# Mearls on Balance in D&D



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2007)

Just a tidbit from *Mike Mearls*:
"The one thing I learned is the importance of balance in designing character options. I can't create an NPC or monster that can reliable hit the dinosaur pet without almost automatically hitting everyone else. Putting the DM into the position of challenging one PC or the rest of the party makes for a bad game. It's something that high level play makes all the more obvious."

This is part of the report on Wizard's _Lunchtime Campaigns_
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20070301a

Cheers!


----------



## Warren Okuma (Mar 2, 2007)

Say the bard is underpowered.  Well, have an evil bard loaded with magic items attack.  Now the bard has a better power boost.  Solution done.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Warren Okuma said:
			
		

> Say the bard is underpowered.  Well, have an evil bard loaded with magic items attack.  Now the bard has a better power boost.  Solution done.



 And afterwards, the party has a shedload of magic items. New problem!


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> And afterwards, the party has a shedload of magic items. New problem!




Bravo, sir!  You have just summed up the #1 problem with RAW D&D, the reliance upon and proliferation of magic items.  This is why magic items are extremely rare whenever I run D&D.

Azgulor


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Hm, looks like Mearls is ruling that true strike not only lets you ignore miss chances due to concealment, but also automatically pinpoints invisible creatures.

Also, I'm wondering what spells they put on that dinosaur to make it unhittable. Most pets (animal companions, summoned monsters, familiars) that I've seen have relatively crap AC. If anyone is unhittable, it's normally a defense-twinked PC.


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> And afterwards, the party has a shedload of magic items. New problem!



Wasn't his point that the evil bard would have magic items primarily of use to the party's good bard (who needed a power boost)?


----------



## Graf (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Hm, looks like Mearls is ruling that true strike not only lets you ignore miss chances due to concealment, but also automatically pinpoints invisible creatures.



Facinating deductive leap.
I don't suppose the _lightning bolts_ emanating from their square would be a giveaway.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 2, 2007)

My favourite line comes from the previous update:
_The giants—and there are a lot of giants (to the point where Mike runs out of hill giant miniatures to use—and this from the company that makes hill giant miniatures)—start for the doors._

-hyp.


----------



## Blood Jester (Mar 2, 2007)

Graf said:
			
		

> Facinating deductive leap.
> I don't suppose the _lightning bolts_ emanating from their square would be a giveaway.




Still does not eliminate (or even reduce) miss chances, even if they don't take a move action (or even a 5' step) to cause you to _guess_ the wrong square...


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Graf said:
			
		

> Facinating deductive leap.
> I don't suppose the _lightning bolts_ emanating from their square would be a giveaway.



 Tell me again which class has both fire seeds and lightning bolt, or how confusion gives away your square, oh deductive master.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Mar 2, 2007)

Why do so many people hang on Mike Mearls?

I've heard Iron Heroes is great (haven't read it yet), but nothing I've read of his seems spectacular at all.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Mar 2, 2007)

Where's the Fiend Binder from?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 2, 2007)

Two Words = Bard-ifact!


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 2, 2007)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> Why do so many people hang on Mike Mearls?
> 
> I've heard Iron Heroes is great (haven't read it yet), but nothing I've read of his seems spectacular at all.




I have no idea.  He wrote a terribly insulting review of _Keep on the Borderlands_ that pretty much insinuated that you would be an idiot for liking it.  So he thinks he knows more about D&D than Gary Gygax, in other words.

I don't know the guy personally, but he came off very arrogant in that review.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I have no idea.  He wrote a terribly insulting review of _Keep on the Borderlands_ that pretty much insinuated that you would be an idiot for liking it.  So he thinks he knows more about D&D than Gary Gygax, in other words.




So?


----------



## megamania (Mar 2, 2007)

Mike wrote a bunch of well recieved stuff during 3.0 .  He kinda became an authority of 3.0 to many people.

Much what he has to say has a point but everyone has a different game and players.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 2, 2007)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> Why do so many people hang on Mike Mearls?
> 
> I've heard Iron Heroes is great (haven't read it yet), but nothing I've read of his seems spectacular at all.




I have no idea.  He wrote some good 3.0 products for AEG, Mongoose, and Fantasy Flight Games.  I even liked bits of the Book of Iron Might.  However, Iron Heroes and the subsequent work that I know he has been responsible for at WOTC have not impressed me in the least.

Now, with regard to recent comments he made regarding embedded system mastery being bad, I agree.  I just need to know see what he and the design team intend to do about the problem.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So?




I think that review displayed a lack of knowledge concerning the purpose of a review, a lack of knowledge of the assumptions and objectives of the D&D game, a lack of tact and a lack of respect for the reader and author.  That's a lot of lacks.

Like I said, I don't know him in person.  Maybe he was having a bad day.


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I have no idea.  He wrote a terribly insulting review of _Keep on the Borderlands_ that pretty much insinuated that you would be an idiot for liking it.  So he thinks he knows more about D&D than Gary Gygax, in other words.
> 
> I don't know the guy personally, but he came off very arrogant in that review.



Without being disparaging, from what I've read of his monster redesigns on the WotC site, I honestly hope he has as little to do with the design of 4E as is possible...


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I think that review displayed a lack of knowledge concerning the purpose of a review,




Nah.



> a lack of knowledge of the assumptions and objectives of the D&D game,




Nah.



> a lack of tact




Yes. So?



> and a lack of respect for the reader




Nah.



> and author.




So?


----------



## Greg K (Mar 2, 2007)

And, since Hong posted here, I just want to say that I wish his knight had been the official version instead of the one we were given by Mr. Mearls


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> And, since Hong posted here, I just want to say that I wish his knight had been the official version instead of the one we were given by Mr. Mearls



 That's not my knight, actually. That's James Wyatt's knight, with a few changes to hide the katanae.

Now what you SHOULD do is use my versions of the Iron Heroes classes instead of Mearls'. Yes indeed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2007)

He's basically talking about how twinking out a character (or, in this case, a pet) isn't something that the game should encourage...

And people are STILL bagging on the guy?

What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?


----------



## Dog Moon (Mar 2, 2007)

So if he's running people through the Giant Modules, does that mean we're gonna see them updated to 3.5?

[Or am I way behind and that was already done?  I knew the maps had been put out, but as far as I know, that was it...]


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> He's basically talking about how twinking out a character (or, in this case, a pet) isn't something that the game should encourage...
> 
> And people are STILL bagging on the guy?
> 
> What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?



 Rust monster love. I got nothin'.


----------



## Dog Moon (Mar 2, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?




I think it's virtually impossible to find a subject/person that no one will bash, especially on the internet.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Mar 2, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Bravo, sir!  You have just summed up the #1 problem with RAW D&D, the reliance upon and proliferation of magic items.  This is why magic items are extremely rare whenever I run D&D.
> 
> Azgulor




Your solution to the over-powering influence of magic in the game is to punish the fighter?


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> Your solution to the over-powering influence of magic in the game is to punish the fighter?



 Well, I don't know about them, but MY solution was this:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm

But that wasn't entirely satisfactory, so instead I tried this:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?iron-lore

But most recently, I've been using this:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187954


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 2, 2007)

I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really _hate_ the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably _why_ he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options). 

I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I _don't_ like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the _least_ interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant _threat_ of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary. 

Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_, you actually want to spend _as little time fighting hill giants as possible_, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really _hate_ the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably _why_ he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options).
> 
> I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I _don't_ like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the _least_ interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant _threat_ of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary.
> 
> Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_, you actually want to spend _as little time fighting hill giants as possible_, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?



 Mang, you ain't lived until you've had 3 wizards drop simultaneous chain lightnings on everything in the Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl.


And I was playing a dual-wielding ranger


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 2, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really _hate_ the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably _why_ he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options).




The approach you see of Mike might by a symptom, Mike isn't.  The first thing I saw from him was the Atlas Games d20 adventure _The Belly of the Beast_.  It's one of my favorites and one of the strengths of it is that it is driven by character interaction.

For those interested, here is his resume.  (Side note: "The Eunuch Game" sounds fun, fantasy Paranoia)


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I _don't_ like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the _least_ interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant _threat_ of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary.
> 
> Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_, you actually want to spend _as little time fighting hill giants as possible_, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?




Buh?  What else was there to do in The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief than blat 42 hp hill giants?  The king was in like the second or third room.  You pretty much had a constant combat from the get go.

Who played this module as a rp scenario?  We never even talked to anything in here.  See, kill, move on.  

As I recall, it was a couple of fireballs leading off that pretty much set the tone for this module.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 2, 2007)

Its not just Mike (although seeing some of his blogs I wonder if what I liked about his early work may have had to do with the editors and publishers for whom he was writing).  I look at both Andy Collins's website and his article on the use of PrCs in the campaign and see some great stuff.  However, I look at his advice on the WOTC site and there seems to be a big disconnect between what you see there and elsewhere.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2007)

It is interesting to see what Mike writes _because_ he currently works for Wizards. His insights will often directly impact future products.

T.Foster's experience with _Steading_ seems atypical. Your job is to _kill the giants_. I don't recommend a frontal assault, but at some point you *are* going to have to fight all the giants in the great hall... and there's a lot of them. See reports in early Dragon magazines of how the finalists did it at the original convention it debuted.

The primary focus of D&D is combat. It is also what is most popular about the game. You might not have it so much in your game - and that's fine - but Wizards do need to design to the market.

With _Barrow of the Forgotten King_ and other products, there's a definite emphasis on role-playing, puzzlesolving and other non-combat situations, but not at the expense of a non-combat adventure. It's still mostly combat.

Mike Mearls review of Keep is a classic though. I still don't know his reasoning behind it. (I regard Keep itself as a classic, great adventure though... designed as a good introductory adventure with _lots of fun combat_.)

Cheers!


----------



## Erekose (Mar 2, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> . . . Mike Mearls review of Keep is a classic though. I still don't know his reasoning behind it. (I regard Keep itself as a classic, great adventure though... designed as a good introductory adventure with _lots of fun combat_.) . . .




I haven't seen this? Does any one have a link to Mike's review?


----------



## Maggan (Mar 2, 2007)

Erekose said:
			
		

> I haven't seen this? Does any one have a link to Mike's review?




I googled this:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

That's probably the one.

EDIT: I read it, and while it is agressive and insulting at times I think the issues raised by Mearls are relevant. If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original. That said, it doesn't read well as a review, it's more of a rant, and probably was written to be a humorous take on the Keep.

/M


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Rust monster love. I got nothin'.



Hmm... but that's exactly the reason, why _I like_ Mearls' stuff. It rubs people in the wrong way, and he isn't afraid of doing that. I like to be challenged by stuff I don't like, _as long as it is well explained and reasonable_.

And sometimes, he turns out to be as insightful as inventive, like with Iron Heroes.


----------



## Nyaricus (Mar 2, 2007)

Erekose said:
			
		

> I haven't seen this? Does any one have a link to Mike's review?



I was just thinking the same thing...

cheers,
--N


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Mar 2, 2007)

Blood Jester said:
			
		

> Still does not eliminate (or even reduce) miss chances,




You may want to read the spell before you state what it does not do.

"Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target."

The article doesn't give enough information to determine how they found the proper squares to attack.


----------



## Erekose (Mar 2, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I googled this:
> 
> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html
> 
> ...




Wow . . . just read the review . . . while I haven't played _The Keep on The Borderlands_ for about 25 years I don't remember it being as bad as Mike's review makes out.

Although I seem to remember thinking that _The Palace of the Silver Princess_ would have been a better introductory module for the Basic Set.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 2, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The primary focus of D&D is combat. It is also what is most popular about the game. You might not have it so much in your game - and that's fine - but Wizards do need to design to the market.




I'd argue that the primary focus of D&D is role-playing. When I first started playing D&D it had basically invented the 'role playing' genre, that was what made the game interesting and different. We played it to be a 'different person', having heroic adventures in imaginary worlds.

I'd argue that the primary focus of a tabletop wargame is combat, but not D&D. That isn't to say that someone can't -make- that the primary focus, of course... and I think that 3e may be moving towards that, whether deliberately or unconciously (for instance - searching for traps used to be a role play thing, which was all based on description back in the '70's. Now it is more a case of a quick roll to find traps using search skill)


----------



## Erekose (Mar 2, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really _hate_ the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably _why_ he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options).
> 
> I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I _don't_ like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the _least_ interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant _threat_ of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary.
> 
> Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_, you actually want to spend _as little time fighting hill giants as possible_, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?




I think there are lots of issues to unpack with D&D and where it is heading. For those of us who have a main focus on the roleplaying aspect there have been worrying trends for some time, e.g. 3.5E with more of a focus on minatures, and recent supplements with more of a focus on tactical combat, etc. In its current format, the evolving ruleset remains flexible enough (or perhaps more accurately optional enough) to allow all styles of play. I just hope that when a new core ruleset is produced and all of the options are crystallised into one coherent whole that it maintains this flexibility.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'd argue that the primary focus of D&D is role-playing.




To be precise, the primary focus of D&D is roleplaying combat.

As opposed to, you know, actual combat.


----------



## RedFox (Mar 2, 2007)

An *anthropomorphic bat* druid?    

Where the heck did they get that one from?  The 3.0 Savage Species book or something?


----------



## Jawar (Mar 2, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Without being disparaging, from what I've read of his monster redesigns on the WotC site, I honestly hope he has as little to do with the design of 4E as is possible...




And I hope he's one of the people in charge of 4E.
I like Mike Mearl's views. He's not one to hold on to sacred bastions just because.
I give the man an applause!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'd argue that the primary focus of D&D is role-playing. When I first started playing D&D it had basically invented the 'role playing' genre, that was what made the game interesting and different. We played it to be a 'different person', having heroic adventures in imaginary worlds.
> 
> I'd argue that the primary focus of a tabletop wargame is combat, but not D&D. That isn't to say that someone can't -make- that the primary focus, of course... and I think that 3e may be moving towards that, whether deliberately or unconciously (for instance - searching for traps used to be a role play thing, which was all based on description back in the '70's. Now it is more a case of a quick roll to find traps using search skill)




Ok, I got into the game with AD&D, so, I really don't know what you're referring to.  The Find Traps skill was hard wired into the thief from pretty much the get go.  Role play find traps?  Why?  The thief player said, "I search for traps on the door/chest/green demon face" and the DM rolled the dice. 

How is that different from now?

See, I see the game entirely differently mostly because all we ever played was modules.  GDQ, A series, Tomoachan, and others.  They were all hack fests.  Even Keep was pretty much nothing but a series of fights when we played it.  

It wasn't until we played Ravenloft that we realized that you could actually talk to the baddies.


----------



## Jawar (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I have no idea.  He wrote a terribly insulting review of _Keep on the Borderlands_ that pretty much insinuated that you would be an idiot for liking it.  So he thinks he knows more about D&D than Gary Gygax, in other words.
> 
> I don't know the guy personally, but he came off very arrogant in that review.




A Keep on the Borderlands was my 1st OD&D adventure.
It was a passable scenario, even at the time. Our GM confessed us how unlikely that many humanoid races lived together in such a closed space (the entrance caves were quite close to each other) and he tried to give the monsters an intelligence, so they actually had a life there. He tried to adapt; still, the setting was highly unlikely and pretty basic.

Still, we had quite fun, in the OD&D style.

Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson kicked the thing rolling and they will be forever in my Hall of Heroes. 
However, I tend to see all things in perspective.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, I got into the game with AD&D, so, I really don't know what you're referring to.




It used to go like this in our games:

Fred: "I'll knock on the walls, looking for hollow areas"

Joe: "meanwhile, I'll check the edges of the door for trick hinges"

DM: "Fred, there is a hollow sound just behind the bedstead. No obvious way of opening it though. Nothing around the door, Joe."

Joe: "I'll try each of the torch sconces"

DM "The third torch sconce moves, and with a creak the secret door opens"


----------



## phindar (Mar 2, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, you actually want to spend as little time fighting hill giants as possible, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?



Maybe so.  While I like combat, I don't think its the only or even the best way to solve every problem the party comes across.  But a lot of the time, players are just looking for a fight even if it makes no sense (from a character perspective) to get into one.

This last line was my favorite in the article:







			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> I think people like the chance to try out weird, high level characters, and as DM it's interesting running a game where I try to kill off PCs without cheating. It's definitely a change of pace from my regular campaigns.




Kill pcs by cheating, the Mearls way.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2007)

D&D _enables_ roleplaying, but _focuses_ on combat. There are exceptions, but almost every adventure has a lot of combat in it. The exceptions (like Tomb of Horrors) are very interesting - they tend to go to the investigative plot, one that is possibly underused. (Mind you, mystery plots are very common in Living Greyhawk adventures I've run).

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It used to go like this in our games:
> 
> Fred: "I'll knock on the walls, looking for hollow areas"
> 
> ...




If I may note - there was a distinct difference between searching for _traps_, which was handled by a die roll - and searching for _secrets_, which often was role-played. (And it also depended greatly on the DM and adventure).

Cheers!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 2, 2007)

Hmm...

First, I'd point out that the KotB review in question was written _eight years ago_. I'm not sure Mike was even working professionally in the industry at that point.

Second, I like KotB, but that doesn't mean I ignore the fact that it's a deeply flawed module. While I disagree with the review's ultimate conclusion--that the module is a waste of time--the truth is, every specific point he raises is a genuine problem.


----------



## phindar (Mar 2, 2007)

And it was funny.  One of the genre tags was "comedy".  I've written reviews (for my college newspaper, so its not that cool) and its a lot more fun to savage something than it is to be fair.  And it always bothered me that no one in the Keep had names.  (I guess I was in the 6th grade when I read KotB the first time.  I thought the main guy in the keep was named "Castellan".)


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It used to go like this in our games:
> 
> Fred: "I'll knock on the walls, looking for hollow areas"
> 
> ...




As was pointed out, looking for secret doors was a bit different.  OTOH, our groups said, "We search for secret doors" and everyone picked up a D6 and rolled.  1 in 6 for most of us, 3 in 6 for the elf IIRC.

YMMV of course.


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 2, 2007)

> "We search for secret doors" and everyone picked up a D6 and rolled. 1 in 6 for most of us, 3 in 6 for the elf IIRC.



And 90% of all modules had only a S marked on the map as info on a secret door. Rarely any mention in the text about how to open it (or even any mention of torch sconces anywhere in the dungeon).



> Joe: "I'll try each of the torch sconces"
> 
> DM "The third torch sconce moves, and you feel a prick on your finger. Roll a save versus poison. But with a creak the secret door opens"
> 
> ...



OR







> Joe: "Hey, thief, check the torch sconces for traps."
> 
> Bill: "OK, I check all the sconces for traps."
> 
> ...



Quasqueton


----------



## Reynard (Mar 2, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Kill pcs by cheating, the Mearls way.




And the Award for Best Misrepresentation of a Quote goes to...


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 2, 2007)

As for Mearl's review of KotB, I found it hilarious. Yes, he does pound pretty hard in the last couple paragraphs, but actually, I think he got it right -- if I remember correctly (don't remember where I read it) EGG said that he had to write that in about a week, between other projects.

Quasqueton


----------



## Klaus (Mar 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> First, I'd point out that the KotB review in question was written _eight years ago_. I'm not sure Mike was even working professionally in the industry at that point.
> 
> Second, I like KotB, but that doesn't mean I ignore the fact that it's a deeply flawed module. While I disagree with the review's ultimate conclusion--that the module is a waste of time--the truth is, every specific point he raises is a genuine problem.



 Once again, the Mouse's sonar sense sees the truth.

Keep on the Borderlands, were it released today, would be met with nothing but complaints and derision.


----------



## Garnfellow (Mar 2, 2007)

I also think if Mike were to re-write that review today, it would read very differently. From the perspective he was working in -- second edition style emphasis on role-playing, background, plot and character development, and verisimilitude -- KotB does suffer, and mightily. 

But from a more contemporary design perspective -- with an increased emphasis on ease of use and ability to be quickly dropped into an existing game -- KotB actually holds up rather well. I have been able to use that module, or at least portions thereof, in almost every D&D game I've ever run in any edition and any setting.

Too much background information can be just as bad as too little, because it makes it harder to quickly drop the adventure into an ongoing campaign. This is why second edition is generally known as an era of great settings but not so memorable adventures. Night Below, for example, has many wonderful things going for it, but it always seemed like such a pain in the butt to adapt the first few sections of that adventure that I never ran it. The few second edition adventures that do stand out in my mind (like "Kingdom of the Ghouls") are ones that were pretty consciously returning to the 1st edition mode.

I have thought that the recent success of Dungeon magazine was due to the editors finding a real sweet spot between 1st edition and 2nd edition adventure backgrounds. If 1e had too little and 2e too much, their 3e adventures seem to be "just right."


----------



## green slime (Mar 2, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> And the Award for Best Misrepresentation of a Quote goes to...




Indeed. Incredible.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> Indeed. Incredible.



 Oh come on, it was funny.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 2, 2007)

Given that Mike used to post rather frequently on the boards, you would think people would not be so hateful.  Perhaps when Ari gets a permanent job w/ WOTC...well will see if the board turns on him as well...

I like Mearls design ethic.  Mystic Secrets for Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved is imho a perfect blend of flavor and mechanics. I have also like the books he has worked on @ WOTC and I have liked the mechanics of his monster updates.  Mike has a good sense of 3.5 and design mechanics, his mechanics flow and make sense.

It is a bold experiment, giants are extremely dangerous foes in 3.5 High Str + Power Attack means death to PC.  I find it interesting that the buffed up melee surrogates are the challenges the DM is focusing on.


----------



## FunkBGR (Mar 2, 2007)

Should point out it's a *lunchtime game* also - 

He stated in the first article that it's pretty much just a hack-fest, since they only have a half-hour to hour for lunch. Judging from reading the guy's other stuff, his normal campaigns aren't like this, but I'm happy he posts these, because I think it really shows that the game is fun for multiple reasons - whether your group is heavy into intrigue, or just wants PHAT LEWT. 

If I were playing in a lunch-game, I would treat it as a stress-relief, killing stuff and taking their treasures!


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 2, 2007)

Lots of stuff by Mike Mearls - in fact, by many of the people working at WotC - makes me cringe. It does not, however, surprise me.

I _used_ to think that the key requirement for being a Professional RPG Writer was a rock-solid understanding of gaming systems, but it isn't. (I still think that maybe it should be, but realize that if it was, we'd see two books published a year, if that. It certainly should be the requirement for any RPG editor, but that's another issue.) It's pretty obvious it's mainly about being creative, being able to write, and being able to do so on a schedule. 

It'd be nice to see someone able to do that and have a good head for the rules, but it just doesn't happen very often...


----------



## Janx (Mar 2, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Wasn't his point that the evil bard would have magic items primarily of use to the party's good bard (who needed a power boost)?




You may be assuming that the good bard faces the evil bard alone, and that the party doesn't try to help, and thus help themselves to a share of the treasure.  Once the treasure is split, bard-centric items may be sold off for better gear.  Plus, barring any homebrew items, any bard-centric gear isn't going to augment combat ability, so to pump up a bard takes basic magic gear.  Stuff with bonuses to AC, attack, damage, and spell casting.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 2, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> Your solution to the over-powering influence of magic in the game is to punish the fighter?




Actually, my solution is to play an OGL game rather than stock D&D.  However, if I was forced to play D&D, I fail to see how making magic items difficult for all characters to obtain "punishes" the fighter.  For every fireball a wizard hurls, there's a power-attacking fighter that's gonna rip the wizard a new one because he doesn't have magic items boosting his AC.

Also, I'd only run D&D's spell-slot system if I had to.  I'd much rather use True Sorcery, Grim Tales, Thieves World, or Elements of Magic.

Azgulor


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Actually, my solution is to play an OGL game rather than stock D&D.  However, if I was forced to play D&D, I fail to see how making magic items difficult for all characters to obtain "punishes" the fighter.  For every fireball a wizard hurls, there's a power-attacking fighter that's gonna rip the wizard a new one because he doesn't have magic items boosting his AC.




Mage armor + shield + displacement....


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As was pointed out, looking for secret doors was a bit different.  OTOH, our groups said, "We search for secret doors" and everyone picked up a D6 and rolled.  1 in 6 for most of us, 3 in 6 for the elf IIRC.
> 
> YMMV of course.




Sorry, I thought you were interested in how we handled it, in our pre AD&D games (and to a large extent afterwards too)

I happened to pick a secret door example, I could equally have done searching for traps as well  - I still remember one situation where we the party searched for and found a trap trigger, although we couldn't work out what it did. So in typical party fashion we decided to trigger it anyway to see what would happen 

Cheers


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 2, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> For every fireball a wizard hurls, there's a power-attacking fighter that's gonna rip the wizard a new one because he doesn't have magic items boosting his AC.



Nah. First, it's not about PC-vs-PC combat. The monsters are the problem, because they've got damage reduction, regeneration, and... well spell-like abilities. Without magic stuff, the fighter cannot keep up with the vastly increasing array of monster abilities/defenses.
Second, what hong said.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Mar 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> First, I'd point out that the KotB review in question was written _eight years ago_.




There's an important fact not touched upon by the Mearls detractors.

Anyway, I hope Mearls has a lot to do with any revamp or new edition of D&D.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 2, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Lots of stuff by Mike Mearls - in fact, by many of the people working at WotC - makes me cringe. It does not, however, surprise me.
> 
> I _used_ to think that the key requirement for being a Professional RPG Writer was a rock-solid understanding of gaming systems, but it isn't. (I still think that maybe it should be, but realize that if it was, we'd see two books published a year, if that. It certainly should be the requirement for any RPG editor, but that's another issue.) It's pretty obvious it's mainly about being creative, being able to write, and being able to do so on a schedule.
> 
> It'd be nice to see someone able to do that and have a good head for the rules, but it just doesn't happen very often...




Whatever one's opinion of Mearls' work, the one criticism that _does not hold up at all_ is that he doesn't have a good head for rules and the D&D/d20 rules in particular.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 2, 2007)

So, Meric, any on topic replies?

If this giant and dinasour based learning leads to fewer kinks in future editions of the game, that would be a good thing. (Though as an aside there are at least a few ways to attack a high AC target...)


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2007)

I'm still wondering what they put on that dinosaur to make it unhittable....


----------



## DM_Jeff (Mar 2, 2007)

Poor Mike. First he's "hero of the people" and then he gets a job at WotC and goes under the microscope. Didn't see that one coming!   

I like Mike. I think he has a good vision of gaming and the fact he played so much helped his perspective on many products. And then there were the Ariel Adventure Guides which I still cringe of the thought they were once in my house. Ouch!   

There was the professional run-in I'm destined to spill at some point. Briefly: I wrote a chapter on Chronomancy for AEG's Magic sourcebook. I thought it was fairly cutting-edge and pushed the envelope. Even had 'retraining' rules long before PHB2 based on the fact you could go re-learn something in your character's earlier career. It came in the mail and 90% of the words were rewritten, including everything I thought made it exciting. AEG's jim pinto blamed developer Mearls for the hacking, and I was dissapointed. 

On the other hand, I think Mike's eye on the D&D game is more or less right on target, and I think WotC did good bringing him on board.

-DM Jeff


----------



## green slime (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm still wondering what they put on that dinosaur to make it unhittable....




A blanket?


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 2, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Whatever one's opinion of Mearls' work, the one criticism that _does not hold up at all_ is that he doesn't have a good head for rules and the D&D/d20 rules in particular.




Writing a lot about the rules does not automatically make someone good at it. Perhaps I haven't read enough of his stuff, but what I have failed to impress me...


----------



## Nail (Mar 2, 2007)

Erekose said:
			
		

> Wow . . . just read the review . . . while I haven't played _The Keep on The Borderlands_ for about 25 years I don't remember it being as bad as Mike's review makes out.



Oh, I do.

I (at the ripe old age of 13) remember thinking it didn't make sense.  But then, what to pre-teens know.....


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 2, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And people are STILL bagging on the guy? What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?




They'll probably get a lot more to bash him about  I'll be very, very surprised if he isn't the lead designer on 4E.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 2, 2007)

kilamanjaro said:
			
		

> Where's the Fiend Binder from?




Tome of Magic. Prestige class for Truenamers.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 2, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Now, with regard to recent comments he made regarding embedded system mastery being bad, I agree.  I just need to know see what he and the design team intend to do about the problem.




There's my fear. Pretty much, in all his articles recently, I've agreed with what he said needed to change and why, then I read how he planned to change them and it was not something I could agree with at all. His changes seem to be based on design parameters that I cannot live with for D&D.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 2, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Bravo, sir!  You have just summed up the #1 problem with RAW D&D, the reliance upon and proliferation of magic items.  This is why magic items are extremely rare whenever I run D&D.
> 
> Azgulor




Me too. And this was also one of the primary reasons i loved the Midnight Campaign Setting so much. Magic was rare, it was treasured, and it couldn't be bought with a shopping cart.


----------



## hexgrid (Mar 2, 2007)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> Why do so many people hang on Mike Mearls?




Because he's got a lot of ideas and is more outspoken than the average game designer- combined with the fact that many perceive him to be in a position to apply his ideas to the overall direction that D&D takes.


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 2, 2007)

Mike seems like a swell guy, and I m deeply embarrassed for the treatment he gets here on ENWorld now that he's started working full-time for WotC.  Yes, he was a fairly frequent ENWorlder back in the day, and I cringe at the thought of what would/will happen if Ari gets the chance to work there as well.  We'll start seeing threads about how out of touch or outright bad his rules are, as well; will the insults flow like water for him, too?

I'm actually a fair bit ashamed at the treatment Mr Mearls gets here anymore.


And if he had anything at all to do with the Duskblade, I want to give him a big wet kiss on the cheek.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 2, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> There's my fear. Pretty much, in all his articles recently, I've agreed with what he said needed to change and why, then I read how he planned to change them and it was not something I could agree with at all. His changes seem to be based on design parameters that I cannot live with for D&D.



On the other hand, that's a fresh mind, who doesn't adhere himself to D&D. And I agree that Mearls' stuff is very discussable. And that's better than off-the-mill stuff. And stuff like this is needed, if a 4th ever comes: Not just more of the same.

@Aaron L: Yeah, back there I was more of a lurker... and enjoyed his posts and stuff. Now I hardly seeing him at all - now I'm happy about his blog and occasional stuff on the WotC messageboards. I'm still a bit surprised, why so many Mearls-criticism comes up here.

Well, at least he now gets his own articles on Wizards... (*wishes for Monster Makeover*) and neat to see that "lunchtime campaign" - it sounds like fun.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 2, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I'm actually a fair bit ashamed at the treatment Mr Mearls gets here anymore.




Hear hear.

I dig his WotC articles and his contributions to the game thus far. The dude could DM for me any day, and I'd be happy to see his name on the 4e credits page. 

And juvenilia or not, Mearls scored a direct freakin' hit with his KotB review.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 2, 2007)

I know Mike reasonably well; in fact, he's the first person I ever co-GMed a game with. In my opinion Mike is blazingly smart, extremely prolific, moderately opinionated, and a little more stubborn than I am. He's also tremendously imaginative and has a solid grasp of "fun". He's not afraid to challenge existing paradigms just for the sake of challenging them, which I think is what we see in the monster re-imagining articles. I don't always agree with his opinion, but I respect it.

As for that Keep on the Borderland review, from back in '99? Anyone who is reading that without their tongue firmly planted in their cheek is missing the point. Note the sarcasm and the tags - "comedy" - and for me it becomes clear that it's not intended to be a real review. It _is_ intended to make a few hyperbolic points about the module's flaws.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 2, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> Your solution to the over-powering influence of magic in the game is to punish the fighter?




What, its been a staple of D&D since the beginning.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 2, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It used to go like this in our games:
> 
> Fred: "I'll knock on the walls, looking for hollow areas"
> 
> ...





Fixed, at least from my memories of the typical DM I played with.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 2, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Mike seems like a swell guy, and I m deeply embarrassed for the treatment he gets here on ENWorld




Ditto.


----------



## Henry (Mar 2, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Fixed, at least from my memories of the typical DM I played with.




You had some darned rough DMs!


----------



## Klaus (Mar 2, 2007)

Be Like Mike!


----------



## Greg K (Mar 2, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> And if he had anything at all to do with the Duskblade, I want to give him a big wet kiss on the cheek.




I wouldn't. I prefer his myrmidon class from AEG's mercenearies


----------



## Ourph (Mar 2, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Mike seems like a swell guy, and I m deeply embarrassed for the treatment he gets here on ENWorld now that he's started working full-time for WotC.



The treatment Mike Mearls receives isn't any worse than the treatment that, for example, Gary Gygax (also a frequent poster to these boards) and his work often receive, and as far as I know Gary isn't holding EN World accountable for the fact that not everybody likes his work or ideas on game design.  People with strong opinions can't really afford to be offended when others dissect and critique their work with the same unsympathetic bluntness that they employ in forming and voicing their own thoughts. Mike isn't shy about sharing his opinions with the world and I don't see why "the world" (i.e. ENWorld) should be shy about sharing our opinions with him.



> I cringe at the thought of what would/will happen if Ari gets the chance to work there as well.  We'll start seeing threads about how out of touch or outright bad his rules are, as well; will the insults flow like water for him, too?



Possibly, if he keeps insisting his personal opinion is "the truth", as he did earlier.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Second, I like KotB, but that doesn't mean I ignore the fact that it's a deeply flawed module. While I disagree with the review's ultimate conclusion--that the module is a waste of time--the truth is, every specific point he raises is a genuine problem.



Be embarassed if you like, but it seems to me that when someone is willing to be blunt and honest about their opinions people should feel free to be blunt and honest in response to those opinions.  If Mike doesn't like the response he receives maybe he shouldn't be in the business of publishing web articles that essentially tell people "something you like is stupid, and here's why".


----------



## mhensley (Mar 2, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Be Like Mike!




Is that just a shadow or does he in fact have a Hitler mustache?


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 2, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The treatment Mike Mearls receives isn't any worse than the treatment that, for example, Gary Gygax (also a frequent poster to these boards) and his work often receive, and as far as I know Gary isn't holding EN World accountable for the fact that not everybody likes his work or ideas on game design.  People with strong opinions can't really afford to be offended when others dissect and critique their work with the same unsympathetic bluntness that they employ in forming and voicing their own thoughts. Mike isn't shy about sharing his opinions with the world and I don't see why "the world" (i.e. ENWorld) should be shy about sharing our opinions with him.
> 
> 
> Possibly, if he keeps insisting his personal opinion is "the truth", as he did earlier.
> ...





First, I'd like to see where Mearls has declared his "one true way and all others are stupid" statement.  A link would be very nice.

Second, if you are offended by his 8 year old, tongue-in-cheek written article about KotBL, written as a _fan_, then you have missed out on a joke, I'm afraid.

And am I imagining things, or are you implying that Mearls has made statements that he is offended by ENWorld, somewhere?  If so, I would like a link to those sources, as well, please.

I will always be ashamed and embarrassed when any game designer is attacked here on ENWorld.  Especially one who was once a fairly regular member our or community.

Or anyone else, for that matter.  

Yes, I know it's cool and trendy to bash The Man, especially on the internet, but it's always shameful to see it done to former members of our community who happened to have "made it", or at least as close to that as can be done in the RPG industry.


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 2, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Oh, I do.
> 
> I (at the ripe old age of 13) remember thinking it didn't make sense.  But then, what to pre-teens know.....





Same here; For me KotB was always the prime example how to not write an adventure. Furthermore it is frequently used to deride D&D in general as a stroryless hackfest. If at all, Mike is too kind.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Mar 2, 2007)

I think it’s the never ending series of “Mearls on X” threads that just get old. It’s like Nightfall’s constant pimpage of the Scarred Lands. After a while it has the opposite of its intended effect. There are plenty of other designers, both within and outside of WotC, who have a lot of interesting things to say on game design but you rarely see discussion of their thoughts here.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 2, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> There are plenty of other designers, both within and outside of WotC, who have a lot of interesting things to say on game design but you rarely see discussion of their thoughts here.



Do you post them?

The best way to see a particular type of thread is to start it. The best way to draw attention to a particular designer is to follow his work and tell other people when he talks about design.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 2, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Yes, I know it's cool and trendy to bash The Man, especially on the internet, but it's always shameful to see it done to former members of our community who happened to have "made it", or at least as close to that as can be done in the RPG industry.



Let's be crystal clear on this, everyone: It's fine to criticize Mike Mearls' work if you don't care for it, or to compliment it if you do. It is NOT okay to criticize or attack him personally. Please report this when you see it, because that's never permissable on EN World.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 2, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Is that just a shadow or does he in fact have a Hitler mustache?



 Just a shadow.

And Mearls is a swell dude.


----------



## mearls (Mar 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Oh come on, it was funny.




Yeah, it was funny. That quote can make me sound like a cheaty pants killer DM, and I honestly find that pretty dang funny.

Man, I'd write more but I have to go eat lunch. I'll make a reply to variouses and sundries later.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 2, 2007)

FunkBGR said:
			
		

> Should point out it's a *lunchtime game* also -
> 
> He stated in the first article that it's pretty much just a hack-fest, since they only have a half-hour to hour for lunch. Judging from reading the guy's other stuff, his normal campaigns aren't like this, but I'm happy he posts these, because I think it really shows that the game is fun for multiple reasons - whether your group is heavy into intrigue, or just wants PHAT LEWT.
> 
> If I were playing in a lunch-game, I would treat it as a stress-relief, killing stuff and taking their treasures!




That's a relief to know.  I missed that initial comment and was thinking I would never want to play in one of his games if these lunch time games were representative of his normal campaigns.  Then again, I would still have skipped the lunch time games- I detest pure Hack and Slash.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 2, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I'll make a reply to variouses and sundries later.




I would really appreciate it if you would address the contents of your review of module B2.  For reference, the text is located here:
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

Specifically, I would pose several objections:

(1) A good review considers the goals that the work sets for itself and addresses whether the work met those goals.  Do you think that B2 did not meet its goals, or do you think those goals are just worthless?

(2) Given that the edition of D&D in question gave out XP for recovered gold (the lion's share, actually) and had roles such as "Mapper" and "Caller", would you agree that the focus of the game was oriented toward exploring underworlds and recovering loot therefrom?  And do you not agree that this goal is represented in B2?

(3) Given that B2 is meant to be an instructional module, as well as setting-generic, don't you think that the lack of names for Keep NPCs and other details were intentionally left out, to provide a springboard from which the DM would more fully flesh out the world?  This seems to be explicitly stated on page 2, with the vintage Gygaxian quote: _"It is you who will give form and content to all the universe.  You will breathe life into the stillness, giving meaning and purpose to all the actions which are to follow."_  I think that B2 left out that information as part of its attempt to meet its own design goals.

(4) How do you explain your aggressive and insulting tone?  Calling the module "garbage" and the consumers "dimwits" does not seem appropriate.  Do you think an apology is owed?

Obviously, I think the module had reasonable goals which it met in keeping with the spirit of the game.  I do not consider the module garbage or myself a dimwit.  If you have something to say about the review or these points I'd be happy to hear it.  Based solely off the content of your review I would be strongly disinclined to purchase any products with which you are involved or to take your opinions seriously (I mean ones unqualified by further statements you might make in this thread).  If I had more to go on here that would be an enormous help in being able to make a better judgment about all of that.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 2, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> That's a relief to know.  I missed that initial comment and was thinking I would never want to play in one of his games if these lunch time games were representative of his normal campaigns.  Then again, I would still have skipped the lunch time games- I detest pure Hack and Slash.




To each their own.  Me, I would kill for a lunch hour of monster mashing.  It'd break up the day real nice.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 2, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> To each their own.  Me, I would kill for a lunch hour of monster mashing.  It'd break up the day real nice.





Hell yeah!  At least we know that WOTC eats their own dog food.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I would really appreciate it if you would address the contents of your review of module B2.  For reference, the text is located here:
> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html
> 
> Specifically, I would pose several objections:
> ...





Please take this to another thread.


----------



## crazy_cat (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> blah blah blah



Whatever. Mislaid your senses of humour and context by chance? 
Get over yourself already.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 2, 2007)

Gentlemen - Mearls has the option to respond to or ignore the questions as he sees fit.  Comments like "Get over yourself" are more of a problem.

Play nice.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Voadam (Mar 2, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Yeah, it was funny. That quote can make me sound like a cheaty pants killer DM, and I honestly find that pretty dang funny.
> 
> Man, I'd write more but I have to go eat lunch. I'll make a reply to variouses and sundries later.





Sounds like you found a new sig, "Cheaty Pants Killer DM"


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 2, 2007)

I find it hard to get too worked up or offended by that B2 review since 1) it was written 8 years ago (I certainly said/wrote plenty of things 8 years ago, some of which are probably presevred online somewhere, that I don't particularly endorse today -- and yet I don't feel an obligation to make a point of specifically apologizing for or repudiating them either), and 2) it's obvious from the tone (or at least should be obvious) that this is a joke/exaggeration, even if the "issues" it raises are (or were felt at the time to be) real. 

As for those "issues," I generally don't agree with them: 

1) none of the NPCs have names: yeah, that's true, and was clearly a specific design decision. As the review points out, this module was written/published after T1, in which many/most of the NPCs do have names, so it's not like Gygax _couldn't_ come up with names, or felt it wasn't important, he just chose not to, presumably because he felt naming the NPCs was an easy way for novice DMs to begin customizing the module and making it their own (which is a specific theme of the module, especially the Keep portion -- see, for instance, the section on mapping the buildings in the Keep). If the module's at fault in this regard, it's only for not making this intention clearer -- including a sentence or two mentioning specifically that naming of the characters in the Keep has been left as an exercise for the individual DM, and perhaps providing a list of example-names (and, considering how tightly edited this module is, with barely a spare word anywhere, it's entirely possible that such a blurb was originally included and was cut out by the editors who felt it was stating the obvious).

2) the situation is too simplistic/unrealistic: yeah it is, but so what? This was a module designed to teach the basics of the game to 10 and 11 year old novice dungeon masters, not a _magnum opus_ of worldbuilding. And it succeeded at that job admirably -- better than any other D&D module before or since, IMO. It introduced _millions_ of people, including probably most of the people reading this thread, to the game and is still very widely remembered (mostly, but not always, fondly) to this day -- just a week or so ago we had a multi-page thread here devoted to "Bree-yark!" And the fact that some DMs saw it and felt "I can do better" is _part of the point_ -- this was an "introductory" module, a tool to teach you the ropes, and it was _intended_ that afer playing it you'd then be prepared and inspired to go on to create your own stuff, and that hopefully the stuff you created would be as good or better (and, if anything, it's a sad commentary that so little of the stuff that's been created since _has_ been as good or better...). 

3) the idea that had the module been more complex or "realistic" that it would've turned more people on to the game: I don't agree with this conclusion at all, suspect (hope) that Mr. Mearls himself doesn't agree with it anymore, and wonder if he really did at the time or if this was intended as a joke. There was a widespread notion, especially in the 90s in the wake of White Wolf's success and the rest of the industry's slumping, that rpgs were supposed to be "serious business" and that casual and/or "gamist" play was something to be looked down upon, and that what was impeding rpgs' acceptance by the mainstream was that they had too much "game" or kid-appeal element and weren't viewed enough as serious adult Art. I disagreed with that notion 100% at the time, continue to disagree with it, and think time has proven that if anything almost the exact opposite is true -- rpgs have been at their most successful when they've been the most "gamey" and the most accessible to casual play (even for the WW stuff), and Basic D&D and B2 epitomize that approach (which is why they were able to sell millions of copies -- because of, not despite, the "flaws" this review cites). 

This is something that I think 3E/d20 struggles mightily with (it's got the game part down, but is not (IMO) at all accessible to casual play) and I think will be one of if not the defining question to be answered in any future revisions of D&D (whether it be 3.75E or 4E) -- how to make the game more accessible to casual players without alienating the hardcore fans? And I suspect that in these discussions Basic D&D and B2 will be looked at (if the folks at WotC are wise, which I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on) not as examples of the wrong approach, but of the right approach.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Gentlemen - Mearls has the option to respond to or ignore the questions as he sees fit.



And frankly, I thought Korgoth phrased his questions quite well. As Hyp. says, Mearls may or may not want to address the question, but it's nice to see someone ask something they're passionate about in a polite way instead of ranting. Thanks for that.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 2, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> You had some darned rough DMs!




My character got destroyed when I stuck a 10 foot pole in the demon mouth in Tomb of Horrors because the DM running it said the destrouction traveled up the pole. Thats the point where I just said screw it, and started running everything.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 2, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> As for that Keep on the Borderland review, from back in '99?




That...sorta jumped out at me.  That review is -eight- years old.  I haven't scrutinized Mike's resume recently, but I'm pretty sure 95% of his game work is post-3.0.  He can defend himself (if he thinks he needs to, which I don't really think he does...), but to assume his game design opinions and experience haven't changed at all since then is pretty...simple-minded.


----------



## phindar (Mar 2, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Specifically, I would pose several objections:




I don't disagree with Korgoth's points, but I think its also important to keep in mind the review was humorous in nature.  If I'm reading Michael J. Nelson's (of MST3K) review of Anaconda, I'm not going to be disappointed that he doesn't lay out a rigourous examination of the director's intent.  

Besides, brutally savaging the things we loved as children is what adulthood is all about.


----------



## Henry (Mar 2, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> My character got destroyed when I stuck a 10 foot pole in the demon mouth in Tomb of Horrors because the DM running it said the destrouction traveled up the pole. Thats the point where I just said screw it, and started running everything.




I'd love to take that discussion into a full-blown thread, but have run outta time today; I'll just say that's pretty poor, because that kind of thing is what 10 foot poles were made for!  At least I had a guy lose only his arm when he went rummaging around in the pitch-black demon mouth with no protection...


----------



## Ourph (Mar 2, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> First, I'd like to see where Mearls has declared his "one true way and all others are stupid" statement.  A link would be very nice.



That's not what I said.



> Second, if you are offended by his 8 year old, tongue-in-cheek written article about KotBL, written as a _fan_, then you have missed out on a joke, I'm afraid.



I'm not offended by it at all, but I think it would be hypocritical to post a sarcastic, shot-taking review like that (even if it is mostly in good fun) and then turn around and be offended when others take your work and subject it to the same treatment (again mostly in good fun).



> And am I imagining things, or are you implying that Mearls has made statements that he is offended by ENWorld, somewhere?  If so, I would like a link to those sources, as well, please.



I am not implying that.  Apparently you are imagining things.    
What I'm saying is that, 1) I don't see Mike getting all offended at the comments people direct toward his work and his POV; 2) If he did get offended by blunt criticism it would be a little silly, since he is intentionally challenging sacred cows and addressing contentious topics with blunt and unsympathetic analyses; and 3) You can be embarrassed if you want, but I don't think anyone has said anything in this thread or in previous threads concerning Mike's work that they need to be ashamed of.



> I will always be ashamed and embarrassed when any game designer is attacked here on ENWorld.  Especially one who was once a fairly regular member our or community.
> 
> Or anyone else, for that matter.



I will be right along-side you if they are being attacked on a personal level.  When people are picking apart their performance at their job or the opinions they express regarding the game, that's a different thing.  It's always important to be as polite as possible of course, but there's only so much you can do to sugarcoat the phrase "I think his work is horrible." or "In my opinion, that is the worst idea I've ever heard.".



> Yes, I know it's cool and trendy to bash The Man, especially on the internet, but it's always shameful to see it done to former members of our community who happened to have "made it", or at least as close to that as can be done in the RPG industry.



If it's "The Man's" job to offer his opinion on contentious issues in public, it seems only natural that a certain amount of vociferous disagreement is going to follow.  It seems to me that if the issues Mike writes about weren't expected to be contentious then there wouldn't be much sense in addressing them in the first place.  IMO the firestorms his recent articles on the WotC site have generated among the fan community were the expected and desired result of the articles, not some shameful byproduct.  I know if I were writing those articles I'd be much happier to see a 30-page debate on their merits than a one-post thread with no replies.  At least the 30-page thread indicates people are reading and thinking about my work, even if they don't always agree with me.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Mar 2, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Wasn't his point that the evil bard would have magic items primarily of use to the party's good bard (who needed a power boost)?




Evil Bard is killing good bards.  Who says he doesn't have some good bard stuff?  besides a +X chain shirt is a +X chain shirt.  Yeah, it might go to the ranger.  Oh, well...  A magical musical instrument that double's the bard's bonuses isn't too disruptive.

And as for selling it.  Just put on some odd enchantments, such as "residual natural aura."  If the players ask what the heck a residual natural aura, just smile and say it's not a spell or an enchantment, thus it can't be identified.  

If they sell it act all eager (you want to sell this!  Really!  Sold!  Gimmie! Gimmie!) and if they still sell it laugh maniacally and say sucker!  (then send another evil bard or whatever to go after it...)

Oh, btw, residual natural aura=mcguffin and a small bonus... say a +1.

This is called the giving theory of GMing rather than the taking theory (nerfing) of GMing.  To each it's own.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Mar 2, 2007)

Janx said:
			
		

> You may be assuming that the good bard faces the evil bard alone.



I assume nothing however...
1)  It's called a duel.  Bardic college sponsored duel.  Or something.
2)  Or a singing duel a play off.
3)  Or not.


----------



## MKMcArtor (Mar 3, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> AEG's jim pinto blamed developer Mearls for the hacking, and I was dissapointed.




Wow. Classy.


----------



## Roman (Mar 3, 2007)

I always like it when game designers proffer their ideas on game balance and game design on the web. I am interested in game design per se, so this is sufficient for me to seek out and peruse those articles or thoughts with interest and the fact that such thoughts indicate the likely future course of D&D (including perhaps shedding some light on the likely future shape of 4E) only piques my interest further. Mike Mearls has done this to a greater degree than most other current D&D designers, or at least more of his insights find its way to me to read and I like that very much. 

That said, I don't like some of the design philosophies that seem to be looming on the horizon, such as per encounter balancing (I explained why my thread on new design paradigms - it would probably derail this thread if I did so here again). But I like other design philosophies greatly, such as the elimination of dead levels, and I agree with others to some degree, for example with the advantages of reworking some monsters.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Mar 3, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The primary focus of D&D is combat. It is also what is most popular about the game.



This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 3, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.





 :\ 

It was with every group I ever played with... since the late 70's.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 3, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.




I think you're thinking of a different game.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Mar 3, 2007)

Another thing to consider about the review....

Not only is the review itself 8 years old, but KotB was 20 years old when it was written. Do you think the Tandy1000 would get a good review if written today?


----------



## phindar (Mar 3, 2007)

Gentlegamer: Its difficult to get into talking about how a game is written versus how a game is played.  You can run deeply roleplaying based 3e games, and straight hack and slash tactical exercises in 2e.  Personally, I've never felt any addition of D&D had particularly strong roleplaying elements _in the rules_.  Roleplaying is what the people bring to the game, its the human element, and so its more dependent on who is playing rather than what edition they're using.  I've played in both types of games in all 3 editions of (A)D&D.  (I don't really count my OD&D days, as that was just middle school and it was more just making stuff up with weird shaped dice.)

But a good way to stir up trouble is to say "Xed is good for (this type of game)."  It just drives people nuts.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 3, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> But a good way to stir up trouble is to say "Xed is good for (this type of game)."  It just drives people nuts.




Who's Xed?


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> It was with every group I ever played with... since the late 70's.




Me too.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 3, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Who's Xed?



Xed's dead, baby, Xed's dead...


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 3, 2007)

The primary focus of the game has almost always been on combat with groups I've played with too, but I daresay that's more because the groups I've played with have, on average, not been all that good, and not because the game necessarily works that way. Combat is the "easy" way to play the game -- it requires the least thought, you can just sit back and let the dice take care of everything (or at least you could in the old days), and even if you fail it's not really your fault, it was just bad luck (or a cheating DM throwing unbalanced challenges at you ). _Avoiding_ combat while still finding ways to "win" and prosper is much more difficult, and requires much more thought and care. I also happen to find it a lot more fun (as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread).

Take, for example, _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ (the module Mike Mearls and his lunchtime crew were playing through as, seemingly, one big combat). You _can_ run this module as a straight-up melee hack-fest, and I daresay that's how most groups over the years have run it (note the objections to my claim earlier in the thread that I don't view the module as purely a combat exercise) -- wading more-or-less straight into the Great Hall and opening a can of whup-ass on the assembled giants until either all of them or all of the party are dead. But it doesn't _have_ to play out that way -- if you read carefully (and a bit between the lines) you'll see there's an entirely different implicit storyline running through the module, involving the party infiltrating the place by stealth and trickery, disguising themselves as juvenile giants, making friends with various disaffected groups of maids and servants to gain information, picking off drunk giants one by one as they wander away from the party, perhaps even enlisting the aid of the cloud and stone giants (it's not specifically mentioned in the module-text, but why couldn't this happen?), inciting the orc slaves in the basement into a full-scale insurrection (a great diversion!), burning the place to the ground (which is definitely considered possible, even likely, to happen in the module -- going so far as to say who takes refuge where once it does), etc. 

Some players might view this a boring way to play -- sneaking around gathering info when you're supposed to be throwing-down with the baddies, and it's certainly harder and requires more care, thought, and discipline, but at least to me it's a much more engaging and rewarding style of play, and much more fun. I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Some players might view this a boring way to play -- sneaking around gathering info when you're supposed to be throwing-down with the baddies, and it's certainly harder and requires more care, thought, and discipline, but at least to me it's a much more engaging and rewarding style of play, and much more fun. I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...




So instead of fighting, you'd rather sneak around (Hide and Move Silently) and gather information (Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Disguise)... so as to avoid rolling dice?

-Hyp.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Take, for example, _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ (the module Mike Mearls and his lunchtime crew were playing through as, seemingly, one big combat). You _can_ run this module as a straight-up melee hack-fest, and I daresay that's how most groups over the years have run it (note the objections to my claim earlier in the thread that I don't view the module as purely a combat exercise) -- wading more-or-less straight into the Great Hall and opening a can of whup-ass on the assembled giants until either all of them or all of the party are dead. But it doesn't _have_ to play out that way -- if you read carefully (and a bit between the lines) you'll see there's an entirely different implicit storyline running through the module, involving the party infiltrating the place by stealth and trickery, disguising themselves as juvenile giants, making friends with various disaffected groups of maids and servants to gain information, picking off drunk giants one by one as they wander away from the party, perhaps even enlisting the aid of the cloud and stone giants (it's not specifically mentioned in the module-text, but why couldn't this happen?), inciting the orc slaves in the basement into a full-scale insurrection (a great diversion!), burning the place to the ground (which is definitely considered possible, even likely, to happen in the module -- going so far as to say who takes refuge where once it does), etc.




Actually, back in the when I ran through that module as a player that was exactly how we handled it. . . Well, that and lots of fights with giants. . .


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So instead of fighting, you'd rather sneak around (Hide and Move Silently) and gather information (Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Disguise)... so as to avoid rolling dice?
> 
> -Hyp.



 Well, I also happen to _greatly_ prefer a style of game that doesn't reduce those sorts of things to die rolls either (which is just the style for which G1 was written, incidentally -- note that per the text of the module if the party thinks to disguise themselves as juvenile giants their ruse _will_ be successful as long as the observer doesn't come within 20' -- no "disguise" or "bluff" rolls required ). I'm ambivalent enough about "find traps" being a die roll (that's what your 10' pole, your ball of twine, and your bags of sand and marbles are supposed to be for!), the idea of "gather information," "sense motive," and "intimidate" being abstracted into die rolls makes me almost queasy...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Well, I also happen to _greatly_ prefer a style of game that doesn't reduce those sorts of things to die rolls either (which is just the style for which G1 was written, incidentally -- note that per the text of the module if the party thinks to disguise themselves as juvenile giants their ruse _will_ be successful as long as the observer doesn't come within 20' -- no "disguise" or "bluff" rolls required ). I'm ambivalent enough about "find traps" being a die roll (that's what your 10' pole, your ball of twine, and your bags of sand and marbles are supposed to be for!), the idea of "gather information," "sense motive," and "intimidate" being abstracted into die rolls makes me almost queasy...




I'm not saying reduce them solely to die rolls; however, the die rolls should be a part of it.

If a party thinks to attack a giant with a sword, we don't decide their attack _will_ be successful; similarly, if they decide to disguise themselves as teenie giants, their skill in such endeavours should have a bearing on whether or not it works.

A low-Cha fighter shouldn't be as competent at dressing up and pumping giant maids for information as the bard or rogue who's put a lot of effort into getting good at it.  If we assume automatic success, it makes that effort meaningless; if we want to make the effort meaningful, we either rely on DM fiat ("You reckon the bard could pull that off, but not the fighter"), or we include mechanics that test that skill.

But as soon as we utilise those mechanics, and roll a die, you consider you've lost.

-Hyp.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 3, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.




IME most of the rules of any edition of D&D covers what you can or cannot do in combat, or dealing with the repercussions of combat. And then there are some rules for avoiding combat.

It's has been a staple of roleplaying games since the beginning, and I look to Hackmaster nad KoDT as good documentation of that.

So I'm perplexed by your bold assertion. Care to elaborate?

/M


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not saying reduce them solely to die rolls; however, the die rolls should be a part of it.
> 
> If a party thinks to attack a giant with a sword, we don't decide their attack _will_ be successful; similarly, if they decide to disguise themselves as teenie giants, their skill in such endeavours should have a bearing on whether or not it works.
> 
> ...



 First off, I'm talking ideally/theoretically about avoiding combat and not rolling dice -- in actual play we pretty much always have at least some combat in each session, and I roll lots of dice in both combat and non-combat situations. I just like to de-emphasize both where possible, and practical.

That said, the issue of how much roleplaying and problem-solving should be abstracted into die-rolls vs. actually played out by the player is a very old debate which that isn't the propoer venue to rehash (and I don't feel like rehashing it anyway). Suffice to say I have a difference of opinion with you regarding the role of "non-combat skills" in the game and the way such situations should be handled in play -- you prefer quantified skills and die rolls, just like in combat, where I prefer a more freeform player-centric approach. My approach is currently unfashionable, and isn't supported at all by the current edition of the game, but it was the default for many years, including those years in which the game was at the height of its mass popularity.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> The primary focus of the game has almost always been on combat with groups I've played with too, but I daresay that's more because the groups I've played with have, on average, not been all that good, and not because the game necessarily works that way. Combat is the "easy" way to play the game -- it requires the least thought, you can just sit back and let the dice take care of everything (or at least you could in the old days), and even if you fail it's not really your fault, it was just bad luck (or a cheating DM throwing unbalanced challenges at you ). _Avoiding_ combat while still finding ways to "win" and prosper is much more difficult, and requires much more thought and care. I also happen to find it a lot more fun (as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread).
> 
> Take, for example, _The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ (the module Mike Mearls and his lunchtime crew were playing through as, seemingly, one big combat). You _can_ run this module as a straight-up melee hack-fest, and I daresay that's how most groups over the years have run it (note the objections to my claim earlier in the thread that I don't view the module as purely a combat exercise) -- wading more-or-less straight into the Great Hall and opening a can of whup-ass on the assembled giants until either all of them or all of the party are dead. But it doesn't _have_ to play out that way -- if you read carefully (and a bit between the lines) you'll see there's an entirely different implicit storyline running through the module, involving the party infiltrating the place by stealth and trickery, disguising themselves as juvenile giants, making friends with various disaffected groups of maids and servants to gain information, picking off drunk giants one by one as they wander away from the party, perhaps even enlisting the aid of the cloud and stone giants (it's not specifically mentioned in the module-text, but why couldn't this happen?), inciting the orc slaves in the basement into a full-scale insurrection (a great diversion!), burning the place to the ground (which is definitely considered possible, even likely, to happen in the module -- going so far as to say who takes refuge where once it does), etc.
> 
> Some players might view this a boring way to play -- sneaking around gathering info when you're supposed to be throwing-down with the baddies, and it's certainly harder and requires more care, thought, and discipline, but at least to me it's a much more engaging and rewarding style of play, and much more fun. I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...




Sneaking around?  Other than the thief, no one could.  Disguising yourself as a young hill giant?  That's pretty far outside the scope of the module and stretching believability an awful lot.  Particularly if your group had an elf, dwarf or halfling.  And, even if you do do all of this, you still have to go into the main hall and face all those hill giants.

You played this way, and fair enough, but, I think that you are very, very much in a minority position here.


----------



## Tetsubo (Mar 3, 2007)

I've GM'd the Steading module a number of times. It is one of my favorites. In every case the PCs started out by sneaking in. They often ended the module with a slugfest in the main room. One group even started a fire in a far corner as a distraction to aid their sneaking endeavors...

This is possibly a stupid question: Is the updated Steading module available?


----------



## phindar (Mar 3, 2007)

Its not really fair to say that Bluff and Disguise skills _weren't required_ in the module, since the rules for those skills (and any other) didn't even exist yet.  (That's kind of like saying, "In Colonial America, space travel was against the law.")


----------



## Ranes (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> That said, the issue of how much roleplaying and problem-solving should be abstracted into die-rolls vs. actually played out by the player is a very old debate which that isn't the propoer venue to rehash (and I don't feel like rehashing it anyway). Suffice to say I have a difference of opinion with you regarding the role of "non-combat skills" in the game and the way such situations should be handled in play -- you prefer quantified skills and die rolls, just like in combat, where I prefer a more freeform player-centric approach. My approach is currently unfashionable, and isn't supported at all by the current edition of the game, but it was the default for many years, including those years in which the game was at the height of its mass popularity.




Well, you just can't have your cake and eat it. In the years when the game was at the height of its popularity, the most popular columns in magazines like Dragon and White Dwarf were those that featured new monsters. Your claim that your preferred style of play was the default doesn't stand up to a nanosecond of scrutiny. Similarly baseless is your contention that this style of play "is not supported at all by the current edition". On the contrary, it is supported far more now than it was in previous editions. Now everyone can climb a wall, to avoid combat, not just the thief.


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> The primary focus of the game has almost always been on combat with groups I've played with too, but I daresay that's more because the groups I've played with have, on average, not been all that good, and not because the game necessarily works that way.




There's a certain platonic something about this argument that I find most, well, platonic.


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> There's a certain platonic something about this argument that I find most, well, platonic.





Indeed.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Mar 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So instead of fighting, you'd rather sneak around (Hide and Move Silently) and gather information (Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Disguise)... so as to avoid rolling dice?



It's not quite what T. Foster was saying, but that's one of the reasons that players of rogues LOVE Skill Mastery.  Reducing the element of chance and making skill play a larger role in your odds of success.


----------



## RedFox (Mar 3, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It's not quite what T. Foster was saying, but that's one of the reasons that players of rogues LOVE Skill Mastery.  Reducing the element of chance and making skill play a larger role in your odds of success.




Oh man, I _love_ having Skill Mastery for Tumble.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sneaking around?  Other than the thief, no one could.




And if you allowed it, you weren't playing AD&D any more!

-Hyp.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> you prefer quantified skills and die rolls, just like in combat, where I prefer a more freeform player-centric approach. My approach is currently unfashionable, and isn't supported at all by the current edition of the game, but it was the default for many years, including those years in which the game was at the height of its mass popularity.




To forstall other people just dumping on T.F., I must point out that he is quite correct in that there was a huge amount in the early editions of D&D where the player just said what he was doing and that was it (I hide in the shadows/poke the hole with my stick/dress up as a young giant) - and it worked fine for a game.

One of the most annoying offences I see coming up in 3e games is where someone says "I search inside the bedposts for a secret scroll case" and the DM says "roll your search check. 12? You don't find anything". In other words, there is no allowance given at all for role-playing through a situation and everything HAS to be reduced to rolls. (It is closely related to the problem where someone walking along a rainy street says he wants to avoid stepping in puddles so the DM makes him roll... while if he hadn't mentioned it, nothing would have happened!) Does this mean that I think having skills for various things is an abomination? Far from it! But it does illustrate how skill rolls can 'go bad'.

It is very difficult to get much of an objective view of what it was like playing D&D in 1e prior to the existence of the wilderness survival guide and underworld survival guide (which is where nonweapon proficiencies were introduced, IIRC) because there was probably much less contact with other players than there are in these internet forum days. 

I know that my subjective experience of 2-3 gaming groups from those days is much like T.F.'s; It would be interesting to hear from anyone who was part of the US convention circuit in the late 70's as they presumably had access to a wide range of gamers, even if convention games might be considered a little atypical of home games (I don't know enough to comment further there).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 3, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Well, you just can't have your cake and eat it. In the years when the game was at the height of its popularity, the most popular columns in magazines like Dragon and White Dwarf were those that featured new monsters. Your claim that your preferred style of play was the default doesn't stand up to a nanosecond of scrutiny. Similarly baseless is your contention that this style of play "is not supported at all by the current edition". On the contrary, it is supported far more now than it was in previous editions. Now everyone can climb a wall, to avoid combat, not just the thief.




Ranes, I think you are misunderstanding his assertion. If you wish to consider the discussion I'd ask you to use somewhat less aggressive language though.

Thanks


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sneaking around?  Other than the thief, no one could.



Other than the Thief no one could Move Silently.  Other than the Thief no one could Hide in Shadows.  Everyone can move quietly, disguise themselves and hide behind a corner or a barrel if necessary.

An Orc doesn't have Move Silently, but he can still Surprise a PC and a PC may still need to make a Hear Noise roll (something that all PCs can also do, not just Thieves, per the AD&D RAW) to hear an Orc walking around on the other side of a door.  Why?  Because Orcs, just like PCs, have the ability to be stealthy despite the fact that they don't have a percentage chance listed for Move Silently or Hide in Shadows.  



> Disguising yourself as a young hill giant?  That's pretty far outside the scope of the module and stretching believability an awful lot.



It's actually suggested as a possibility in the module with special rules included to cover what chance the giants have to see through the disguise.  So it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch now does it?




> And, even if you do do all of this, you still have to go into the main hall and face all those hill giants.



No, as a matter of fact, you don't.  The module makes clear that at some point, the party breaks up.  Some of the giants go off on their own.  Wait around long enough undetected and I suspect any good DM will realize that none of the giants are going to just sit in a single room for the rest of eternity.



> You played this way, and fair enough, but, I think that you are very, very much in a minority position here.



Not IME.  I find it absolutely stunning that any slightly experienced DM and group of players would treat this module as if all the rooms were static.  The descriptions establish what is going on at the Steading at the time of the PCs arrival, not what every encounter area looks like in perpetuity.  The text is full of non-combat options for moving around the Steading, gaining information, recruiting allies and "winning" without engaging in a full frontal assault.  

I've played in (3) and run (2) the Steading a number of times and I've never seen a party simply waltz in and start blasting.  I've seen the "burn it to the ground and mop up afterward" option used a couple of times.  I've seen the "get on the roof and use spells to spy out what's below" tactic used.  I've played in a game where the PCs combined the "dress up as young giants" tactic and the "recruit the orc slaves as allies" tactic successfully (a couple of _Enlarge_ spells and the Halfling Thief sitting on the Elf Fighter/MU's shoulders took care of the size problem).

It's really unfortunate that so many people in this thread seem to have missed out on all the nuance and depth of this module (which is possibly the greatest module ever published for D&D IMO) when it can be incredibly thought-provoking and fun if used as it was intended.   :\


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Mar 3, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> One of the most annoying offences I see coming up in 3e games is where someone says "I search inside the bedposts for a secret scroll case" and the DM says "roll your search check. 12? You don't find anything".



One of the most annoying things as a DM in earlier editions was that players would say "We turn the place upside-down, search everywhere."  ALWAYS.  Meaning "Just tell us what treasure there is, we don't care how cleverly hidden it is, we'll find it."  But we were much younger then, perhaps did not have the patience for detailed descriptions of all the furniture in the room and detailed plans for how to investigate each element.

So, I prefer Search checks with fixed DCs.  Players don't expect that they could possibly find absolutely everything no matter how well hidden.


----------



## phindar (Mar 3, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Other than the Thief no one could Move Silently. Other than the Thief no one could Hide in Shadows. Everyone can move quietly, disguise themselves and hide behind a corner or a barrel if necessary.



Without rules, these things only worked if the GM let them.  Same with Bluff and Disguise.  The thing about heavy GM fiat is with a good GM it can be great, and with a poor GM it can be horrible.  (Factor in that a majority of us were playing through these modules in high school, with GMs as new to the hobby as us, who thought the height of comedy was to get a bucket of poop on a character's head or to change their gender, and you can see why the infiltration of the giant's stronghold was not, let us say, an _industry-wide phenomenon_.)


----------



## Reynard (Mar 3, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> So, I prefer Search checks with fixed DCs.  Players don't expect that they could possibly find absolutely everything no matter how well hidden.




Plus there are those whole take 10 and take 20 rules so you don't have to worry about ridiculous outcomes.  If the DC is 12 and the searcher is at least a little competent or willing take his time, there's not problem.

That is probably my biggest pet peeve when it comes to people bagging on the idea that D&D 3.x requires rolls for everything: it flat out doesn't, hasn't since its inception, and builds systems into itself to take care of that problem right off the top.  Many complainers, I think, should actually read their PHBs and DMGs and they'd be a whole lot happier.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 3, 2007)

I would argue that by 3e RAW you are awarded for searching in specific locations. It takes far less time to find what you are looking for if you are more specific, and taking additional time searching an entire room might not always be a good decision. Of course, the 5' x 5' square gradient might not be specific enough for some.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Without rules, these things only worked if the GM let them.




If you read the next few lines of my post you'll see that I pointed out that there ARE rules for such things.  Every creature has a Hear Noise chance (covered in the DMG).  If characters are making an effort to be stealthy, the DM should be using those rolls (modified appropriately) to see if they are successful.  Every creature has a chance to be surprised, the DM should be modifying surprise rolls based on the party's actions (modifying surprise is also discussed in the DMG).  As for hiding behind a barrel, I'd say that's covered by the fact that the AD&D PHB and DMG mention several times that the DM should listen to what characters want to do and make appropriate rulings based on common sense when the rules aren't specific.  Why would you need a specific rule saying it's possible for a dwarf to hide behind a giant-sized barrel?   :\ 

It seems to me that the fault is not with the rules being uncomprehensive but with the players, in many cases, not bothering to read closely enough or not understanding how to apply what they read.  It's not fair to say the rules lack a mechanism for something simply because many people misunderstood how the mechanisms that were there were meant to be applied.


----------



## Baduin (Mar 3, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> ... I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...





Are you a Palainian? (From "Doc" Smith Lensman series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman#Planets_and_Places


----------



## phindar (Mar 3, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> As for hiding behind a barrel, I'd say that's covered by the fact that the AD&D PHB and DMG mention several times that the DM should listen to what characters want to do and make appropriate rulings based on common sense when the rules aren't specific.



An "appropriate ruling based on common sense" _*IS*_ the GM deciding.  (Saying, "If you hide behind a barrel, the GM decides whether or not you are successful," and, "If you hide behind a barrel, the GM makes an appropriate ruling based on common sense as to whether or not you are successful" is the same thing.)  

Bluffing and disguising you're way through the module, or cutting the bottoms off barrels and walking very slowly through the module, only works (in the absence of rules covering those activities) if the GM lets it.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...But as soon as we utilise those mechanics, and roll a die, you consider you've lost.
> 
> -Hyp.




I might be off-base on this one, but if I had to guess I'd say that T. Foster might come from the "if you want the PCs to fail, make them roll dice" school of GMing. That would explain the die-rolling minimalist approach he seems to be advocating.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 3, 2007)

weird double post problem...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 3, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> An "appropriate ruling based on common sense" _*IS*_ the GM deciding.



I've often wondered if the issue here is really _power_.

The GM 'just deciding' is bad because the player objects to the GM having that authority. It chafes to have someone else in the dominant position (even though that power structure is inherent in traditional RPG's, and has been since their inception). Having random chance + rules decide things is fine, because they're not the fat guy behind the screen sitting to your left drinking Mountain Dew. Now if he has power over you --however insignificant-- then we've got a problem... 

It's the only way this makes sense to me. Failure is failure, whether that's dictated by GM fiat or a bad die roll. If the end-result is the same, what difference does it make which resolution system is used?

Personally, I like both. Rules and fiat. Because sometimes I want to be challenged through my character ('Make a Bluff check') and other times I want to challenged directly as a player ('It's a cipher all right. You have 10 actual minutes to crack it. Go!').

There's no reason why a game can't incorporate both.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 3, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> 'It's a cipher all right.



"Finally! I knew those maxed-out ranks in Decipher Script would pay off one day!"



> You have 10 actual minutes to crack it. Go!



"...Wuh? But my character-!"



> There's no reason why a game can't incorporate both.



Except that it can make for a very uneven gaming experience. Your players will never quite know whether investing ranks in a social or mental skill is actually worthwhile.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 3, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> It came in the mail and 90% of the words were rewritten, including everything I thought made it exciting. AEG's jim pinto blamed developer Mearls for the hacking, and I was dissapointed.




90%? That's a lot of re-writing. Might as well have just written it himself.


----------



## mattcolville (Mar 3, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I googled this:
> 
> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html
> 
> ...




I haven't read Mike's review, but I did buy a copy of the D&D red box some time ago and read...well, tried to read, the Keep on the Borderlands module. Now, maybe this was a different version than the one everyone else is used to, but it was nearly unreadable and, I felt, unplayable. I mean, you could certainly use it as a series of encounters, but there was no indication of why anyone in the module was where they were, what they were doing there, what was expected of them, whether they were good guys or bad guys or, indeed, what, if anything, was supposed to happen.


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Mar 3, 2007)

There is merit to what T. Foster is saying. Killing monsters in previous editions was never as rewarding in experience as finding and hauling off treasure. Combat was also not as interesting as it is now.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 3, 2007)

MarkB said:
			
		

> "Finally! I knew those maxed-out ranks in Decipher Script would pay off one day!"



That's a sucker's bet.



> "...Wuh? But my character-!"



Isn't sitting at my table. 

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with always handling puzzle solving abstractly. Just by doing so the players are denied the pleasure of solving the puzzles themselves. Which some people find enjoyable.



> Except that it can make for a very uneven gaming experience.



Is uniform synonymous with _good_?  



> Your players will never quite know whether investing ranks in a social or mental skill is actually worthwhile.



That's very true. It is a trade-off. In return the players sometimes get cool puzzles to solve, codes to crack, and social situations they can navigate solely by their wits. It's all about making player input more important, givng players the satisfaction of succeeding _themselves_, not just through good die rolls.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Bluffing and disguising you're way through the module, or cutting the bottoms off barrels and walking very slowly through the module, only works (in the absence of rules covering those activities) if the GM lets it.




I've had this discussion too many times before to rehash everything again.  Suffice it to say that I don't believe extensive rules protect players from bad DMing as much as some people suggest and I've never encountered a situation in all my years of playing AD&D or Classic D&D where a DM would declare that a PC hiding behind a solid, opaque object many times larger than their own body was still visible to creatures on the other side of it.  Never.  Not once.  

If that happened to you, I'm sorry for you, but it's not an indictment against the rules it is a case of the DM you were playing with misunderstanding or misapplying the rules IMHO.  If the DM disallowed something like that in an AD&D game he was "breaking the rules" (i.e. - apply common sense) just as much as a DM in a 3e game telling you your natural 20 roll on a Fort save still fails because it didn't beat the DC.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 3, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> One of the most annoying offences I see coming up in 3e games is where someone says "I search inside the bedposts for a secret scroll case" and the DM says "roll your search check. 12? You don't find anything". In other words, there is no allowance given at all for role-playing through a situation and everything HAS to be reduced to rolls.




Sorry, Plane, but that is just not true. From the DMG, page 32, "General Versus Specific":



> However, in the second example, the character has specialized knowledge of the situation. She's asking specific questions. In such cases, always award the character a +2 bonus for favorable conditions. It's good to reward a character who has knowledge that allows her to ask specific questions.




If a player tells me "I search the room", the DC to find the hidden scroll case in the bedpost might be 20 or more. If he tells me "I search the bedpost for a secret scroll case", the DC might drop to 10 or less.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 4, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> If a player tells me "I search the room", the DC to find the hidden scroll case in the bedpost might be 20 or more. If he tells me "I search the bedpost for a secret scroll case", the DC might drop to 10 or less.



That's a move in the right direction, at least, and I'd be happier playing in a game where my actions could at least affect the DC of the roll in this manner (though of course Taking 20 on an "I search the room" would grant the same result, so the effort seems only marginally worth it), but it still seems to me that if there's a scroll case hidden in the bedpost and someone specifies that he's searching the bedpost for secret compartments that he should be able to find it without requiring any roll at all.

Which brings up another point that I'm probably remiss for not mentioning yesterday (but I forgot, and that's the true reason -- I'm not just making this up now, shucking and jiving and changing my position in response to criticism, as I've too often been accused of): that as a DM I'll tend to let a player substitute roleplaying (by which I mean not just in-character interaction but also things like calling out specifically how he's doing a search, solving a puzzle, etc.) for die rolls and if he succeeds (finds the trap, solves the puzzle, convinces the NPC) without requiring a roll then he succeeds, but if he doesn't succeed he can still fall back on the die-roll as a second-chance or "insurance" and possibly still succeed (but control is then out of his hands, of course). 

I think it's more fun when the players themselves are actively involved, not just calling out abstract actions and rolling dice ("I bluff the guard," "I search for traps," "I solve the puzzle") and want to encourage them to play that way, but I also realize that sometimes you'd rather just cut to the chase and roll a die (especially if your character sheet is better at a particular action than you as a player are -- as a low or moderate-Cha character I'd rather play out negotiations with NPCs, but as an 18 Cha paladin you can damn well bet I'll be wanting to make as many Cha-based die rolls as possible; likewise as a 1st level thief with a 10% find traps skill you can be sure I'll be trying to roll that as little as possible where I can get away with roleplaying out the searches -- "I use my mirror to do x," "I use my ball of beeswax to do y," etc. -- but when I'm 10th level and my chance is 80% I'll be more willing to trust fate (but not _totally_ -- a 1 in 5 chance of instant death (the likely result of most traps at 10th level) is still too much in my book...)). 

This approach makes the game a bit easier (since players get essentially two chances to succeed at just about everything -- once as players and as characters) but I don't mind terribly since it allows me to create tougher adventures for lower-level characters, to include more traps and puzzles and secret doors and monsters that must be negotiated with, i.e. more of the things I find fun about the game.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It's actually suggested as a possibility in the module with special rules included to cover what chance the giants have to see through the disguise. So it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch now does it?




See, this is my problem.  As a player, how would it even occur to me to do this?  There's nothing in the rules to even remotely suggest that I could disguise myself (let alone disguise my halfling thief) as a young hill giant.  Unless the DM specifically suggested it to the players, how would they know to do it?


----------



## Ranes (Mar 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Ranes, I think you are misunderstanding his assertion. If you wish to consider the discussion I'd ask you to use somewhat less aggressive language though.
> 
> Thanks




I think otherwise. I think there is merit to some of what TF said but I felt it was couched in terms that were ultimately untenable and framed in language that tended to the disingenuous. I was careful in my response to attack his arguments and not engage in ad hominum. However, I heed your words oh dude responsible for much of my formative D&D experience.

And without quoting line after line of TF's last post on this subject, I get it and can go along with it. So there.

Aren't Mr Mearls's contributions stimulating?


----------



## Ourph (Mar 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, this is my problem.  As a player, how would it even occur to me to do this?  There's nothing in the rules to even remotely suggest that I could disguise myself (let alone disguise my halfling thief) as a young hill giant.  Unless the DM specifically suggested it to the players, how would they know to do it?




How can a lack of creativity or imagination on the part of the players be the fault of the rules or the author of the module?  You think of it because the rulebooks encourage you numerous times, as a player, to use creativity and problem solving skills to accomplish your goals rather than brute force.  You think of it because you're looking for a way to move about the Steading unnoticed and you come across a room full of Giant's cloaks.  You think of it because of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser disguising themselves as beggars to sneak into the Thieves Guild or Han and Luke disguising themselves as Stormtroopers to sneak into the Imperial cell block to rescue Princess Leia.  It's really not that difficult, is it?


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> How can a lack of creativity or imagination on the part of the players be the fault of the rules or the author of the module?  You think of it because the rulebooks encourage you numerous times, as a player, to use creativity and problem solving skills to accomplish your goals rather than brute force.  You think of it because you're looking for a way to move about the Steading unnoticed and you come across a room full of Giant's cloaks.  You think of it because of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser disguising themselves as beggars to sneak into the Thieves Guild or Han and Luke disguising themselves as Stormtroopers to sneak into the Imperial cell block to rescue Princess Leia.  It's really not that difficult, is it?



 "You're not frickin' giants, now stop faffing around" would be my reply to people trying to pretend to be giants. Even baby giants.

What you call "creativity and imagination" many others call "reading the DM's mind". Or perhaps "bullshtting the DM", since the probability of success of reading the DM's mind seems highly correlated with having a strong personality.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> "You're not frickin' giants, now stop faffing around" would be my reply to people trying to pretend to be giants. Even baby giants.
> 
> What you call "creativity and imagination" many others call "reading the DM's mind". Or perhaps "bullshtting the DM", since the probability of success of reading the DM's mind seems highly correlated with having a strong personality.




How can it be "reading the DM's mind" when it is just one of endless possibilities in a game where you can attempt whatever you want?


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> How can it be "reading the DM's mind" when it is just one of endless possibilities in a game where you can attempt whatever you want?



 Call it "going through a checklist of endless possibilities until you find one that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the DM has of plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude", then.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Call it "going through a checklist of endless possibilities until you find one that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the DM has of plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude", then.




Even if that were true, there could be only one?  Come on.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Call it "going through a checklist of endless possibilities until you find the first one that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the DM has of plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude", then.




FIFY


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> How can it be "reading the DM's mind" when it is just one of endless possibilities in a game where you can attempt whatever you want?




One of my old players jokingly used to say that I waited for the PCs to say key words in order to move the game along. So, as soon as a PC said "elf," the next plot point would occur and not before.

"Endless possibilities" is, I think, a red herring. Yes, the PCs can try whatever the players can think of. But, if the module tells the DM that the PCs can either fight through an area or disguise themselves as baby hill giants, then oftentimes those are the two things that will actually _work_. What are the odds that the players are going to think that particular thing?


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 4, 2007)

Ah, I glossed over "_first_".

But anyway, what you've described is the job of a DM in my eyes - determine plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude.

Example:
"That skinny anemic wizard sure is gonna have an extra hard time pulling off being giant child, I'll apply a circumstance penalty."

or, determining the plausibility of a bluff attempt to modify the sense motive check.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Ah, I glossed over "_first_".




That's because I fixed it. 



> But anyway, what you've described is the job of a DM in my eyes - determine plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude.
> 
> Example:
> "That skinny anemic wizard sure is gonna have an extra hard time pulling off being giant child, I'll apply a circumstance penalty."
> ...




See, plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude are in the eye of the beholder. Is it creative to come up with fancy ways to divine a secret, using commune, contact other plane, etc? Players who like divination spells will probably think so, viewing the spells as being simply tools to be used like any other. A DM who's spent hours creating a mystery might think otherwise, however.

Similarly, is it smart tactics or foolishness to try to dress up as a giant if you're not? I think it's just silly. Someone else might think different. That's what the rules are for, to minimise the chances of conflicting assumptions. So I might think it's silly for the ordinary joe, but if you have Disguise +20 then you're clearly not an ordinary joe and I'll give it a chance.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 4, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What are the odds that the players are going to think that particular thing?





And what are the odds that the players are going to think of something totally different that is brilliant and the DM didn't even consider before they mention it?  

Maybe it is just my style of DMing, but I rarely figure out the solutions to problems - I just create problems/scenarios and see how the players have their character's approach it.  I may consider the likeliest possibilities - but in my experience players  can be unpredictable.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> And what are the odds that the players are going to think of something totally different that is brilliant and the DM didn't even consider before they mention it?




Depending on the DM-player dynamics in question, the DM may well make a snap decision that it's ludicrous and forbid it from happening. Going from all the stories of DMs kiboshing ideas that are "totally different", I say this is more likely than not.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Maybe it is just my style of DMing, but I rarely figure out the solutions to problems - I just create problems/scenarios and see how the players have their character's approach it.  I may consider the likeliest possibilities - but in my experience players  can be unpredictable.




One of the cardinal rules of DMing is that it won't take long for the PCs to do something so unexpected that it derails everything you had planned after that point. And, I often live for those moments. But, the problem I see here is that the module is building in an expectation of the DM for a particular situation that will probably never arise in 90% of games. Putting this expectation in the mind of the DM is only reinforcing a mindset of what I call "say elf to proceed."


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> That's what the rules are for, to minimise the chances of conflicting assumptions.





I guess I disagree with that.  The rules create a framework to describe the action, and when action falls out of the framework (which it often does), it is the job of the DM to create a quick patch on the fly and move on.

Conflicting assumptions are a matter of the social contract aspect of the game.  You trust your DM to be even-handed and open-minded to the hair-brained schemes people can come up with some times, and the DM trusts the players to be creative and reasonable and respect the limits of the game even if they push at them a little bit every now and again.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Depending on the DM-player dynamics in question, the DM may well make a snap decision that it's ludicrous and forbid it from happening. Going from all the stories of DMs kiboshing ideas that are "totally different", I say this is more likely than not.





Right, it is all about dynamics, not rules. . . See above.

In my case, if I thought something was totally whacked, I would look to my players and say, "I think this is totally whacked and has a slim to no chance of working, wanna go over your thinking about it again, so I can see if I am missing something?"

And after we talk about it a bit, if I still think it is too nuts, I say "You can try it, but the level of difficulty I imagine is going to mean you will need to be _lucky_ to pull it off (i.e. high DCs or frequent checks, or some combination). . . And if they still want to do it, they do it and deal with the consequences.

And if not, then not. . .  we move on and they think of something else. .  it is part of the reason why the GM is also called referee. . .   They accept it because they also trust me to keep an open mind and work with them to keep the game fun.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 4, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original.
> /M





Yeah, that's why this thing:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





didn't sell well at all.


----------



## Ranes (Mar 4, 2007)

Imagine if there'd never been a B2 for Hackmaster to play on. That's what Maggan was saying.


----------



## Felon (Mar 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Example:
> "That skinny anemic wizard sure is gonna have an extra hard time pulling off being giant child, I'll apply a circumstance penalty."




Anyone else around here watch "Scrubs"? 

Anyway, a part of me just wants to vomit when I read these lunchtime campaign reports, even knowing that they're intentionally trying to come up with the most min-maxed, overpowered classes they can get away with in an "anything goes" environment. Notice how consistently the pets are the actual stars of the battle.


----------



## jasin (Mar 4, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> That's a move in the right direction, at least, and I'd be happier playing in a game where my actions could at least affect the DC of the roll in this manner (though of course Taking 20 on an "I search the room" would grant the same result, so the effort seems only marginally worth it),



Taking 20 on the bedpost takes 2 minutes. Taking 20 on even a 10' x 10' room (a rather smallish room, as rooms in D&D go) would take 8 minutes. In a game where powerful spells last in minutes, it is very much worth the effort.

Of course, you could just clear out the dungeon/temple/cave/whatever completely and then systematically take 20 everywhere, but then, you can do that even with descriptive searching. "They're all dead. We search everywhere. _Everywhere_."



> but it still seems to me that if there's a scroll case hidden in the bedpost and someone specifies that he's searching the bedpost for secret compartments that he should be able to find it without requiring any roll at all.



Do you think it works like that in the real world? Do you think a secret service agent or a career criminal couldn't hide something so well that an ordinary person simply couldn't find it, because it's not a skill they live by?

And D&D characters are like secret service agents and career criminal and better.



> I think it's more fun when the players themselves are actively involved, not just calling out abstract actions and rolling dice ("I bluff the guard," "I search for traps," "I solve the puzzle")



I agree, but even though having a skill for everything does encourage the abstract approach, ultimately, if the DM and the players want the game to be more descriptive and less abstract, they should be more descriptive and less abstract.

For the specific cases, "I bluff the guard" is too much for me. Tell me what you say, and your roll (modified if appropriate) will decide whether he buys it.

"I search for traps" is just fine, since I don't expect people I play with to know the first thing about searching for traps, and neither do I. But if someone wants to get more specific for colour, that's great. "I slowly tap on the door from top to bottom listening for" &c. &c. won't let you find the trap without a roll, but hey, it won't get you killed without a roll either because I decided that's the wrong way to go about it, so I guess that's even.

"I solve the puzzle" is something I have never, ever seen allowed or expected. We've had a great puzzle last week in our first Savage Tide session (Dungeon adventure, so one would guess this is as close to "default" D&D as possible) and while knowledge skills possibly could have provided more information/clues, ultimately the puzzle had to be solved by player thinking. But then, that was a great puzzle, one that's obvious and puzzling at the same time, so anyone can reasonably solve it, rather than something that's hard for the players, but is just an application of a skill. With a "puzzle" like that, the DM shouldn't be surprised when the players expect to use the skill in question to solve it.


----------



## phindar (Mar 4, 2007)

> I've often wondered if the issue here is really power.
> 
> The GM 'just deciding' is bad because the player objects to the GM having that authority.



This issue is power in this regard: If you have a really good GM, giving him a lot of power is a good thing.  If you have a really bad GM, giving him a lot of power is a bad thing.  Since most GMs fall somewhere in between, and since any GM can have an off-night, having consistent, agreed-upon rules heads off problems rather than creates them.  (You can sub "players" for "GM" in that sentence and it works too.)

Its a lot better to have rules and not need them than to need rules and not have them.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 4, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> That's a move in the right direction, at least, and I'd be happier playing in a game where my actions could at least affect the DC of the roll in this manner (though of course Taking 20 on an "I search the room" would grant the same result, so the effort seems only marginally worth it), but it still seems to me that if there's a scroll case hidden in the bedpost and someone specifies that he's searching the bedpost for secret compartments that he should be able to find it without requiring any roll at all.




I can actually think of a couple of ways a secret scroll case might be hidden inside a bedpost that someone who's examining it might not find it.



> I think it's more fun when the players themselves are actively involved, not just calling out abstract actions and rolling dice ("I bluff the guard," "I search for traps," "I solve the puzzle")...




"I bluff the guard" is actually not allowed by the rules, since it must be determined if the bluff is believable or too out there, which increases the DC. The bluff rules actually *require* that the player states what he's trying to convince the NPC of.

"I search for traps" is fine, although, as I mentioned, I lower the DC for specifics ("I search for traps in front of the fireplace").

"I solve the puzzle" can't be used, because there's no Puzzle Solving skill in D&D. To be fair to a player whose character has Int 18 or something, I might call for Intelligence checks and give out a couple of clues based on the result. Other skills might be used to garner clues, like Knoweldge or Decipher Script (like in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's alphabet puzzle).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2007)

Look, I wasn't bagging on the G series of modules at all.  My specific beef was T Foster's assertion that some versions of D&D promote role play.

Ballocks.

No version of D&D, including the current one, give any benefit at all to role play.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  3e gives a glancing nod in the direction with ad hoc xp awards, but, even that's buried at the back of the xp awards section.  If I role play my cleric to such heights of wonder than the other players (not their characters, but the actual players) instantly convert to the worship of my diety, the rules give me exactly zero reward.

And it never has.  

The only thing you generally get xp for is killing stuff.  You used to get it for taking its treasure too, but, that's gone now.  Even 2e, which gets touted as the "role players D&D" only gave bonus xp to the fighter for killing stuff.  Nothing else.

If your group role played your way through G1, more power to you.  Bravo.  Excellent.  That's great.  But, it had exactly nothing to do with the system you were playing and everything to do with the group.  That my group when Texas Chainsaw Massacre on the giants and everything else in there is good on me.  We had a blast.  But, in no case did either of us do anything wrong.  ((Well, to be honest, in my case, we likely did all sorts of things wrong by the rules, but that's a different issue  ))  

I find it bewildering when people try to tout any version of D&D as a high rp system.  There's a reason D&D has been seen as the quintessential beer and pretzels game.  The game has always been about killing stuff and taking its loot, at least the mechanics have been.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No version of D&D, including the current one, give any benefit at all to role play.  None.  Zip.  Zero.




That's kind of dependent on how you define "role play".  If you are using a very narrow definition involving amateur acting, then you are correct: there is not and has never beena  mechanical benefit in D&D for speaking in a funny voice. (NOTE: Although I am being sarcastic, I happen to be one of those ham it up, funny voice amateur actor DMs, so i am not bagging on it.)

But role-playing goes far beyond the "acting" and doesn't have to include it all.  A person can control their character in entirely the third person and still role-play.  In the context of the RPG, role-playing is -- and this is as concise a definition as I can give it, and I am sure others will disgree with a fervor -- taking on the role of a character.  Even if you treat that roll as little more thana  piece on a battle board, you are, in the context of an RPG, still role-playing.

"Grognar flies into a rage and eviscerates the ogre." is just good as "Blaargh! Stupid Oger.  You've angered Grognar.  Now, DIE!!!aayy!!!"

@nd edition in particular rewarded roleplaying with its XP awards.  Each class (role) got bonus xp for actions related to the class (role-playing).  3rd edition has made it easier than ever to support role-playing: it is no longer a matter of whether you kill everything in the room, because XP is gained from overcoming challenges, no matter what they are or how it is done.  That definitely facilitates role-playing.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 4, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's why this thing:
> 
> didn't sell well at all.




It didn't sell? Well, that would just prove my point then.

.
..
...

Ok, seriously, I haven't read The Little Keep on the Borderlands, so I don't know anything about its contents, so I can't juge its merits as compared to Keep on the Borderlands.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2007)

> @nd edition in particular rewarded roleplaying with its XP awards. Each class (role) got bonus xp for actions related to the class (role-playing). 3rd edition has made it easier than ever to support role-playing: it is no longer a matter of whether you kill everything in the room, because XP is gained from overcoming challenges, no matter what they are or how it is done. That definitely facilitates role-playing.




The only bonus xp a fighter got in 2nd edition was for killing stuff.  Wizards got bonus xp for casting spells (yeah, that was a hard bonus to get  ).  

Even playing entirely in the third person, at no time in the game has a PC been rewarded by the mechanics for talking to an NPC.  My cleric could rise to become the grand high mucketymuck of his church, but, from a mechanics point of view, I would receive nothing.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Anyway, a part of me just wants to vomit when I read these lunchtime campaign reports, even knowing that they're intentionally trying to come up with the most min-maxed, overpowered classes they can get away with in an "anything goes" environment. Notice how consistently the pets are the actual stars of the battle.




I think its important for the game designers to look at the game from that perspective. If they just stick to the 25 point buy iconic characters like they were in the beginning, then they won't be able to accurately judge how all the new material interacts with itself.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 4, 2007)

> I guess I disagree with that. The rules create a framework to describe the action, and when action falls out of the framework (which it often does), it is the job of the DM to create a quick patch on the fly and move on.




The two aren't incompatible. That framework minimizes the chances that there are two valid interpretations: the rules tell you what the valid interpretation is (and how to create quick patches that follow the same principles as the basic rules).


----------



## Ourph (Mar 4, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Similarly, is it smart tactics or foolishness to try to dress up as a giant if you're not? I think it's just silly. Someone else might think different. That's what the rules are for, to minimise the chances of conflicting assumptions. So I might think it's silly for the ordinary joe, but if you have Disguise +20 then you're clearly not an ordinary joe and I'll give it a chance.




I hear all the time here on ENworld that the PCs are supposed to be heroes.  They are supposed to have above average ability scores, they are supposed to have significant stories in their backgrounds other than "he was a pig farmer", they are supposed to be special.

If these are heroes (and if we're talking about Steading, these aren't some green 1st level nobodies, they're name level or very nearly so actual heroes) why would you treat their disguise attempt as if they were "ordinary joe"?  Why do you need a specific number on the character sheet to tell you that these people are special?

Also, you'll notice that I mentioned above the disguise attempt was coupled with the use of 1) Magic (_Enlarge Person_, and 2) PC "stacking", so it's not as if the characters were all walking around at their normal height assuming the giants were just going to overlook it.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Look, I wasn't bagging on the G series of modules at all.  My specific beef was T Foster's assertion that some versions of D&D promote role play.
> 
> Ballocks.




Except that's not what T. Foster was saying, at all.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 4, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Also, you'll notice that I mentioned above the disguise attempt was coupled with the use of 1) Magic (_Enlarge Person_, and 2) PC "stacking", so it's not as if the characters were all walking around at their normal height assuming the giants were just going to overlook it.




PC Stacking?  Scooby Doo / Alvin and the Chipmunks style?

-Hyp.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 4, 2007)

At first blush, the "disguise ourselves as giants" thing seemed kind of silly, to me.  However, I changed my mind about that, for the following reasons:

1  giants aren't the brightest bulbs around
2  there's a literary tradition where heroes take advantage of #1
3  magic could help

I think the PC heros disguising themselves to fool the giants "fits."  It puts me in mind of Molly Whuppie tricking the giant's wife into the bag, or Gandalf keeping the trolls arguing until sunrise, or Jack the Giant Killer tricking the third giant into stabbing himself at breakfast.  Et cetera.


----------



## phindar (Mar 4, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If that happened to you, I'm sorry for you, but it's not an indictment against the rules it is a case of the DM you were playing with misunderstanding or misapplying the rules IMHO.




Well, I agree with you here.  Its in no way an indictment of the 1e rules for bluffing, disguising or sneaking through the G Series; since you can't indict something that doesn't exist(see _Keyser Soze_).

A GM who thought you had a chance to impersonate giants (or hide a man in full plate carrying a 6' sword behind a barrel) would let you do it.  One who didn't, wouldn't.  There's nothing wrong with it other than its completely dependent on the GM, and so success and failure is based entirely on what one guy at the table thinks.  

And GMs are human, so sometimes their idea of what will and won't work is entirely wonked.  I've played in games where the gm decided on the correct course of action and would punish the party for not doing it (and not consciously, just if you deviated from what he thought was 'right', it was skewed against you). All I can say is, for a group of players, it’s not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> PC Stacking?  Scooby Doo / Alvin and the Chipmunks style?
> 
> -Hyp.




I was thinking more along the lines of the _Scrubs_ "Worlds Most Giant Doctor".



			
				phindar said:
			
		

> And GMs are human, so sometimes their idea of what will and won't work is entirely wonked. I've played in games where the gm decided on the correct course of action and would punish the party for not doing it (and not consciously, just if you deviated from what he thought was 'right', it was skewed against you). All I can say is, for a group of players, it’s not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.




I've played in several games like that too.  Many of them using 3.0 or 3.5 rules.  As I said above, I don't buy the notion that more comprehensive rules is somehow a protection from bad DMing.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 4, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> A GM who thought you had a chance to impersonate giants (or hide a man in full plate carrying a 6' sword behind a barrel) would let you do it.



Yes.



> One who didn't, wouldn't.



Yes. 



> There's nothing wrong with it other than its completely dependent on the GM, and so success and failure is based entirely on what one guy at the table thinks.



Yes. However, like I said before, it's a trade-off. The more you simulate --emphasizing the character's skills-- the less enjoyment the players get from solving problems themselves. Putting it another way, which do enjoy more, outcomes or the process through which those outcomes are achieved? 

For me, playing RPG's is all about that process; the kind of inspired-yet-half-witted brainstorming sessions that produce plans like "I know, we'll disguise ourselves as giant _midgets_!"   

If I wanted a sensible game, I'd stick to chess.



> And GMs are human, so sometimes their idea of what will and won't work is entirely wonked.



Yes. But how is that any different from a DM who sticks to the RAW? Ultimately, the scenario's logic is tied to the DM's conception of things, unless, of course, they never deviate from someone's else's script.

You're still hosed with a bad DM who obeys the rules. Just in a different way (from one who sometimes ad-libs the task resolution system).



> ...it’s not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.



Then don't.


----------



## phindar (Mar 4, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> As I said above, I don't buy the notion that more comprehensive rules is somehow a protection from bad DMing.



Yes, but.  What protection are no rules?  



			
				Mallas said:
			
		

> Putting it another way, which do enjoy more, outcomes or the process through which those outcomes are achieved?



I think you should probably enjoy the process since, you know, you're going to be _doing_ it for awhile.  But if the process by which you arrive at the outcome doesn't make any sense--if you don't believe it--there's no real satisfaction in what happens.  (The rule in games in the rule of sketch comedy, _If they buy the premise, they'll buy the joke._)



> The more you simulate --emphasizing the character's skills-- the less enjoyment the players get from solving problems themselves.



This one I don't get.  If I make a character that puts a bunch of points into Hide, hiding will be less satisfying than if I don't, and just tell the GM I'm hiding behind a barrel?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Mar 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, this is my problem.  As a player, how would it even occur to me to do this?  There's nothing in the rules to even remotely suggest that I could disguise myself (let alone disguise my halfling thief) as a young hill giant.  Unless the DM specifically suggested it to the players, how would they know to do it?



This is _exactly_ what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules. 

They should "know to do it" by _role-playing_ the situation. That's part of the skill-set of players that is independent of any ruleset. That sort of "free form" action taking is what sold me on RPGs years ago.

This is also why I believe "rules-lite" games actually provide _more_ options.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 4, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Yes. However, like I said before, it's a trade-off. The more you simulate --emphasizing the character's skills-- the less enjoyment the players get from solving problems themselves. Putting it another way, which do enjoy more, outcomes or the process through which those outcomes are achieved?
> 
> For me, playing RPG's is all about that process; the kind of inspired-yet-half-witted brainstorming sessions that produce plans like "I know, we'll disguise ourselves as giant _midgets_!"



 

"Solving problems" = make up any "half-witted" nonsensical "plan" and browbeat the DM into  agreeing that it will work????  

Fait accompli is the opposite of a process.  

Without the rules setting a system that the problem works in, there is no real problem.


> If I wanted a sensible game, I'd stick to chess.



Then why pay for any game material at all?
If you don't want sense, then by defintion you want nonsense.
I don't need any books or guidelines for that.
If somehow surreal absurdity and noncohesion is what you want, then for god's sake have fun at it.  But clearly you must see that this is a very far tangent preference.



> Yes. But how is that any different from a DM who sticks to the RAW?



meh, that is a total red herring.

I've encountered plenty of really bad gms who throw out one, two, or all the rules on their path to whichever form of bad gming they endulge.
I've yet to game with anyone who played absolute RAW in the first place.  And even moreso, it is standard to the point of not worth mentioning that rules that are normally followed are briefly set aside when specific game circumstances make them a bad fit.  Other than the completely understandable and tansient exception of a total newbie gm, the RAW slave is pretty much a myth.

There are great rules heavy gms and great rules light gms.  There are crap rules heavy gms and crap rules light gms.  But the supposed raw slave/bull in the china shop comparison does not hold up in reality.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 4, 2007)

As an aside, I recently revisited my Dragon Review thread and came upon my review of the issue that covered the tournament where the Giants series was ran here.

The relevant section:


			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> "The Battle for Snurre's Hall - The Origins '78 D&D Tournament" gives a synopsis of the first two rounds of the tournament, and details of the last round by two members of the team that won the event. This was a West Virginia group who describes their style as "slash and hack with a large dose of planning and cunning tossed in to insure our escape." It should be noted the winners are listed and the group had 9 players.
> 
> Round one had the group assaulting a hill giant's stronghold, round two had them enter a frost giant's lair and the final round lead them to a hall of fire giants. Hmmm...this sounds somewhat familiar. Actually, it's noted by the editor (and DM of the second round) that they will be amazed at how much they missed when they read Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. All three modules are "pimped" in this article, noting they cost $4.49 each (which is $13.72 in today's dollars) except for G3 which is $4.99 ($15.25).


----------



## phindar (Mar 4, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.
> 
> They should "know to do it" by role-playing the situation. That's part of the skill-set of players that is independent of any ruleset. That sort of "free form" action taking is what sold me on RPGs years ago.
> 
> This is also why I believe "rules-lite" games actually provide more options.



I disagree, but I'm not against rules-lite games.  (Though I can't say any edition of D&D really qualifies as "rules-lite", except for Original.  The books have always been packed full of rules, and every group tends to find their way to using as many of them as they want.)  I think that players can fall into either trap, not doing things because the rules don't cover it, or only doing what the rules do cover.  But you can't blame a lack of player creativity on the rules they are using.  

I'm not a big fan of heavy GM-fiat or "Mother May I" mechanics.  I'd rather have rules that cover the situation (say like Bluff, or Disguise, if I'm going to solve a lot of problems using those skills), for pretty much the same reason that I think the combat rules work better than me describing how I would hit a giant, and the GM deciding how effective such an attack would be.  The mechanic of the game shouldn't be solely dependent on my ability to "sell" anybody on how likely my chosen course of action is, even (or especially) if that's what I'm good at it.  If for no other reason than its unfair to the player who isn't as persuasive as I.

I don't think having rules for things hinders the role-playing aspects of those things.  If I'm playing a character with a Bluff skill, I'm going to roleplay that character differently than I would if he didn't have the skill-- much the same as I would play a 10 Int character differently than a 16 Int character.  If bluffing is going to be a part of the game, I'd rather have the rules for it than it just be something that works only when the GM wants it to.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Also, you'll notice that I mentioned above the disguise attempt was coupled with the use of 1) Magic (_Enlarge Person_, and 2) PC "stacking",




. . .

. . .

I think I'll just bring my frickin' lightsabers to the next session.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> At first blush, the "disguise ourselves as giants" thing seemed kind of silly, to me.  However, I changed my mind about that, for the following reasons:




Bad Philotomy Jurament! Attempting to retroactively change one's mind about a decision that needs to be made on the spur of the moment!


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This is _exactly_ what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.



I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier. 

Finding the balance between the two is, for me, where good DMing lives. The kind of DMs I prefer say "yes" a lot more than they say "no," even in a rules-heavy game.


----------



## Ranes (Mar 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This is _exactly_ what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.




No argument. 



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> They should "know to do it" by _role-playing_ the situation. That's part of the skill-set of players that is independent of any ruleset.




There are as many - if not more - disadvantages to this than the alternative.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> That sort of "free form" action taking is what sold me on RPGs years ago.




Freeform action and rules to determine how to manage freeform actions are not mutually incompatible. In fact, they can lend verisimilitude to a player's free choice of action. This is what sold me on RPGs many years ago.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This is also why I believe "rules-lite" games actually provide _more_ options.




This is, in my opinion, delusional. When you look at any rules-light system (and I've been - and still am - a fan of several), that's the conclusion you tend to reach. Once you start playing the system extensively, you end up adjudicating (ie creating new rules) to accommodate that plentitude of scenarios not covered by your seductively light rules. Eventually, you end up with a rule set you have mostly written yourself. Along the way, you might have collected several rules others created that you realise may possibly save you time in the future. After a quarter of a century or so, you have something similar in size to 3.5 or you have new players or you have players that are used to - and do not mind - inconstant rulings.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 5, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> But if the process by which you arrive at the outcome doesn't make any sense--if you don't believe it--there's no real satisfaction in what happens.



Who said the process didn't make sense? All I did was characterize your typical PC "plan" as inspired yet half-witted, and I stand by that.



> If I make a character that puts a bunch of points into Hide, hiding will be less satisfying than if I don't, and just tell the GM I'm hiding behind a barrel?



Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually _solve_ it. Which is bad if they like riddles.

That's all  I'm talking about re: processes and outcomes. 

And even with hiding, I certainly enjoy 'telling the DM I'm hiding behind a barrel" more than just rolling a Hide check. In the same way I prefer to cook up my own lies when I try to bluff an NPC. I enjoy creating as many of the solutions as I can myself, and abstracting away only what really needs to be abstracted. Like all the hitting and the burning and such


----------



## Ranes (Mar 5, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually _solve_ it.




Says who? How do you know that the player who decides to make Int his key characteristic isn't happy that it pays off when the time comes for his character to shine, especially when the player knows he isn't the world's sharpest tool in the box but wants to roleplay a character who is?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 5, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Bad Philotomy Jurament! Attempting to retroactively change one's mind about a decision that needs to be made on the spur of the moment!



Nah, it's a decision that can be made on the DM read-through.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.



To bring this thread back to Mearls, his _Book of Iron Might_ includes a D&D-oriented version of the stunt and challenge rules he would later incorporate into _Iron Heroes_ - rules which allow any character to attempt any action, with balanced tradeoffs that don't really require adjudication via on-the-spot DM fiat.

So, not all rules are exclusive, though I grant that a lot of rules seem this way. That Third Edition D&D, for instance, doesn't have a "wild swing" option like a lesser version of Power Attack, akin to fighting defensively as a lesser version of Combat Expertise, is a real shame and a small weakness in the system. Coincidentally, the _Book of Iron Might_ *does* include a Power Attack-lite among its combat challenges.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.
> 
> Finding the balance between the two is, for me, where good DMing lives. The kind of DMs I prefer say "yes" a lot more than they say "no," even in a rules-heavy game.



QFT.

In a rules-light system, the DM would make a ruling (not necessarily invent a new rule that must be perpetuated).  In a rules-heavy system, a non-qualified character might still be able to swing on the chandelier, but not as well as a qualified character could (which might also require a ruling).


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 5, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> To bring this thread back to Mearls, his _Book of Iron Might_ includes a D&D-oriented version of the stunt and challenge rules he would later incorporate into _Iron Heroes_ - rules which allow any character to attempt any action, with balanced tradeoffs that don't really require adjudication via on-the-spot DM fiat.



I think Iron Heroes has a lot going for it; I much prefer a "stunt" or "maneuver" approach (where any character can attempt the action) over a feat-based approach, in most cases.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 5, 2007)

Yes. The _Book of Iron Might_/_Iron Heroes_ approach can be summed up as: anyone can pull off a fancy trick, but feats are available to make fancy tricks easier or more effective if you want to really excel.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Nah, it's a decision that can be made on the DM read-through.




Bad Philotomy Jurament! Attempting to conduct a DM read-through after the game is over!


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.
> 
> Finding the balance between the two is, for me, where good DMing lives. The kind of DMs I prefer say "yes" a lot more than they say "no," even in a rules-heavy game.




I agree, but everyone can't find the sort of DM you prefer (or at least get in their game).  I believe that most of the players here are used to having access to quality DMs and forget that it's not necessarily the norm. 

I've seen plenty of games where "anyone can swing on a chandelier" isn't true.  If there aren't rules for it, either a DM defaults to saying you can't do it, or it depends on his mood or how he envisions the encounter flowing.  These aren't horrible DMs either, they just are middle-of-the-road DMs with flaws and strengths.  

With a great DM the rules set used isn't important.  With a poor DM, the rules set doesn't matter either.  With a middle-of-the-road DM, rules help them (assuming the rules are good rules, and that's another complete discussion).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 5, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> "Solving problems" = make up any "half-witted" nonsensical "plan" and browbeat the DM into  agreeing that it will work????



You've put a lot of words in my mouth, allow me to take some out...

I didn't say "any", or "nonsensical". I didn't say (nor imply) that the players should browbeat the DM. The situations I'm talking about are collaborative. 

If you disagree with my characterization of (what has been my experience of) typical D&D play, then let's discuss it. Don't get all riled up over words I didn't use.



> Without the rules setting a system that the problem works in, there is no real problem.



So problem solving can't exist without a formal set of rules? Who decides what constitutes a formal enough set? What about all the problem-solving I did back in previous editions of D&D (or in 3.0+ when the DM set aside the written task resolution system and allowed player input/knowledge to solely decide the outcome)? Did that not really happen because it occurred "outside a system"?



> If you don't want sense, then by definition you want nonsense.



Speaking of nonsense...

Every D&D campaign I've ever seen, at some level, resembled a violent cartoon, in which characters used outlandish strategies to overcome often equally outlandish obstacles. Unlike a more sensible game, like chess. 



> If somehow surreal absurdity...



Again, _every_ campaign I've ever seen or heard of contained an element of the absurd. It's inherent in the game.



> ...noncohesion...



Where'd this come from? 



> But the supposed raw slave/bull in the china shop comparison does not hold up in reality.



My point was that the rules don't insulate players from a DM with poor judgment.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 5, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> How do you know that the player who decides to make Int his key characteristic isn't happy that it pays off when the time comes for his character to shine, especially when the player knows he isn't the world's sharpest tool in the box but wants to roleplay a character who is?



Simple...

It was _my_ example, and in it the hypothetical player (let's call him "X") likes solving riddles. I understand that not every player shares "X"'s proclivities, but I was talking about people who do.

If you want someone that hates solving riddles, make your own hypothetical player.


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 5, 2007)

> The Book of Iron Might/Iron Heroes approach can be summed up as: anyone can pull off a fancy trick, but feats are available to make fancy tricks easier or more effective if you want to really excel.



Like sunder, disarm, grapple, trip and their Improved X feats?

Anyone can bluff, hide, ride, etc. But those who take ranks in the skills, and have the ability scores to give bonuses will be better at them.

Quasqueton


----------



## Greg K (Mar 5, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Like sunder, disarm, grapple, trip and their Improved X feats?
> 
> Quasqueton




Things like throw sand in the eyes, stun an opponent, disable a limb, inflict ability score penalties- all  without needing a feat.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 5, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Things like throw sand in the eyes, stun an opponent, disable a limb, inflict ability score penalties- all  without needing a feat.




Ah... you mean cast spells. All without training.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 5, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Ah... you mean cast spells. All without training.




Well, there are to hit penalities. Plus, there are additional penalties. One might open themselves up to AoAs from either their target or everyone around them, suffer an AC penalty, etc.

Btw, anyone curious should check out montecook.com. There is cheat sheat which shows how to build maneuvers as well as a web enhancment containing eighteen prebuilt sample maneuvers.


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 5, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I've played in several games like that too.  Many of them using 3.0 or 3.5 rules.  As I said above, I don't buy the notion that more comprehensive rules is somehow a protection from bad DMing.





Not really anything is protection against a bad DM.  But more comprehensive rules are very nice for a DM who has his heart in the right place but isn't really very masterful at it (which category I place myself in.)


----------



## Odysseus (Mar 5, 2007)

Back to the original quote
Mike Mearls:
"The one thing I learned is the importance of balance in designing character options. I can't create an NPC or monster that can reliable hit the dinosaur pet without almost automatically hitting everyone else. Putting the DM into the position of challenging one PC or the rest of the party makes for a bad game. It's something that high level play makes all the more obvious."

Whats he on about here. Limiting character builds? And why, becasue he's had trouble hitting one cohort character. If a monster having trouble hitting a PC , I'd switch tactics to something that would effect the PC.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2007)

Odysseus said:
			
		

> Back to the original quote
> Mike Mearls:
> "The one thing I learned is the importance of balance in designing character options. I can't create an NPC or monster that can reliable hit the dinosaur pet without almost automatically hitting everyone else. Putting the DM into the position of challenging one PC or the rest of the party makes for a bad game. It's something that high level play makes all the more obvious."
> 
> Whats he on about here. Limiting character builds? And why, becasue he's had trouble hitting one cohort character. If a monster having trouble hitting a PC , I'd switch tactics to something that would effect the PC.



 Rock-paper-scissors is boring.


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 5, 2007)

Last night's game was a great example of where party balance would have helped.    The foe was a mechanical dragon (Dungeon Magazine module "Unchained") with 120 Hit Points.     Of the six characters one was 2nd level, three were 7th level, one 8th level and one 16th level.   The 2nd level one participated but was almost killed while the 16th level single-handedly took out the dragon's two main attacks then put over 100 points of damage into it.     The players all had fun but I think that a balanced party would have helped.   Interestingly enough though, the higher-level character suffered the most as she lost her familiar at the end of the battle.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually _solve_ it. Which is bad if they like riddles.
> 
> That's all  I'm talking about re: processes and outcomes.
> 
> And even with hiding, I certainly enjoy 'telling the DM I'm hiding behind a barrel" more than just rolling a Hide check. In the same way I prefer to cook up my own lies when I try to bluff an NPC. I enjoy creating as many of the solutions as I can myself, and abstracting away only what really needs to be abstracted. Like all the hitting and the burning and such




On the Int check.  There's something to not forget here though.  That Int check actually forces the player to play the character in front of him.  Something I heartily agree with.  I dislike the idea that adventures should be about me and not my character.  If my PC is a 6 Int orc barbarian, I probably shouldn't be answering riddles.  OTOH, if my PC is a 400 year old elf with a 22 Int, then I probably could answer most riddles posed to me without really trying.  

The problem is, in real life, I'm neither of these.  At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?

On the second point of telling the DM stuff - there's absolutely nothing stopping you.  In fact, using the hide skill, considering you must have total cover relative to the observer in order to hide in the first place, "I hide behind the barrel" should be something you say to the DM.  "I hide in shadows" isn't going to cut it if you are under observation.

The same goes for the Bluff skill.  You HAVE TO cook up your own lies in order to use the skill.  You have to tell the NPC something in order to bluff him.  Otherwise, there's nothing for the NPC to believe.  "I bluff the guard to let me pass" is not legal by RAW.  Bravo, you're playing the game as it is intended to be played.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.




Whoops, I said T Foster back there and I meant Gentlegamer.  Got my names mixed up.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Well, there are to hit penalities. Plus, there are additional penalties. One might open themselves up to AoAs from either their target or everyone around them, suffer an AC penalty, etc.
> 
> Btw, anyone curious should check out montecook.com. There is cheat sheat which shows how to build maneuvers as well as a web enhancment containing eighteen prebuilt sample maneuvers.



 Yes, yes. People should buy the last major project Mearls did, before moving to WotC. 

And then check out my hacks for it!


----------



## DaveyJones (Mar 5, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Ah... you mean cast spells. All without training.



or pick a lock with a chisel and sledgehammer.

edit: meaning having the right tools for the job. which these obviously are not even together.

ergo i agree.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 5, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, yes. People should buy the last major project Mearls did, before moving to WotC.
> 
> And then check out my hacks for it!




I disagree. They should check out the  Book of Iron Might.  The classes, the umbrellas skills and other stuff turn me off to Iron Heroes


----------



## Mallus (Mar 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> There's something to not forget here though.



I didn't  



> That Int check actually forces the player to play the character in front of him.  Something I heartily agree with.



See, I don't. At least not a hard and fast rule. I'm interested in having engaged players at my table. I'm less concerned with them maintaining character verisimilitude for its own sake. 



> I dislike the idea that adventures should be about me and not my character.  If my PC is a 6 Int orc barbarian, I probably shouldn't be answering riddles.




If a guy playing a dumb-as-mineral-deficient-dirt barbarian is enjoying solving a puzzle, or suavely sweet-talking information out of a noblewoman, or devising a brilliant strategy to overthrow the correct king, I'm not going to discourage them. When you've got an engaged, actively participating player is not the time to enforce some standard of character 'realism', IMHO...

And the adventure is always, ultimately, about the player, since they're the ones making the decisions. To what extent a player likes to pretend their not in control and making choices 'in-character' is up to each individual player, but what it amounts to is a game you're playing with yourself. 



> At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?



I don't understand what you're saying. You should enjoy what you enjoy. There are no conditions involved. 



> Bravo, you're playing the game as it is intended to be played.



Except that I was talking about situations where the task resolution system is temporarily suspended, and the outcomes are arived at _solely_ by player input and DM's judgement.


----------



## Henry (Mar 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ...If my PC is a 6 Int orc barbarian, I probably shouldn't be answering riddles.  OTOH, if my PC is a 400 year old elf with a 22 Int, then I probably could answer most riddles posed to me without really trying.
> 
> The problem is, in real life, I'm neither of these.  At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?




Well, for me, part of this is in the one unquantifiable thing, the "contract" between DM and player. If the player isn't great at puzzle-solving, but the PC should be, the DM has several options to make it happen: The other players can contribute, but one could say the answer actually came from the appropriate PC; The DM could make a secret INT check (or other relevant check) and give the player a hint to the correct answer, the bigger the hint for the denser the player; he could even go the straight "roll and you get it" method that you mentioned. In other words, a wide range of solutions. Conversely, the other part of that contract is that the players of the 6 INT orc barbarian don't have the orc acting out of character, with masterful puzzle solving, eloquent speeches, etc.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Sorry, Plane, but that is just not true. From the DMG, page 32, "General Versus Specific":
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...




Sorry Klaus, but from the rule you quoted, when a PC uses knowledge to ask "do I find a secret scroll case in the bedpost?" The DC does not get lowered by 10, the character gets only a +2 circumstance bonus on his search check for favorable conditions.


----------



## DaveyJones (Mar 5, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Sorry Klaus, but from the rule you quoted, when a PC uses knowledge to ask "do I find a secret scroll case in the bedpost?" The DC does not get lowered by 10, the character gets only a +2 circumstance bonus on his search check for favorable conditions.



and your response to the player that says fine. i destroy the bedpost until i find something.

breaking apart every part of the room until it is completely searched. even tho taking 20 with the 6 int 6 wis PC would never find it.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?




Right now. Your character sheet is just a piece of paper. If it it is fun for you to try to answer the riddle, then I give you permission to try to answer the riddle. You should do it.   

The character sheet tells you your character's mechanics. By the RAW there is no mechanic for handling riddles. A DM can ad hoc apply an int check to grant hints or solve the riddle, but there is no rule explicitly applicable here. The DM would have to come up with DCs and what happens on success or failure.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 5, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> and your response to the player that says fine. i destroy the bedpost until i find something.
> 
> breaking apart every part of the room until it is completely searched. even tho taking 20 with the 6 int 6 wis PC would never find it.




My response? I'm one of the ones who prefers to avoid dice rolling in favor of active player participation so I'd probably have given it to him for saying he checked the bedpost. However assuming it was so well hidden he couldn't find it (say a magical disguise) and he breaks everything apart looking for it?

When they break apart the bedpost I'd have to decide what happens to the hidden scroll. Whether it is ripped or whatnot from the method they used to "destroy the bedpost". So my response would be "How do you destroy the bedpost?"


----------



## DaveyJones (Mar 5, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> My response? I'm one of the ones who prefers to avoid dice rolling in favor of active player participation so I'd probably have given it to him for saying he checked the bedpost. However assuming it was so well hidden he couldn't find it (say a magical disguise) and he breaks everything apart looking for it?
> 
> When they break apart the bedpost I'd have to decide what happens to the hidden scroll. Whether it is ripped or whatnot from the method they used to "destroy the bedpost". So my response would be "How do you destroy the bedpost?"



oh, i'm with you there. i'm just saying that is a real response in cases where i've gamed.

players bust up the whole room just to make sure they searched everything. even tho, 99.9% of the time nothing was there.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 5, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Sorry Klaus, but from the rule you quoted, when a PC uses knowledge to ask "do I find a secret scroll case in the bedpost?" The DC does not get lowered by 10, the character gets only a +2 circumstance bonus on his search check for favorable conditions.



 Two things:

1 - I was pointing out that the rules *do* reward players who ask specific questions.

2 - The example I gave was merely *my* stance.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 5, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Not really anything is protection against a bad DM.  But more comprehensive rules are very nice for a DM who has his heart in the right place but isn't really very masterful at it (which category I place myself in.)




A DM who "isn't very masterful at it" probably hasn't mastered the rules of the game yet either.  Thus, I still don't see the benefit of a comprehensive ruleset (either the players will spend much of the game teaching the inexperienced DM, or the rules will be disregarded in favor of "common sense" anyway).

If someone has their heart in the right place and is simply inexperienced I find it's actually far, far easier for them to do a good job in a system where much of the adjudication is handled by telling them they are the final arbiter and they should make decisions based on what makes sense and what seems like the most fun for the group than with a system that tries to provide a detailed rule for every situation.  Inexperienced DMs tend to experience vapor-lock with the latter systems, making everyone miserable.

All that said, my original point still stands that a comprehensive set of rules is no protection against a DM with a bad attitude, so phindar's critiques still don't hold much water with me.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 5, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> A DM who "isn't very masterful at it" probably hasn't mastered the rules of the game yet either.  Thus, I still don't see the benefit of a comprehensive ruleset (either the players will spend much of the game teaching the inexperienced DM, or the rules will be disregarded in favor of "common sense" anyway).




Not true at all.  A person can be a player for years, know the ins and outs of the system and its rules, and then one day he decides he wants to run a game for his group.  He knows how to _play_, and he knows what a good DM does because he's experienced it.  But that doesn't mean he knows how to DM, which includes adjudication of rules he has only been on the other end of until now.  A good, comprehensive rules set will help him decide when to use certain rules and how to apply them.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 5, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> A good, comprehensive rules set will help him decide when to use certain rules and how to apply them.




I'm sorry I just don't buy that.  I've seen these situations before from both sides of the issue (i.e. - new DMs using AD&D, Classic D&D and 3e) and I've never seen a case where a good DM would have been turned into a poor one by using another ruleset, or conversely, a poor DM turned into a good one.

I have seen several cases where inexperienced DMs probably would have had an easier and more enjoyable time running the game for their first couple of sessions using a less comprehensive and complex rule system than D&D 3.5, but the good ones still managed to run a good game that people enjoyed (often by specifically ignoring the comprehensivness of the rules and simply making good judgement calls and talking things out with the players in non-combat situations).

I think, on paper, the argument that comprehensive rules leads to better average DMing ability looks good and I bought into it at one time, but after seeing it in practice several times I can honestly say that I see no evidence to support that theory.  In my experience, the greatest determinant of a DM's ability to run a good game is inherent within the person (their creativity, attitude, sense of fair play, sense of fun, organizational skills, communication skills, etc.).  The rules system used makes almost no difference.


----------



## occam (Mar 5, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html
> 
> That's probably the one.
> 
> EDIT: I read it, and while it is agressive and insulting at times I think the issues raised by Mearls are relevant. If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original. That said, it doesn't read well as a review, it's more of a rant, and probably was written to be a humorous take on the Keep.




It's funny... I tended to remember _KotB_ pretty much as Mike reviewed it, a totally nonsensical hack-and-slash-fest. Heck, we didn't even bother spending time at the Keep, and always went straight to the Caves for the killin' and lootin'.

I read it again last year for the first time in a LONG time, and I was surprised by how much internal consistency there is in the module. Still straining credulity, of course, but it's not _DMG_-random-dungeon weird. Spread out the geography and it would probably work just fine (although part of the point was to have a variety of killable opponents in a small area).


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 5, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually _solve_ it. Which is bad if they like riddles.




The biggest difference between this, and rolling for diplomacy, bluff, attacks, saves, etc, is that a riddle has a right or wrong answer. If you answer correctly, you answer correctly, with little room for DM asshattery. The same cannot be said for many other situations. Thus I prefer some type of rule for resolving actions with no automatic right or wrong answer.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 5, 2007)

Wasn't Mr. Mearls going to come back and comment here after lunch on Friday, or has the thread strayed too far to be worth it?


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> If a guy playing a dumb-as-mineral-deficient-dirt barbarian is enjoying solving a puzzle, or suavely sweet-talking information out of a noblewoman, or devising a brilliant strategy to overthrow the correct king, I'm not going to discourage them. When you've got an engaged, actively participating player is not the time to enforce some standard of character 'realism', IMHO...
> 
> And the adventure is always, ultimately, about the player, since they're the ones making the decisions. To what extent a player likes to pretend their not in control and making choices 'in-character' is up to each individual player, but what it amounts to is a game you're playing with yourself.




See, that there is the core of the argument. People who advocate chucking interaction skills, search skills, and everything but the combat resolution rules should also chuck Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as attributes. What prevents a player in your game from putting all his stat points into the physical attributes (maybe some for WIS for that WILL save) and just "roleplaying" away his mental deficiencies?

"Roleplaying" means playing your 8 INT half-orc barbarian as if he were sub-average intelligence, even if you're a medical student (or doctor) with a 160 IQ. It doesn't mean entertainingly coming up with the "right answer" to a puzzle because "you're so smart." Divorcing your own mental abilities from your character's is a daunting task (playing dumber, more clueless or more borish than you are). However, it's not as daunting as playing smarter, more cunning, or more charismatic than you actually are. The former is difficult, but the latter is pretty much impossible.

The only fair solution is to make the player's stats the same as the character's. Otherwise, you've chucked the system balance out the window. Under this theory, you should replace INT, WIS, and CHA with Perception, Willpower, and Magical Aptitude. This is because trying to model reasoning, memory (except for in-game knowledge), cunning or persuasiveness is pointless in this approach, as the player supplies all those things directly. 

That's a potentially interesting game, but it ain't D&D.



			
				PirateCat said:
			
		

> I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.




I usually agree with you completely PirateCat, but not this time.

While it's true that anyone _can_ swing on a chandelier in a rules-light system, how often _does_ it actually happen? In my experience, you need a player who decides to do it _for no defined reason and no certain benefit_, and a DM who _encourages and rewards_ the player for his clever action.

A DM who treats it like a regular attack will quickly find all but the most determined players not bothering, because it doesn't DO anything. A DM who penalizes the player for the attempt but doesn't offer a commensurate reward will also discourage the behavior. As a player, I'm more inclined to do something that I know will work rather than risk wasting actions on something that might gain me nothing.

I agree with the notion that stunts and challenges should be better codified in D&D, with feats representing those characters with special training in doing it well. That seems totally fair to me. Of course, that means rewriting large parts of the system from scratch. Like Mearls did (quite successfully, magic aside, IMO) with _Iron Heroes_.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Greg K said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, put another way, mages get to do it better and more reliably. Their spells become like feats - special ways of accomplishing interesting effects. 

As an aside, I find it odd that the magic-user lovers want to be the only ones able to do anything interesting in combat. From my perception, Gary is one, btw. Which is why only magic-users got anything more interesting to do than "whack the other guy" in the early versions of the game. Which is probably also where the perception of wizards as the class for "experienced players" comes in.

This will probably generate a storm of controversy...oh well.


----------



## RedFox (Mar 5, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Wasn't Mr. Mearls going to come back and comment here after lunch on Friday, or has the thread strayed too far to be worth it?




I was wondering that myself.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See, that there is the core of the argument. People who advocate chucking interaction skills, search skills, and everything but the combat resolution rules should also chuck Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as attributes. What prevents a player in your game from putting all his stat points into the physical attributes (maybe some for WIS for that WILL save) and just "roleplaying" away his mental deficiencies?




Bonus spells, skill points, Will saves, Spot and Listen checks, Leadership scores?  Those stats have lots of in-game effects without forcing them to define the personality of the character.



> "Roleplaying" means playing your 8 INT half-orc barbarian as if he were sub-average intelligence, even if you're a medical student (or doctor) with a 160 IQ.




"Roleplaying" means a lot of things to a lot of people.  To me, the above doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "roleplaying".  IMHO, verisimilitude takes a back seat to fun every time.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 6, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Bonus spells, skill points, Will saves, Spot and Listen checks, Leadership scores? Those stats have lots of in-game effects without forcing them to define the personality of the character.




Did you read my whole post? Or did you miss this part?



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Under this theory, you should replace INT, WIS, and CHA with Perception, Willpower, and Magical Aptitude. This is because trying to model reasoning, memory (except for in-game knowledge), cunning or persuasiveness is pointless in this approach, as the player supplies all those things directly.




Other than skill points, which I admit I'd forgotten about, I believe that sentence addresses your entire comment. Your leadership "score" isn't relevant if, as in the case Mallus suggested, the player just roleplays all his character's interactions _irrespective of his character's ability scores_.

I would contend that, as written, the balance of the attributes assumes that a low charisma character will suck at charisma skills. Charisma will absolutely become a dump stat for most characters if the player's ability to interact with NPCs isn't adversely affected by a low charisma score.

It's funny, but I bet the same people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" can't figure out why charisma's a dump stat in their games and are upset by it. Like it's that hard to figure out.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 6, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Right now. Your character sheet is just a piece of paper. If it it is fun for you to try to answer the riddle, then I give you permission to try to answer the riddle. You should do it.
> 
> The character sheet tells you your character's mechanics. By the RAW there is no mechanic for handling riddles. A DM can ad hoc apply an int check to grant hints or solve the riddle, but there is no rule explicitly applicable here. The DM would have to come up with DCs and what happens on success or failure.




Both you and Mallus have said roughly the same thing, so I'll just quote you here.  

The problem with this approach is it encourages dump stats and not bothering with anything other than sheer combat power.  If I'm encouraged, and Mallus did say that I should be actively encouraged, to ignore my character sheet so long as I'm having fun, then I can pretty much make whatever character I want on paper and then play something entirely different.

If that works for you, then fine.  It doesn't for me.  The point of an RPG, to me, is to play something that isn't me.  I'm not a dumb as dirt orc (at least I don't think so), and I'm certainly no supergenius.  But, I can play either one in the game.  If I get the benefits of one, I should take the penalties of the other.  If I choose to ignore the deficiencies of my character, shouldn't the DM be penalizing me for that?

Even in 1e, the training rules talk about this.  If I ignore my character sheet in favour of playing whatever I feel like at the time, I should get penalized at level up time by having to spend much more time and money to level up.  

It is not "character versimilitude" for its own sake.  It's playing the role you have chosen to play.  If you take that high strength low int character, that was your choice.  No one forced you to play that character.  And, as such, you should actually play THAT character.


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Wasn't Mr. Mearls going to come back and comment here after lunch on Friday, or has the thread strayed too far to be worth it?



 I think he's realised there are better things in life than trying to argue with people who say that previous D&D editions didn't focus on combat, or consider "stacking" PCs to be the epitome of roleplaying.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Look, I wasn't bagging on the G series of modules at all.  My specific beef was T Foster's assertion that some versions of D&D promote role play.
> 
> Ballocks.
> 
> ...




I would say that this is only true if you consider xp to be the only reward in playing the game.

Back when I was playing 1e and earlier, levelling up happened so slowly and intermittently that gaining xp was only an incidental reward in the adventure. The biggest rewards from the gaming session came from the satisfaction of objectives achieved, perhaps monetary gain and advancement of agendas in the campaign setting.

Thus I found that earlier versions of D&D *did* promote role play, because there were a lot of benefits that you got week-by-week that resulted directly from the role-play actions and interactions. 3e has much more of an emphasis on gaining xp, because the 13.3 encounters to gain a level means that you gain levels much, much more quickly, and the focus has been dramatically drawn to gaining xp... probably at the expense of other aspects (vis. the lack of information in the PHB/DMG about setting up strongholds and other role-play related issues).

Cheers


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I agree with the notion that stunts and challenges should be better codified in D&D, with feats representing those characters with special training in doing it well. That seems totally fair to me. Of course, that means rewriting large parts of the system from scratch.



No, it doesn't! 



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Like Mearls did (quite successfully, magic aside, IMO) with _Iron Heroes_.



Again, _Iron Heroes_ simply built on what Mike Mearls had *already done* in the fully D&D-compatible _Book of Iron Might_.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I would say that this is only true if you consider xp to be the only reward in playing the game.
> 
> Back when I was playing 1e and earlier, levelling up happened so slowly and intermittently that gaining xp was only an incidental reward in the adventure. The biggest rewards from the gaming session came from the satisfaction of objectives achieved, perhaps monetary gain and advancement of agendas in the campaign setting.
> 
> ...




Again, I did say that YMMV.  I found that we leveled up at just about the same speed in 1e as we did in 3e - about a level every 4-6 sessions.  I've also played in 3e games where we leveled up exactly twice in 12 months of sessions - a very high rp, low combat game.  We played mostly modules and used the treasure tables as written, so, xp was pretty fast and furious.  One year saw us at about 10th level every campaign.

The other bits you talk about - castles, campaign goodies and the like - have nothing to do with the mechanics.  The mechanics didn't reward you with that, the DM did.  Mechanically speaking, your rewards were completely outside of the scope of the rules for the most part.  Feeling great that you managed to woo the princess is fine.  And commendable.  But, the game had nothing to do with that.

I'm sorry, but no.  No edition actually promotes role play to any great amount.  No edition actually rewards role play.  Any reward you gained through role play was entirely the result of the DM giving you bennies.  The mechanics couldn't care less if you so much as name your character.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> People who advocate chucking interaction skills, search skills, and everything but the combat resolution rules should also chuck Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as attributes.



To be clear, I don't advocate chucking 'everything but the combat resolution rules'. What I advocate (and if I wasn't clear about this, my bad), is basically alternating between using the written task resolution system _and_ DM fiat for things like social encounters, puzzles, and such. So that everyone gets a chance to enjoy, well,  what they enjoy, be it solving problems themselves, or solving them through their characters abilities and a die roll. 



> What prevents a player in your game from putting all his stat points into the physical attributes (maybe some for WIS for that WILL save) and just "roleplaying" away his mental deficiencies?



Absolutely nothing.



> It doesn't mean entertainingly coming up with the "right answer" to a puzzle because "you're so smart."



That sounds suspiciously like "Roleplaying games aren't about enjoying playing roleplaying games". 



> The only fair solution is to make the player's stats the same as the character's. Otherwise, you've chucked the system balance out the window.



Worrying about game balance being threatened by dump-statting and suave CHR 6 barbarians is a bit like worrying about a hangnail after being shot several times in the chest.



> This is because trying to model reasoning, memory (except for in-game knowledge), cunning or persuasiveness is pointless in this approach, as the player supplies all those things directly.



I don't have the PHB with me (at work), but isn't 'that approach' exactly what's described in the section on ability scores? 



> That's a potentially interesting game, but it ain't D&D.



I'd argue that it's _always_ been D&D.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Both you and Mallus have said roughly the same thing, so I'll just quote you here.
> 
> The problem with this approach is it encourages dump stats and not bothering with anything other than sheer combat power.  If I'm encouraged, and Mallus did say that I should be actively encouraged, to ignore my character sheet so long as I'm having fun, then I can pretty much make whatever character I want on paper and then play something entirely different.
> 
> ...





You want to roleplay a dumb orc. Fine. You can do so no matter what your stats are like, that is a characterization you get across through how you portray the character.

I can use simple words and make significant efforts to only do direct actions and pass up anything intellectual like puzzles or approach them simplemindedly, etc. However if you want your character to mechanically be good at a number of his class skills then he needs a high int for the bonus skill points. 

High int means the character has bonus skill points, is good at int skills, and determines how powerful his wizard magic will be. Even roleplaying an 18 int character, that does not mean they are brilliant at everything. Portraying them as dense but natural masters of skills works fine.

Conversely a low int character can be someone who is smart but simply not good at skills and so has few mechanical skill points to use.

Same thing for charisma which combines force of personalty and appearance. A strong force of personality but ugly character can fit a high charisma stat, a low charisma stat, or an average charisma stat.

Every stat is a composite and can provide enough room for however you want to roleplay a character. The stats are not monolothic descriptors that tell you the one way your character should be played. 

Playing smart and social should not be limited to certain mechanical character builds IMO.

Mechanically paladins and sorcerers want charisma for character power. Wizards and anybody who wants extra skill points want intelligence. Non melee, non heavy armor characters do not need high strength and mechanically benefit from putting their points elsewhere. Some classes and character types benefit from different mechanical stats differently. I think the game is balanced mechanically without requiring roleplay to map directly to the mental stats. That just limits playing smart, talkative characters to certain builds. 

In my 16th level game the paladin's highest stat is charisma, but he has put no points into diplomacy or other social skills and everyone cringes when he interacts with NPCs as he plays the usually ignorant but righteously arrogant and abrasive paladin full blast. He has amazing saves though, can heal a ton, turn really well, and smite for a lot of damage. Mechanically he is probably the toughest in the party, due in part to his significant charisma score.

This does encourage all players to design the mechanics of their characters to be powerful. Nobody makes a high int, high charisma fighter who is worse at fighting, simply because they want their fighter to be a Roy Greenleaf type smart leader. To take an OotS example the choice is not between a mechanically gimped Roy and a mechanically maxed out Thog. Roy and Thog are both viable roleplay choices that make the game fun and the character power should be the same for both. When Roy and Thog are compared for combat they should be about equal if of the same level.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but no.  No edition actually promotes role play to any great amount.  No edition actually rewards role play.  Any reward you gained through role play was entirely the result of the DM giving you bennies.  The mechanics couldn't care less if you so much as name your character.




It seems that we are working by different definitions then, as it appears that you still consider mechanical rewards to be the only rewards in the game. What you call 'the DM giving you bennies' (whatever they are), I call playing D&D.

Cheers


----------



## Henry (Mar 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> What you call 'the DM giving you bennies' (whatever they are), I call playing D&D.




Bennies = shorthand for "fringe benefits" 

If you're looking at mechanical rules only, I'd say it's pretty true - D&D originally only pushed things insofar as how you interacted with the physical world. However, I'd argue that since the advent of more detailed skill systems, some elements of roleplay have been rewarded through mechanical benefits. Roleplaying a charismatic speaker in D&D ain't going to get you very far unless that character is maxed out in Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. A character who claims to be the world's best smith needs to have loaded up on Craft skills, skill focus, etc. or he simply can't do what he claims.

What the poster might be thinking of here are games like Shadows of Yesterday, an RPG where strong character motivations directly translate into hard Experience Points, in the form of Major and Minor "Keys." Have a "key" of "protects friends at all costs," and you get more powerful as a character for doing just that. You can even buy off and trade out "Keys" when you want your PC to go through some life-altering event.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem with this approach is it encourages dump stats and not bothering with anything other than sheer combat power.



Only for players who would have done that anyway. I doubt it would have effect on players' whose focus is on character modeling. At least that's been my experience (I do really run my games like this)  



> If I'm encouraged, and Mallus did say that I should be actively encouraged, to ignore my character sheet so long as I'm having fun, then I can pretty much make whatever character I want on paper and then play something entirely different.



Play the game the way you like to. If that means your contributions at the table don't necessarily reflect what's on your character sheet, so what? I'm not going to tell a player 'Great idea, but Thud never would have though of it'. I can think of no better way of discouraging engaged and creative play. Which is far bigger concern for me that discouraging dump-statting.



> If I choose to ignore the deficiencies of my character, shouldn't the DM be penalizing me for that?



Short answer based on principle: when it comes to  player input, no.

Longer answer based on mechanics: the benefits received from dump-statting and substituting a players social and analytical skills for their characters aren't significant in the larger context of the task resolution system as a whole. 



> It's playing the role you have chosen to play.



Now that's what I find that problematic. It favors character _builds_ over character's built over time in response to in-game events. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but not in the cases where the player and character skills overlap. 

Take a character that wasn't designed to be a leader (low CHR, wrong class skill set), but becomes one through events in play (and because the player's been on a roll with extemporized speeches). They will never be a good as one designed for that role from the start. Unless the DM looks the other when it comes to certain skill checks.

Now you can say 'Fine, that's the way it should work. You're stuck with the role you initially chose. Too bad. That'll learn you for trying to have your character grow in response to the events that actually happend in the campaign'.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 6, 2007)

I think some of us just have to agree to disagree.

I've been playing since 1980, and I have to admit that I was relieved when non-weapon proficiencies entered the game, and thrilled when 3e came along and introduced feats and skills.

Personally, I find the evolution away from "DMs take your best guess" and towards "the rules say it's this, but feel free to modify as circumstances dictate" to be A Good Thing (TM).

I don't object to roleplaying-based bonuses as a carrot. But they shouldn't be used to bludgeon players who are bad actors, or trying to play characters smarter, wiser or more charismatic than they are. Or to try to enforce the DM's personal opinion of "what makes the game fun."

For example, I don't mind puzzles, but my last DM gave "hints" to characters with a high INT, or with a fitting knowledge skill. That's fine, as is requiring a diplomacy check, but giving a circumstance bonus to it if the player roleplays it well. To me, that's the essence of what makes the game fun, right there. Rules _and_ roleplaying.

As always, YMMV.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2007)

> think, on paper, the argument that comprehensive rules leads to better average DMing ability looks good and I bought into it at one time, but after seeing it in practice several times I can honestly say that I see no evidence to support that theory. In my experience, the greatest determinant of a DM's ability to run a good game is inherent within the person (their creativity, attitude, sense of fair play, sense of fun, organizational skills, communication skills, etc.).




The idea is that an "average" DM struggles with designing a fun game on the fly. They may invent a rule that has unforeseen repercussions, or one that hoses a certain character type, or that might bog down the game unnecessarily. 

A solid rules base makes sure they don't have to be quality on-the-fly game designers.

Those who *are* quality on-the-fly game designers aren't limited by the rules, and may, in fact, be better with a less codified system. 

But most "average" DM's suffer because they have big ideas that they have trouble implementing in the rules in a fair way that has everyone have fun. In this case, the more examples and bases and assumptions they have to divert from, the more solid such a change is going to be.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Personally, I find the evolution away from "DMs take your best guess" and towards "the rules say it's this, but feel free to modify as circumstances dictate" to be A Good Thing (TM).



Bascially, so do I. But 'circumstance' granting a +2/-2 modifier as the rules state isn't enough. Not compared to the bonuses granted elsewhere.

Now you _could_ increase the size of circumstance bonuses (and change DC's on the fly), but there aren't any good guidelines for doing so, and pretty soon your back to relying on the DM's judgment, only you've dressed it up as mechanics by expressing the DM's judgment in terms of numbers. 



> I don't object to roleplaying-based bonuses as a carrot.



I _do_. I try to be evenhanded and not offer incentives for a particular playstyle, despite my own personal preference. Which is why I sometimes I use the social skills as written, and other times I use pure roleplay to resolve a situation. 

Again, I'm not arguing for either/or. I arguing for the use of _both_. 



> Rules _and_ roleplaying.



Exactly. Just not always at the same time...

If someone likes to solve riddles, I'll let them. Then the next time I'll let the other guy who hates solving riddles just roll for it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Bennies = shorthand for "fringe benefits"




Ah, the light dawns!

I thought it was something obscure to do with Benny Hill, and just couldn't picture what it might be


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I thought it was something obscure to do with Benny Hill




Ah, Benny Hill. ..  . the height of British Comedy.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Did you read my whole post? Or did you miss this part?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I did read your whole post.  What I'm trying to point out is that Int, Wis and Cha are already doing what you want Perception, Willpower and Magical Aptitude to cover (plus a few more things).  And by the RAW they are NOT doing what you seem to be assuming they should do (i.e. - limit a player's control over how his character acts and thinks).  There is no rule that says a dumb, Half-Orc Barbarian can't contribute to solving a puzzle the party encounters or can't come up with a great battle plan.



> I would contend that, as written, the balance of the attributes assumes that a low charisma character will suck at charisma skills. Charisma will absolutely become a dump stat for most characters if the player's ability to interact with NPCs isn't adversely affected by a low charisma score.




Every character has dump stats.  I think in general, Charisma is still a dump stat unless you're 1) playing a class that derives mechanical benefit other than social interaction from it (Cleric, Sorcerer, Enchantment specialized Wizard, Bard, etc.) or 2) playing a character specifically devoted to Charisma skills.  Removing #2 doesn't make Charisma any worse off than Intelligence; which generally gets "dumped" unless the character is an Int based spellcaster or needs lots of skill points.



> It's funny, but I bet the same people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" can't figure out why charisma's a dump stat in their games and are upset by it. Like it's that hard to figure out.




:shrug:  I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "roleplaying" but I could really care less how my players design their characters as long as they are following the rules.  When I object to powergaming it's not because I think it's interfering with roleplaying but because it's throwing the mechanical aspects of the game out of whack and ruining other people's fun.    I run the game the way I do because it's how my players and I have fun, not because I'm trying to enforce a certain style of play on them because I think it's the "right way" to play D&D.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's funny, but I bet the same people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" can't figure out why charisma's a dump stat in their games and are upset by it. Like it's that hard to figure out.




I'd take that bet.  

Why do you think people who are fine with PCs ignoring stats to roleplay would be upset by Charisma being a dump stat? Or that they couldn't figure out why a stat would be a dump stat?

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "people who want their players more involved in "roleplaying" "


----------



## Ourph (Mar 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The idea is that an "average" DM struggles with designing a fun game on the fly. They may invent a rule that has unforeseen repercussions, or one that hoses a certain character type, or that might bog down the game unnecessarily.
> 
> A solid rules base makes sure they don't have to be quality on-the-fly game designers.



Making a reasonable, common sense judgement about the effect of a character's actions isn't doing game desing on-the-fly.  That's a strawman and a weak one at that.



> But most "average" DM's suffer because they have big ideas that they have trouble implementing in the rules in a fair way that has everyone have fun.



A DM implementing his own houserules is different than a DM just running the system the way it was written and the way it was intended to be used.  As I said above, it seems to me that people accept the assertion that a more comprehensive ruleset is a boon to the "average" DM because it has the ring of "truthiness" to it, but I've never come across an actual, real-life, situation where I've found that to be true.  As a result, I just don't buy that particular theory anymore.

Extremely comprehensive rules can serve several purposes.  They can make negotiating the social contract within a group easier.  They can be more fun for people who like complex, granular, "crunchy" systems.  They can sell lots of supplemental rulebooks   .  But I've never seen any evidence that a more comprehensive ruleset improves the ability of a DM to run a fun game.  So, until I see some hard evidence in support of this particular myth, I'm calling it busted.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 6, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to point out is that Int, Wis and Cha are already doing what you want Perception, Willpower and Magical Aptitude to cover (plus a few more things). And by the RAW they are NOT doing what you seem to be assuming they should do (i.e. - limit a player's control over how his character acts and thinks). There is no rule that says a dumb, Half-Orc Barbarian can't contribute to solving a puzzle the party encounters or can't come up with a great battle plan.




It's the "plus a few more things" that's the core of the debate here. Since people were advocating the viability of "disguise yourselves as baby giants" plans, I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you and those who share your opinion long for the days when D&D had no skill rules. Back then, almost everything your PC could do was determined by the player's creativity and the DM's ability to handle "out-of-the-box" plans.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Removing #2 doesn't make Charisma any worse off than Intelligence; which generally gets "dumped" unless the character is an Int based spellcaster or needs lots of skill points.




I didn't say it would. I admit that INT would continue to get points for characters who want skill points, though personally, I never have enough skill points. But that's probably because I insist on putting skill points into bluff, sense motive, and all those other "unnecessary" roleplaying skills.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Making a reasonable, common sense judgement about the effect of a character's actions isn't doing game (design) on-the-fly.




If common sense were common, there'd be no point in a game with rules at all. Everyone would just agree that a particular situation can be resolved X way, and that's that. But what you're talking about is coming up with a rule to cover a situation on the fly. That's game design, whether you believe it or not. And if the rule is used consistently, then congratulations, you've just created a houserule. 

Personally, I prefer solid skill rules that an experienced DM can choose to alter, _once he's familiar enough with the system._ So I'm busting your bust. I am a DM who prefers modifying a comprehensive rule system to coming up with new rules on the fly. 



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> I'd take that bet.
> 
> Why do you think people who are fine with PCs ignoring stats to roleplay would be upset by Charisma being a dump stat? Or that they couldn't figure out why a stat would be a dump stat?




Let's see. Consider two statements that one might have seen on a message board or on the letters pages of _Dragon_ magazine:

1) "I want my players to ROLEPLAY at the table. I just wish they'd get more involved in the character interactions."

2) "All of my players are min-maxers!! They spend all of their points on the stats that benefit them in combat! This whole 'designing' for a 'build' paradigm sucks! The only character in my group with a charisma over 8 is the cleric (for the turn bonus). The fighter is a former mercenary captain, but he has a charisma of 8? What the hell!? Whatever happened to creating a personality?"

Would you say that:

A. 1 is a statement often made by the "roleplaying over rollplaying" crowd.
B. 2 is a statement often made by the "roleplaying over rollplaying" crowd.
C. A but not B.
D. B but not A.
E. A & B
F. Neither A nor B.

Personally, I think it's E. I think a lot of people would agree with me. And that's where I'm coming from. Do you disagree?


----------



## Voadam (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Let's see. Consider two statements that one might have seen on a message board or on the letters pages of _Dragon_ magazine:
> 
> 1) "I want my players to ROLEPLAY at the table. I just wish they'd get more involved in the character interactions."
> 
> ...



I do.

I would say C.

The second statement is a bit of an inconsistent rant. He has a character playing a fighter with a background and he's complaining about the stat allocations. He complains about people appointing points for a "build" but then complains about players not appointing points to a social mechanics build. He ends by asking whatever happened to creating personalities as if assigning points to charisma equals creating a personality.

IME the people wanting more roleplaying would say "I've got a player whose fighter's background was as a mercenary captain. This gives me some hooks I can use in game for interactions. Old employees, employers, and adversaries are possible connections we can use in game then. I wonder why he's a former captain? Is he still motivated by greed, did things go bad and he needs a fresh start?" etc.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 6, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's the "plus a few more things" that's the core of the debate here. Since people were advocating the viability of "disguise yourselves as baby giants" plans, I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you and those who share your opinion long for the days when D&D had no skill rules. Back then, almost everything your PC could do was determined by the player's creativity and the DM's ability to handle "out-of-the-box" plans.



I wouldn't say I "long for the days when D&D had no skill rules", I just disagree with the notion that having the DM adjudicate the success of disguising yourself as a young giant is inherently more susceptible to the depredations of a poor DM than having a specific, rules-defined, DM-adjudicated probability of success for it (and no matter what all the extra numbers, descriptions and rules concerning the Disguise skill say in the books, it's ultimately still up to the DM to determine how easy or hard it is for your PC to succeed, so "DM-adjudicated" is completely appropriate and warranted in that description).  In my experience, a DM who is incapable of handling the former to create a fun game isn't going to suddenly improve because he's got a few more pages of rules to memorize.



> If common sense were common, there'd be no point in a game with rules at all. Everyone would just agree that a particular situation can be resolved X way, and that's that. But what you're talking about is coming up with a rule to cover a situation on the fly. That's game design, whether you believe it or not. And if the rule is used consistently, then congratulations, you've just created a houserule.



No, the rule is already present, it's "listen to what the players tell you their characters are doing and then use common sense or your best guess to make a reasonable judgement call as to the result".  It's just as much a rule as "roll d20 and add modifiers, compare to the opponent's AC".  

Yes, theoretically, you could design a game system where the only rule was "DM makes the call".  There are, in fact, game systems that do almost exactly that (_Amber_ and _Prince Valiant_ come close).  They work just fine.  I don't use those systems because I prefer having specific rules for certain things (combat, poison, saving throws) but not others (searching for treasure, bluffing an NPC).  But the skills that make someone a good 3e DM are, IME, the exact same skills necessary to be a good DM for those other systems, so I would expect anyone decent at running one game would be equally good at running the others.  Conversely, if you can't run _Amber_ (one of the simplest games ever created) effectively, I don't see how adding a boatload of rules complexity is going to improve your skills as a DM.  I've seen several examples of the opposite, however, where the added complexity made an already poor DM worse.  



> Personally, I prefer solid skill rules that an experienced DM can choose to alter, _once he's familiar enough with the system._ So I'm busting your bust. I am a DM who prefers modifying a comprehensive rule system to coming up with new rules on the fly.



I didn't mention anything about personal preferences above.  I'm talking about the ability to be a decent DM.  You may prefer a more comprehensive rulesystem and that's fine, that's great, go with what works for you.  But I'm sure, if asked to run an AD&D game, you'd do just fine (assuming you're a decent 3e DM and you weren't purposely tanking to prove a point   ) at making an enjoyable game for the players.  Whether you would enjoy doing so is completely beyond the scope of my point.



> I think a lot of people would agree with me. And that's where I'm coming from. Do you disagree?



I think you're making the mistake of shoehorning this discussion into a "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" debate in your own analysis of it.  It seems to me that it's more of a challenge the player vs. challenge the character issue, which has very little to do with the segment of the RPG community that's super-concerned with character development, verisimilitude and immersion (i.e. what I would generally consider the "pro-roleplaying/anti-rollplaying" group).  IMO, those people probably consider BOTH positions being discussed in this thread undesirable.  One (the challenge the player position) breaks both verisimilitude and immersion.  The other (the challenge the character position) puts too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of the character.

They probably think of this discussion as "the thread where the powergamers are fighting over the best way to be a powergamer again".


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 6, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> They probably think of this discussion as "the thread where the powergamers are fighting over the best way to be a powergamer again".




I wouldn't go _that_ far. 

I would say, however, that I feel any discussion that treats "challenge the player vs. challenge the PC" as a binary option--or any discussion that treats "DM fiat vs. a comprehensive rules set" as a binary option--is roughly akin to a discussion saying "Which do you like better, pizza or Star Trek? You have to pick one, and picking one means you automatically dislike the other."

In other words, it's a non-issue, or at least a non-binary issue. AFAIAC, both questions are a continuum, and any good DM must, perforce, recognize that fact. If the game has rules for social interaction, those rules should come into play--_in addition_ to the PCs RPing out said interaction, and modified by said RP, not _instead_ of them.

But I've held off, since this discussion didn't really look like it would welcome a middle-of-the-road response all that much.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> In other words, it's a non-issue, or at least a non-binary issue. AFAIAC, both questions are a continuum, and any good DM must, perforce, recognize that fact.



I completely agree.  I choose a point on that continuum based on what I and my players find gives us the greatest amount of enjoyment.  My comments are in no way intended to imply that there's a "one true way" that every group should strive for.



> If the game has rules for social interaction, those rules should come into play--_in addition_ to the PCs RPing out said interaction, and modified by said RP, not _instead_ of them.



I don't think it's necessarily wrong to ignore the rules for social interaction as a mutually agreed upon house-rule if that's what the group enjoys.  Nor do I think it's wrong to simply use the rolls with no playing-out of the interaction whatsoever.  In general, I think most people will tend to enjoy some option in between those two extremes, but I'm not sitting in judgement of what people find fun in their own games.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 6, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I have no problem with this statement except to say that I don't think it's necessarily wrong to ignore the rules for social interaction as a mutually agreed upon house-rule if that's what the group enjoys.




Well, sure. Nothing's inherently "wrong" in playing D&D, assuming everyone in the group is having fun and none of the house rules involve property damage or the harming of small animals. 

But when one choose to ignore the rules completely, then one is--for better or worse--choosing to challenge the players _completely_, at the expense of any effort toward challenging the PCs, at which point the suggestion that the stats don't serve any purpose is a valid one. Again, cool, if that's what everyone wants, but it does certainly make choices made during character creation far less important.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> . . . but it does certainly make choices made during character creation far less important.




Putting the emphasis on choices made during the playing of the game. Definitely a play style preference question


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 6, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Putting the emphasis on choices made during the playing of the game. Definitely a play style preference question




Again, I disagree that this is a binary issue. I've run many a game where choices made in-play are paramount, without making choices made during character creation worthless. It's all about finding a balance between player and PC challenge, between the use of pure RP and the use of the rules. I reject the notion that either extreme is preferable to a solid (and group-appropriate) mixture.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But when one choose to ignore the rules completely, then one is--for better or worse--choosing to challenge the players _completely_, at the expense of any effort toward challenging the PCs, at which point the suggestion that the stats don't serve any purpose is a valid one. Again, cool, if that's what everyone wants, but it does certainly make choices made during character creation far less important.




Well, most of this discussion has been focused on one set of rules where the default assumption is to challenge only the players (OAD&D/Classic D&D) vs. a system that shifts the emphasis toward challenging the character (3e), rather than on changing one system to do the other, so it hasn't really centered around the ramifications of changing the rules that much.

I think in 3e Int, Wis and Cha certainly serve enough non-RP purposes to continue to make them important factors in the game even if you choose to challenge only the players.  Does it modify their function?  Yes.  But, in my experience it doesn't really impact the rest of the game that much when using standard character generation methods (roll and arrange or DMG point buy).  Of course, my experience is with groups of gamers who generally don't put a lot of emphasis on RP skills in character creation anyway, so... grain of salt and all that.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 6, 2007)

I agree this is largely a play style question and a debate about challenging the player vs. challenging the character. I don't think it's a binary issue either, so basically, I totally agree with Mouseferatu.

I apologize for bringing up the "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" thing, but I do know that I've seen those two statements I mentioned tied many times. To the comment about how could anyone not recognize the two are connected, well, people don't always see the forest for the trees... Moving on, I'd like to address a couple points.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> But I'm sure, if asked to run an AD&D game, you'd do just fine (assuming you're a decent 3e DM and you weren't purposely tanking to prove a point   ) at making an enjoyable game for the players. Whether you would enjoy doing so is completely beyond the scope of my point.




I suppose I have to say that's perfectly true - NOW. When I _was_ an AD&D DM, I could handle things like that, but I always felt like I was shooting in the dark. Now, I was much younger then, so maybe that plays into it, but I also feel that the more comprehensive rules in 3e have made it easier for me to make those kind of calls. And one of my concerns is the game being designed in such a way that new gamers can pick it up. I think 3e makes better DMs than 1e did, although it would be nice if there was a way to teach DMs "out of the box" thinking as well. Other than just practice, that is.

On the other hand, I'm personally a mix of the gamist and creative type, so I like the game better with a synthesis of the two than with one or the other. I'd hate a straight rules-based game - partly why my feelings are mediocre about computer games. On the other hand, I do enjoy the GAME aspect of D&D as well, even in social situations.

Like I said, my personal preference is for somewhere in that mix Mouseferatu talks about. However, I don't think I'd like a game where that mix shifted from pure roleplay to pure dice rolling depending entirely on the situation. I think the inconsistency would bug me. And quite honestly, if gamists can learn to roleplay, than roleplayers can learn to game. And we'd all be better players for it. So, there's my two cents.

Now, if only we could get this thing back on topic. What was it again?


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 6, 2007)

Maybe I've just been exceptionally lucky in the people I've played rpgs with, but I've never had the kind of "player actions don't match the character's stats" game-breaking problems that seem to be such a big concern in this thread (at least for the last couple pages). 

In my experience, players are always more than willing to portray low-stat characters as such, even to an exaggerated degree beyond what I would want or expect -- a player with a charisma of 7 or 8 (or lower) is probably going to go out of his way to be gauche and/or offensive when dealing with NPCs, one with an Int or Wis in the same range is likely going to proactively have his character do stupid or rash things, and so on. Such characters generally tend to have short life-expectancies, which isn't usually that disappointing to the player -- the get to have some fun role-playing a doofus for a couple sessions, and then are happy to start fresh with a "real" character (note: I don't use point-buy systems, so when such characters come up it's by chance, not player choice (and if the player really objects to playing such a character to the point I think it'll interfere with his fun I'll usually let him roll a replacement)). 

For characters with average scores where the players act exceptionally (Int 11 character always solves puzzles, Cha 10 character whose player is a natural diplomat, etc.) I fall back on something like John Snow's (facetious?) suggestion -- that Int actually represents Mnemonic, Wis Willpower, and Cha Personal Magnetism -- the character's a genius at solving puzzles, but doesn't have the memory to learn extra languages or spells, he gives good tactical advice but doesn't have a bonus on saves against spells, he can talk a good game but people aren't naturally drawn toward him. (Alternatively, we also sometimes do what Henry (I think) mentioned earlier, which is to "assign" the success to the character with the best stats regardless of player -- e.g. if Player A solves a riddle but his character is a dwarf with Int 7, we might declare that in-game the riddle was actually solved by Character B, the Int 17 magic-user, even though Player B had nothing to do with solving it; likewise if Player C makes a particularly compelling speech, we might declare "character D (the high-Cha paladin) says that").

For characters with very high stats, the same logic applies in reverse -- just because you have a near-eidetic memory doesn't mean you're necessarily good at solving puzzles, you can still be rash or foolish even if you have a strong will and spirit, people are still drawn to you even though you're introverted or socially awkward; and, in the case of Int and Wis, I'll also tend to give extra hints to the players with the high scores -- "maybe you could try doing x," "do you really think that's such a good plan?," etc. (or, alternatively, the character is given credit in-game even when another player is actually responsible for the success).

This style of play has worked very well for me as both DM and player across 20+ years and various different player groups (and various different rpg systems as well -- replace stat-names with skill names (Orate, Fast Talk, Spot Hidden, Liaison, Streetwise, etc.) in the above and you've pretty much got how I've always played and DM'd such situations in skill-based games (RQ, CoC, Traveller, Mythus) as well).


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 6, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Maybe I've just been exceptionally lucky in the people I've played rpgs with, but I've never had the kind of "player actions don't match the character's stats" game-breaking problems that seem to be such a big concern in this thread (at least for the last couple pages).




I've rarely seen the low stat character acting as a high stat character.  However, I have seen a lot of the average stat character acting as a high stat character.  I find the same charismatic players often tend to dominate those games in roleplaying situations.

However, my main issue with the extremes is that the players who aren't the charismatic players in these games never get to play the charismatic character.  When they do they are outclassed by the charismatic players who take the role they want to play.

In those games a player who can't fight gets to play a master of combat if he wishes.  But a player who isn't very good at charming other people doesn't get to play "face" character when he wishes (or is ineffective at the role).


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say I "long for the days when D&D had no skill rules", I just disagree with the notion that having the DM adjudicate the success of disguising yourself as a young giant




Tell us the one about the stacking PCs again, Mr Ourph! If you do, I'll tell you about my lightsabers.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 7, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Tell us the one about the stacking PCs again, Mr Ourph! If you do, I'll tell you about my lightsabers.




Go post in the Hot Modron Action thread you weirdo!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go _that_ far.
> 
> I would say, however, that I feel any discussion that treats "challenge the player vs. challenge the PC" as a binary option--or any discussion that treats "DM fiat vs. a comprehensive rules set" as a binary option--is roughly akin to a discussion saying "Which do you like better, pizza or Star Trek? You have to pick one, and picking one means you automatically dislike the other."
> 
> ...




Oh, agreed, there is definitely a range here.  I tend to lean more on the rules heavy side of things, but, as I said before, I'm not trying to make a wrongbadfun thing out of this.  



			
				Planesailing said:
			
		

> It seems that we are working by different definitions then, as it appears that you still consider mechanical rewards to be the only rewards in the game. What you call 'the DM giving you bennies' (whatever they are), I call playing D&D.




As was mentioned, it's shorthand for benefits.  Or a certain kind of recreational pharmaceutical but that's another story.  

However, strictly from a mechanics viewpoint, and that's what I'm talking about, all the rewards that the DM gives to you that aren't dicatated by the rules themselves are actually outside of the scope of the rules.  The rules state that if you kill X, you get Y xp.  It used to say if you picked up 1gp, you also got 1 xp.  Other versions also rewarded certain other actions as well.

However, the rules (and I'm only talking about the rules) have never rewarded role play.  

Now, I 100% agree with you that the DM can reward roleplay.  And I know that I do and I'm sure that everyone reading this thread probably does as well.  However, if you never killed anything and you never picked up a gold piece, the rules would never actually reward you with anything.  By kill, btw, I mean defeat.  

The game does not reward role play.  To a very large extent the game doesn't promote role play either.  Now, as gamers, some like to promote role play to greater or lesser degrees in their game, but, that's entirely a personal preference.  The rules are pretty much silent on the issue.  And always have been.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2007)

> Making a reasonable, common sense judgement about the effect of a character's actions isn't doing game desing on-the-fly. That's a strawman and a weak one at that.




Really? It isn't? Then what is game design, if not making a reasonable, common sense judgment about the effect of a character's actions (and then expressing that judgment as a game design element)? Whenever the DM has to make up a rule to cover a situation, he's doing on-the-fly game design, and the more rules base you have, the more likely you are to not wildly diverge from it when you catch one of the outlying scenarios. 



> A DM implementing his own houserules is different than a DM just running the system the way it was written and the way it was intended to be used. As I said above, it seems to me that people accept the assertion that a more comprehensive ruleset is a boon to the "average" DM because it has the ring of "truthiness" to it, but I've never come across an actual, real-life, situation where I've found that to be true. As a result, I just don't buy that particular theory anymore.
> 
> Extremely comprehensive rules can serve several purposes. They can make negotiating the social contract within a group easier. They can be more fun for people who like complex, granular, "crunchy" systems. They can sell lots of supplemental rulebooks . But I've never seen any evidence that a more comprehensive ruleset improves the ability of a DM to run a fun game. So, until I see some hard evidence in support of this particular myth, I'm calling it busted.




:shrug: It's the reason *I'm* a good DM. If the complexity of the advancement rules weren't in there, taking into account class abilities, hp, ac, attack bonuses, magic equipment, etc., I would have a tendency to chuck monsters at the party that are too difficult just because they are cool and dangerous (because I'm a sucker for an epic monster battle). 

With the amount of different campaign settings I run, having the solid rule base allows me to diverge from it and know my repercussions. I know that if I change the demographic assumptions and make it so that there's only one metropolis on the moon in my setting, and no other towns bigger than a small city, I'll need to provide for high-level adventurer's needs myself, rather than allowing the campaign rules to accommodate them. 

My desire to run short, fast-advancing campaigns over long, steady ones would be thwarted, as well. The current complex rules give me what treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power. Simpler rules of "give them whatever you feel works" would result in PC's that are too weak for their level, because my gut says giving someone an entire treasure award for their level after a single adventure is "too much" (when it isn't).

I'd be an entirely worse DM with less structured rules (and have been...my 2e DMing days were pretty abysmal, even though 2e was hardly "rules light").


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The game does not reward role play.  To a very large extent the game doesn't promote role play either.  Now, as gamers, some like to promote role play to greater or lesser degrees in their game, but, that's entirely a personal preference.  The rules are pretty much silent on the issue.  And always have been.



Depends on what you mean by "role play" -- the training rules in the 1E DMG specifically address how well the player has been portraying the character in a manner appropriate to his class (i.e. the quality of his role-playing) by means of the "performance rating" system (which, IME, was seldom if ever actually used, but is part of the rules nonetheless) and there are also rules governing character alignment with concrete penalties assessed to characters who change alignment because the DM judged they weren't playing their professed alignment (i.e. bad role-playing). Both of these specifically reward/promote role play (or at least punish/discourage bad role play) in a general sense (playing true to your character's class and alignment). Beyond that (creating backstories, motivations, interpersonal connections, unique personalities, distinctive mannerisms, etc.) the rules are silent, which IMO is wholly appropriate -- if the individual DM wants to encourage that sort of development through concrete in-game rewards it's his prerogative to do so, but those shouldn't be held up as universal ideals or hardwired into the rules, at least IMO. IME players who are interested in that sort of character development will do it anyway, whether they're receiving an in-game reward for it or not (so they'd be basically getting "money for nothing") whereas those who aren't interested will grouse and complain and enjoy the game less, and if forced to do so in order to have an effective character still won't do it very well.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My desire to run short, fast-advancing campaigns over long, steady ones would be thwarted, as well. The current complex rules give me what treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power. Simpler rules of "give them whatever you feel works" would result in PC's that are too weak for their level, because my gut says giving someone an entire treasure award for their level after a single adventure is "too much" (when it isn't).




Again, you're talking about house-ruling around the assumptions built into a system, not using a system where the assumptions aren't there to begin with.  This isn't even a problem in other systems (AD&D for example) because there is no "treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power".  The rules do not assume that a party at a given level will wield a given level of power.  The rules assume and instruct the DM in a certain style of play where this isn't an issue.  Saying "I would have this problem if I deviated from the basic assumptions of 3e" isn't an indictment of AD&D or _Amber_ or any other RPG with no guidelines for wealth by level.  If anything, it's an indictment of 3e for needing those extra rules.

:edit to add:

Although I'm not even sure I buy the initial premise that wealth by level guidelines are all that important.  I've run plenty of 3e games and I rarely paid significant attention to the PCs wealth.  My best estimate is that most of the parties I DMed for were somewhat below the wealth guidelines for their level and I never had a problem with the characters being unable to function in the adventures I ran.  Even running published adventures, for characters of their level, didn't seem to be a problem.  There were occasional encounters that required the PCs to retreat, prepare special tactics and then return to face the challenge, but I assume that would happen even if the wealth/level guidelines were being followed to the letter.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 7, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I've rarely seen the low stat character acting as a high stat character.  However, I have seen a lot of the average stat character acting as a high stat character.  I find the same charismatic players often tend to dominate those games in roleplaying situations.
> 
> However, my main issue with the extremes is that the players who aren't the charismatic players in these games never get to play the charismatic character.  When they do they are outclassed by the charismatic players who take the role they want to play.
> 
> In those games a player who can't fight gets to play a master of combat if he wishes.  But a player who isn't very good at charming other people doesn't get to play "face" character when he wishes (or is ineffective at the role).



I see that as more of a player-level issue (sharing vs. hogging the spotlight) than a rules-issue. If a player wants to be a "face" character and has created his character accordingly, but doesn't have that type of personality in real life, the other players and DM should respect that player's wishes and give him opportunities to shine. This might create some awkwards situations at first, but hopefully as the shy/awkward player gains more experience he'll gain more confidence and the role will come more naturally to him, and also hopefully the other players will realize what's going on and not be jerks about it.

(Also, it should be noted that just because someone is capable of playing a character that's very good in combat (good AC, good attack chance, good damage bonus, lots of hp) doesn't mean he'll be good at tactics, and such a character can easily lose in combat where another, weaker, character played more cleverly might survive. The same principle applies with negotiation and role-playing -- a character can have a high Cha score (with attendant reaction bonus) but still say something stupid or inappropriate and botch a negotiation, whereas another player might have the wherewithal to succeed without the bonuses. I don't see the latter as any more of a problem than the former, and would hope in both cases that player #1 would watch and learn from player #2 and thus improve his own performance (which he already has a leg up on due to superior stats/numbers).)


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 7, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> (Also, it should be noted that just because someone is capable of playing a character that's very good in combat (good AC, good attack chance, good damage bonus, lots of hp) doesn't mean he'll be good at tactics, and such a character can easily lose in combat where another, weaker, character played more cleverly might survive. The same principle applies with negotiation and role-playing -- a character can have a high Cha score (with attendant reaction bonus) but still say something stupid or inappropriate and botch a negotiation, whereas another player might have the wherewithal to succeed without the bonuses. I don't see the latter as any more of a problem than the former, and would hope in both cases that player #1 would watch and learn from player #2 and thus improve his own performance (which he already has a leg up on due to superior stats/numbers).)




QFT.  No matter what character type a player picks, the player is responsible for bringing something to the table if he wants to excel.  A beefy fighter (high Str and Con, good equipment, etc.) is not going to be as effective in the hands of a poor tactician as he will be in the hands of a true master of tactics.  And that's the way it should be.  The player who is better at that aspect of the game will excel.  Even if the excellent player has a less powerful character on paper, that doesn't mean that he should be condemned to mediocrity because Buildmaster over there spends more time reading rulebooks than learning how to think tactically.

Suppose you play a character with a high Wis and Int.  Should the DM prevent you for doing stupid crap like pulling random levers in the dungeon, or sticking your head into the mouth of a leering green monster carving?  Should you get a "Wis Save" to avoid displaying basic incompetence?  The same argument applies here as for the tongue-tied guy who can't talk his way out of a $5 library fine trying to play Demosthenes.  It doesn't matter what your stats or skills are: if you're incompetent, you're going to mess up (that's what it means).  If you have high levels of raw talent (stats and skill points), your disasters may be mitigated, and certainly if you ever did operate with something approaching basic competence your successes could be all the greater... but the player who plays the "face man" is as responsible for bringing basic communications skills to the table as is the swordmaster for bringing basic tactics or Brainiac bringing a modicum of wits or Patriarch Enlightenmentikos bringing some rudimentary common sense.

That's just part of what makes it a game: some people are better players than others and they should be rewarded for that.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 7, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> (Also, it should be noted that just because someone is capable of playing a character that's very good in combat (good AC, good attack chance, good damage bonus, lots of hp) doesn't mean he'll be good at tactics, and such a character can easily lose in combat where another, weaker, character played more cleverly might survive.




I agree.  Which is why I prefer a hybridized approach to roleplaying situations using both the skill system with modifiers based on roleplaying approach.  A charismatic player will tend to play a better social character just like a better tactical player will play a better combat oriented character.  However, both can be effective in their weaker roles.  

In my experience, when system is thrown out the window for social encounters then the players poorer at that sort of thing are left in the dust.  I've never seen a true RPG where the combat system is completely thrown out the window.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Even if the excellent player has a less powerful character on paper, that doesn't mean that he should be condemned to mediocrity because Buildmaster over there spends more time reading rulebooks than learning how to think tactically.




Indeed. He should be condemned to mediocrity because he's too lazy to educate himself on the game.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Indeed. He should be condemned to mediocrity because he's too lazy to educate himself on the game.




I guess it depends on what kind of challenge the game is supposed to represent.  I think the game should challenge the player's wits, tactical abilities and sometimes general knowledge or communication skills.

The other school of thought seems to think the game should challenge one's ability to digest thousands of pages of rules and feat descriptions and come up with a l33t k1LLaR K0mb0... or at least something as efficient as possible that gets the maximum possible bonuses.

I'll grant that it does clearly take a special skill to read and digest all the 3E rules and supplements and come up with a brutally efficient "build" that takes damage per round output or skill bonuses to undreamed-of heights.  I just, personally, see that as a pointless skill to develop and I'm not interested in running a game that puts the challenge on that level.

I'd rather run a game where the challenge is put on whether you can solve problems in-game, like puzzles, traps, barely-navigable locations, and difficult tactical situations.

So clearly, 3E is not the game for me.  If it is for you and you're having fun with it then bully!


----------



## Kishin (Mar 8, 2007)

People love to Mearlsbash because his views and design decisions are controversial, particularly amongst the old guard element. Also, since he seems to be at the forefront of development lately, his head seems to stand out as the place to lay blame.




			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> I have no idea.  He wrote a terribly insulting review of _Keep on the Borderlands_ that pretty much insinuated that you would be an idiot for liking it.  So he thinks he knows more about D&D than Gary Gygax, in other words.
> 
> I don't know the guy personally, but he came off very arrogant in that review.




Link?

Also, IMO he's a far better game designer than Gary, at least in this era of D&D.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 8, 2007)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Link?
> 
> Also, IMO he's a far better game designer than Gary, at least in this era of D&D.




See post #36 on page 1; I linked it again later in the thread.

A better game designer than _Gary_?  That sounds pretty darn ridiculous.  How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?

Maybe Mr. Mearls better represents 3E D&D's philosophy.  But that doesn't make him a better designer than Gary Gygax.  I don't know the guy... maybe he's a better physicist than Albert Einstein too.  I have yet to see it, however.  That's not bashing... that's just asking for some results to back up a claim.

Incidentally, while I have not seen evidence that Mr. Mearls considers himself to be a better game designer than Gary, his review clearly indicates that he finds B2 to be beneath him.  My opinion is that this comes from a failure to understand what B2 is actually all about.  As explained upthread.  I was hoping Mr. Mearls would explain himself, but it seems that so far he has chosen not to do so.  I'm sure he is a busy fellow.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2007)

Kishin said:
			
		

> People love to Mearlsbash because his views and design decisions are controversial, particularly amongst the old guard element. Also, since he seems to be at the forefront of development lately, his head seems to stand out as the place to lay blame.




Personally, I like about 50% of what Mr. Mearls has to say about game design.  I hate his thoughts on redesigning the Rust Monster, but I think he's spot-on when it comes to his analysis of Rules Mastery vs. Barriers to Entry and related subjects.  I'm not sure I'd like a game solely designed by Mike Mearls, but if I were writing my own game I'd definitely value his opinion (even if I didn't always agree with it).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> See post #36 on page 1; I linked it again later in the thread.
> 
> A better game designer than _Gary_?  That sounds pretty darn ridiculous.




I think Steven Hawking is a better physicist than Albert Einstein.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 8, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I think Steven Hawking is a better physicist than Albert Einstein.



And that's a moot debate, because 1) that's something completely different; 2) Gary is the _inventor_ of the genre, while Mearls is a designer within the bounds of the genre. Not that comparable - like comparing Adam Smith to Wallstreet Broker.


----------



## freyar (Mar 8, 2007)

I'm not sure how off-topic this is given how far we are from the OP already, but here goes:



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I think Steven Hawking is a better physicist than Albert Einstein.




As a physicist in the same field as Hawking, I have to say that he's quite smart but not in the same league as Einstein.  If you want to pick someone alive today as having remotely the same kind of impact as AE, go with Ed Witten (publicity or lack of notwithstanding).  Seriously!


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on what kind of challenge the game is supposed to represent.  I think the game should challenge the player's wits, tactical abilities and sometimes general knowledge or communication skills.




... because reading, you know, doesn't require wit or knowledge. Maybe it's an oracular thing.



> The other school of thought seems to think the game should challenge one's ability to digest thousands of pages of rules and feat descriptions and come up with a l33t k1LLaR K0mb0... or at least something as efficient as possible that gets the maximum possible bonuses.




Well, can you do it?



> I'll grant that it does clearly take a special skill to read and digest all the 3E rules and supplements and come up with a brutally efficient "build" that takes damage per round output or skill bonuses to undreamed-of heights.




Indeed it does. It's the polar opposite of the skill required to spend three hours thinking up yet another fiendish plan to rule the world disguise yourself as giants, taking into consideration the myriad possible complicating factors and contingency plans required, succumbing to paralysis of analysis, in the end failing to accomplish anything of note, and finishing the night arguing about who would win: a samurai or a knight.

"What are we going to do today, Brain?"

"Same thing we do every day, Pinky: fail to get into a fight!"




> I just, personally, see that as a pointless skill to develop




... whereas being able to think up new and innovative ways to disguise yourself as a giant is valuable and worthwhile! Perhaps we can start work on an IPO.



> and I'm not interested in running a game that puts the challenge on that level.




Well, at least you didn't say that you could, but chose not to.



> I'd rather run a game where the challenge is put on whether you can solve problems in-game, like puzzles, traps, barely-navigable locations, and difficult tactical situations.




"Shut up and roll for initiative!" -- Richard Feynman, paraphrased


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2007)

> Again, you're talking about house-ruling around the assumptions built into a system, not using a system where the assumptions aren't there to begin with. This isn't even a problem in other systems (AD&D for example) because there is no "treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power". The rules do not assume that a party at a given level will wield a given level of power. The rules assume and instruct the DM in a certain style of play where this isn't an issue. Saying "I would have this problem if I deviated from the basic assumptions of 3e" isn't an indictment of AD&D or Amber or any other RPG with no guidelines for wealth by level. If anything, it's an indictment of 3e for needing those extra rules.




I'm sorry, but this is untrue.  The +x DR of 1e pretty much necessitated certain magic items by certain levels.  Certainly that was taken into account when designing adventures.  You don't see gargoyles in Cult of the Reptile God.  Although, to be fair, you do see a wight, at the end, after the party is assumed to have picked up one of the many magic weapons floating around.

Yes, the wealth by level was never specifically called out, but, it was most certainly there.  There's a reason why tough monsters had better treasure.  You were at a level where you needed those magic weapons, so the chance of finding them goes up with tougher monsters.

I see this argument a lot, and it always surprises me that people think that wealth by level considerations were never part of the game before 3e.  I have a question then.  If your PC died and a new PC came in, did they always come in at level 1 or at 1 level back from the rest of the party.  We did 1 level down.  And, we always gave a higher level character magical treasure.  

Am I strange in doing this?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Depends on what you mean by "role play" -- the training rules in the 1E DMG specifically address how well the player has been portraying the character in a manner appropriate to his class (i.e. the quality of his role-playing) by means of the "performance rating" system (which, IME, was seldom if ever actually used, but is part of the rules nonetheless) and there are also rules governing character alignment with concrete penalties assessed to characters who change alignment because the DM judged they weren't playing their professed alignment (i.e. bad role-playing). Both of these specifically reward/promote role play (or at least punish/discourage bad role play) in a general sense (playing true to your character's class and alignment). Beyond that (creating backstories, motivations, interpersonal connections, unique personalities, distinctive mannerisms, etc.) the rules are silent, which IMO is wholly appropriate -- if the individual DM wants to encourage that sort of development through concrete in-game rewards it's his prerogative to do so, but those shouldn't be held up as universal ideals or hardwired into the rules, at least IMO. IME players who are interested in that sort of character development will do it anyway, whether they're receiving an in-game reward for it or not (so they'd be basically getting "money for nothing") whereas those who aren't interested will grouse and complain and enjoy the game less, and if forced to do so in order to have an effective character still won't do it very well.




That's the point though.  While it may punish bad role play, it in no way rewards good role play.  If I am average, or just good enough to not be bad, or I am an astounding actor worthy of distinction, the game couldn't care less.  This is the point I've been trying to make for a while now.  When people talk about how one edition favours role play more than another, I just shake my head.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> See post #36 on page 1; I linked it again later in the thread.
> 
> A better game designer than _Gary_?  That sounds pretty darn ridiculous.  How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?




Thanks for pointing that link out. I guess I just missed it.

Attributing D&D's success to Gary alone is like giving Paul all the credit for the Beatles. He gets credit for laying the groundwork, but it was a group effort that perfected it.



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> Maybe Mr. Mearls better represents 3E D&D's philosophy.




This is almost certainly the case. I'll avoid causing this to degenerate into another Edition Wars thread, but I feel like the Mearls' work is a lot more mechanically innovative and balanced than anything Gygax has ever done. I'd almost argue he's a better storyteller, too, but that was never Gary's intention in a D&D game. (Although, Greyhawk definitely charms me).

I'm sure this is a largely a taste issue anyway.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's the point though.  While it may punish bad role play, it in no way rewards good role play.  If I am average, or just good enough to not be bad, or I am an astounding actor worthy of distinction, the game couldn't care less.



Sure it does. Here's the pertinent quote from the 1E DMG:


			
				1E DMG said:
			
		

> Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:
> 
> E - Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
> S - Superior, deviations minimal but noted = 2
> ...



Those are ratings based on _quality of role-play_ and the numerical values translate directly into how much time and money is required for the character to gain a level -- a player who is "just good enough to not be bad" is likely to find himself required to spend 2-3x the time _and money_ to gain a level as someone "worthy of distinction." Given the already onerous BtB training costs (1500 g.p./week/level) this makes a huge difference -- so huge, in fact, that no one I knew ever used these rules as written (we always ignored the performance ratings and assigned 1 week of training time to everybody). But just because few people used them doesn't mean they aren't there.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 8, 2007)

Kishin said:
			
		

> People love to Mearlsbash because his views and design decisions are controversial, particularly amongst the old guard element.




No, you've got it all backwards. His ideas are controversial because his views and designs get bashed by many but not all people. We love to Mearlsbash because we really don't find any merit in his designs yet he is in a postion to force them down our throats. It's "speak now or forever hold your peace" time so we're speaking. It he was still off in 3rd party land coming up with controversial ideas, nobody would care.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Given the already onerous BtB training costs (1500 g.p./week/level) this makes a huge difference -- so huge, in fact, that no one I knew ever used these rules as written (we always ignored the performance ratings and assigned 1 week of training time to everybody). But just because few people used them doesn't mean they aren't there.




I again find something, you know, platonic about this. It's like, you know, platonic.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 8, 2007)

> Saying "I would have this problem if I deviated from the basic assumptions of 3e" isn't an indictment of AD&D or Amber or any other RPG with no guidelines for wealth by level. If anything, it's an indictment of 3e for needing those extra rules.




It's not really an indictment, because, like you say, it's not like you NEED those rules to have a good RPG.

D&D elects to have them, because D&D is interested in keeping ever-advancing players challenged with ever-advancing adversaries (for instance). 

I happen to enjoy the feel of ever-advancing power in the hands of both the enemy and the party. 

If I were to try to grant ever-advancing power in very rules-light system, it would be more difficult for me, because I would have no way to adjudicate how Awesome Ability X measures up to Awesome Ability Z with any reliability (even point-based systems have the famous min/max flaws that often create very binary characters, which are a problem for players). 

I can easily grant ever-advancing power in D&D, and even change or eliminate it, and be better able to tell what the repercussions are. This makes me a better DM, because it means that more of my ideas and stories and challenges can be brought to the game without resulting in a lack of balance.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2007)

Wealth by level guidelines - One man's crutch is another man's tool.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> A better game designer than _Gary_?  That sounds pretty darn ridiculous.  How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?




Is popularity the only metric for being a better game designer? In that case, there are tons of games out there that have been or are more popular than D&D at the height of its popularity. Such as Pokemon, World of Warcraft, Trivial Pursuit and what have you.

That would place GG quite far down the ladder when judging leet game design skills, actually.

Which in my opinion, shows why using the popularity of one designers efforts to "prove" that he is a better game designer than another one, is fraught with difficulties.

/M


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> ISo clearly, 3E is not the game for me.  If it is for you and you're having fun with it then bully!




Well, hong's D&D 3E may not be the game for you.  But extreme views often result in extreme reactions.  While 3E does have some very defined design philosophies built into it, it actually supports a very braod definition od what is Dungeons and Dragons.

Hate the players, not the game.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this is untrue.  The +x DR of 1e pretty much necessitated certain magic items by certain levels.



No, I'm sorry, but it didn't.  And there was no +x DR there was +x or you couldn't even hit the creature, period.  But the rules don't suggest or even assume that a character of a certain level will have a weapon with a certain bonus.  What they do assume is that a party who encounters such a creature but have no weapons able to hit it will either rely on other means to defeat the creature or simply run away, either to come back when they have the necessary tools to take it on or to avoid the creature altogether and face other challenges.  This is covered numerous times in the advisory text in both the PHB and the DMG.



> Certainly that was taken into account when designing adventures.



Just because some adventures included monsters that required +2 weapons to hit and some did not doesn't indicate the rules assumed certain wealth by level guidelines.  Of course adventures designed for low level characters avoided those types of creatures, those creatures were tougher, had more HD and were too great a challenge for low level characters regardless of their equipment.

In addition, if you actually look at some of the pregenerated characters for AD&D adventure modules designed for high level characters you'll see that there was quite a bit of disparity between the total monetary value of equipment between one character and another.  If these modules are using some sort of wealth by level guideline, why aren't all the individual characters equipped with roughly the same value of treasure?



> Yes, the wealth by level was never specifically called out, but, it was most certainly there.  There's a reason why tough monsters had better treasure.  You were at a level where you needed those magic weapons, so the chance of finding them goes up with tougher monsters.



I think you're making quite a few unfounded assumptions here.  There are plenty of reasons for tougher monsters to have better treasure other than an assumed wealth by level rule.  It should also be noted that not all tougher monsters did have better treasure.  There are plenty of high HD unintelligent monsters who have crappy treasure tables (Owlbears) and quite a few low HD monsters who roll on the really good ones (Bandits).



> If your PC died and a new PC came in, did they always come in at level 1 or at 1 level back from the rest of the party.  We did 1 level down.  And, we always gave a higher level character magical treasure.
> 
> Am I strange in doing this?



I don't know if you're strange, but the rules certainly don't suggest or even support this way of playing.  In fact, the AD&D books make it pretty clear that the assumed style of play is bringing in new PCs at level 1 (or allowing the player to pick up play of one of the assumed party henchmen who may be higher level and may already have some magical treasure).  In my experience with AD&D that's always been the case except on a few very rare occasions.  Even in the very few instances when new PC were brought in at a higher level, they were certainly NOT given magical treasure at character creation.  Any magical items they started play with were the product of redistribution of items within the party after they joined (and these PCs almost never ended up with the equipment their former PC used).

In addition, even if such a guideline were intended, I think it would be pretty well impossible to implement wealth by level in actual play with AD&D if the DM was using the RAW.  Random treausre generation based on treasure type instead of CR, failed saving throws that regularly destroyed magical equipment, large variances in the cost of training and the non-standardized multiclassing rules would make any formalized wealth by level system unworkable without the DM stepping in and just assinging specific treasure values to specific PCs.  The fact that no effort was made to guide the DM past these many pitfalls indicates very strongly to me that the rules silence on the issue is intentional.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's not really an indictment, because, like you say, it's not like you NEED those rules to have a good RPG.
> 
> D&D elects to have them, because D&D is interested in keeping ever-advancing players challenged with ever-advancing adversaries (for instance).
> 
> I happen to enjoy the feel of ever-advancing power in the hands of both the enemy and the party.



That's fine, but I assume you're not suggesting that a system without wealth by level guidelines can't support ever-advancing power in both PCs and their adversaries.  Are you?  Because I have to tell you that AD&D, Classic D&D, WFRP, Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., etc. etc. (basically any game that allows PC advancement but lacks a wealth by level guideline - of which there are many) do this just fine.



> If I were to try to grant ever-advancing power in very rules-light system, it would be more difficult for me, because I would have no way to adjudicate how Awesome Ability X measures up to Awesome Ability Z with any reliability (even point-based systems have the famous min/max flaws that often create very binary characters, which are a problem for players).
> 
> I can easily grant ever-advancing power in D&D, and even change or eliminate it, and be better able to tell what the repercussions are. This makes me a better DM, because it means that more of my ideas and stories and challenges can be brought to the game without resulting in a lack of balance.



If you say continuing to challenge the players without the wealth by level guidelines would be difficult for you, I'll take you at your word, but I find that difficult to believe since the presence of those guidelines is hardly the sole determining factor for whether the PCs will be up to a specific challenge in 3e.  In my experience, the player's knowledge of the rules, their choices during character advancement and the types of creatures a DM is utilizing to challenge them are all very important, much moreso than a strict adherence to the wealth guidelines. All of those things require just as much, if not more, DM judgement and evaluation of the situation than controlling how much treasure the PCs have.  So, it seems odd to me that a DM competent at evaluating and negotiating all the other variables that affect PC vs. challenge relationships in the game would be completely thrown by having to use his own judgement to evaluate the way the PCs equipment affects their capabilities.

Also, I'd like to note that I never said that choice of system can't make an already good DM better by playing to his strengths and giving him tools he likes to use or feels more comfortable using.  That's never been the focus of this conversation.  The point of contention was whether a more comprehensive system could take a bad DM and turn him into a decent one.  I still haven't read anything that would convince me such is the case.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That's just part of what makes it a game: some people are better players than others and they should be rewarded for that.




Why? The point of the game is to have fun, and the same person always hogging the spotlight isn't fun. It's nice to be able to play different characters, and it's nice to be able to stretch your bounds without feeling that you're being punished for it. I don't see any problem with a DM being flexible, so a player with less natural charisma can play a character with more charisma.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Why? The point of the game is to have fun, and the same person always hogging the spotlight isn't fun.




You're assuming that rewarding players for developing skills that help them to do well at the game the way Korgoth runs it equates to one person hogging the spotlight all the time.  That seems like a big leap.



> It's nice to be able to play different characters, and it's nice to be able to stretch your bounds without feeling that you're being punished for it. I don't see any problem with a DM being flexible, so a player with less natural charisma can play a character with more charisma.




Playing different characters and "stretching your bounds" may be fun for you and a DM being flexible may be necessary for that to happen with your playstyle, but that's not the only way people approach the game.  There are plenty of people who see the "point" of the game being the same as the "point" of playing softball or the "point" of playing chess, i.e. - to test your skill against the challenge of the game, to improve those skills through competition, etc.  From that point of view, the DM being flexible so that you can more easily play a character that interests you is the antithesis of the "point".  Having the challenge be presented to the character, rather than the player, circumvents the entire reason those players are there in the first place.

I call this the dichotomy of Sport vs. Hobby.  Some people treat RPGs as a hobby (like model-railroading) where the point is to play with the pieces but not necessarily to compete.  They are content to try out new things and explore how all the pieces can fit together without emphasizing the competition aspects of the game.  Creating worlds, working their way through plots, developing characters, etc. are the reasons they play the game.  Others treat RPGs the same way they do sports (golf for example), where the fun is in measuring your skills against others and improving your skills over time.  Amongst the "sports" there are also divisions based on whether people measure skill through rules mastery vs. lateral thinking/problem solving or through some other yardstick.


----------



## phindar (Mar 8, 2007)

I don't think its one or the other, though.  I think every player has a Sports to Hobby ratio. I'd think the solely Sports type or the soley Hobby types are the exceptions rather than the rule.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> I don't think its one or the other, though.  I think every player has a Sports to Hobby ratio. I'd think the solely Sports type or the soley Hobby types are the exceptions rather than the rule.




This isn't a science and nothing is absolute.  I think the distinction is still useful though.  We're talking about people and people aren't always consistent in what they want or why they do things, but if you ask someone what they think the "point" of the game is, their answer will almost always put them clearly in one group or the other.  The definitions are not exclusionary.  Someone can enjoy the act of exploring the imaginary game world and still think the "point" of the game is to test their skill as a player and grow better mastering the game.  Conversely, someone who sees the game as a hobby can still get enjoyment from achieving victory over a foe or designing an effective character.


----------



## mearls (Mar 8, 2007)

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but Korgoth asked for an explanation and I think he deserves one.

My main beef with KotB is that there were already plenty of better modules prior to it, yet KotB is the module that ended up in the basic set. White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, and many others all did a better job of showing off what D&D can do than KotB.

Compare it to my favorite adventure of all time, Temple of Elemental Evil. Temple has a good starting base for a campaign, a challenging dungeon to teach players the ropes, and plenty of interesting material for a DM to use as a springboard. When I ran it back in the day, I had a ton of fun building side temples and plots involving the different NPCs.

It was fun springing Tushuko (sp?) and his fighter buddy on the PCs when they walked back from the moathouse. The assassins who rolled into town to wreak bloody vengeance were a great time. These were all things that made the adventure fun.

In comparison, the Keep just doesn't hold up. The evil priest in the keep is a little interesting, and the temple to chaos is pretty dang cool, but Gary just wasn't on top of his game with the module.

As far as Mearls bashing goes, I don't really care about it. There are some people who, if they bash on something I do, I listen to them. There are other people who can say whatever the heck they want. I simply don't care. It's the nature of the Internet that negative voices amplify and echo. At the end of the day, my job is to make really cool D&D books that make lots of money for Hasbro, distributors, and retailers, while making D&D more fun for as many people as possible.

There are times when complaining is a sign that a design is hitting its aims square in the bull's eye. If no one complained that Nine Swords was too anime or overpowered, that would've been a good sign that we screwed up.

Frankly, people who mindlessly bash away without offering any insight end up on my ignore list. And if that's the price of working full-time on D&D, well, I'm more than happy to pay it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 8, 2007)

> Also, I'd like to note that I never said that choice of system can't make an already good DM better by playing to his strengths and giving him tools he likes to use or feels more comfortable using. That's never been the focus of this conversation. The point of contention was whether a more comprehensive system could take a bad DM and turn him into a decent one. I still haven't read anything that would convince me such is the case.




If there is a difference between "allowing a DM to better play to his strengths" and "making a DM better," I don't see it.

A DM who can better play to his strengths is able to (a) pay more attention to his weaknesses, making sure they are mitigated, and (b)play up his strengths, to better grant the fun.

A DM who is engaged with his game, who is in his element, and whose weaknesses don't ruin the fun? That's a GOOD DM, or at least a mediocre one. If D&D's rules do nothing other than make weaknesses in DMs less of an issue, they have improved the DM.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 8, 2007)

So do you reject the notion that these two modules (written by the same person at approximately the same time) aren't just a case of one "being at the top of his game" vs. the other "not" and instead represent deliberately different approaches -- KotB is a skeletal framework, a toolbox for the DM to customize and add to own his own, VoH/ToEE is a more explicitly detailed and 'complete' work -- and that this difference was meant to signify the different approaches of the two games, Original/Basic D&D on the one hand and AD&D on the other? OD&D (and its descendent, Basic D&D) has a minimalist ruleset that leaves much to the discretion of the individual DM, so it makes sense that adventures designed for it would be similarly minimalist and open to DM tinkering and modification, whereas AD&D has a more codified and comprehensive (and, by necessity, complex) ruleset that is better served by more codified, comprehensive, and complex adventures. Must the former be viewed as inferior to the latter and not just _different_?


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I don't have time to read the entire thread, but Korgoth asked for an explanation and I think he deserves one.
> 
> My main beef with KotB is that there were already plenty of better modules prior to it, yet KotB is the module that ended up in the basic set. White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, and many others all did a better job of showing off what D&D can do than KotB.
> 
> ...




Thanks, man.  I appreciate getting to read your thoughts on this.

I can see your point, for example in comparing the Keep itself to Hommlet or the Caves of Chaos to the Moathouse.  And there's nothing in B2 that stands out the way some sections of D3 or S2 do.  And I can agree that B2 is probably not Gary's best module.

I do think that part of B2's strength lies in the fact that it is a teaching tool, meant for the DM to see how things work in a base community, a wilderness and an underworld.  The module contains all three.  The Keep has things like the Tavern which give ideas about hiring mercenaries (including costs for such), hearing rumors and encountering wanderers.  It also has notes about mapping out and expanding the Keep's encounter locations.  Likewise with the wilderness and underworld, B2 gives options for expansion and gives a number of ideas about how different tribes of monsters will interact, what sorts of things you can do there (destroy the shrine, rescue the prisoners, etc.).  I think that the simplicity and the hand-holding nature of it are part of the point.  To that end, I personally think that B2 did a good job.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 9, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I do think that part of B2's strength lies in the fact that it is a teaching tool, meant for the DM to see how things work in a base community, a wilderness and an underworld.  The module contains all three.  The Keep has things like the Tavern which give ideas about hiring mercenaries (including costs for such), hearing rumors and encountering wanderers.  It also has notes about mapping out and expanding the Keep's encounter locations.  Likewise with the wilderness and underworld, B2 gives options for expansion and gives a number of ideas about how different tribes of monsters will interact, what sorts of things you can do there (destroy the shrine, rescue the prisoners, etc.).  I think that the simplicity and the hand-holding nature of it are part of the point.  To that end, I personally think that B2 did a good job.



FIFY. As " just another module," B2 is pretty mediocre (though there's some great flavor sprinkled here and there -- "Bree yark," the shrine of Evil Chaos, etc.), but as _the first module_, an introduction to what the game's all about, a way to show 11 year old novice DMs how to design an adventure and run the game, it's a masterpiece.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 9, 2007)

Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.

Cheers!


----------



## Ourph (Mar 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If there is a difference between "allowing a DM to better play to his strengths" and "making a DM better," I don't see it.
> 
> A DM who can better play to his strengths is able to (a) pay more attention to his weaknesses, making sure they are mitigated, and (b)play up his strengths, to better grant the fun.



I'm saying I don't think that a more comprehensive ruleset can take a bad DM and make him into a good one.  By definition, a bad DM doesn't have strengths to play to.  You're looking at it as a problem of resource management (i.e. the DM is bad because he doesn't have enough attentional resources to distribute to fixing all of his problems).  I don't think that's an accurate model.  IMO bad DMs are bad not because they don't have adequate resources to be better, but because they specifically make wrong choices.  If that's the case, he won't "pay more attention to his weaknesses" because he doesn't recognize them as weaknesses in the first place.

If you're interested in better understanding why I think that you might want to look over this article *Unskilled and Unaware of It:  How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assessments*, which explains basically that the skills we use to be good at something are also the same skills we use to evaluate our own performance.  In other words, if you are a bad DM you don't have the necessary skills to recognize that you're bad or what exactly it is about your performance that is inadequate.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If D&D's rules do nothing other than make weaknesses in DMs less of an issue, they have improved the DM.



That's what I take issue with.  I've never seen a more comprehensive ruleset take a DM weakness and fix it.  As far as my experience goes, bad DMs are bad no matter what system they are using.



			
				T. Foster said:
			
		

> FIFY. As " just another module," B2 is pretty mediocre (though there's some great flavor sprinkled here and there -- "Bree yark," the shrine of Evil Chaos, etc.), but as _the first module_, an introduction to what the game's all about, a way to show 11 year old novice DMs how to design an adventure and run the game, it's a masterpiece.



I would be interested to hear Mr. Mearls' opinions of B1: In Search of the Unknown and how they compare to B2.  B1 is very similar to B2 in intent but of a much more limited scope (not covering "town" or "wilderness" areas) and obviously much more focused.  It's still written down to the level of a young, novice DM and is thus, at times, fairly simplistic, but I wonder if this more focused approach makes the simplicity more palatable and less obtrusive?


----------



## mearls (Mar 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.




I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. T. Foster and Korgoth like B2 for a variety of reasons, I don't. Working for WotC doesn't give me the ability to absolutely judge what's good and bad.

I don't think anyone is wrong to like B2. I just happen to dislike it. That said, I've been toying with the idea of running a game based on it. I think the concept is great, I'm just not crazy about the execution.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is wrong to like B2. I just happen to dislike it. That said, I've been toying with the idea of running a game based on it. I think the concept is great, I'm just not crazy about the execution.




Running B2 led into my current (self-created) campaign, as I worked out exactly who those Priests of Chaos were anyway.  

I asked Gary about its design back a couple of years ago in one of his Q&A threads, and the design of the caves was meant to pack a lot of fun (that is, killing monsters and getting treasure) into a small space. IIRC, of course!

Personally, I prefer I3 & I4 as examples of adventure design (with the exception of how the efreeti must be freed...)

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 9, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> A better game designer than _Gary_?  That sounds pretty darn ridiculous.  How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?



I won't hesitate to claim that Mike, along with quite a few other current designers are vastly better game designers than Gary.

Now it is really quite likely that not a single one of them would have have the stroke of insight to create the RPG concept when it didn't truly exist (as we think of it now) before.  Gary gets that credit in spades and always will.  He is the father of the genre.  He'll be the main attraction at the RPG hall of fame for it and it is well deserved.

But the game systems were fair to midling designs that happened to be latched onto a brilliant idea that a good sized audience was very greatly excited to experience as a new thing.  There is a big difference between quality of overall design and brilliance of a new big picture idea.
Both deserve plenty of credit.  But they are not the same.


----------



## hong (Mar 9, 2007)

Just to get back to the original topic....

Mearls, you mentioned that the invulnerable pet caused you difficulties, in that anything that had a chance of hitting it would automatically hit everyone else.

I'm curious about what the dinosaur had on it that made it unhittable? Also, someone mentioned in here that the solution to an unhittable target is to switch to another tactic that doesn't involve (physical) hitting. To what extent do you consider this a valid approach in design terms? Ie, is it good/defensible design to allow someone to get a super ability if it's balanced by a weak spot/Achilles heel somewhere else? Would your answer be the same if it wasn't physical AC but magic-related, eg unbeatable SR?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.
> 
> Cheers!





Everybody run for the hills!  I agree with Merric!


----------



## mearls (Mar 9, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Just to get back to the original topic....
> 
> Mearls, you mentioned that the invulnerable pet caused you difficulties, in that anything that had a chance of hitting it would automatically hit everyone else.
> 
> I'm curious about what the dinosaur had on it that made it unhittable? Also, someone mentioned in here that the solution to an unhittable target is to switch to another tactic that doesn't involve (physical) hitting. To what extent do you consider this a valid approach in design terms? Ie, is it good/defensible design to allow someone to get a super ability if it's balanced by a weak spot/Achilles heel somewhere else? Would your answer be the same if it wasn't physical AC but magic-related, eg unbeatable SR?




I have no idea what the pet had that gave it such a crazy AC. I imagine it was simply a combination of notoriously.... interesting... mechanics, such as the druid's pet, and the druid in general, along with some stuff from Savage Species. Keep in mind that this game is pretty much an excuse for people to make ridiculous characters to pit against my equally ridiculous giants.

D&D already gives you a trade off of strengths and weaknesses on the class level. Extending it elsewhere is dicey. Races are a good example. A +4 Con isn't balanced by -4 Int and -4 Cha. Anyone who takes such a race simply avoids classes that need Int and Cha.

On a similar level, giving someone a great AC but balancing it with a bad Will save is problematic because it pushes the issue on to the DM. To challenge the character, the DM needs to throw monsters that force Will saves at him. How often is enough? Every encounter? Every other encounter?

The underlying genius of the class system is that it requires the players to work together to mask each others' weaknesses. Trade offs on that level are fine, because the adventure challenges the party as a whole. Trade offs on a PC level are more problematic, particularly when you let someone pick strength A that comes with weakness B. The smart player simply minimizes the weakness and emphasizes the strength, like with the race example I gave above.

I think balance works best when you look at equivalent options and weigh them, rather than by taking an option and putting a counter on it that rests in another area.

OTOH, you can balance by placing the cost in the correct position. A bonus to AC for a penalty to a Will save is bad, because the two aren't really equivalent. The situation that calls on AC has nothing to do with Will, and vice versa. For example, imagine a feat that gives a +1 bonus to AC, plus the option to gain +4 AC against one attack in return for taking a -4 penalty to AC until the character uses a standard action to regain his defensive focus (or whatever). In this case, the penalty ties directly to the area that the feat serves, hopefully provoking an interesting decision.

(Obviously, that's not the best feat in the world, but I hope it illustrates the idea.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is wrong to like B2. I just happen to dislike it. That said, I've been toying with the idea of running a game based on it. I think the concept is great, I'm just not crazy about the execution.




Hmm... Seems like what you need is someone who's up on current D&D mechanics/philosophies, and who likes the original but recognizes that it has its flaws, to sign up to write an "Expedition to..."-style revisit.

Gosh, where could you find someone like that? Hmm...










What?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2007)

> Just because some adventures included monsters that required +2 weapons to hit and some did not doesn't indicate the rules assumed certain wealth by level guidelines. Of course adventures designed for low level characters avoided those types of creatures, those creatures were tougher, had more HD and were too great a challenge for low level characters regardless of their equipment.




Really?  IIRC, a wight had 4 hd.  Hardly a major player.  Gargoyles had 4 HD too.  Both have +1 or better to hit requirements.  Which is what I meant by +x DR.  Sorry to confuse you by mixing a bit of 3e terminology in there.  The problems of shorthand.

However, the fact that a fair number of these monsters show up on the same "level" in the DMG points to the idea that they are expected to be fought at that level.  Which leads to the assumption that you are going to have the tools in which to do that.

While the tournament characters may have had disparities in wealth, how many 6th level tournament characters didn't have a magic weapon?  As I recall, the Dragonlance characters all started out with magic weapons as well at 5th level.  I'd be pretty hard pressed to find a 5th level pregen WITHOUT a magic weapon.  Yet, I'd be equally hard pressed to find a 5th level pregen with a vorpal sword.

Kind of points to wealth by level don't it?  Yes, it wasn't called out.  And yes, it wasn't codified.  But, it certainly existed.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.  Sorry for the massive threadjack.


----------



## Erekose (Mar 9, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hmm... Seems like what you need is someone who's up on current D&D mechanics/philosophies, and who likes the original but recognizes that it has its flaws, to sign up to write an "Expedition to..."-style revisit.
> 
> Gosh, where could you find someone like that? Hmm...
> 
> What?




Where indeed? LOL - well you get my vote Ari for what it's worth!


----------



## RedFox (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> (Obviously, that's not the best feat in the world, but I hope it illustrates the idea.)




Hi.  I'm interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Roman (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> As far as Mearls bashing goes, I don't really care about it. There are some people who, if they bash on something I do, I listen to them. There are other people who can say whatever the heck they want. I simply don't care. It's the nature of the Internet that negative voices amplify and echo. At the end of the day, my job is to make really cool D&D books that make lots of money for Hasbro, distributors, and retailers, while making D&D more fun for as many people as possible.
> 
> There are times when complaining is a sign that a design is hitting its aims square in the bull's eye. If no one complained that Nine Swords was too anime or overpowered, that would've been a good sign that we screwed up.




I can see that with the Nine Swords book, since I got the impression that it was supposed to test what is essentially the equivalent of a spell-system for warrior-types (I don't actually have the book, so I am making this assumption on the few things I have read about it). However, in most cases a large dose of complaining surely cannot be taken as a good thing, although some complaining is inevitable with every product or design decision. 

In this context, if possible, I would like to enquire a bit into the apparent desire to move the game into the direction of 'per encounter' balancing, which at least from the looks of things on these boards, grates a significant number of people in the wrong way. Many of us, myself included, simply do not see many advantages in balancing the game on a 'per encounter' basis and 'fear' (as much as you can fear something about a game) that the eventual 4th edition will be balanced in this manner. 

If you find the time, could you please expound on the philosophy behind the shift of the game in this direction? 

As of now, I can already foresee many problems with players trying to artificially join encounters together in order to maintain a duration on their ability, or alternatively cut encounters short just so that their ability refreshes. There is also the fact that per-encounter balancing does not limit characters on a greater timescale, so grinding the PCs down gradually, which can be an interesting part of some adventures, would be much less of an option. Of course, the lack of a standard and balancing for out of encounter ability use if they are balanced on a per encounter basis, also raises questions. The game also seems more interesting if some classes have a trade-off between peak power and staying power and per encounter balancing would seem to do away with this. 

Some of the above problems could be avoided by using implicit rather than explicit per encounter balancing. That is, rather than abilities having a 'per encounter' duration, they could have a set time duration, say 5 minutes (or 2 minutes - the exact number would require playtesting), that is sufficient for the duration of almost all encounters and could in practice be treated as a 'per encounter' duration untill one of those situations arises where the encounter is very non-standard in terms of its duration. It would also take care of the out of encounter use of abilities and their duration. Also, rather than abilities being refreshed every encounter, more abilities could be usable at will or require a 'cooldown' period of varying magnitudes depending on the ability in question. This kind of implicit per encounter balancing would be much more palatable for me (and I dare guess many other people) than explicit per encounter balancing, though it still retains the problem that characters cannot be ground down gradually across multiple encounters (which can be great fun), does not allow for significant trade-offs between peak power and staying power and does not allow for abilities with more far reaching impacts than encounter resolution (I am thinking of things like wish spells, etc.). For these to be possible, at least some balancing out of the 'per encounter' system would have to be retained.


----------



## Roman (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I have no idea what the pet had that gave it such a crazy AC. I imagine it was simply a combination of notoriously.... interesting... mechanics, such as the druid's pet, and the druid in general, along with some stuff from Savage Species. Keep in mind that this game is pretty much an excuse for people to make ridiculous characters to pit against my equally ridiculous giants.
> 
> D&D already gives you a trade off of strengths and weaknesses on the class level. Extending it elsewhere is dicey. Races are a good example. A +4 Con isn't balanced by -4 Int and -4 Cha. Anyone who takes such a race simply avoids classes that need Int and Cha.
> 
> ...




Thanks for this post - I love reading design posts (especially from designers  ) and always seek to learn something from them.  

I can see the logic behind not wanting to balance classes by giving them a bonus in one area and a penalty in a relatively unrelated area, but if you do not do this, how can you differentiate classes from one another? For example, wizards have high will saves and spellcasting, but poor BAB and hit dice. If you do not want to balance their spellcasting prowess by poor BAB and hit dice, then you either have to remove their spellcasting ability, in which case they are no longer wizards, or you have to balance their spellcasting with penalties in other areas, which though brings us back to square one. So I can see the logic in your thinking, but it seems that it presents a conundrum. 

As to your thoughts about classes supporting one another, though, I am in complete agreement and am happy that this is the design approach being taken.


----------



## hong (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> The underlying genius of the class system is that it requires the players to work together to mask each others' weaknesses. Trade offs on that level are fine, because the adventure challenges the party as a whole. Trade offs on a PC level are more problematic, particularly when you let someone pick strength A that comes with weakness B. The smart player simply minimizes the weakness and emphasizes the strength, like with the race example I gave above.
> 
> I think balance works best when you look at equivalent options and weigh them, rather than by taking an option and putting a counter on it that rests in another area.
> 
> ...




Thanks. This is about what I was expecting given your previous work on Iron Heroes.  But it's cool to see more in-depth discussion about the rationales underneath it all.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 9, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> FIFY. As " just another module," B2 is pretty mediocre (though there's some great flavor sprinkled here and there -- "Bree yark," the shrine of Evil Chaos, etc.), but as _the first module_, an introduction to what the game's all about, a way to show 11 year old novice DMs how to design an adventure and run the game, it's a masterpiece.




I disagree totally with this.  When I first saw it, I found B2's lack of direction and storyline to be confusing.  Coupled with the lack of any npc details, it just seemed like an unfinished product.  As a novice DM, I didn't know how to make this work.

I did have fun running it for a C&C game a couple of years ago.  I just don't think its ideal for a beginner.

B1 was a much better module for new DM's IMO.


----------



## dcas (Mar 9, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Now it is really quite likely that not a single one of them would have have the stroke of insight to create the RPG concept when it didn't truly exist (as we think of it now) before.  Gary gets that credit in spades and always will.  He is the father of the genre.  He'll be the main attraction at the RPG hall of fame for it and it is well deserved.



But that raises the question of whether person X can be called a better game designer than person Y if X's work is based on Y's previous work (even granting that the game designed by X is better than the prior game designed by Y).

Btw, personally, I think Gygax's later game, _Lejendary Adventure_, is a much better game than D20. I even like it better than AD&D (but only by a smidgen).


----------



## dcas (Mar 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Funny - I think B2 is a really great module, T1 is good, and T1-4 is dreadful.



B2 is probably my all-time favorite module. I can't think of one that I like better. It has just the right level of detail for a DM to flesh out and make it his own, and just the right level of combat and intrigue to get the players hooked.

T1 is definitely a close runner-up, though. I'm not terribly fond of T1-4 at all, the latter portions just don't live up to the promise of the original.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 9, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> But that raises the question of whether person X can be called a better game designer than person Y if X's work is based on Y's previous work (even granting that the game designed by X is better than the prior game designed by Y).




To me the answer is "yes". Just because someone does something first, doesn't mean they are for ever and ever better than those that come after.

/M


----------



## Ourph (Mar 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Kind of points to wealth by level don't it?  Yes, it wasn't called out.  And yes, it wasn't codified.  But, it certainly existed.




No, because what we're talking about here is 1) Using DM judgement to control these things vs. 2) Using some codified system.  If you say any judgement about what kind of treasure a party should have is "wealth by level" then the whole conversation is moot.  We've been discussing for the last several pages whether having the codification is better than telling DM's "use your own judgement".  If you believe they are equivalent then there's nothing to discuss.

AD&D didn't have a wealth by level guideline.  It expected DMs to use common sense in handing out the appropriate amount of treasure for their particular campaign.  One DM might have uber-wealthy high level PCs and another might have high level PCs with little more accumulated wealth than they started with at first level and the rules easily supported this because there was no assumption built into the system that PCs of a certain level would have access to a certain amount of equipment.  Could you retcon such assumptions into your individual game?  Sure!  But the rules didn't assume you would or force you to.  Please feel free to do what I mentioned above and go back to look at some of those AD&D modules, comparing the pregen characters.  The actual wealth amount of those characters varies widely both within an individual module and between modules intended for characters of similar level.  That indicates to me that there was no wealth by level standard, but that individual pregens were being designed to take on the challenges in individual modules.  The fact that there is significant variance in the actual monetary value of equipment between those characters actually argues against some sort of wealth guideline based on level and argues that the modules were doing just exactly as the rules suggested, namely, providing PCs with equipment that was appropriate to the particular campaign.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 9, 2007)

> I'm saying I don't think that a more comprehensive ruleset can take a bad DM and make him into a good one. By definition, a bad DM doesn't have strengths to play to. You're looking at it as a problem of resource management (i.e. the DM is bad because he doesn't have enough attentional resources to distribute to fixing all of his problems). I don't think that's an accurate model. IMO bad DMs are bad not because they don't have adequate resources to be better, but because they specifically make wrong choices. If that's the case, he won't "pay more attention to his weaknesses" because he doesn't recognize them as weaknesses in the first place.




If you re-define a bad DM to be someone who simply can't play a D&D game effectively at all, then you've basically made the term meaningless. Just like if you re-define a good DM to be someone who creates such a rich, evocative world that people would pay him money just to let him run a game. It's far too extreme of a definition to be useful.

I've been using the more realistic version of "A Bad DM is a DM with flaws that get in the way of the group having a good time in their games." Perhaps a mediocre DM is one that this happens to every once in a while. If a system eliminates or minimizes these flaws, they've made the DM better. 

It's not about the extreme outliers and making game quality a straight line, it's about moving the whole bell curve a little more toward a quality game. Most DMs have flaws that they struggle with, and if a game system can address these flaws (while enhancing what a DM already does well), it'll make the DM better.



> That's what I take issue with. I've never seen a more comprehensive ruleset take a DM weakness and fix it. As far as my experience goes, bad DMs are bad no matter what system they are using.




And I'm telling you from firsthand experience that 3.5's comprehensive ruleset takes at least MY flaws (in awarding ever-increasing power complexity) and addresses them (for instance, by giving an expected treasure award per encounter). When a game does the work for you, you are free to concentrate your energies on making other parts of the game as enjoyable as possible. I don't think I'm unique in this position, though I certainly could be. Either way, it's at least ONE direct counter-point: D&D has taken me, and made me better at running a game, than any rules-light system ever could, because no rules-light system I've seen addresses ever-increasing power complexity as well as D&D does. Its an area that I want to include in my games (because it's fun to get new cool abilities) but that I don't balance well on the fly (leading to hogging the spotlight-time), so D&D's comprehensive and effective method of doing that (with character wealth guidelines) makes me a better DM (not having to worry about paying attention to the powers they get, I can pay attention to the growing threat of the Evil Overlord or whatever). 

Is it really so hard to accept?


----------



## Ourph (Mar 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you re-define a bad DM to be someone who simply can't play a D&D game effectively at all, then you've basically made the term meaningless. <snip> It's not about the extreme outliers and making game quality a straight line, it's about moving the whole bell curve a little more toward a quality game. Most DMs have flaws that they struggle with, and if a game system can address these flaws (while enhancing what a DM already does well), it'll make the DM better.



As a matter of fact, it is about outliers.  Refresh your memory about what was posted upthread and you'll see that the original issue was bad DMs, not mediocre DMs, not average DMs, not good DMs with a few weak points but bad DMs who make bad calls and aren't able to use their own judgement to make rulings that seem fair to their players.  Other posters made the claim that a system that relied on DM judgement was weak because it allowed DMs with really poor judgement to make players miserable.  My counterpoint is that I've never seen a DM with really poor judgement become a good DM just because he's using a different ruleset.  All rulesets still require the DM to use judgement and if a DM's capability in that area is poor his ability to use any system will still be poor, in my experience.



> And I'm telling you from firsthand experience that 3.5's comprehensive ruleset takes at least MY flaws (in awarding ever-increasing power complexity) and addresses them (for instance, by giving an expected treasure award per encounter).



As I said above, I take you at your word.



> Is it really so hard to accept?



Not at all, but your points really don't speak to the issue that I was addressing anyway.  You keep telling me D&D does X for you, so how can I not believe that D&D is capable of doing X.  But I'm saying I've never seen D&D do Y.  And since you don't seem to have a problem with Y or need help with Y, your experiences don't convince me of anything to do with Y.


----------



## dcas (Mar 9, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> To me the answer is "yes".



Always?


----------



## mearls (Mar 9, 2007)

Roman said:
			
		

> If you find the time, could you please expound on the philosophy behind the shift of the game in this direction?




I have a meeting in 4 minutes, but let me get the basics of its strengths out there.

The key to per-encounter resources is that they are easier to balance against classes. Per day resources are a lot funkier, because a designer (and to a lesser extent a DM) can't predict the rate at which a player goes through them.

For example, let's say that the wizard has enough spells to outshine the fighter or rogue three times per day. If the party only engages in three encounters, then it ends up looking like the wizard is better all the time.

Even worse, from a story perspective the wizard's flexibility in choosing which encounters to excel in allows him to cherry pick key moments in the adventure. Let's say that the party faces six encounters:

1. Beat up the guards outside Throll's hideout.
2. Trick Throll into revealing the location of the demonscab.
3. Defeat a pack of trolls sent by Myciner.
4. Destroy the demonscab.
5. Defeat Myciner's lesser minions.
6. Slay Myciner.

As with most adventures, this sequence has rising and falling dramatic tension. The wizard gets to pick when he uses his spells. If he focuses on encounters 2, 4, and 6, he gets a lot more "screen time" even though the fighter and rogue excelled in just as many encounters. The key encounters, the important parts of the story, all featured the wizard.

I have to run to a meeting, but that's the main tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of tricks a DM can use to try to balance that out, but at the end of the day you have to ask whether it's worth asking DMs to go through such hoops in order to keep the game fun.

Your points about making per-encounter feel better are all good ones, and I think they point out the necessity in making such mechanics sensible in light of how D&D works. The factotum, as an example, handles it a bit clumsily.

More later...


----------



## Maggan (Mar 9, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> Always?




I am afraid language barriers might create some confusion here.

Yes, a designer that comes after an original designer can always be called "better".

If he is better, of course. I'm not saying that all that come after another designer are better than him/her. Just that the possibility exists and that the merits of game designers aren't decided on the basis of who's design was the first.

/M


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 9, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I disagree totally with this.  When I first saw it, I found B2's lack of direction and storyline to be confusing.  Coupled with the lack of any npc details, it just seemed like an unfinished product.  As a novice DM, I didn't know how to make this work.
> 
> I did have fun running it for a C&C game a couple of years ago.  I just don't think its ideal for a beginner.
> 
> B1 was a much better module for new DM's IMO.



 It seems strange to me that someone coming into the game for the first time would expect it to have a "storyline" -- IME that's always been a concern that comes along later, after people have been playing for awhile and for whatever (IMO misguided) reason decide they want the game to be "more than a game." In B2 it's clear that the PCs want to find the Caves of Chaos and then raid/explore them, in order to (stave off the bad-guy threat to civilization/take their stuff), and any motivation of "plot" behind that is, at least IMO, entirely superfluous. As for the lack of detail in the NPCs, the module specifically instructs the DM to add his own touches here -- perhaps some more specific advice or examples might have been in order (instead of the page of blank graph-paper, perhaps), but I'd hardly consider this a fatal weakness.

I agree that B1 is also a very good instructional aid for novice DMs (and IMO a better and more interesting actual dungeon than the Caves of Chaos, which gets to feeling a little same-y with its endless caves of humanoids) but B2 still gets the edge for me because of its larger scale, incorporating the home-base, a bit of wilderness, room for expansion, and the "living dungeon" element with its sections on monster organization and rivalries and how they'll react to repeated PC incursions. B1 shows you how to design a dungeon with tricks and traps and mazes and colorful/fun incidental detail; B2 shows you how to do everything else (except for large-scale wilderness adventuring, which is covered in X1).


----------



## Henry (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I have a meeting in 4 minutes, but let me get the basics of its strengths out there....




A-HA! This is the kind of thing I've been waiting for...

I'd love to see the rest of your thoughts on this when you get any free time, Mike, whether it's this afternoon or next week. I'm on the negative side of the fence for this shift, but I too want to see the thinking on it, particularly on the "what constitutes an encounter" problem, and the finagling (or as Robin Laws puts it, "shilly-shallying") a player does to make "more than one encounter."

I also have a prejudicial dislike of the display of power at all times of the day and night that the new idea creates, but I'm willing to discount that as prejudicial bias on my part...


----------



## Voadam (Mar 9, 2007)

I'm on the pro per-encounter side of the fence. I dislike the pull back to camp and rest up paradigm after the spellcasters use their magic. I dislike having to do resource management on a per day basis as a PC. I prefer options like UA's recharge magic where you can keep going doing the interesting things and feel free to use your big options in combat. In core D&D fighters, rogues, and monks do this no problem while the other classes have to hold back for future combats or have the party pull out after they use their big guns.

I love the psionic focus and soulknife style of mechanics.


----------



## dcas (Mar 9, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I am afraid language barriers might create some confusion here.
> 
> Yes, a designer that comes after an original designer can always be called "better".
> 
> If he is better, of course. I'm not saying that all that come after another designer are better than him/her. Just that the possibility exists and that the merits of game designers aren't decided on the basis of who's design was the first.



I don't disagree, necessarily, but what about the case in which the work of the later designer (whom I called "X") is derivative of the work of the original designer ("Y"). For example, I don't think one might say that "Monte Cook is a better game designer than Gary Gygax because 3e is so much better than 1e." The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise because 3e is derivative of 1e. (I won't get into particulars of who wrote/designed what and just assume that Monte was the primary author/designer of 3e just as Gary was the primary author/designer of 1e, whether or not that's actually true.)

Still keeping in mind that "better" is subjective.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 9, 2007)

> As a matter of fact, it is about outliers. Refresh your memory about what was posted upthread and you'll see that the original issue was bad DMs, not mediocre DMs, not average DMs, not good DMs with a few weak points but bad DMs who make bad calls and aren't able to use their own judgement to make rulings that seem fair to their players. Other posters made the claim that a system that relied on DM judgement was weak because it allowed DMs with really poor judgement to make players miserable. My counterpoint is that I've never seen a DM with really poor judgement become a good DM just because he's using a different ruleset. All rulesets still require the DM to use judgement and if a DM's capability in that area is poor his ability to use any system will still be poor, in my experience.




Again, if you define a "bad GM" to exclude most GMs in existence, the phrase isn't very useful. It's not WRONG to say "D&D can make bad DMs better," you just embrace a definition of "bad DMs" that includes only those who are truly incapable of running a game, rather than those who just don't run good games.

To phrase it in a way that matches your own definitions, without getting into buzzwords or catchphrases, "A rules-heavy game system can mitigate a DMs weaknesses and enhance their strengths, making their game more enjoyable than it would be using a different system."

This is what I, at least, mean, when I say "D&D can make bad DMs better."

Can we accept that as a common ground? Regardless of the semantic debate about what constitutes a bad DM for each of us?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 9, 2007)

In terms of the whole "per day" thing, how many other game systems are like that?

From my experience and recollection, not many.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 9, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> In terms of the whole "per day" thing, how many other game systems are like that?
> 
> From my experience and recollection, not many.




Palladium for spells and psionics IIRC.

Also IIRC the WFRP magic points were day based.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Again, if you define a "bad GM" to exclude most GMs in existence, the phrase isn't very useful.



It's very useful when I'm specifically talking about "bad DM" as defined by the small group of GMs who make their players miserable when the rules instruct them to use common sense and good judgement to adjudicate some in-game situations.  Which was exactly the group of people that were being discussed earlier.



> Can we accept that as a common ground? Regardless of the semantic debate about what constitutes a bad DM for each of us?




I'm quite happy to accept the statement "The right game system can mitigate an already adequate DM's weaknesses and enhance their strengths, making their game more enjoyable than it would be using a different system.  Whether that game system is complex or simple, realistic or abstract, granular or freeform, etc. is entirely dependent upon the individual DM." as common ground.  But, again, that has nothing to do with my original point.  What I'm not prepared to accept as common ground is that there is a continuum between average DMs and bad DMs based solely on their comfort with the ruleset.  In my experience there are inadequate DM's, those who simply don't have or haven't developed the necessary skills to be a decent DM and those individuals aren't aided by changing the rules they are using.  They are inadequate exactly because they lack the basic skills a DM needs to use any ruleset effectively (i.e. - good judgement, creativity, the ability to communicate well, a good attitude, etc.).  These are the DMs who are brought up as examples of the dangers of "use your own best judgement" rulesets.  I continue to maintain that when talking about that specific subset of DMs, the danger is no less when using more comprehensive rulesets because those DMs are not bad because the rules tell them to use their own judgement, they are bad because their judgement is bad, and good judgement is something that is required of any DM, using any ruleset.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 9, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> I don't disagree, necessarily, but what about the case in which the work of the later designer (whom I called "X") is derivative of the work of the original designer ("Y"). For example, I don't think one might say that "Monte Cook is a better game designer than Gary Gygax because 3e is so much better than 1e." The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise because 3e is derivative of 1e.




I on the other hand would have no problem claiming that a designer who created derivative rules could be a better designer than the designer of the original rules.

Who knows what for example Monte could have done had he been contemporary with Gary Gygax? He wasn't, so he works in the field that Gary Gygax was part of creating. It is entirely possible that Monte could take an idea and a proto rule by Gary and improve on it.

/M


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 9, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Palladium for spells and psionics IIRC.
> 
> Also IIRC the WFRP magic points were day based.



 Magic Points in BRP RuneQuest (and presumably other BRP games, though I can't recall specifically) refresh over a 24 hour period (at a variable rate depending on the character's POW characteristic -- so if you have POW 8 you get one MP back every 3 hours, POW 12 gets one back every 2 hours, POW 16 gets one back every 90 minutes, etc.).


----------



## jasin (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> If no one complained that Nine Swords was too anime or overpowered, that would've been a good sign that we screwed up.



 This is sigworthy!


----------



## jasin (Mar 9, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> The underlying genius of the class system is that it requires the players to work together to mask each others' weaknesses.



Also, relevant to this, a class system provides a framework which lets you make meaningful choices without necessarily letting you make theoretically equal choices which result in utterly imbalanced characters. Imbalanced not in the sense of being too strong or too weak, but in the sense of "I will put _all_ of my advancement points in AC and none into Will, and my superpowered character will have AC 65 and Will -1."

Obviously, this feature can be subverted at least to a point, but it mostly takes an active attempt to do so. In completely freeform character creation systems, I've often seen people ending up with idiot savants without meaning to, just because they wanted to be really good at swordsmanship and simply neglected that they'll also need dodging. And they end up either coming off as overpowered because the DM avoids putting them in situations where they'll need dodging, or feeling cheated because their master swordsman who invested a bucketload of resources into being good at swordsmanship gets screwed everytime he needs to dodge something.



> For example, imagine a feat that gives a +1 bonus to AC, plus the option to gain +4 AC against one attack in return for taking a -4 penalty to AC until the character uses a standard action to regain his defensive focus (or whatever).



Bah. This is just reinventing the wheel: it's just like stance of clarity, from this book Tome of Battle that this guy Mike Mearls worked on.


----------



## dcas (Mar 9, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I on the other hand would have no problem claiming that a designer who created derivative rules could be a better designer than the designer of the original rules.



I'm not saying that he couldn't be -- I'm just saying that one couldn't come to the conclusion based solely on the premise that the derivative rules are better than the original rules.



> It is entirely possible that Monte could take an idea and a proto rule by Gary and improve on it.



I agree. In fact it's entirely possible that you or I could take an idea or proto rule of Gary's and improve on it. It doesn't follow that you or I are better game designers than Gary.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Mar 9, 2007)

freyar said:
			
		

> As a physicist in the same field as Hawking, I have to say that he's quite smart but not in the same league as Einstein.  If you want to pick someone alive today as having remotely the same kind of impact as AE, go with Ed Witten (publicity or lack of notwithstanding).  Seriously!



Ed Witten should have put more points in CHA and less in INT.

There, it's on-topic now!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 9, 2007)

freyar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how off-topic this is given how far we are from the OP already, but here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> As a physicist in the same field as Hawking, I have to say that he's quite smart but not in the same league as Einstein.  If you want to pick someone alive today as having remotely the same kind of impact as AE, go with Ed Witten (publicity or lack of notwithstanding).  Seriously!




Yeah, well, as a dilletante with only a cursory knowledge of the field I say your well-considered opinions are meaningless when stacked against my wild suppositions!

Yeah, it was a bad analogy anyway.  I should have used Newton or Galileo for Gygax and Einstein for Mearls.  Or maybe not.  I have no idea.

I like per-encouter balancing, but I think it needs clearer guidelines


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Mar 9, 2007)

Roman said:
			
		

> In this context, if possible, I would like to enquire a bit into the apparent desire to move the game into the direction of 'per encounter' balancing, which at least from the looks of things on these boards, grates a significant number of people in the wrong way.



Personally, I think balancing classes on an encounter-by-encounter basis is a big step in the right direction.

Prior to 3e, classes and races were often explicitly balanced on an "over the lifetime of the PC, on average" basis.  (E.g., better to be an elf at 5th level, but better to be a human at 15th; magic-users' strength at high levels being considered balanced by their weakness at low levels.)

Unfortunately, this assumes a lot about the way a campaign would work, most of which was rarely true.  Moreover, that type of balance is often unsatisfying.

3e made a big step in attempting (with varying degrees of success) to balance things on a level-by-level basis.

However, PCs are still largely balanced on an "over the course of a day, on average" basis--a fighter can generate X level of power all day long, while a wizard can be significantly powerful in one encounter at the cost of being much less powerful in others.

Unfortunately, this assumes a lot about how a day in a campaign will happen, some of which is not always true.  Moreover, this type of balance is also often unsatisfying.

Yes, such a change would have an impact on adventure design, but I think the trade-off of being able to jettison the concept of PCs making camp at 11 AM, so they can refresh their abilities, is worth the cost of not being able to grind PCs down with pointless battles where half the party is on the sidelines, scared of wasting their abilities.


----------

