinion, in the superhero RPGs - and even then if Puck decides he's going to take on Sasquatch, my money's still on Sasquatch...




I respectfully disagree.  I think once you accept that you can have a 12th level <insert class here> that could singlehandedly plow through a small army of mooks, then assigning power levels based on something as basic as race is, in my opinion, rather arbitrary.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 8, 2013)

Systole said:


> I respectfully disagree.  I think once you accept that you can have a 12th level <insert class here> that could singlehandedly plow through a small army of mooks, then assigning power levels based on something as basic as race is, in my opinion, rather arbitrary.




It's not really a question of power levels as much as it's a question of method. That 12th level halfling barbarian is also quite capable of taking on an army of mooks, but he does so in a different way as befits a small barbarian with good hiding benefits and the sling (or staff sling) he favors (and is better suited for him) over his great-axe wielding human counterpart. And, as such, I find it anything but arbitrary.


----------



## Systole (Oct 8, 2013)

If you take Tolkein as a starting point, I wouldn't be able to disagree with you.  And if that's the game you'd like to play, that's certainly your prerogative.  Don't get me wrong: I respect Tolkein as an innovator and a codifier for, like, every single fantasy trope.   But I want to move past Tolkein.  He's a sacred cow for me.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 8, 2013)

Systole said:


> <shrug>
> In AD&D, you had things like humans dual-classing and nonhumans multiclassing.  There were rules and restrictions on what you could and couldn't do that didn't have any good reason for being there except that it the original developers had a vision of the D&D world that was incorporated into the ruleset.  In 3rd ed., the writers stepped back and said (among other things), "Look, why does an elf advance differently from a human?  Wouldn't it be better and simpler if they advanced the same way?  Okay, let's fix that."  And it was awesome because it leveled the field and got closer to the goal of letting players play what they want without feel straitjacketed.  Was it perfect?  No.  But it was a vast improvement over AD&D.




No, it was horrible, because it destroyed the humanocentric world and made multiclassing useless except for a one or two level dip here and there.  An improvement?  If a square wheel is an improvement, then I suppose so.


----------



## Systole (Oct 8, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> No, it was horrible, because it destroyed the humanocentric world [...]




You know, it never even occurred to me that anyone would consider that a negative outcome.  I'm not trying to belittle your viewpoint or anything; it's just that every once in a while I get blindsided by a viewpoint I never even considered.  I guess I learned something today.

That said, I remain happy to see it go.


----------



## Derren (Oct 8, 2013)

Dungeon crawls.
Levels.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 8, 2013)

Systole said:


> In 13th Age, I feel like the writers have taken that to its logical conclusion.  In PF, for example, halflings have a size penalty and a negative Strength modifier.  That means that if you want to make, for example, a halfling barbarian, you are going to run with a gimped character that is never going to be as good as a human or even an elf barbarian.  So you're sometimes left with this choice of: play a gimped PC, or play a PC that isn't really your first choice.  In 13th Age, you do not have to make that choice, because your halfling barbarian will be every bit as badass as a human barbarian.  Your dwarf sorcerer will be every bit as good as a dark elf sorcerer.  _That's _why I think 13th Age is the best thing since 3rd edition.




I have two problems with this approach.  First, it tosses verisimilitude out the window.  That guy the size of my five year old son is as strong as full size man?  Unless you posit he has magic muscles, that's pretty ridiculous.  I actually think the gap should be a lot bigger than it is.

Second, homogenizing the races makes race choice meaningless.  I like each race to have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 8, 2013)

Systole said:


> You know, it never even occurred to me that anyone would consider that a negative outcome.  I'm not trying to belittle your viewpoint or anything; it's just that every once in a while I get blindsided by a viewpoint I never even considered.  I guess I learned something today.
> 
> That said, I remain happy to see it go.




That's ... kind of surprising, as a humanocentric world was an explicit goal of the authors.  IIRC they even spelled it out in the core rulebooks.  I think their logic was sound, too.  Whatever else they are, elves, dwarves, and so on are not human, with a fundamentally alien mindset.  Roleplaying a character in an alien society where the players have to remember all the ins and outs of the culture is a lot harder than roleplaying a character with an alien mindset in a human world, where we at least have an understanding of the rules that we don't have to think about all the time.  The alternative, making nonhumans to be basically humans but in funny costumes is pretty unsatisfying.


----------



## Systole (Oct 8, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I have two problems with this approach.  First, it tosses verisimilitude out the window.  That guy the size of my five year old son is as strong as full size man?  Unless you posit he has magic muscles, that's pretty ridiculous.  I actually think the gap should be a lot bigger than it is.
> 
> Second, homogenizing the races makes race choice meaningless.  I like each race to have advantages and disadvantages.




Why not?  Storm giants clearly have magic muscles, because they can move under their own power.  And a magic skeletal system, otherwise they would collapse under their own weight.  If you accept that, then you've already tossed verisimilitude out the window, and I don't see how accepting badass halflings is worse or even different.  Heck, I'd even say that extra-strong halflings are more scientifically sound than storm giants, given that the muscle-to-power ratio is much higher in most other primates than it is in humans.

By incorporating strong mechanical advantages and disadvantages into a system, a player's ability to roleplay within that system becomes limited. It detracts from gameplay, rather than adding to it.  In other words, in a system where halflings have a Strength penalty (like Pathfinder), you can still play a game without halfling barbarians, but I can't play a halfling barbarian unless I want to accept a gimped character.  In a system where halflings *don't* have a strength penalty (like 13th Age), you are still free to play a game without halfling barbarians.   But in this case, I can play a completely different game that's chock-full of raging, three-foot-high Viking berserkers if that's what I want.  To me, that makes the second system superior, because it imposes fewer constraints on the player's freedom of choice.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 9, 2013)

Derren said:


> Dungeon crawls.
> Levels.




Hrm, somehow I think removing dungeons from Dungeons and Dragons might be a bit of a bridge too far for a LOT of gamers.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> By incorporating strong mechanical advantages and disadvantages into a system, a player's ability to roleplay within that system becomes limited. It detracts from gameplay, rather than adding to it.  In other words, in a system where halflings have a Strength penalty (like Pathfinder), you can still play a game without halfling barbarians, but I can't play a halfling barbarian unless I want to accept a gimped character.  In a system where halflings *don't* have a strength penalty (like 13th Age), you are still free to play a game without halfling barbarians.   But in this case, I can play a completely different game that's chock-full of raging, three-foot-high Viking berserkers if that's what I want.  To me, that makes the second system superior, because it imposes fewer constraints on the player's freedom of choice.




I wouldn't say it constrains the freedom of the player to choose. Rather, it imposes consequences for the choices the player makes. It's your choice to not play, as you put it, a "gimped" character. However, I've had a player take a bit of barbarian as a halfling and he did quite well. He focused more on ranged attacks than Viking-style melee weapons but he was quite proficient at dealing out a lot of damage. As I said, the mechanics of the situation suggest different avenues of focus, not really a gimping of the character at all. And for me, having the mechanics reinforce the imagined differences between a halfling and a human helps build the culture the character's coming from which, in turn, serves to aid role playing a character from that culture.

So, yeah, racial differences encouraging different focus in character development? I endorse that sacred cow.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 9, 2013)

Bill91, am I understanding this right?  A ranged halfling barbarian is not a gimped character?  Really?

Unless Pathfinder really changed barbarians, I'm not seeing how ranged halfling and barbarian go together at all.


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I wouldn't say it constrains the freedom of the player to choose. Rather, it imposes consequences for the choices the player makes. It's your choice to not play, as you put it, a "gimped" character. However, I've had a player take a bit of barbarian as a halfling and he did quite well. He focused more on ranged attacks than Viking-style melee weapons but he was quite proficient at dealing out a lot of damage. As I said, the mechanics of the situation suggest different avenues of focus, not really a gimping of the character at all. And for me, having the mechanics reinforce the imagined differences between a halfling and a human helps build the culture the character's coming from which, in turn, serves to aid role playing a character from that culture.
> 
> So, yeah, racial differences encouraging different focus in character development? I endorse that sacred cow.




To be frank, whether or not you can have a decent halfling hurler barbarian is beside the point.  I proposed a traditional axe-wielding barbarian halfling as an example.  I could have said dwarf sorcerer or gnome magus or tiefling summoner.  I was trying to demonstrate that a player could have some character concept that he or she thought was really cool but wouldn't be able to play it effectively because of the ruleset.  Whether or not a different character concept is functional isn't the point.  The point is that the original cool character concept didn't work because of the ruleset.

And my larger point is this: Aren't we savvy enough and mature enough and confident enough as gamers to have conversations about character concepts just between player and GM, without the hard-coded rules of the system getting in the way?  I mean, we're here, having a discussion on a forum dedicated to RPGs.  Obviously we know what we want in a game, right?  

So let's posit two scenarios.  If a system supports halfling barbarians, but the GM doesn't want them, a conversation could go like this:Player: Hey, Bob ... I was wondering if I could play a halfling barbarian in this campaign?
GM: Well, I'd rather you didn't.  It doesn't really fit with this Tolkeinesque world I'm thinking about.
Player: Okay, well I guess I'll hang on to that idea for some other campaign.  How about an elf ranger with a longbow?
GM: Now we're talking.​
But now imagine that the GM thinks it's a cool idea but the system doesn't support them...Player: Hey, Bob ... I was wondering if I could play a halfling barbarian in this campaign?
GM: That would be awesome!  Except ... let me see ... size penalty ... slow movement ... strength penalty ... Hmmm, your character's going to be kind of ineffective.
Player: Okay, well I guess I'll hang on to that idea for some other campaign.
GM: It's the system actually.  A halfling barbarian is just never really going to work that well.
Player: <sigh> I suppose could make him a hurler halfling.  That's sort of like what I wanted.  Kind of.
GM: Maybe a dwarf barbarian?  They're ... y'know ... pretty decent.
Player: Yeah ... that sounds ... good.  I guess.​

In other words, I think it's fine if someone doesn't want axe-wielding halfling barbarians or [insert some character concept] in their game, but why can't I have them in mine?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> To be frank, whether or not you can have a decent halfling hurler barbarian is beside the point.  I proposed a traditional axe-wielding barbarian halfling as an example.  I could have said dwarf sorcerer or gnome magus or tiefling summoner.  I was trying to demonstrate that a player could have some character concept that he or she thought was really cool but wouldn't be able to play it effectively because of the ruleset.  Whether or not a different character concept is functional isn't the point.  The point is that the original cool character concept didn't work because of the ruleset.
> 
> And my larger point is this: Aren't we savvy enough and mature enough and confident enough as gamers to have conversations about character concepts just between player and GM, without the hard-coded rules of the system getting in the way?  I mean, we're here, having a discussion on a forum dedicated to RPGs.  Obviously we know what we want in a game, right?
> 
> ...




You do realize that for this type of openness you are better served by a point-buy system, where you can construct your own races, occupations, etc... right?  I mean where does this logic stop... should classes limit a "cool" concept?  Should the number of skill points you get limit a "cool" concept? I mean can't the DM and players decide how many skill points they want?  Can't they decide whether certain class abilities are appropriate or not?  

EDIT: They can and it's called houseruling... which you can do for any game.

At the end of the day you need a baseline for what differentiates races, I mean in 13th Age is it fair that a half-orc is better at hitting people than a halfling?  What if I want a halfling who is better at hitting people than dodging?  Why is that hardocded into the game?  I mean don't get me wrong, I like 13th Age alot, even posted an play report about it... but I don't think it's approach is "objectively" better or superior to choosing to nudge (because in the end nothing actually prevents you from playing a halfling barbarian except your own concerns surrounding optimization) the races towards their iconic niches in fantasy.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Bill91, am I understanding this right?  A ranged halfling barbarian is not a gimped character?  Really?




Really.


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> EDIT: They can and it's called houseruling... which you can do for any game.




When you houserule, you're changing the rules as written because they don't work for you, because they're getting in the way of the game you want to play.  Which was my point.  I'm not saying that as soon as you make one houserule that a system is forever broken, but if you have to lay down houserule after houserule to get to the game you want to play, then perhaps it is.

As far as the rest, you are completely correct that optimization is stopping me from playing a weak character.  A group of players is a team, and I should be able to pull my own weight.  If I play a character that can't, then I'm letting those guys down.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Oct 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> ... but I don't think it's approach is "objectively" better or superior to choosing to nudge (because in the end nothing actually prevents you from playing a halfling barbarian except your own concerns surrounding optimization) the races towards their iconic niches in fantasy.




One's concerns about optimization might be valid though, especially if it's a difficult game and the players are expected to pull out everything they've got just to survive.

In response to halflings themselves not making as capable barbarians, that depends a lot not only on the base system but also on the supplements.  I know PF added favored class stuff for each major race, so I'd expect if someone says a PF halfling can make a good ranged character then it's probably quite possible although I'd like to see the abilities that make it work just out of curiosity.

Likewise, I can see a dwarf sorcerer working in 3.5, especially if using a subrace that doesn't have a penalty to Cha and the dwarf sorcerer racial substitutions from Races of Stone are leveraged.


As far as answering the OP, I'll admit some sacred cows do help with the general feel of the game and could well be needed to be D&D for some.  But I think some tweaking could certainly be done.  3.5, for example, would seem to demand some spells have adjusted levels simply because the nature of the game has changed and not having them at mathematically relevant levels (but not be overpowered) can be a big drawback.  If the Restoration line being a 3 round cast time is a sacred cow then I think it should be slaughtered at least as far as healing ability damage goes because enemies can do more damage as a standard action than those spells can heal in any amount of time.  Even if it's a survival/horror type game, making it a full round action would suffice since the difference between a standard and a full round gives plenty of feeling like the characters are fighting for their lives.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> At the end of the day you need a baseline for what differentiates races, I mean in 13th Age is it fair that a half-orc is better at hitting people than a halfling?  What if I want a halfling who is better at hitting people than dodging?  Why is that hardocded into the game?  I mean don't get me wrong, I like 13th Age alot, even posted an play report about it... but I don't think it's approach is "objectively" better or superior to choosing to nudge (because in the end nothing actually prevents you from playing a halfling barbarian except your own concerns surrounding optimization) the races towards their iconic niches in fantasy.



In 13th Age, a half-orc barbarian isn't any better at hitting than a halfling barbarian.  The half-orc can give his racial bonus to Str, but can't put his class bonus there.  The halfling can put his class bonus into Str and have the same Str as the half-orc.

13th Age can also support hardcoding racial preferences in the game, by having  a character with a One Unique Thing like "I'm the only halfling barbarian in the world."  

Of course, if you use the character creation rules as world-building guidelines, then this approach won't work for you.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> In 13th Age, a half-orc barbarian isn't any better at hitting than a halfling barbarian.  The half-orc can give his racial bonus to Str, but can't put his class bonus there.  The halfling can put his class bonus into Str and have the same Str as the half-orc.
> 
> 13th Age can also support hardcoding racial preferences in the game, by having  a character with a One Unique Thing like "I'm the only halfling barbarian in the world."
> 
> Of course, if you use the character creation rules as world-building guidelines, then this approach won't work for you.




I was talking about the racial abilities...


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I was talking about the racial abilities...



I know.  I merely expanded upon it to give other thread readers a clearer picture of the game's design.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I know.  I merely expanded upon it to give other thread readers a clearer picture of the game's design.




So.. the half-orc barbarian is better at hitting than the halfling barbarian... due to their differing racial abilities... right?


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> So.. the half-orc barbarian is better at hitting than the halfling barbarian... due to their differing racial abilities... right?



I don't have my 13th Age book right here, so I forget what the half-orc's racial ability is.  I'm guessing it involves hitting something?

And I really thought you were talking about stat adjustments until right now, which is my bad.  Hoisted in my own petard!


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I don't have my 13th Age book right here, so I forget what the half-orc's racial ability is.  I'm guessing it involves hitting something?
> 
> And I really thought you were talking about stat adjustments until right now, which is my bad.  Hoisted in my own petard!




No, don't take it that way... I was mainly making the point that even in 13th Age there are pro's and con's centered around race.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 9, 2013)

Regarding halfling barbarians being "gimped'. That is only true if you and/or your group are focused on powergaming and/or min/maxing.  Not every player or group is focused on those things. Personally, I have been been in two 3e campaigns and the halfling barbarian did just fine and held their own.


----------



## Derren (Oct 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Hrm, somehow I think removing dungeons from Dungeons and Dragons might be a bit of a bridge too far for a LOT of gamers.




Dungeons should not be removed, but centering (a large part of) the game around crawling through some adjacent rooms filled with monsters which only reason to exist is to provide XP and loot for the PCs should go.
Dungeons should be used when appropriate, but their existence and appearance in a game should not be automatically assumed/expected.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

Greg K said:


> Regarding halfling barbarians being "gimped'. That is only true if you and/or your group are focused on powergaming and/or min/maxing.  Not every player or group is focused on those things. Personally, I have been been in two 3e campaigns and the halfling barbarian did just fine and held their own.



Which leads to the important consideration of who should be catered to.  Powergamers and those who take mechanical considerations into strong account when designing characters?  Or simulationists who view the character design rules as a major factor in worldbuilding?


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 9, 2013)

Greg K said:


> Regarding halfling barbarians being "gimped'. That is only true if you and/or your group are focused on powergaming and/or min/maxing.  Not every player or group is focused on those things. Personally, I have been been in two 3e campaigns and the halfling barbarian did just fine and held their own.




You beat me to it.  The difference in, frex, damage output is going to be pretty small.  It's highly unlikely that the difference between winning and losing a fight will be whether you chose halforc or halfling for your racial adjustments.  Any competent DM will design encounters to be appropriate to your party anyway.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 9, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Any competent DM will design encounters to be appropriate to your party anyway.




Moreover, a competent group of players will usually adapt to the situation and use their strengths to overcome or avoid an encounter even if it isn't tailor made to the party - whether the barbarian in it is a halfling, human, half orc, elf, dwarf, or gnome.


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

At this point, I'm sorry I used the halfling barbarian as an example, because everyone seems to be focused on that specific idea instead of the bigger picture.

In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts.  We can all agree on that, right?  So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are bad or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big?  It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.

I feel I've already been pretty clear about my answer to (a).  Namely, a system should be subordinate to its players, and not the other way around.  If you're arguing (b), then if you'll pardon me, I'm exiting stage left before someone drags out the spreadsheets and the personal anecdotes.

The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there _can be_ -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer.  I consider this a good thing.  When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group.  I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary.  To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there _can be_ -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer.  I consider this a good thing.  When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group.  I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary.  To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.




With terms like "wimpy" and unfun, it sounds to me that you are approaching it from a powergamer perspective in which the focus is primarily about power (in this instance about the numbers and bonuses which = power).  Therefore, minimizing differences is really catering to the powergamer. I don't want the Power gamer catered to, because it eliminates what I consider lead to meaningful differences and choices in races that lead to what I consider interesting characters.


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

'Wimpy' was shorthand for making a GM pull his punches.  If the GM has to worry about killing my character with a standard encounter, I don't think that's fair to him either.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> 'Wimpy' was shorthand for making a GM pull his punches.  If the GM has to worry about killing my character with a standard encounter, I don't think that's fair to him either.




As someone that almost always DMs (I get to play when I need a break, but quickly find the players calling to ask me when my campaign will resume), I don't look at it as pulling my punches. Pulling punches to me means the DM is supposed to be adversarial to the players and every edition that I own says that is not the DM's role.  
To me, the DM's role is about considering the characters that I have in the party if creating tailored encounters designed to challenge them. However,  I can still have both things that are  weaker and things things from which the party can run


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 9, 2013)

Storm Giants can't support their own weight? Oh crumbs...next we'll find out that Dragons can't possibly breath fire or that Spectres can't drain life energy! 

I quite liked it when character classes progressed at different speeds. Can we resurrect that long dead sacred cow please? It sort of made sense to me that learning some things took more time than others...it also balanced things like the weakness of starting Magic Users vs experienced ones flinging Lightning Bolts etc and the greater XP points required to achieve that level of mastery. Well, I liked it anyway. The desire to unify every mechanic has sometimes led to a bit of flavour going I think..

It's funny Systole but I was really keen to try 13th Age but your enthusiastic description of the race mechanics actually puts me off a bit. Why should a Halfling be as strong as someone twice his physical size. Makes no sense if that's how it works. Just like the blanket +1 5e playtest racial stat bonuses for humans...makes no sense. Having said that...yes we are dealing with fantasy worlds where reality has gone bye bye but even so a little bit of simulation can help us suspend our disbelief and enter these strange magical and mysterious worlds of imagination.

Sacred Cows I'd like to ditch...hmm (I get that some people might like these)

The word 'proficiency'...it's just clunky. I was glad to see it go. Sad to see it return.
Cantrips...just again a needless additional word. They are Spells...call them that.
Following on from that...maybe have Spell Levels match Actual Levels. You are 1st level....hey you can manage 1st level spells. You are 5th level....woah...it's those 5th level ones for you. Spread the spells out over more levels than 7 or 9 and granulate the system more interestingly.

Just today's thoughts...probably change my mind tomorrow


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

I also GM, and my players like my games.  As a GM, part of my job is to provide challenges that are difficult but ultimately surmountable. Calling this process adversarial is putting words in my mouth. 

However, when a character is poorly built (either compared to the rest of the group or just generally speaking) then the line between 'providing a challenge' and 'turning the PC into chunky salsa' becomes smaller and smaller.  In my experience, when that line is narrow enough, I end up feeling stressed and no longer enjoying the experience of GMing.  Therefore, unoptimized characters are not fair to me as a GM.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 9, 2013)

Poorly built characters? Stats written in the wrong order? Head on back to front?
Unoptimised? What does that even mean?


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

It means halfling barbarians, clearly.  Sheesh, haven't you been paying attention?


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 9, 2013)

Conan Baggins?  oh dear, please no.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> I also GM, and my players like my games.  As a GM, part of my job is to provide challenges that are difficult but ultimately surmountable. Calling this process adversarial is putting words in my mouth.



I didn't say you were adversarial. I said that when *I* read what you wrote, that is how *I interpret* it (based of posters from various boards).  Part of the job is to provide difficult challenges, but many DMs feel that *every* challenge is supposed to be difficult and push characters to the limits rather than a variety of encounter levels (often with the attitude that characters not built to deal with are poorly designed).



> However, when a character is poorly built (either compared to the rest of the group or just generally speaking) then the line between 'providing a challenge' and 'turning the PC into chunky salsa' becomes smaller and smaller.  In my experience, when that line is narrow enough, I end up feeling stressed and no longer enjoying the experience of GMing.  Therefore, unoptimized characters are not fair to me as a GM.




Careful with the term *poorly built*. That is a value judgement and when based upon level of power or degree of optimization is a value judgement based on opinion and not fact.  Unoptimized is , not poorly built except under specific playstyles (and the same holds true heavily optimized characters). It is built under a different paradigm that is not based on power gaming and/or heavy optimization or minmaxing to reach that level power level which are not .  Campaign inappropriate might be a term as appropriate power level and degree of optimization varies with both  groups and their individual campaigns (some groups have both campaigns that are heavily optimized and others that are not).


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> At this point, I'm sorry I used the halfling barbarian as an example, because everyone seems to be focused on that specific idea instead of the bigger picture.
> 
> In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts.  We can all agree on that, right?  So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are bad or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big?  It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.
> 
> ...




I thought it was actually a good example because it did a good job of capturing the big picture in an easy to understand nugget.

The important point for me is neither your a) nor your b) (although b is definitely true), it's that by making all the races the same you eliminate choices.  If race A and race B have different stat mods, then I can make a meaningful choice between them between them based on what I want my character to do.  If they're the same, there's no mechanically meaningful choice.  Maybe A is optimal and B isn't.  I don't really care.  I care that my character is effective.  Optimal I couldn't possibly care less about.  If optimal is what you're going for then there's going to be only one build you can use for any given role, and that sound really boring.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts.  We can all agree on that, right?  So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are bad or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big?  It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.



I'd say (c) it's a shame that those differences aren't bigger, and my players often wish the game supported more diverse character concepts instead of focusing on combat or even adventuring.

Of course (a) and (b) are also valid. Trying to be a halfling barbarian in a game isn't much different than trying to be a 5 foot tall basketball player in real life. Is it possible to succeed in some ways? Yes. Are you on equal terms with someone much larger than you? No.

In 2e, a lot of suboptimal race/class combinations were simply not allowed, and certain minimum ability scores were often mandated to assure a level of competence within a particular class. In 3e, even very suboptimal combinations and builds still play fairly well. It's hard to truly gimp a character even if you tried (and I've had players who tried).

There are some problems where concepts that should be supported aren't, but I see no reason that every concept works as well as every other concept, or that it should. Nor do I see any impetus to ban certain concepts or hack the mechanics to equalize them.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Careful with the term *poorly built*. That is a value judgement and when based upon level of power or degree of optimization is a value judgement based on opinion and not fact.



That's a good call as well. Might as well leave the value judgements out of it. If someone wants to play a barbarian with high Int and Cha and low Str and Con, it's probably not the most mechanically effective choice, but if they understand the rules, they may still enjoy the game playing it.


----------



## Systole (Oct 9, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> If they're the same, there's no mechanically meaningful choice.



I don't think this is a bad thing, because it makes your choices all about RP.  

Look, you woke up today with an idea in your head of what an elf is, and a dwarf, and a halfling and a gnome. Without looking at a PHB, those races are already different in your mind.  They have a history and a culture and a predisposition for certain classes like paladin or druid or bard, which you also have ideas about.  And given that you know these things already, then you already have ideas about what constitutes a good character.  Therefore, you shouldn't need the ruleset to provide mechanical disadvantages in order to tell you what constitutes a good character; you already have the tools to do it yourself.  And it is my strongly held opinion that if a game tells a player otherwise, the game is wrong.

Anyway, I've repeated this too many times today, so I'm out.  Enjoy your gaming, gentlemen (and ladies, if any are present).


----------



## billd91 (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> At this point, I'm sorry I used the halfling barbarian as an example, because everyone seems to be focused on that specific idea instead of the bigger picture.




No, I think the halfling barbarian example was a good one because it got right to the crux of the matter for me - there are differences effects from the choices you make in many RPGs and *that's OK* even if it means that some options you may want to pursue aren't as good as others by some particular metric.



Systole said:


> In some/most/all systems, there are character concepts that do not work as well mechanically as other character concepts.  We can all agree on that, right?  So is the argument (a) that that's a good thing because those character concepts are *bad* or (b) that that's fine because the gap isn't that big?  It seems like people are trying to have it both ways.




Making edit above... Character concepts that aren't optimal aren't "bad" as long as that's the game you're willing to play. You may not do as much damage with melee weapons as the human barbarian when you're a halfling. So what? Play to your character's strengths, be prepared to fall a little short with the same build and same tactics, or invest more to compensate over the long term. Nothing's wrong with accepting any of those outcomes. There are plenty of tables of players who will accept any of those 3 outcomes without requiring that the system put every character on an even footing even when the verisimilitude is a little hinky.



Systole said:


> I feel I've already been pretty clear about my answer to (a).  Namely, a system should be subordinate to its players, and not the other way around.  If you're arguing (b), then if you'll pardon me, I'm exiting stage left before someone drags out the spreadsheets and the personal anecdotes.




For me, the system is subordinate to the players, yes. We use it to make a best fit to what the player is trying to accomplish whether there's a specific rule for it or not. And I'm willing to deviate from the rules to handle an action or choice that we find is reasonable. But I also like that the system already presents some reasonable ways of handling different choices such as character race and so I am happy to apply them.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that 3e/PF probably does more of a balancing act between how weak a halfling should be compared to a fully grown human and rates them higher than they should be almost certainly for playability. So I'm OK with doing that, but appreciate the differences they do model.



Systole said:


> The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there _can be_ -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer.  I consider this a good thing.  When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group.  I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary.  To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.




Well, that's one kind of balance, but I don't think it's the whole enchilada. In fact, I don't even consider it the most important kind of balance out there.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> Anyway, I've repeated this too many times today, so I'm out.  Enjoy your gaming, gentlemen (and ladies, if any are present).



No worries, we'll back you up.  The Fighters vs Spellcasters thread is pretty much burned out, anyway.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

Systole said:


> The more balanced a system is, the less difference there is -- the less difference there _can be_ -- between a roleplayer and a powergamer.  I consider this a good thing.  When I sit down to a game, I don't want to be forced to choose between making a character that's fun and interesting, or making a character that can pull its weight and not force the GM to throw wimpy encounters at the group.  I don't feel that having to make that choice is either fun or necessary.  To those that feel differently, I respectfully I have nothing further to say.



The problem is, the spectrum isn't merely between "roleplayers" and "powergamers".  There's also the "worldbuilders" or the "simulationists".  Mechanically balanced, dramatic games hold no interest for them if they also don't cater to their genre versimilitude, and that is often directly antagonistic to the needs of mechanical balancing.  Quite simply, one side wants a cow, one side wants a hamburger, and the game can't give us both.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 9, 2013)

Blimey  it amazes me how much stuff people come up with to talk about how game systems work. Must be zillions of words written about the ins and outs of D&D mechanics and fluff.

How many words written in the ENWORLD forums about this sort of thing I wonder?

Incredible


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 9, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> The problem is, the spectrum isn't merely between "roleplayers" and "powergamers".  There's also the "worldbuilders" or the "simulationists".  Mechanically balanced, dramatic games hold no interest for them if they also don't cater to their genre versimilitude, and that is often directly antagonistic to the needs of mechanical balancing.  Quite simply, one side wants a cow, one side wants a hamburger, and the game can't give us both.



That's one thing.

But I think you've rather mislabeled the powergamers. There's a good size group of people who care very much about the game as a mechanical entity, but who hate balance. They're trying to build the best character they can, and the bigger the power differences between different choices, the more engaging the "build" side of the game becomes.

To want the kind of parity of character options that a few people on these boards tend to advocate, you give up not only the verisimilitude, the genre emulation, and the drama, you also give up the satisfaction of system mastery and building a powerful character. What's gained in all of this has never been clear to me, other than sparing the feelings of whichever people cannot deal with the idea that their character might not be the best but are simultaneously unwilling to build one that is.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 9, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> To want the kind of parity of character options that a few people on these boards tend to advocate, you give up not only the verisimilitude, the genre emulation, and the drama, you also give up the satisfaction of system mastery and building a powerful character. What's gained in all of this has never been clear to me, other than sparing the feelings of whichever people cannot deal with the idea that their character might not be the best but are simultaneously unwilling to build one that is.




Considering I'm one of the advocates you mention, I'm going to veto your take here.  In the totality of my experience and presently at my table:

- Versimilitude is an illusive concept.  One man's versimilitude is another man's fiddly, silly, "gamey", unfulfilling, or overwrought.

- Tight PCC balance, and tight PC:challenge balance makes it easier for me to emulate genre and to focus on the drama, pacing and climax as I'm freeing up undue mental overhead that would be spent on forcing balance a priori or manipulating it mid-stream to instead focus on genre-relevant material/tropes that yields dynamic scene openers, compelling challenges, and complications born of the output of PC action meeting the machinery of the resolution mechanics.

- Yes, tight PCC and PC:challenge balance does indeed reduce the impetus toward mastery of system and does tend to be at tension against building powerful characters that break the math of the game.  This is also a feature for my table.

- I'm not sure of "sparing the feelings of whichever people cannot deal with the idea that  their character might not be the best but are simultaneously unwilling  to build one that is" but I do suppose it spares certain players' feelings in that it generally equillibrates spot-light sharing and again, my own feelings, as its an emergent quality of play rather than one I force/impose.

Due to my nature and my work, I'm not a big fan of "eyeballed" or "kinda sorta" calibration.  I want tight, explicit math and error bars.  Wide confidence intervals make me twitch.  I don't want to twitch while I'm running a leisure activity/game because the downside of fuzzy challenge math is TPK...accidentally...or BBEG anti-climactically crushed in 2 rounds...accidentally.  I want to focus on the creative side of the game and on composing compelling, genre-relevant scenes/challenges that my players can engage with and resolve.  Tight math lets me do that.  Its equal parts functional for play and equal parts anxiety-reducing placebo.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I wouldn't say it constrains the freedom of the player to choose. Rather, it imposes consequences for the choices the player makes.





Mishihari Lord said:


> homogenizing the races makes race choice meaningless.  I like each race to have advantages and disadvantages.





Mishihari Lord said:


> by making all the races the same you eliminate choices.  If race A and race B have different stat mods, then I can make a meaningful choice between them between them based on what I want my character to do.  If they're the same, there's no mechanically meaningful choice.





Systole said:


> I don't think this is a bad thing, because it makes your choices all about RP.



I agree with Systole that you don't need mechanical consequences for a choice to be meaningful - because the choice can still make a big difference in the fiction. And not just as colour - if halflings are notorious holedwellers and dwarves famously dour orc-slayers, for instance, the choice of race should make a difference in social interaction regardless of any mechanical difference.

That said, I think fiddly mechanical differences is one of the most sacred of D&D cows, so I can't see it going anytime soon.



RevTurkey said:


> I quite liked it when character classes progressed at different speeds. Can we resurrect that long dead sacred cow please? It sort of made sense to me that learning some things took more time than others



I don't really understand this. For instance, in 1st ed AD&D I (i) give thieves d8 hp, (ii) increase their XP requirements, and lower their max HD (from 10 to 8 or 9, say), so that they get the same average hp per XP, (iii) increase the percentile boost per level in their skills, and (iv) tweak their combat and save tables to give a bit more of a boost per level, and now I have exactly the same mechanical benefit per XP earned, but with fewer levels.

And I could do the same thing in the other direction, dropping their HD to d4 but stretching out their XP over more levels.

In short, because a "level" has no meaning except as defined within the mechanical framework of the game - it has no in-fiction meaning - than having levels earned quicker or slower by different classes doesn't represent anything meaningful within the fiction either, as far as I can see.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> No worries, we'll back you up.  The Fighters vs Spellcasters thread is pretty much burned out, anyway.



When you posted this I hadn't made my latest contribution!

But you and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] are doing a good job in this thread!


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 10, 2013)

I wouldn't like to see it slaughtered altogether but I would be interested in seeing the effect of "XP only on meeting the loss (not death) condition" for orthodox D&D.  For instance, I think it would have been interesting to see the effect on 4e Skill Challenges in play and how the greater culture would have responded to it.  I have some ideas of what it would have been for both, but it would be interesting to test the hypothesis.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 10, 2013)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

eh? I thought we were talking about the way things work in a rulebook not how they work around your gaming table.

The game has levels, classes and hit points and ability improved as you go up the levels. Perhaps the road travelled is harder for a Wizard than say a Thief or Warrior? I liked that players made a decision to either go for a class that progressed quickly but was ultimately weaker at the higher levels than another. It created different power curves and made character choices more interesting. 

If you average things out and make progression more similar for all classes...then yes you get a more balanced game. Easier to manage and run but for me less satisfying because of it's lack of nuance and complexity.

Does this make sense to anybody but me?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 10, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> @_*pemerton*_
> 
> eh? I thought we were talking about the way things work in a rulebook not how they work around your gaming table.
> 
> ...




This does make sense and I think it's how most people view/viewed the game...IMO of course. 

 I also am not so sure about a level not having an in-fiction meaning (though I would argue it's implicit as opposed to explicit) since abilities based in the fiction are very much tied to leveling.  In the fiction a level Y wizard can cast level x spells... A level Y fighter has X skill points, a level Y Barbarian can rage X number of times per day... this are all things that are in-fiction and tied to level.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> You beat me to it.  The difference in, frex, damage output is going to be pretty small.  It's highly unlikely that the difference between winning and losing a fight will be whether you chose halforc or halfling for your racial adjustments.  *Any competent DM will design encounters to be appropriate to your party anyway.*




Bold mine.

Again, really?  So, anyone who runs a static, sandbox campaign is an incompetent DM?  Anyone who runs a module is an incompetent DM?

I really don't think you meant to say that.  Tailored encounters are not the be all and end all of D&D.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 10, 2013)

Imaro said:


> This does make sense and I think it's how most people view/viewed the game...IMO of course.
> 
> I also am not so sure about a level not having an in-fiction meaning (though I would argue it's implicit as opposed to explicit) since abilities based in the fiction are very much tied to leveling.  In the fiction a level Y wizard can cast level x spells... A level Y fighter has X skill points, a level Y Barbarian can rage X number of times per day... this are all things that are in-fiction and tied to level.



Well, that's an interesting thing.  Training rules and level titles from the older editions point towards level having a in-fiction meaning.  I think it was 3e's equal XP table and especially the use of CR that led to level being viewed as a metagame construct that evaluated character potency for the determination of equitable encounters.  (Of course, the decision to make the change in 3e sprung from somewhere, as I can remember discussion about whether equivalent XP should equal equivalent potency all the way back in rec.games.frp.dnd).  

In general, I would see the plateaued leaps in capability in 3.X/4e as being narrated as a more gradual increase in capability, even if that doesn't directly correlate with the mechanics.  Of course, if you view character resources as being capabilities the character is actually aware of, that sort of narration may be more difficult.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 10, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> To want the kind of parity of character options that a few people on these boards tend to advocate, you give up not only the verisimilitude, the genre emulation, and the drama, you also give up the satisfaction of system mastery and building a powerful character. What's gained in all of this has never been clear to me, other than sparing the feelings of whichever people cannot deal with the idea that their character might not be the best but are simultaneously unwilling to build one that is.



But here's the thing.  Parity, verisimilitude, genre emulation, drama, and system mastery are all on a spectrum.  Prioritizing one or two doesn't mean my tolerance for the loss of the others is infinite.  It means I accept that to achieve greater fidelity to one priority, there will be tradeoffs in my ability to realize the others.  It also means accepting when I've reached the point of "Good enough" for the main priority, and can give more attention to some of the lower-priority options.

Parity and system mastery are two of the options where tradeoffs may be necessary.  Obviously, one can have a game where build parity is exactly equal, by giving every player the same character.  Then system mastery of at-table play (plus random chance) becomes the only determinant of a successful outcome.  But virtually no one wants to play a RPG with no character options at all.  So we add mechanical widgets to the characters to allow differentiation.  And if there is a mechanical system, it's assumed that this system should provide something meaningful, which in the case of an RPG, is a greater chance to impact the outcome in a chosen direction.  Thus the desire for meaningful character build system mastery.

Now while rewarding system mastery for character building is a straightforward mechanical exercise, it sits in tension with a group of other RPG design pressures and tensions.  We still want to reward at-table play system mastery, which means any character build that exceeds any and all at-table challenge can't be allowed.  (See Pun-Pun).  

We (often) want to enforce genre sensibilities, which means refining the character build options down to a more limited set.  Simultaneously, we want to respect player's aesthetic choices, which means we want to give players the ability to build a character that they visualize.  Obviously, these two options often come into conflict, as genre definition is very nebulous and varies between individuals.  Equally, genre simulation can either prop up or attack the individual's sense of verisimilitude.  Respecting an individual's aesthetic choice for character can often clash with another individual's view of the game world.  This sets up conflict like the halfling barbarian, especially when mechanical constraints on the genre simulations are seen as key reinforcers of verisimilitude.

Additionally, as most RPGs feature cooperative parties of players, there are tensions found within team play.  In general, while most people want the team to succeed and are willing to subordinate individual goals to seem the team goals met, that doesn't mean that people want their individual efforts to be overshadowed.  These orthogonal goals create some of the tension on the spectrum of effectiveness that plagues discussion of 3.X and 4e.  Some people feel that individual efforts should be highlighted and generally equitable (parity), while others feel that's a lower priority goal when compared to enforcing genre conceits and versimilitude.  Some people that parity should only be based on equivalent system mastery, while others feel that a player's individual aesthetic should be a higher priority than system mastery.

tl;dr:  In-party parity, rewarding system mastery, versimilitude, genre simulation, and freedom of character choice are in tension.  Pick some, lose others.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 10, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> In-party parity, rewarding system mastery, versimilitude, genre simulation, and freedom of character choice are in tension.  Pick some, lose others.



Fair.

The intent on my part is not to preclude the shades of gray that you're describing, but instead, to advocate for the "sweet spot" in balancing those types of considerations that D&D has found. I don't think a move along any of these spectra is to be done lightly, and I definitely don't think that out of these considerations, parity is the one that needs more service.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 10, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> But here's the thing. Parity, verisimilitude, genre emulation, drama, and system mastery are all on a spectrum. Prioritizing one or two doesn't mean my tolerance for the loss of the others is infinite. It means I accept that to achieve greater fidelity to one priority, there will be tradeoffs in my ability to realize the others. It also means accepting when I've reached the point of "Good enough" for the main priority, and can give more attention to some of the lower-priority options.
> 
> Parity and system mastery are two of the options where tradeoffs may be necessary. Obviously, one can have a game where build parity is exactly equal, by giving every player the same character. Then system mastery of at-table play (plus random chance) becomes the only determinant of a successful outcome. But virtually no one wants to play a RPG with no character options at all. So we add mechanical widgets to the characters to allow differentiation. And if there is a mechanical system, it's assumed that this system should provide something meaningful, which in the case of an RPG, is a greater chance to impact the outcome in a chosen direction. Thus the desire for meaningful character build system mastery.
> 
> ...




This is a well above average though slightly below heavenly (the bar is high around here, what can I say), thorough post.  Someone please give this man some xp for me.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 10, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Again, really? So, anyone who runs a static, sandbox campaign is an incompetent DM?




If its basic result is a new character meat grinder with no actual enjoyable game play, yes.



Hussar said:


> Anyone who runs a module is an incompetent DM?




Anyone who runs a module without reading it and assessing it is an incompetent GM, yes.  Did you put L2 characters in a L8 module?  Incompetent.  Did you decide that, since the module includes "make a DC 35 diplomacy check here or you are all dead", running this unchanged with a party of 8 - 10 CHA characters with no interaction skills is appropriate?  Incompetent.  Depending on your playstyle, do you (as one 1e module included) tell the PC's they are assailed by wave after wave of the enemy, taking a vast number to the grave before finally being overwhelmed?  I think that would be "incompetent" by many measures, including those espoused on recent threads.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 10, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> tl;dr: In-party parity, rewarding system mastery, versimilitude, genre simulation, and freedom of character choice are in tension. Pick some, lose others.




The whole post is great, but the above sums it up.  It's a balancing act, and different balances will be more appealing to different playstyles and preferences.  That is why we do not, and will never, have One Game to Rule Them All


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 10, 2013)

N'raac said:


> The whole post is great, but the above sums it up.  It's a balancing act, and different balances will be more appealing to different playstyles and preferences.  That is why we do not, and will never, have One Game to Rule Them All



Which is why I view the NEXT experiment with such ambiguity.  I have no problem with a new flavor of D&D.  I don't like the business assumption that there can be only one supported version of D&D at a time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> This is a well above average though slightly below heavenly (the bar is high around here, what can I say), thorough post.  Someone please give this man some xp for me.




Covered!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I don't like the business assumption that there can be only one supported version of D&D at a time.




There are solid reasons for that assumption, based in RW data from the business world.  However, there is also data that supports a multi-product approach.  I personally think WotC is in a position to support multiple RPG lines, but it wouldn't be a guarantee.  I think Hasbro doesn't want to risk it.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 10, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are solid reasons for that assumption, based in RW data from the business world.  However, there is also data that supports a multi-product approach.  I personally think WotC is in a position to support multiple RPG lines, but it wouldn't be a guarantee.  I think Hasbro doesn't want to risk it.



Probably, but if there's ambiguity, can't they just do things my way?


----------



## Bluenose (Oct 10, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> The problem is, the spectrum isn't merely between "roleplayers" and "powergamers".  There's also the "worldbuilders" or the "simulationists".  Mechanically balanced, dramatic games hold no interest for them if they also don't cater to their genre versimilitude, and that is often directly antagonistic to the needs of mechanical balancing.  Quite simply, one side wants a cow, one side wants a hamburger, and the game can't give us both.




So, what is D&D trying to simulate? Whose genre verisimilitude requires unbalanced games, and how do they show that that's actually a requirement of the genre they're interested?


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 10, 2013)

Bluenose said:


> So, what is D&D trying to simulate? Whose genre verisimilitude requires unbalanced games, and how do they show that that's actually a requirement of the genre they're interested?




The second question is easy.  (Raises hand)  I have an occasion wanted to run a game along the lines of Lord of the Rings.  This means that I want a game where you can have Frodo and Gandalf in the same party and everyone still has fun.  I did it with AD&D and it wasn't even hard.  The impact of mechanical balance on fun is highly overrated.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 10, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The impact of mechanical balance on fun is highly overrated.



That statement is highly understated.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 10, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The second question is easy. (Raises hand) I have an occasion wanted to run a game along the lines of Lord of the Rings. This means that I want a game where you can have Frodo and Gandalf in the same party and everyone still has fun. I did it with AD&D and it wasn't even hard. The impact of mechanical balance on fun is highly overrated.




This is quite easily accomplished with modern RPG PC build design and resolution systems.  Multiple systems have done this, 4e being one of them.  It just involves the usage of metagame mechanics.

- Gandalf is powerful wizard/angel guy who overtly taps into the ether and draws forth magic (while swinging a mean sword and throwing out esoteric knowledge).

- Frodo has metagame mechanics to directly intercede between his intent and the situation at hand (dice/odds) despoiling his intent (to live, for his friends to live, to get The One Ring to Mount Doom, etc).  He could earn plot points by accepting complications and he could cash them out to create genre-relevant assets for himself or his allies or complications for his enemies.  The player of Frodo could cash it in and be the impetus for events such as "mithril shirt turns the cave troll spear aside", or "Aragorn falls into a river instead of splatting", or "Sams the hero".  Or, even easier than that, you could have unified PC build mechanics and Frodo could be a Princess Build Warlord. 

Boom.  The fictional positioning reflects Frodo the _character _is weaker than Gandalf the _character _but mechanical resolution gives each _player _the same relative ability to affect the game's trajectory/outcomes.  Everyone is balanced, has fun, and the fictional positioning is intact.


----------



## Bluenose (Oct 10, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> This is quite easily accomplished with modern RPG PC build design and resolution systems.  Multiple systems have done this, 4e being one of them.  It just involves the usage of metagame mechanics.
> 
> - Gandalf is powerful wizard/angel guy who overtly taps into the ether and draws forth magic (while swinging a mean sword and throwing out esoteric knowledge).
> 
> ...




In support of this, if you absolutely must have characters who are more important to the game due to having more personal power, the D&D answer is very simple. Make them higher level. That's a perfectly acceptable form of imbalance, assuming the players are satisfied with it. What I object to is characters of the same level not having equal significance, especially when people defend it on the grounds of verisimilitude. What, you want your high powered character to advance as rapidly as my low-powered one? I think that's a case of eating your cake and having it.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> The game has levels, classes and hit points and ability improved as you go up the levels. Perhaps the road travelled is harder for a Wizard than say a Thief or Warrior?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I liked that players made a decision to either go for a class that progressed quickly but was ultimately weaker at the higher levels than another.



In fact, in AD&D, a wizard needs fewer XP per level than a warrior to get to 7th level, and needs fewer XP for each level until 14th, which requires 1.5 million for both. The wizard then needs more XP per level gained.

But let's put that to one side.

If a thief takes 1 XP per level and grows half-an-inch per level; and a wizard takes 2 XP per level and grows an inch per level; in what sense is the thief progressing more quickly but weaker? They are both gaining the same amount of height per XP earned, but one is just being divided into more granular units.



RevTurkey said:


> It created different power curves and made character choices more interesting.



Sure, but that is completely independent of the XP charts. You could tweak all the abilities per level, and then the XPs per level, to achieve the same abilities accrued per XP earned, and the power curves would be what they are without having differentiated XP charts.

There's a pretty strong case that this is what 3E does!



Imaro said:


> This does make sense and I think it's how most people view/viewed the game...IMO of course.



But surely you can see the only difference between requiring 2000 XP to get a level conferrnig d4 hp, 1 new spell and +1 to hit, and requiring 4000 XP to get a level that confers d10 hp, 2 new spells and +2 to hit, is that the former is more granular? The two progressions don't differ in power curve.



Imaro said:


> I also am not so sure about a level not having an in-fiction meaning (though I would argue it's implicit as opposed to explicit) since abilities based in the fiction are very much tied to leveling.  In the fiction a level Y wizard can cast level x spells... A level Y fighter has X skill points, a level Y Barbarian can rage X number of times per day... this are all things that are in-fiction and tied to level.



The spells I can see. The barbarian rage is in the same zone as martial dailies - I think different people have different takes. But does anyone think that _skill points_ are an ingame phenomenon?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2013)

I agree with [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]. If you want character A to be more powerful than character B, just make them higher level! After all, that's how the typical GM does it when building NPCs.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 10, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> This is quite easily accomplished with modern RPG PC build design and resolution systems.  Multiple systems have done this, 4e being one of them.  It just involves the usage of metagame mechanics.
> 
> - Gandalf is powerful wizard/angel guy who overtly taps into the ether and draws forth magic (while swinging a mean sword and throwing out esoteric knowledge).
> 
> ...




Sure those systems work, but I see them as more work for little gain.  It's just as easy to design encounters so that everyone has something to do despite their disparate power level.  I ran AD&D games for many years with a very wide level spread and never had anyone complain.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 10, 2013)

Bluenose said:


> In support of this, if you absolutely must have characters who are more important to the game due to having more personal power, the D&D answer is very simple. Make them higher level. That's a perfectly acceptable form of imbalance, assuming the players are satisfied with it. What I object to is characters of the same level not having equal significance, especially when people defend it on the grounds of verisimilitude. What, you want your high powered character to advance as rapidly as my low-powered one? I think that's a case of eating your cake and having it.




Here's an example where using different levels doesn't work:  Frank wants his fighter to be a combat monster.  Bob wants his bard to be the go-to guy in social encounters.  If you insist that everyone is equally powerful in combat, the usual meaning of "balance", then you don't get to have specialists who are better at social interaction, exploration, or other aspects of the game but weaker at combat.  And there are plenty of people who would like to play such characters.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 11, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> And there are plenty of people who would like to play such characters.



Most players, I would think.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Most players, I would think.




I wouldn't say most, but I would agree it is a non-trivially large percentage.


----------



## mattcolville (Oct 11, 2013)

A Thief class. Ditch it. 

Weapon Specialization. Ditto.


----------



## silverblade56 (Oct 11, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> No, it was horrible, because it destroyed the humanocentric world and made multiclassing useless except for a one or two level dip here and there. An improvement? If a square wheel is an improvement, then I suppose so.




Really? Not in my experience.  I mostly played multiclass (demihumans) characters in 2E, and so did many others. They were simply better than straight class characters, the ability score bonuses were nice, the level caps were ignored or never came into play becuase the game never got that far.  In 3E, we got a mechanical reason to play humans again, and I have mostly played humans since then.  Humans in Pathfinder still seem to be the most common race. Plus the established camapign settings in 3.0 as well as Golarion, etc were/are still decidedly humanocentric
.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> If you insist that everyone is equally powerful in combat, the usual meaning of "balance"



Who says that is the usual meaning of "balance"?

I mostly see "balance" used to mean something like "equally, or at least comparably, mechanically effective in action resolution". If the only resolution system is combat then that might skew what people mean, but 4e has non-combat resolution, as do 3E and D&Dnext in slightly less elaborate form.

And if you look at most "caster vs fighter" threads, the balance criticisms tend to consist in pointing out that wizards are hugely versatile in combat plus hugely versatile out of it, and that druids shapedchanged into bears in the company of their bear friends are more physically potent than fighter, and pretty versatile out of combat also. These are not complaints that turn on combat as the sole measure of mechanical effectiveness.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 11, 2013)

I think it's important to be mindful of the trade offs involved in every design decision. For instance, the more primacy you place in character build and things like having the right spell prepared the less important decisions made in the moment will be. Consider weapon specialization in AD&D which tends to mitigate the advantage of choosing a weapon which best fits the current situation. I'm not saying emphasizing character build is a bad design decision. There's a certain catharsis in testing a build after the fact. It is not all that satisfactory to me because my preference is to keep game play focused on the here and now which is why I favor the active abilities of 13th Age Races to the passive abilities found in AD&D and 3e Races.


----------



## Bluenose (Oct 11, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Here's an example where using different levels doesn't work:  Frank wants his fighter to be a combat monster.  Bob wants his bard to be the go-to guy in social encounters.  If you insist that everyone is equally powerful in combat, the usual meaning of "balance", then you don't get to have specialists who are better at social interaction, exploration, or other aspects of the game but weaker at combat.  And there are plenty of people who would like to play such characters.




As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says, Balance doesn't have to mean solely combat balance. It's perfectly possible to have characters who are useful at different things, and if those things are broad enough to come up fairly frequently then they'll feel/be equally useful characters despite not having the same abilities. Where D&D has often done badly is in mixing classes who are One-Trick-Ponies, useful only at one part of the game, with classes that are Jack-of-All-Trades without the corollary of Master-of-None. Especially since one of the most efficient ways to have both versatility and mastery is through spell-casting, and some classes are designed entirely around that.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2013)

Campbell said:


> I think it's important to be mindful of the trade offs involved in every design decision. For instance, the more primacy you place in character build and things like having the right spell prepared the less important decisions made in the moment will be. Consider weapon specialization in AD&D which tends to mitigate the advantage of choosing a weapon which best fits the current situation.



This can be an issue in 4e too.

The dwarven fighter in my game in fact is able to alternate between his polearm and his mordenkraad, but that is only because of the Dwarven feat that gives him advantages with both; and while the two weapons play quite differently because of the reach mechanics, Polearm Gamble etc, you still wouldn't say it's the most versatile weapon mastery of all time!


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This can be an issue in 4e too.
> 
> The dwarven fighter in my game in fact is able to alternate between his polearm and his mordenkraad, but that is only because of the Dwarven feat that gives him advantages with both; and while the two weapons play quite differently because of the reach mechanics, Polearm Gamble etc, you still wouldn't say it's the most versatile weapon mastery of all time!




This is something I was going to break out in a post in the spellcaster v fighter thread.  Fighter versatility, predicated upon the value of "proficiency all", is something of a myth in actual play.  It functionally serves as "mere color" as you are apt to put it.  "Yeah, I can wear all armor and swing all swords/axes/polearms et al with the best of them" is irrelevant mechanically when it comes with no actual utility in play.  If, for instance, it was mapped to the spellcaster model, then you would have something.  I think a functional analogue would be if Fighters had various, effective active riders for different weapons and various passive riders for armor/shields.  Then, much like spellcasters, Fighters would have decision-points based at each short rest and in combat (what armor to put on based on if they think they're fighting a horde, a BBEG, need mobility, et al) and what weapon to pull out mid-stream in combat.  As it stands under the current paradigm, the decision-point (and accompanying utility) occurs at the vestigial stages of PC build (not in play), and as such, "all armor" and "all weapons" manifests as "mere color", if that (as when was the last time this was actually represented in the fiction in any fuctional way?).  4e's weapon mastery powers, weapon/shield-specific-riders and various feats made an effort at bringing this into the theater of play (and it was pretty good), but it could be extended further.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 11, 2013)

The Great Wheel.

I hated that. Too many things just seems to be placed in the wrong places. I think D&D is definitely better off with this half-dead sacred cow.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 11, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> The Great Wheel.
> 
> I hated that. Too many things just seems to be placed in the wrong places. I think D&D is definitely better off with this half-dead sacred cow.




*breaks out the popcorn and awaits*


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> This is something I was going to break out in a post in the spellcaster v fighter thread.  Fighter versatility, predicated upon the value of "proficiency all", is something of a myth in actual play.  It functionally serves as "mere color" as you are apt to put it
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If, for instance, it was mapped to the spellcaster model, then you would have something.  I think a functional analogue would be if Fighters had various, effective active riders for different weapons and various passive riders for armor/shields.  Then, much like spellcasters, Fighters would have decision-points based at each short rest and in combat (what armor to put on based on if they think they're fighting a horde, a BBEG, need mobility, et al) and what weapon to pull out mid-stream in combat.



I think the weapon thing is always going to be mechanically tricky in D&D, because of its action economy that is going to have to put a cost on that, in combination with its hesitation to have too much fiddly detail around weapons other than the damage dice. Not impossible, but tricky.

But the armour idea is excellent, and should be very easily able to be implemented. We should be letting [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] know!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> The Great Wheel.
> 
> I hated that.





Hussar said:


> *breaks out the popcorn and awaits*



The inner plane/outer plane distinction I can handle, and have used in my own (Rolemaster) games. But I have no real use for a seperate Astral and Ethereal plane.

As for the outer planes, I've treated them 4e style well before 4e started too, because the "wheel" makes no sense once you get rid of alignment - and then you can go for various sorts of thematic and pantheonic outer planes rather than the weird scattering of pantheons over planes that we've seen ever since the original DDG and the MotP.


----------



## N'raac (Oct 11, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Here's an example where using different levels doesn't work: Frank wants his fighter to be a combat monster. Bob wants his bard to be the go-to guy in social encounters. If you insist that everyone is equally powerful in combat, the usual meaning of "balance", then you don't get to have specialists who are better at social interaction, exploration, or other aspects of the game but weaker at combat. And there are plenty of people who would like to play such characters.






Ahnehnois said:


> Most players, I would think.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wouldn't say most, but I would agree it is a non-trivially large percentage.




I think there's a chicken and egg issue here.  If 90%+ of the game revolves around combat, and social and exploration tasks are either trivially easy or resolved outside of actual mechanics, this is a lot different from a game with approximately equal weighting, and similar levels of challenge, for all three.  

As  well, I think there are still a lot of people out there who resolve social challenges with a much heavier weighting on layer skill (did Tom make a good speech) than character skill (id the dice show Tom's character made a good speech).  We've had combat resolution based on robust mechanics since the start of RPG's, and few of us will lay claim to being able to "role play" our combat actions.  Social interaction, not so much, and the move to more mechanical resolution has not, I think, been accepted across the board.

Somewhat similar for exploration - take a secret door opened by moving a certain book in the bookshelf, for example.  Some GM's will use mechanical resolution  your search skill determines whether you fin and move that book.  Others will stick to "either the player says he moves the book or he won't".  In the middle ground are those who will use the Search skill to see indications of the secret door (hollowness when you tap the wall, a slight difference in the finish of the wall; disturbances in dust on the floor and/or bookshelf), but still want to hear "Move the book" before that door will open.

For me, since anyone can eventually move the book, the DC needs to be low enough that anyone Taking 20 will fin the door, because they will shuffle through all the books.  So it's not going to need the guy with +15 Search to find this particular door.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 11, 2013)

silverblade56 said:


> Really? Not in my experience.  I mostly played multiclass (demihumans) characters in 2E, and so did many others. They were simply better than straight class characters, the ability score bonuses were nice, the level caps were *ignored*...




Of course you did if you ignore level caps.  House rules are fine, as long as you realize they WILL change the game significantly.  Ignoring level caps is a good way to never see a human pc. 

(In before, "but roleplaying")


----------



## Kinak (Oct 11, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Of course you did if you ignore level caps.  House rules are fine, as long as you realize they WILL change the game significantly.  Ignoring level caps is a good way to never see a human pc.



As is running short campaigns that don't reach the level cap. Which, unless WotC has been consistently lying to us for no reason, includes the majority of all campaigns.

You're right on the net effect, only seeing non-humans, but that was also the net effect of running short campaigns or campaigns the players expect to be _short_. All removing those level limits actually does is reduce the impact  of the "bet how long the campaign will last" stage of character  creation.



JRRNeiklot said:


> (In before, "but roleplaying")



I mean, it's fairly weird from a worldbuilding perspective, but that's far from the only reason that people houseruled those out of existence.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 11, 2013)

Kinak said:


> As is running short campaigns that don't reach the level cap. Which, unless WotC has been consistently lying to us for no reason, includes the majority of all campaigns.




Very short in some cases:

Dwarves:  Fighter: 9, Assassin 9
Elves:  fighter 7, Gnome fighter 6, Gnome Illusionist 7
Half-elf cleric 5, Druid, fighter, ranger, magic user 8
Halfling Fighter 6
Half Orc cleric 4, Half Orc thief 8


----------



## Kinak (Oct 11, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Very short in some cases:
> 
> Dwarves:  Fighter: 9, Assassin 9
> Elves:  fighter 7, Gnome fighter 6, Gnome Illusionist 7
> ...



That's still not terrribly uncommon. That said, my experience with that rule is calibrated to 2nd Edition.

So your halfling fighter/thief can get to level 9/15. And the classic half-elf fighter/mage/thief can get to 9/12/12. So even the first limit doesn't kick in until your human mages have reached 9th level.

I don't think it's controversial to say most games have wrapped up or failed by then. And in old school play, you probably have a new character by that point.

But, all that the caps being lower forces you to do is move the bet to a different level. I can't say I much like the idea of people flipping through the PHB at the start of my campaign thinking "well, this'll be best if we never make it past level 4, but if the campaign lasts a while..." Obviously, your mileage may vary, but I don't want to start my games off by creating a deadpool. And I want a system that can support short campaigns if I want to run one.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 11, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Very short in some cases:
> 
> Dwarves:  Fighter: 9, Assassin 9
> Elves:  fighter 7, Gnome fighter 6, Gnome Illusionist 7
> ...



I actually think ACKS did a pretty good job with it.  The racial classes that take the most experience to level are also the ones with the lowest level cap, so that everyone reaches max level at roughly the same amount of experience.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 11, 2013)

Kinak said:


> That's still not terrribly uncommon. That said, my experience with that rule is calibrated to 2nd Edition.
> 
> So your halfling fighter/thief can get to level 9/15. And the classic half-elf fighter/mage/thief can get to 9/12/12. So even the first limit doesn't kick in until your human mages have reached 9th level.




Wow, I hadn't realized 2nd edition had changed them that much.  That indeed makes a big difference.  



> I don't think it's controversial to say most games have wrapped up or failed by then. And in old school play, you probably have a new character by that point.




In my experience, campaigns last to around 12th level, sometimes as high as 14 or 15.  Of course, maybe not in 2nd edition because if I'm not mistaken, they also removed the gold = exp rule.



> But, all that the caps being lower forces you to do is move the bet to a different level. I can't say I much like the idea of people flipping through the PHB at the start of my campaign thinking "well, this'll be best if we never make it past level 4, but if the campaign lasts a while..." Obviously, your mileage may vary, but I don't want to start my games off by creating a deadpool. And I want a system that can support short campaigns if I want to run one.




In a short campaign, demihuman abilities don't really matter all that much.  Infravision is an all or none thing.  Either everyone has it or no one does, as a lantern or torch will ruin it for everyone, or else the humans will be blind.  Dwarves and halflings get some nice save bonuses, but in a short campaign, they won't be saving against much.  The odd poisonous spider, maybe, or charm person. 
      There's a reason most of those limits are level 8 or lower, btw.  At level 9 (8 for clerics, 12 for magic users) you get your stronghold.  Your own private army.  That's a HUGE bonus for humans.


----------



## Kinak (Oct 11, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Wow, I hadn't realized 2nd edition had changed them that much.  That indeed makes a big difference.



Yeah, I hadn't realized either. I did know there was some backlash during 1st edition against the rule, which ended up with two optional workarounds in the DMG, but I hadn't realized they'd also moved up the numbers that much.



JRRNeiklot said:


> In my experience, campaigns last to around 12th level, sometimes as high as 14 or 15.  Of course, maybe not in 2nd edition because if I'm not mistaken, they also removed the gold = exp rule.



I have a factoid in the back of my head that says the majority of D&D campaigns end by 6th level, but damned if I can find the citation for it. Even if I'm remembering it correctly, it was data mentioned in the 4th Edition ramp-up, so it's entirely possible their "across editions of D&D" was tilted towards 2nd and 3rd.



JRRNeiklot said:


> In a short campaign, demihuman abilities don't really matter all that much.  Infravision is an all or none thing.  Either everyone has it or no one does, as a lantern or torch will ruin it for everyone, or else the humans will be blind.  Dwarves and halflings get some nice save bonuses, but in a short campaign, they won't be saving against much.  The odd poisonous spider, maybe, or charm person.
> There's a reason most of those limits are level 8 or lower, btw.  At level 9 (8 for clerics, 12 for magic users) you get your stronghold.  Your own private army.  That's a HUGE bonus for humans.



In my experience, the biggest boost with being demihuman is multiclassing. I agree the mechanical racial advantages never added up to much, certainly less than name level and/or high-level casting.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## JeffB (Oct 11, 2013)

THIEF...and eventually the Rogue.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> The inner plane/outer plane distinction I can handle, and have used in my own (Rolemaster) games. But I have no real use for a seperate Astral and Ethereal plane.
> 
> As for the outer planes, I've treated them 4e style well before 4e started too, because the "wheel" makes no sense once you get rid of alignment - and then you can go for various sorts of thematic and pantheonic outer planes rather than the weird scattering of pantheons over planes that we've seen ever since the original DDG and the MotP.



I like the Great Wheel, but I've mixed it around a fair amount.  I've made the gods explicitly the side of "Law", and the primordials the side of "Chaos".  Thus, divine magic is also "Lawful", and I defined arcane magic as explicitly "Chaotic".  The Feywild is the areas where the Material Plane and the Chaotic planes blend together, and the Shadowfell is the transition area between the Material and the Lawful planes, where souls travel to meet the Gods, and the River Styx can be found.  (I'm a big fan of Moorcock's Middlemarchthe from the Von Bek books, and I like the idea of shaded transitions between the real world and the immortal one.)

Additionally, Limbo is the Elemental Chaos, and Nirvana is the Astral Sea, an ocean of stars where all Platonic ideals are crystallized islands.


----------



## Derren (Oct 11, 2013)

N'raac said:


> 90%+ of the game revolves around combat




That should be the first thing to die.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 11, 2013)

Systole said:


> At this point, I'm sorry I used the halfling barbarian as an example, because everyone seems to be focused on that specific idea instead of the bigger picture.




Substitute OCD for OPP and sing along. 
[video=youtube;7f7FuDagYLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f7FuDagYLU[/video]


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 11, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Wow, I hadn't realized 2nd edition had changed them that much.  That indeed makes a big difference.




Dwarf: Fighter 15, Cleric 10, Thief 12
Elf: Fighter 12, Cleric 12, Mage 15, Ranger 15, Thief 12
Gnome: Fighter 11, Cleric 9, Thief 13, Illusionist 15
Halfling: Fighter 9, Cleric 8, Thief 15
Half-elf: Fighter 14, Cleric 14, Mage 12, Thief 12, Ranger 16, Druid 9, Bard Unlimited
Human: All Unlimited
Half-orc: Fighter 10, Cleric 4, Thief 8 (single classed could go higher)

That doesn't even factor in slow advancement above name level or bonus levels for high abibility scores. At a certain point, they stopped being a concern to most players.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I like the Great Wheel, but I've mixed it around a fair amount.  I've made the gods explicitly the side of "Law", and the primordials the side of "Chaos".  Thus, divine magic is also "Lawful", and I defined arcane magic as explicitly "Chaotic".  The Feywild is the areas where the Material Plane and the Chaotic planes blend together, and the Shadowfell is the transition area between the Material and the Lawful planes, where souls travel to meet the Gods, and the River Styx can be found.  (I'm a big fan of Moorcock's Middlemarchthe from the Von Bek books, and I like the idea of shaded transitions between the real world and the immortal one.)
> 
> Additionally, Limbo is the Elemental Chaos, and Nirvana is the Astral Sea, an ocean of stars where all Platonic ideals are crystallized islands.



Mixing the Great Wheel with 4e? Heresy.


----------



## jbear (Oct 12, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Yes. D&D could easily benefit from better GMing advice. For instance, the 4e DMG in dicussing combat encounters has pages and pages of terrific advice on how to set up and adjudicate their tactical dimensions, but has virtually nothing to say about setting up and adjudicating the story function(s) of a combat encounter.




Did you actually read the 4e DMG. From your comment I would think not. Either that or you are grossly exaggerating on purpose by saying "virtually nothing". 

There are pages dedicated to how to narrate what is going on ("Show not tell"), are these not the story functions of a combat encounter? Narration, brevity, atmosphere, cinematic style, enticement, realism, roleplaying, suspense, pacing, props, dispensing information, improvising, saying 'yes' ... are these not in there to assist in the adjudication of the story functions of a combat encounter?

Also, have you read the 4e DMG2? That is a fantastic tome that a DM running any system could learn STACKS from. E.g the chapter on group story telling which looks at: story structure, branching, cooperative arcs, cooperative world building, roleplaying hooks, vignettes, drama rewards, flashbacks, transitions, third person teasers, core motivations and interrelations of characters ... or directly what you are talking about in the very next chapter: Advanced encounters. First Bullet point: encounter as story: "this section discusses encounters as turning points in a story of your adventure and focuses on encounter objectives that add purpose to a combat encounter". Anyway, I believe I have made my point.

Sorry, I had bypassed the comment you made until I came to another posters comment a few pages later about all the DMG's stating overtly that rules are guidelines, naming every edition except 4e. I assume that omission is also out of ignorance, as that philosophy is also made very clear in the 4e DMG, where having FUN is stressed as the core and most important element of playing the game. 

I get a little tired of the many many throw away comments made by posters that infer that 'IT IS KNOWN' that 4e is the "BAD/WRONG" mistake edition of D&D. 

But I am more than happy with the many sacred cows that were slaughtered by 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 12, 2013)

jbear said:


> Did you actually read the 4e DMG.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I get a little tired of the many many throw away comments made by posters that infer that 'IT IS KNOWN' that 4e is the "BAD/WRONG" mistake edition of D&D.



This is a first for me - being accused of being an edition warrior _against_ 4e!

I am a very strong proponent of the merits of 4e, and have posted many actual play threads showing what I'm doing in my 4e game. But I do not think the game is flawless either in mechanics or in rules text.



jbear said:


> There are pages dedicated to how to narrate what is going on ("Show not tell"), are these not the story functions of a combat encounter? Narration, brevity, atmosphere, cinematic style, enticement, realism, roleplaying, suspense, pacing, props, dispensing information, improvising, saying 'yes' ... are these not in there to assist in the adjudication of the story functions of a combat encounter?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I had bypassed the comment you made until I came to another posters comment a few pages later about all the DMG's stating overtly that rules are guidelines, naming every edition except 4e. I assume that omission is also out of ignorance, as that philosophy is also made very clear in the 4e DMG, where having FUN is stressed as the core and most important element of playing the game.



I regard it as a very great strength of 4e that it presents its rules as rules and not as guidelines (Essentials pulls back a bit from this, in my view to its detriment). I think 4e's action resolution rules do a good job of delivering well-paced gonzo high fantasy adventure. (Combat is tighter than skill challenges, but they are far from hopeless.)

But I do not think the 4e DMG gives a very good discussion of how to frame combats from the story point of view (eg theamtic heft of different opponents; thematic heft of powers; using opponents + powers + terrain to set thematically weighty stakes; etc). Worlds & Monsters is a lot better than the DMG in this respect. The only time the DMG really goes in for the sort of discussion you get in W&M is in the page on languages; and the Monster Manual is all written from the in-game point of view rather than in the out-of-game terms in which frank GM advice needs to be given.

The DMG 2 is a different kettle of fish. It has strengths, but also disappointments. In particular, Robin Laws has just cut and pasted a lot of his text from HeroQuest revised without adapting to reflect the quite different mechanical framework of 4e.

I personally have found that the single best DMG's advice book for running 4e is Luke Crane's Adventure Burner for Burning Wheel. HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling and WotC's own Worlds and Monsters have also been helpful. The best parts of the DMG are its advice on tactical considerations in combat encounters, its advice on using powers to affect objects (because this is the ony text which really makes clear how important keywords are for linking mechanics to fiction), its skill challenge advice, and obviously all the mechanical machinery stuff around p 42, building monsters & traps, allocating treasure and XP, etc. The best bits of the DMG 2, for me, were more on traps, more on combat encounter design (especially circular paths), and its stuff on skill challenges.

Hopefully this gives you a better idea of what motivated my comment, and what I had in mind.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 12, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Mixing the Great Wheel with 4e? Heresy.



It's the heresy that makes it fun!


----------



## jbear (Oct 12, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This is a first for me - being accused of being an edition warrior _against_ 4e!
> 
> Snip
> 
> Hopefully this gives you a better idea of what motivated my comment, and what I had in mind.




Sorry @permerton I don't mean to derail the thread. Yes, that makes what you said much clearer. I don't quite get what you mean by the giving of 'heft' to things but it sounds like an interesting topic for another thread.

Personally, the half page of the DMG I got the most out of was the passage about saying 'yes'  to my players. It changed my Dming style irrevocably for the better. I saw the change visibly in a matter of 2 gaming sessions as I brought a group of new players to the game.

They went from 1 session with low level 3.5 characters completely frustrated an unenthused, struggling to stomp on the heads of a few diseased rats to the next, trying out 4e for the first time, feeling like important heroes battling against swarms of rats and other worthy foes ... and they were hooked. And a lot of that had to do with my approach to DMing which went from 'No, you can't ... you need to be higher level ... No, the rules say ... Okay, you can try but the DC is so hard that ...' to running with players ideas, actually letting them influence and take some of the narrative control of the story telling and play out their ideas without needing to reference the rules. 

So right there was perhaps the most important sacred cow slaughter for me personally. I am not saying that this is a sacred cow for D&D in general. I have played D&D since I was 12 and I am going on 35. So for whatever reason that message of how to DM had never gotten through to me until then. But I am very thankful to the 4e DMG that eventually it did. (Other people may have received this message in earlier editions, I am aware of that e.g. Dragon magazine. I did not have access to those sources.)


----------

