# Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?



## thecasualoblivion (Mar 29, 2010)

Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.

I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 29, 2010)

I don't quite understand the question; I've not noticed a bias against game balance.

But I will say that there are people who want the freedom to mess around with choices without the nefarious machievellian motives you've assigned to them. And sometimes flexibility comes at the price of game balance because the more flexible a system is, the harder it is to balance.

It's a trade-off; it's about taste; and it doesn't have to involve socially deficient motives like "wanting to be more powerful than the other players". Sometimes it's just what it is - a desire for greater flexibility at the recognised cost of losing a degree of strict mathematical "balance". That's neither right nor wrong; it's a stylistic preference.


----------



## korjik (Mar 29, 2010)

Balance can frequently remove any flavor. 

Balanced dosent automatically mean things are fun.

Add in that my definition of stronger and weaker are probably very different from yours, and your idea of balance may not even be the same as mine.

So reducing everything down to the point where everything is mechanically identical may be balanced, but it will be just as fun as a conformist utopia


----------



## BenBrown (Mar 29, 2010)

korjik's basically got it.   A lot of very flavorful things are really really unbalanced, and attempting to keep them while making them less mechanically balanced strips out their flavor.  A good example is 4E's take on Wild Shape.  Wild Shape in 3.5, especially if you've got five monster manuals and a dozen books with interesting spells, feats, and items got to be something of a bear (no pun intended) to deal with for DMs.  4E's implementation of Wild Shape bears little resemblance to its forbears (puns absolutely intended) but isn't overpowered.  Unfortunately, it loses a lot of the interesting non-combat things you can do with Wild Shape in the process.

Some people react badly to this, and will start making ludicrous claims that any attempt at game balance is a Bad Thing.  This being the internet, they tend to drown out the other voices.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Mar 29, 2010)

Life's not balanced.

What's more, dramatic fiction (an intermediate step between life and rpgs) is also not balanced.

Balance is great, but when it interferes with drama or suspension of disbelief, I happen to think that telling stories is more important than playing with balanced rules. D&D as a whole has to try to create a somewhat balanced game without making magic unmagical or monsters unmonstrous, a very difficult thing to do.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Because not everyone considers the 4e balance goal of everyone being equally competent at all things all the time desirable.

A desire for everyone to shine in certain parts of the game more then others, but still be balanced on a system wide level is just as valid and more desirable for some.

Your implication that those who favor what was termed macro-balance elsewhere are either munchkins who want to lord their superior character over the other players, or slackers who want to be carried by your PC is insulting.

Personally, I find balance by homogeneity boring and uninteresting. If everyone is good at everything all the time, why have different characters in the first place?


----------



## FireLance (Mar 29, 2010)

To put it another way: game balance in itself is not the problem. It's what you have to give up in order to achieve game balance.

These could include, but are not limited to: greater variety in player characters, realism or simulation, faithfulness to mythological or fictional tropes, etc.


----------



## Henry (Mar 29, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I don't quite understand the question; I've not noticed a bias against game balance.




I can say I've noticed a phenomenon similar to what he's talking about. Most often, it manifests on various D&D game boards as a sentiment that some games, usually D&D 3E and more recently 4E, sacrificed certain flavor elements for the sake of "almighty game balance." I first used to hear this in 2000-2002 back when people argued about the 3E Rogue being so much more powerful than the thief, and all the beefing up their abilities got so that all classes could advance on the same XP chart. Later, it was debate over all sorts of small things like Drow Weapons no longer decaying in sunlight, or Multiple saving throws for hold person, or removing save or die effects. More recently, it's been the debates, fussing, and outcry over 4E giving all classes the same resource tracking mechanics with at-wills/encounters/dailies so that every class "feels like a spellcaster now" to use one argument.



> But I will say that there are people who want the freedom to mess around with choices without the nefarious machievellian motives you've assigned to them. And sometimes flexibility comes at the price of game balance because the more flexible a system is, the harder it is to balance.
> 
> It's a trade-off; it's about taste; and it doesn't have to involve socially deficient motives like "wanting to be more powerful than the other players". Sometimes it's just what it is - a desire for greater flexibility at the recognised cost of losing a degree of strict mathematical "balance". That's neither right nor wrong; it's a stylistic preference.




I'll agree with this, though - you'll never get 'perfect balance' in any game, as long as it changes and varies. The more options, the harder balance can be to establish. In the end, it seems to me like it always boils down to Matthew Finch's "Rulings, not Rules" motto from the Old School Gaming Primer. Those who don't see balance as the best means to an end seem to argue against it, sometimes so heavily the point gets lost and people act like they're arguing to throw balance out completely. On the other hand, I've seen some people argue for balance and vs. DM fiat so much sometimes it's as if they've never had a good GM nor fair fellow players in their lives.

I'd rather designers work toward a balanced game than not, but I also want my GM fiat rules to fix what designers will never, ever be able to do, which is forsee what happens at each individual table. Not including both hurts ALL games. I'm willing to bet those GMs who play unbalanced games but with 200 pages of their "improved game rules" probably don't have very many new players consistently coming to their tables. They might have the same group of repeat die-hards and buddies who've been together a while, but shove a few dozen pages of house rules in someone's face to fix all sorts of imbalances, and it's usually "goodbye."


----------



## Mercule (Mar 29, 2010)

If you're asking what I think you're asking, I guess I have a bias against balance.  Since I DM 99%+ of the time, I don't really see me falling into either of your categories, though.

For me, I find the straightjacket of hard, mechanical balance from the rules sometimes gets in the way of the way my group and I like to play.  That isn't to say that I want wildly unbalanced games, just the ability to use my skill as a DM to tweak it a bit more freely.  

Many of the most interesting characters I've seen in my games have broken the rules, somehow.  That isn't to say they were wildly unbalanced, just that some concessions had to be made and I had to have a gut feel for what those concessions meant.  In 3e and 4e, I find that the specific way in which balance is sought and the math is run make these gut calls difficult, if not painful.  Not everything in the game can be codified, and attempting to do so is a losing proposition.

Edit: FWIW, 4e is still my chosen flavor of D&D, at the moment.  I got frustrated at 1e for having some oddball rules.  Same tune, different day.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Mar 29, 2010)

I wrote about this very topic on my Fear the Boot blog.

Balanced? Yeah, but is it fun?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Mar 29, 2010)

Balancing the game upon DM fiat just introduces a new form of imbalance. That being that a bad DM is worse at balancing the game, and that a player who can bully the DM or is simply more intelligent/creative can get more favorable rulings than one who can not.


----------



## mudbunny (Mar 29, 2010)

I think it is not so much bias against balance as it is a preference over the scale upon which there is balance.

4E tends to be balanced on the encounter level. 3.5, from my understanding, tends to be balanced over levels 1-20.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2010)

I've been in the RPG hobby since 1977, and in that time, I've played games that were very balanced and some that were not balanced at all.

Balance isn't in and of itself a bad thing.  It can _become_ a bad thing if you start radically reshaping & reflavoring things in order to make things balanced.  In 4Ed, one example of this is the structure of races- they ALL have 2 stats with +2 and no negative modifiers.  This means that races that are known for strength are only marginally beefier than races known for being dexterous, and races known for dexterity are only marginally more nimble than those known for being charismatic, etc.  Sorry, but it bugs me that a 350lb Minotaur, Goliath, or Dragonborn is only slightly stronger than an 80lb gnome (assuming stats are distributed identically and the only differences are from the racial mods).  That's a difference in mass equivalent to a 9 year old and an NFL Nose Tackle.

On the other side of the scale you can get games like RIFTS.  Personally, I don't have a problem with the game's lack of balance- there are other mechanical oddities to that game that mess it up- because the lack of balance results from accurately depicting in the mechanics what was depicted in the fluff.  A Glitterboy SHOULD be much more powerful in combat than a Vagabond.  However, not everyone feels the same, and running a RIFTS campaign _without _taking that intrinsic lack of balance into account can lead to utter disaster and hard feelings.

So, the complaint isn't about balance itself being bad, but a slavish adherence to balance at the expense of simulation/modeling, adherence to tropes or the weakening of things that had been powerful but evocative- IOW, balance at the expense of fun.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 29, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I think it is not so much bias against balance as it is a preference over the scale upon which there is balance.
> 
> 4E tends to be balanced on the encounter level. 3.5, from my understanding, tends to be balanced over levels 1-20.




Which is a tricky scale, unless you never start games at levels higher than 1, or allow a player to retire a character (living or dead) and bring in one of a different class. It's the same trouble with "balancing" a powerful prestige class with prerequisites that are supposed to be a drawback in the levels before you can take it. If you start your character at high enough level to take the prestige class, you haven't played through the levels where taking Toughness and Skill Focus: Profession were impacting your effectiveness. You start at the level where it pays off, which is a big net positive. This isn't just true of editions of D&D, of course; you could see this kind of disparity in the WoD games as well. 

One of the interesting things about RPGs is that you can wind up sticking with a bunch of characters far longer than the events of the average novel series, and in ways to rival even long-running TV series. Balance becomes a sticking point precisely because we can spend so much time with our characters. In some cases, that may mean a cry for more of it because over 20 sessions, you've had maybe 5 where you shined and most of your buddies got 10. In others, it may mean a cry for less balance because the sessions where the entire group is disappointed with the "fair" ruling have added up. 

I also figure this is why people have such hugely strong opinions about everything RPG-related, but that's kind of another theory.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Because not everyone considers the 4e balance goal of everyone being equally competent at all things all the time desirable.



This is not a 4e "balance goal", and never has been. The goal is for all characters to be basically competent at a variety of things that allow them to _participate_ and _feel useful_ for the majority of the game, as well as be excellent at a handful of things that vary from character to character in which they can shine.

Could you explain exactly why you feel your perception to be the case? It's pretty clear that a Paladin, for instance, is much better at things like holding a really tough monster at bay than a Rogue, who is in turn much better at eliminating the threat posed by traps than the Paladin is. This seems obvious to me. Am I incorrect, here?


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Dannager said:


> This is not a 4e "balance goal", and never has been. The goal is for all characters to be basically competent at a variety of things that allow them to _participate_ and _feel useful_ for the majority of the game, as well as be excellent at a handful of things that vary from character to character in which they can shine.




I say homogenized, you say forced through very small holes under very high pressure.



Dannager said:


> Could you explain exactly why you feel your perception to be the case? It's pretty clear that a Paladin, for instance, is much better at things like holding a really tough monster at bay than a Rogue, who is in turn much better at eliminating the threat posed by traps than the Paladin is. This seems obvious to me. Am I incorrect, here?




Why should a Paladin be a tank? Why should a rogue be a trap remover? Why can't the Paladin be an embodiment of his faith's wrath? Or a mysterious grizzled old general who leads a village in over throwing the bandit king tyrannizing them? Why can't the rogue be a con artist, or a second story man, or swashbuckler who don't know anything about traps? Why do they all have to be awesome in combat? Why can't we have a courtier who can defend himself, but really doesn't do much in combat, but can manipulate the system and call in favors and speak with a silver tongue out of combat? Or a physician and scientist who, while not helpless is not a combatant, can patch anyone in the party up, identify every plant under the sun, and knows pretty much everything about everything?


----------



## Greg K (Mar 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So, the complaint isn't about balance itself being bad, but a slavish adherence to balance at the expense of simulation/modeling, adherence to tropes or the weakening of things that had been powerful but evocative-




Danny, sending you an XP


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 29, 2010)

What "game balance" are you talking about?

There's the square deal, a fair chance for each player to exercise his or her skill. Part of balancing chance factors is having them come up enough to even out, and another part is weighing them against other factors. Options can present different mixes of risk and reward, different strengths and weakness, different courses of development calling for different strategies.

Such a balance of opportunities has as its object facilitating the emergence of _inequality in results_ among players.

That is obviously a radically different game than one in which the object is _equality in results_ among players.

Trying to play Game B with parts designed to produce Game A, or vice-versa, can be very unsatisfying.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2010)

Good point- "balance" has many meanings.

Certainly, 4Ed races are balanced as written.  Each race gets 2 attributes to which they add +2, and have no minuses.  This, however, leads to the problem I mentioned before- this leveling of stat adjustments waters down the evocative nature of brutish Minotaurs and uncannily dextrous Githzerai.

Instead, those races could have been given bigger Str and Dex bonuses, respectively, at the expense of having weaker or less useful racial abilities, limitations on feats or powers, or even negative modifiers to something else.  Given that 4Ed makes an effort to make every stat matter, negative stat mods have meaning and impact, so negative mods as a balancing tool make_ even MORE_ sense in 4Ed than in any previous edition of the game.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Why should a Paladin be a tank? Why should a rogue be a trap remover?  Why can't the Paladin be an embodiment of his faith's wrath? Or a mysterious grizzled old general who leads a village in over throwing the bandit king tyrannizing them? Why can't the rogue be a con artist, or a second story man, or swashbuckler who don't know anything about traps? Why do they all have to be awesome in combat? Why can't we have a courtier who can defend himself, but really doesn't do much in combat, but can manipulate the system and call in favors and speak with a silver tongue out of combat? Or a physician and scientist who, while not helpless is not a combatant, can patch anyone in the party up, identify every plant under the sun, and knows pretty much everything about everything?



In answer to all of these: The class-and-level system.  It was set up to encourage archetypes and to enable quick character advancement.  It has been such since the beginning, where every class gets better at combat as they get more powerful whether they like it or not.

Honestly, what you're describing is a lot more GURPS or FATE than any edition of D&D. 

-O


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> In answer to all of these: The class-and-level system.  It was set up to encourage archetypes and to enable quick character advancement.  It has been such since the beginning, where every class gets better at combat as they get more powerful whether they like it or not.
> 
> Honestly, what you're describing is a lot more GURPS or FATE than any edition of D&D.
> 
> -O




Or my class-level based d20 game of choice, which is part of why it's my game of choice.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Given that 4Ed makes an effort to make every stat matter, negative stat mods have meaning and impact, so negative mods as a balancing tool make_ even MORE_ sense in 4Ed than in any previous edition of the game.



Ack!  No, please!

A stat penalty would only be appropriate for genre- or campaign-specific reasons, and would basically amount to, "Only take this race if your class can use that penalty in a dump stat."  If a character wants to play (for example) a Halfling Fighter, a Strength penalty would make it less feasible in 4e than it was even in 3e.

I like to encourage unusual race/class combinations, not discourage them.  Players are _already _heavily predisposed to take a race that matches their class's attributes precisely.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Or my class-level based game of choice, which is part of why it's my game of choice.



What Class-Level system lets you suck at combat?

-O


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> What Class-Level system lets you suck at combat?
> 
> -O




I never said suck.

In Fantasy Craft Keepers and Courtiers have half level BABs, while most classes have 3/4 level BAB. Coutiers aren't helpless, but without specific consideration in building them (and probably multiclassing into the Gallant expert class) they are not combatants. They kick ass in social situations, and even in combat they can bring those social skills to bear. They don't hold a candle to Soldiers though. Similarly, a Soldier (full BAB) can be built to be decent in social circumstances, but he'll never hold a candle to a Courtier, and will be regularly outshone by a Lancer (also full BAB), Explorer, Assassin, or Priest.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Part of balancing chance factors is having them come up enough to even out, and another part is weighing them against other factors. Options can present different mixes of risk and reward, different strengths and weakness, different courses of development calling for different strategies.
> 
> Such a balance of opportunities has as its object facilitating the emergence of _inequality in results_ among players.
> 
> ...



Building on this: it seems fairly obvious to me (but maybe I'm misreading the evidence) that part of what causes the "balance" debate is that different people are trying to use the same set of RPG rules to play very different games.

Related to this is a tendency to limit the notion of "RPG rules" to action resolution mechanics, plus those parts of the character creation mechanics that feed into action resolution. But as Ariosto points out, "balance" questions (Game A vs Game B, for example, or "spotlight sharing" vs "all involved all the time") also connect to other rules aspects like encounter and adventure design, rules for distributing narrative authority, and so on.

Balance issues also turn on the aesthetic point of play. For example, is a game in which the character build and action resolution mechanics mean that some mechanically legal PCs are more likely than others to achieve their desires "unbalanced"? It depends, at least in part, on the relationship between a PC's desires and that player's desires. If part of the point of playing, for the player, is to see his/her PC live out a dramatic life, then the player may be satsified by a system of character building and action resolution that make it likely that her PC will die a failure with her desires unfilled, _provided that_ the failure is dramatic. For players interested in that sort of play, one "balancing" feature of the rules might be ensuring that it is easier for a PC to be a dramatic failure than a dramatic success - thereby avoiding sacharine storylines - while also making success possible - thereby avoiding bathos.

But for typical D&D play, such character building and action resolution mechanics would be unbalanced, because typical D&D play doesn't involve such a strong metagame player/PC split. Hence the 4e rules make it very hard to create a tragic failure of a PC, whatever the build (provided the GM follows the guidelines for encounter and adventure design). This also connects to the reward mechanics of XP and treasure, which assume that the players will be trying to have their PCs succeed at their encounters (thereby earning the XP and collecting the loot). Those reward mechanics would be _unbalanced_ in a game meant to support tragic failure, because they would not give resources to the player of the failing PC that would help that player control the development of her PC's (tragic) life.

One interesting feature of the "balance" of 4e is that it does produce encounters where failure for the PCs as a whole looms large in the early part of the encounter, but is then overcome as the conditional resources of the PCs come into play (second wind and other healing, the superior effects of encounter and daily powers, etc). So in 4e, making sure that all PCs are able to participate meaningfully in combat is (in part) about making sure that there is balance across participation in that part of the game where the drama plays out. For players wanting the game to focus on something else - whether drama across some unit of play other than the encounter, or something other than drama - then all 4e's effort dedicated to producing this sort of balance is wasted.

The part of the 4e encounter design and action resolution mechanics which seems to have paid least attention to this sort of dramatic balancing is the skill challenge mechanic. And this seems to be widely regarded by players of the game as one of the aspects of the game most in need of development. But for those who like the sort of play that 4e best supports, developing the skill challenge mechanic would require injecting _more _of 4e's encounter/drama balance - including full participatio in all encounters by all PCs - not returning to the "spotlight-sharing" balance of other games and editions.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 29, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This also connects to the reward mechanics of XP and treasure, which assume that the players will be trying to have their PCs succeed at their encounters (thereby earning the XP and collecting the loot).



The notion of *PCs* -- not players -- "earning" XP is fundamentally strange to my eye. I wonder what end the accounting is supposed to serve in 4e, anyhow.

Is the desired "game balance" one that allows Player B to score more points than Player A and thus get a significantly higher-level character? Considering how level bonuses (which now effectively include treasures) work in 4e, and how many resources get refreshed between encounters -- and the designers' own words in the DMG! -- I do not think so.

In RPGA, a longtime player might have high-level characters, but they are not permitted in the same scenario with characters too much lower in level -- and it's the scenario's level that determines what's appropriate. So, the player either keeps low-level PCs in his or her "bullpen" or creates new first-level ones at need.


----------



## caelum (Mar 29, 2010)

I don't think it is a "bias" so much as a different choice about the best priorites for a system.  For me, this review (of 4e) articulates the tradeoff between balance and homogeneity that 4e makes.


----------



## Whisper72 (Mar 29, 2010)

The biggest issue I have with 'game balance' is that in my opinion, trying to achieve game balance through all manner of mechanical / mathematical means is a theoretical issue that bears little impact in real gameplay.

In the end, the balance is decided upon by the DM. No matter how I try to 'balance' the PC's through the rules, if the encounters are all in favour of one type of character, the others sit there being spectators. Therefore, in my opinion, it falls on the shoulders of the DM to make sure the game is balanced.

Also on the issue of balance, the focus appears to be on the power / strength side of the PC's that people try to balance, the OP shows that that is the focus. In my opinion, this type of balance is largely irrelevant. The balance that needs to be struck is in terms of 'stage time' and the ability to shine 'in game'. Whether one PC shines in combat and the other in diplomatic issues is balance as well imho. Therefore, balance purely on the basis of combat effectiveness is of little relevance as far as I am concerned.

Adding to these opinions the result of balancing making characters generally more bland and less interesting, the resulting drive for combat based balance has solely detrimental side effects while it has little impact improving the 'real' balance that is needed (imho) in terms of stage time / attention. It achieves little but destroys much, thus it is a 'bad thing' in my opinion...


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 29, 2010)

Actually, I personally don't HAVE a problem with "unbalanced" games.

What I do have a problem with is games that are unbalanced implicitly but tell you explicitly that there are balanced.

E.g. Ars Magica is my favourite RPG outside of D&D and there is a world of difference between Companion and Mages to say nothing of Grogs. But the thing is, the game explicitly tells you "the star of the game is the Mage..companions are simply sidekicks and while they might have an interesting sidestory, the star is the Mage character just like in say Sherlock Holmes. 

Similarly, the BuffytVS RPG also is "unbalanced" but again, it tells you this upfront...

What gets my teeth on edge is something like the Palladium RPG where the Glitter Boys are considered "equal" to a ratcatcher in how the book talks about the classes.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> What Class-Level system lets you suck at combat?
> 
> -O




Traveler T20 -- 1/4 BAB classes


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> I say homogenized, you say forced through very small holes under very high pressure.




And I say much more flexible than it first looks.



> Why should a Paladin be a tank?




He needn't.  The names of classes are correlated to the way people act in game.  But they are not the same.  Any DM who would say that a properly built Fighter, Warlord, or Cleric (especially with the multiclass feat) can't be a member of an order of Paladins and thereby a Paladin for in character purposes (even without the divine blessings) is either running a very odd world or is an idiot.



> Why should a rogue be a trap remover?




You'd have to ask Gygax that.



> Why can't the Paladin be an embodiment of his faith's wrath?




He can be.  You just take the Invoker class, file the serial numbers off and call him a Paladin when in character.



> Or a mysterious grizzled old general who leads a village in over throwing the bandit king tyrannizing them?




He can be.  You just take the Warlord class, file the serial numbers off and call him a Paladin when in character.  Or simply have  Charismadin and say that's what he is.



> Why can't the rogue be a con artist, or a second story man, or swashbuckler who don't know anything about traps?




There's nothing saying you _need_ to use all the abilities on your character sheet.  And there's nothing saying you need to play the rogue class to play a con-artist.  (A non-implement using bard makes a better one as they are based round charisma and flexibility).



> Why do they all have to be awesome in combat?




Because _Dungeons and Dragons_ is and always has been a game that has a very strong basis in combat.  And characters that can get beaten up by housecats are just silly.



> Why can't we have a courtier who can defend himself, but really doesn't do much in combat, but can manipulate the system and call in favors and speak with a silver tongue out of combat?




You can.  You take a bard.  Give him a mix of coincidental powers and mind effecting ones (e.g. Vicious Mockery, Blunder), and social skills through the roof.  At no point are you any good with a weapon or directly doing anything obvious in combat.  But you still hold your own.  (There's also a Warlord build where all you do is shout advice and warnings and let everyone else do the actual attacking).  And outside combat you do have a silver tongue - very high charisma, all social skills trained, and some nice utility powers.  "The system" and the ability to call in favours is game-world specific.



> Or a physician and scientist who, while not helpless is not a combatant, can patch anyone in the party up, identify every plant under the sun, and knows pretty much everything about everything?




You can.  Take a Bard.  Multiclass feats and skill picks to get Religion, Nature, Dungeoneering, Arcana (which you get for free anyway), Streetwise (arguably), and Heal (shouldn't take much multiclassing).  Take the Bardic Knowledge feat.

Any more things you supposedly can't be that are sensible to RP?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 29, 2010)

Dannager said:


> This is not a 4e "balance goal", and never has been. The goal is for all characters to be basically competent at a variety of things that allow them to _participate_ and _feel useful_ for the majority of the game, as well as be excellent at a handful of things that vary from character to character in which they can shine.
> 
> Could you explain exactly why you feel your perception to be the case? It's pretty clear that a Paladin, for instance, is much better at things like holding a really tough monster at bay than a Rogue, who is in turn much better at eliminating the threat posed by traps than the Paladin is. This seems obvious to me. Am I incorrect, here?



Compared to any other game I know of, the Rogue is far better at holding a tough monster at bay and the Paladin is better at eliminating the threat posed by traps.

Characters can be experts in something, but everyone is at least clearly competent in practically everything.

It has been praised by 4E fans many times that the game no longer "grinds to a halt" because the party wizard has no chance to climb a wall that is a challenge to a rogue.  To those of us who never had an issue with anything grinding to a halt, the simulation aspects of being in a complex world with unlimited challenges is lost to the math working constraints of conflict-resolution board game balance.

The range of skill level is present in areas of focus.  But it is muted.  The range of skill level in average areas or weak areas is deeply diminished.

I went through a long debate on this topic before.  Someone ended up posting their mid level 4E character sheets to show me wrong.  I pointed out that the primary attacks of each character all ended up in the same tight range.  This is obvious really, since it is 1/2 level plus prime ability (which is going to be nearly the same), plus a handful of other similarly regulate bonuses define the amount.  Even selecting the weakest of skills, ones for which a character was of minimal ability, the chance of success against an "average" challenge was better than 50/50 and even "very difficult" challenges were around 10% chance of success.  

People praise page 42.  To me the idea that the parameter ranges for correctly balanced can be captured in a single page is deeply undesirable.  

It has been explained to me that a blackguard in full plate and a pirate in a torn shirt have the same AC because they are appropriate challenges this way.  I'd rather they be a pirate and a black guard first and this includes mechanically realizing them appropriate mechanical elements, not starting with the mechanics determined before the npc is defined and working backwards to show horn the skin over the same frame.

"The math works" is a stated goal of 4E.  And the math *does* work.  For good and for bad.  The paladin being different than the rogue because we are only talking about the paladin's specialty is true.  But so is saying that two 16" pizzas are different because one has a slice of pepperoni sitting in the center and the other has an olive.

I'm glad 4E works great for a lot of people.  But there are a lot of good reasons to find other approaches preferable.  The OP seems to think that the only possible reason is min/maxing, which he has no sympathy for.  I have sympathy for not being able to see the other opportunities that are out there.  After all, it may be that you would still prefer the total rule of balance, but how do you know if you don't know what the alternatives are?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Any more things you supposedly can't be that are sensible to RP?



Unskilled in some areas .


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

korjik said:


> Balance can frequently remove any flavor.
> 
> Balanced dosent automatically mean things are fun.
> 
> ...




This.

Also, creating balance requires reduction of options.  As options increase, so does imbalance.  This doesn't just mean options in terms of character builds, but means options in terms of how the system is used.

For example, say I wanted to run a traditional megadungeon campaign, using actual longterm resource management using 4e.  Players will not get treasure parcels; they will get whatever treasure they find.  The simple inclusion of longterm resource management and "treasure by finding it" will create imbalances.  

Likewise, there have been many threads here on EN World where folks have been told that it is "bad DMing" to only allow PCs to use their powers when it is "realistic" for them to do so.  The argument is that it creates imbalance by penalizing certain character choices.

These things created imbalances in all editions; but not all editions were so very concerned about it.  In some editions, imbalance was the reward (or penalty) for good (or poor) play.  Players sought imbalance that favoured them, _*just as players do in any other game*_.


RC


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> He needn't.  The names of classes are correlated to the way people act in game.  But they are not the same.  Any DM who would say that a properly built Fighter, Warlord, or Cleric (especially with the multiclass feat) can't be a member of an order of Paladins and thereby a Paladin for in character purposes (even without the divine blessings) is either running a very odd world or is an idiot.




 Missing the point. Why does a class have to be starkly limited in combat role. Why do classes even need combat roles? Why does everyone have to be a combatant?



Neonchameleon said:


> You'd have to ask Gygax that.




Gygax wrote a thief, not a rogue. Also, why do we need to slavishly follow design decisions over thirty years old?



Neonchameleon said:


> He can be.  You just take the Invoker class, file the serial numbers off and call him a Paladin when in character.
> 
> He can be.  You just take the Warlord class, file the serial numbers off and call him a Paladin when in character.  Or simply have  Charismadin and say that's what he is.




Ah, the old 'just re-skin it' argument. Why should you have to re-skin it? Why can't choice of faith, skills, feats, and abilities have the same effect? And an Invoker doesn't fill the mark because I said a paladin, not an divine wizard.



Neonchameleon said:


> There's nothing saying you _need_ to use all the abilities on your character sheet.  And there's nothing saying you need to play the rogue class to play a con-artist.  (A non-implement using bard makes a better one as they are based round charisma and flexibility).




Again, misses the point.



Neonchameleon said:


> Because _Dungeons and Dragons_ is and always has been a game that has a very strong basis in combat.  And characters that can get beaten up by housecats are just silly.




 Who said anything about housecats. There's a big gap between that and not having any combat focused abilities.



Neonchameleon said:


> You can.  You take a bard.  Give him a mix of coincidental powers and mind effecting ones (e.g. Vicious Mockery, Blunder), and social skills through the roof.  At no point are you any good with a weapon or directly doing anything obvious in combat.  But you still hold your own.  (There's also a Warlord build where all you do is shout advice and warnings and let everyone else do the actual attacking).  And outside combat you do have a silver tongue - very high charisma, all social skills trained, and some nice utility powers.  "The system" and the ability to call in favours is game-world specific.




And if I don't want a boatload of semi-magical combat powers? I said non-combatant. Also this seems needlessly complex and fiddly. All game worlds will have a system to work. It's human nature.



Neonchameleon said:


> You can.  Take a Bard.  Multiclass feats and skill picks to get Religion, Nature, Dungeoneering, Arcana (which you get for free anyway), Streetwise (arguably), and Heal (shouldn't take much multiclassing).  Take the Bardic Knowledge feat.




Again, more build fiddling. What if I want that at 1st level?



Neonchameleon said:


> Any more things you supposedly can't be that are sensible to RP?




The merchant with no combat abilities beyond swinging a sword (or shooting a bow) and harsh language.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 29, 2010)

Balance is an important thing to have. Especially in combat. You can play without roling any dice out of combat. But once you get in, it is more fun for everybody if the system works.

2nd edition worked well. 3rd edition on a certain level too. 4th edition also. In 4th edition balance was more or less achieved by giving all classes a similar base structure. In 2nd edition balance was achieved with very varying base structures but a system where everyone can shine in the right circumstance.

In 2nd edition it was a lot harder for the DM to make the game fun for everyone, because you had to check constantly that everybody can expoit its strengthes from time to time. Even in combat.

It is however a very bad thing to think that you can remove the DM from the equation. Every decision the DM makes is affecting balance, no matter if he uses fiat or rules. It is just a bit faster for an experienced DM to make good calls. For newer DMs it is better when the rules are balanced well enough.

For more experienced players it can also be nicer when the rules are not too uniform, because it can get boring. But everything that, as pointed out already in other posts, is not uniform is unbalanced by definition.

I can use the most balanced game system and make a fight where the archer is much more efficient than the melee guy and vice versa.

@class limit to combat role:
Maybe the next iteration of D&D can cose between race, combat class and social class seperately...

You could mix and match them as you wish and it doesn´t interfere with each other.

You can have the rogue/thief or the bully/thief

right now with 4e you can achieve this with multiclass training at 1st level. And it works well enough.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

I'm still perplexed why I'd want to use D&D for a skill-based game, when there are actual  skill-based RPGs out there. 

If I want to run a game with rat-catchers, courtiers, field medics, and so on, I'm much more likely to pull out WFRP2 than any edition of D&D.  GURPS would probably also be a great fit, though I'm frankly about 15 years out of practice on it.

And one quick note...



			
				Krensky said:
			
		

> Ah, the old 'just re-skin it' argument. Why should you have to re-skin it? Why can't choice of faith, skills, feats, and abilities have the same effect? And an Invoker doesn't fill the mark because I said a paladin, not an divine wizard.



It's not really reskinning, though - it's just respecting a strong class/level system for what it is.  While 4e is a lot more class-focused than 3e was, it's not as class-focused as 1e was.  You need to consider the class as what it can _do_, not what philosophies it holds.  It'd be like saying, in a 3e game, "I want a Fighter who casts fireballs and throws magic missiles."  Not a multiclassed Fighter, not a Duskblade - just a Fighter.  Obviously, the DM should steer a player towards either multiclassing or playing a different class entirely; this is no different.

In this case, you'd figure out what the player wants out of being a Paladin, and what they want to be able to do; if those abilities don't match, you pick a different class.  Roleplaying a code of conduct is the player's job.



			
				Krensky said:
			
		

> Again, more build fiddling. What if I want that at 1st level?



Then again you're not respecting the class/level system.  What if I want my Wizard to cast Stinking Cloud at 1st level?  What if I want my Fighter to be specialized in Bastard Swords at 1st level?

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 29, 2010)

@Krensky:

roll stats, 10 + con hp, +4 per level, 4 +con modifier surges
8 skills chosen as you like. Chose skill powers instead of class utility powers. Scratch combat powers altogether. Give out martial practises as a feat.

done.

@Obryn:
3.5 skills worked very well. Only those skills that had a direct effect in combat overshadowed all other skills and made non.maxim them a bad idea.
Other skills were perfectly viable at 5 ranks etc. Taking 10 and taking 20 frequently was the reason.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 29, 2010)

Dannager said:


> This is not a 4e "balance goal", and never has been. The goal is for all characters to be basically competent at a variety of things that allow them to _participate_ and _feel useful_ for the majority of the game, as well as be excellent at a handful of things that vary from character to character in which they can shine.




This. There I go making one of those yeah "what he said" posts.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 3.5 skills worked very well. Only those skills that had a direct effect in combat overshadowed all other skills and made non.maxim them a bad idea.
> Other skills were perfectly viable at 5 ranks etc. Taking 10 and taking 20 frequently was the reason.



It's still tied into levels, though.  Your Level 1 character can't have a +18 skill check on something, even with a Skill Focus feat.

Highly skilled characters must be high-level, per the mechanics.  Along with that increase in level comes an increase in HPs, saving throws, and combat skill.

Mind you - I actually run a d20 variant that emphasizes skills (Call of Cthulhu d20), so I kinda know of what I speak.   My solution is to basically ignore those rules for NPCs, and it works great.  But if I can ignore the rules to get what I want in a d20 game, it's disingenuous to say that I can't also ignore the rules in a 4e game.

-O


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2010)

I don't see any bias against game balance. What I see is a difference over what variety of balance people prefer in their D&D.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> It's still tied into levels, though.  Your Level 1 character can't have a +18 skill check on something, even with a Skill Focus feat.
> 
> Highly skilled characters must be high-level, per the mechanics.  Along with that increase in level comes an increase in HPs, saving throws, and combat skill.
> 
> ...




Part of the point that I think UngeheuerLich implies is: why would you need a +18 for a lot of skills in the first place? Simply put, in 3.5, you don't. Middling levels of skill ranks can get you a lot of mileage. Very skilled NPCs really don't need a lot of levels to be decent enough at the relatively mundane tasks they engage in, same for PCs with a lot of the same skills.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I don't see any bias against game balance. What I see is a difference over what variety of balance people prefer in their D&D.





A keen observation!

(OFF TOPIC:  BTW, where is Verona?  I was raised in Wisconsin, spending about half my boyhood in Pembine [near the UP] and the Hartland/Milwaukee/Caladonia areas.  I was just up near Beaver Dam the other week visiting my parents in Theresa.)


RC


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I'm still perplexed why I'd want to use D&D for a skill-based game, when there are actual  skill-based RPGs out there.
> 
> If I want to run a game with rat-catchers, courtiers, field medics, and so on, I'm much more likely to pull out WFRP2 than any edition of D&D.  GURPS would probably also be a great fit, though I'm frankly about 15 years out of practice on it.




Why I don't use D&D as by d20 based fantasy game, and not the  point.



Obryn said:


> It's not really reskinning, though - it's just respecting a strong class/level system for what it is.  While 4e is a lot more class-focused than 3e was, it's not as class-focused as 1e was.  You need to consider the class as what it can _do_, not what philosophies it holds.  It'd be like saying, in a 3e game, "I want a Fighter who casts fireballs and throws magic missiles."  Not a multiclassed Fighter, not a Duskblade - just a Fighter.  Obviously, the DM should steer a player towards either multiclassing or playing a different class entirely; this is no different.
> 
> In this case, you'd figure out what the player wants out of being a Paladin, and what they want to be able to do; if those abilities don't match, you pick a different class.  Roleplaying a code of conduct is the player's job.
> 
> ...




This whole '4e can handle anything, here's how' bit is missing the point. Why does balance have to be a straight jacket? Why does Mr Know It All have to wait until level 12 (or whatever) to actually be Mr Know It All? The only answer I see is: Because he must also rock the battlefield. Mr Know It All doesn't want to fight though. He never trained to fight. He trained to be a skill monkey who knows all the answers, can stitch the fighters back together, and jury rig or build almost anything. He's not made of glass and isn't worthless with a weapon, but he is not a combatant. The balance goal of 4e denies him excellence at what he wants, and forces more competence at what he's not interested in then he desires.



UngeheuerLich said:


> @Krensky:
> 
> roll stats, 10 + con hp, +4 per level, 4 +con modifier surges
> 8 skills chosen as you like. Chose skill powers instead of class utility powers. Scratch combat powers altogether. Give out martial practises as a feat.
> ...




Yeah, not playing 4e regularly or owning any books beyond the first core set, this doesn't really mean anything to me.

The point is that the balance the OP is accusing people of attacking is not desirable for many people because they prefer a different game style and a view balance and the game differently.


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 29, 2010)

"Balance" means different things to different people.  As is so often the case, we're not using the word in quite the same way.  

Some feel that balance is equivalent to a lack of distintive flavorful options and the freedom to do what they want with their character concept.  I don't agree that balance forces this.  If you want the freedom to do or be *anything*, then don't play a class and level-based system; use one that is skills based and all point buy.  Class-based systems like D&D encourage the playing of archetypes, and that is what they are good at.  GURPS and the like are better if you want ultimate freedom in how you build your character.  

Balance can mean having characters that are all competent, but not all the same.  My 3.5 rogue started out 2 points worse in BAB than the paladin at level 1, and wound up 8 points worse at 15th level, with half the number of attacks per round, as well as lacking most of my damage against oozes, constructs, undead, etc.  He hit on a 2 when I needed a 10.  By that point, there wasn't anything my character could do out of combat that a wizard couldn't do better.  So how is that balanced?  How is it more fun or flavorful?  When does that character get to shine?  It's not a lack of opportunities placed by the DM; his hands are tied.  The system itself forces this discrepancy because by that level there isn't anything the character is good at that someone else can't do as well or better.  It's unbalanced. 

A claim has been made that everyone is good at everything in 4E.  It's true that there isn't a 25 point discrepancy in skill values, but you still wind up at higher levels with a substantial difference between skills someone is good at, and skills they aren't, and there are still things that can only be done if you are trained in a given skill.  The charisma based character with the right background and trained in diplomacy can easily have a bonus of 18 or greater (up to 22 with a feat and a starting 18 pre-racial bonus in CHA) at 11th level, vs someone who isn't good at it, and has a 4 at the same level. 

Just because you get your half-level to skills doesn't mean you're *good* at them.  You just suck less as you level up, and it doesn't by any means keep pace with the characters that specialize in that skill.  It's ironic that there are some people who feel even that gap is too much, and have made house-rules so that you don't keep getting relatively better at your "good" skills than your companions, while others feel it isn't enough of a gap and everyone is good at everything.    

Balance is too often seen as synonymous with bland homogeneity, and it's in that context that it is seen as negative and something to be avoided.  I use it to mean "Not sucking at everything compared to the other characters in the group" and thus see it in a positive light.  Balance is as balance does.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

A simple example of the problems that come with maintaining balance throughout a game can be demonstrated with the simple game of Snakes & Ladders.

In Snakes & Ladders, everyone starts the same.  No balance problems.

To go, though, someone must roll first.  This is when the first imbalance occurs.  We can change the rules, though, to ensure that everyone moves at the same time.  Thus, if multiple people hit the end on the same "turn" they all win.

So, everyone rolls.  Bob rolls a 1 and Sue rolls a 6.  They are imbalanced.  Worse, Charles rolls a "3" and ends up climbing a ladder.  Whoa!  Really striking imbalance.

In fact, the only way to eliminate this imbalance is to remove the snakes, the ladders, and the dice.  Now everyone marches in lockstep across the board, no one feels left out by a bad roll, there is no imbalance, and everyone wins.

Much better game, right?

Well, strangely, not everyone would agree that it is.  Marching in lockstep isn't all that much fun for some people.  No element of chance isn't all that much fun for others.  Still more might be bored silly by an exercise to which the outcome is already known.

So, we revise the board so that the players cannot see the next squares until they reach them.  The game is no longer about seeing how chance moves the pieces across the board, it is about the reveal of the cool board design as the pieces move along.

Again, some folks might find this dissatisfying.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (OFF TOPIC:  BTW, where is Verona?  I was raised in Wisconsin, spending about half my boyhood in Pembine [near the UP] and the Hartland/Milwaukee/Caladonia areas.  I was just up near Beaver Dam the other week visiting my parents in Theresa.)




We're right off the southwest corner of Madison.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 29, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Compared to any other game I know of, the Rogue is far better at holding a tough monster at bay and the Paladin is better at eliminating the threat posed by traps.



There is flexibility in 4e its flexibility has a design price in the  form of feat cost/background cost usually... for the paladin to have that ability you describe he had to spend design choice resources. 

There is also genre elements at work... in say the classic pulp genre Just about any adventurer can punch out the bad guys even an other wise mild mannered school marm.(proficient in fisticuffs? or lucky as hell and built as proficient with fisticuffs)


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> This whole '4e can handle anything, here's how' bit is missing the point.



That's not really my point, actually - I was just answering your specific questions, and clarifying a bit.

*I don't think 4e is the best system for a skill-heavy game, or any game in which combat is rare at best*.  I think there are better systems for those sorts of games, and I'd encourage anyone looking to run a skill-heavy game to look at those, first.  Trying to make 4e work well for that sort of game is like jamming a square peg into a round hole - it can be done, but you're losing a lot.  As I mentioned, I'd recommend WFRP2, some FATE variety, or GURPS.  I'm unfamiliar with FantasyCraft, but if it fills your requirements, that's awesome.



> Why does balance have to be a straight jacket? Why does Mr Know It All have to wait until level 12 (or whatever) to actually be Mr Know It All? The only answer I see is: Because he must also rock the battlefield. Mr Know It All doesn't want to fight though. He never trained to fight. He trained to be a skill monkey who knows all the answers, can stitch the fighters back together, and jury rig or build almost anything. He's not made of glass and isn't worthless with a weapon, but he is not a combatant. The balance goal of 4e denies him excellence at what he wants, and forces more competence at what he's not interested in then he desires.



Like I said, there are better games to model this than 4e - or, IMO, any of the other D&D flavors.



> The point is that the balance the OP is accusing people of attacking is not desirable for many people because they prefer a different game style and a view balance and the game differently.



If they don't like the 4e playstyle, and if 4e doesn't fit their requirements, they should, indeed, be playing something else.  OTOH, I think 4e works great for what I do with it, and don't think it needs rules expansions to allow for total noncombatant PCs.

This is absolutely *not *to say that you can't do all sorts of crazy stuff with 3e or 4e or any other game.  I just think, like I've said over multiple posts for over a year, that game systems matter and that you're best off picking a game system which best fits the kind of game you and your players want to run, rather than trying to force a system to run a campaign it's not particularly well-suited for.

-O


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 29, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
> 
> What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.
> 
> I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.



I've never seen any evidence of a bias against game balance.

There is, however, an indifference to game balance amongst some, and a sense that too narrow a focus on game balance has dampened a lot of elements of the game that are "fun."  I can understand, have witnessed, and to some extent, feel that myself.

Although to be honest with you, I feel that much more about Blood Bowl than I do about D&D.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> "Balance" means different things to different people.  As is so often the case, we're not using the word in quite the same way.




And far too often, anyone that doesn't find 4e's way of balancing acceptable or desirable get's vilified to one degree or another. The OP is a case in point.



Zinovia said:


> Balance can mean having characters that are all competent, but not all the same.  My 3.5 rogue started out 2 points worse in BAB than the paladin at level 1, and wound up 8 points worse at 15th level, with half the number of attacks per round, as well as lacking most of my damage against oozes, constructs, undead, etc.  He hit on a 2 when I needed a 10.  By that point, there wasn't anything my character could do out of combat that a wizard couldn't do better.  So how is that balanced?  How is it more fun or flavorful?  When does that character get to shine?  It's not a lack of opportunities placed by the DM; his hands are tied.  The system itself forces this discrepancy because by that level there isn't anything the character is good at that someone else can't do as well or better.  It's unbalanced.




Yes, but for many 4e goes way too far in the other direction. It's form of balance says everyone must be great in combat, and that anything out of combat is really immaterial.



Zinovia said:


> Balance is too often seen as synonymous with bland homogeneity, and it's in that context that it is seen as negative and something to be avoided.  I use it to mean "Not sucking at everything compared to the other characters in the group" and thus see it in a positive light.  Balance is as balance does.




Where as I use it to mean "Everyone has their own abilities and time to shine. For some this means not being all that good at combat in exchange for being awesome out of it."


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.




Well, there are those, yes.  However, there are others, too.

When faced with the command, "Don't do that!" a great many people don't react well.  Balance says that, a lot.

It doesn't need to be about being more or less powerful.  Balance has many good qualities, but one of the mixed blessings is _constraint_.  Yes, you characters are balanced against one another, but only if you stay within the confines of the system.  Even if what you want isn't particularly unbalanced, the system may simply not go in that direction - either what you want isn't allowed at all, or it takes work to implement it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Missing the point. Why does a class have to be starkly limited in combat role.




Which class is "starkly limited"?  Classes have things they do well and things they do less well.  But it's possible to heal with any class (although leaders will always be better), to tank with most classes (Invokers have it tough), to do damage with any class, and to force bad choices on the enemy with any class.  The role indicates what they can do best, not their absolute limits.



> Why do classes even need combat roles? Why does everyone have to be a combatant?




Because this is _Dungeons and Dragons_.  If it were Courtiers and Merchants it would be a different game.  And not everyone has to be a combatant.  You can play The Load if you like - it just takes dumping your primary stat.  And sit there like a lemon while the game is in combat (a significant proportion of the time) and your character is hiding under the table.  Or you can simply refuse to use your powers.



> Gygax wrote a thief, not a rogue. Also, why do we need to slavishly follow design decisions over thirty years old?




We aren't slavishly following it.  If we were then the rogue would be hard coded into his own mini-game.



> Ah, the old 'just re-skin it' argument. Why should you have to re-skin it?




Because the alternative is to make everything vanilla out of the box (so you aren't reskinning so much as skinning).  Or you need a literally infinite number of feats.  As you seem to be requesting.



> Why can't choice of faith, skills, feats, and abilities have the same effect?




Because none of those deal with the character's overall approach.  Which is what Class indicates.  Which is to open up design space without warping the game into a pretzel and make it easy to build competently with minimal skill.  (Seriously, a 4e Shaman would be near-impossible in a pointbuy system.)

You can play classless.  I'm a fan of both GURPS and Spirit Of The Century.  But having classes brings its own advantage - I'm also a fan of 4e and Feng Shui.  Classed is easier to get into and set up.  And if done well it doesn't rule out a lot of design space.



> And an Invoker doesn't fill the mark because I said a paladin, not an divine wizard.




OK.  A greatweapon fighter with the Paladin multiclass feat.  He's a Paladin and does a hell of a lot of damage.  And then he's God's Vengeance wielding a martial weapon.  And that's only if you need heavy armour as part of your core concept (Thaneborn Barbarian MC Paladin fits what you want even better if you don't mind Hide Armour, and then there's the Avenger).



> Again, misses the point.




What point?  That you want infinite flexibility in character generation.  And a pony?

The point is that a good class-based system (and 4e is one) is a hell of a lot more flexible than you seem to think.



> Who said anything about housecats. There's a big gap between that and not having any combat focused abilities.




Pre-4e an average first level wizard who had no combat spells available could be beaten up by the average housecat by the RAW.



> And if I don't want a boatload of semi-magical combat powers? I said non-combatant. Also this seems needlessly complex and fiddly.




You want to play a non-combatant in a game of _Dungeons and Dragons_.  Are you also complaining that _Librarian: The Return_ makes it hard for you to play an illiterate PC?

OK.  Non-combatant recipie: Put your sword down and only use weapons you aren't proficient in.



> All game worlds will have a system to work. It's human nature.




So not only do you want a classless system, you want a specific system to each gameworld.  And the homebrewers need to come up with their own?  Fortunately 4e is a bit more flexible than that.



> Again, more build fiddling. What if I want that at 1st level?




Then you want to be incredibly knowledgeable about everything at 1st level.  (Although starting with six out of seven trained skills from that list should be possible for any bard - and Streetwise isn't necessarily part of the core concept).  What if I want to be tough enough to beat up a dragon single-handed at 1st level?



> The merchant with no combat abilities beyond swinging a sword (or shooting a bow) and harsh language.




... is playing the wrong game.

Seriously, it sounds as if your objection to 4e is that it is Not GURPS.  And that it doesn't have rules for everything you can come up with.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> A simple example of the problems that come with maintaining balance throughout a game can be demonstrated with the simple game of Snakes & Ladders.




I'm not sure that lessons learned from competitive games can always be applied to what are theoretically cooperative games. If the point of a game is for all players to pool their resources and abilities to achieve mutual success, "balance" is about whether everyone is given equal opportunities and comparable resources, not about who crosses the finish line first. 

But if we are drawing from competitive games for game balance theory, I can't pass up the opportunity to promote this classic. 

"Commentary: Po Yi sat down to play a game of Talisman with his generals. He said: _At this moment, each of us has an equal chance of winning. When we choose our character cards, we will no longer have equal chances_."


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 29, 2010)

It is my Opinion the Jedi should be the most powerful.  That is how he was in teh story.  If the jedi is balanced with everyone else, the jedi loses its magesty.

I have never seen an incident of a member of my group not having fun because they are not playing the Jedi.  I don't buy the argument of the players not having fun because the classes are not balanced.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm not sure that lessons learned from competitive games can always be applied to what are theoretically cooperative games.




First off, excellent link.  

Second off, I'm not at all certain that D&D is (or should be) a cooperative game, in the same sense that Bus Depot Diner or Secret Door is a cooperative game.  At least, it is not (or should not be) in a sandbox-type environment, where a player's ability to improve his character(s) is fundamentally linked to his abilty to "steer" the environment.

Finally, I note again that a game in which no one is allowed to demonstrate any form of personal excellence, while it might be cooperative, is very much liable to bore some folks.  And the minute Sue starts showing personal excellence rather than Bob, the game either ceases to be fully cooperative, or fails to reward Sue for her excellence.

Unlike Bus Depot Diner, Secret Door, and similar games, where each player's "turn" is in fact a group turn, and the idea that anyone has a seperate "turn" is largely illusory.


RC


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> *I don't think 4e is the best system for a skill-heavy game, or any game in which combat is rare at best*.  I think there are better systems for those sorts of games, and I'd encourage anyone looking to run a skill-heavy game to look at those, first.  Trying to make 4e work well for that sort of game is like jamming a square peg into a round hole - it can be done, but you're losing a lot.  As I mentioned, I'd recommend WFRP2, some FATE variety, or GURPS.  I'm unfamiliar with FantasyCraft, but if it fills your requirements, that's awesome.




I wasn't suggesting cramming 4e into any hole. If you don't want what 4e offers, look at other games. I was responding to the implication by the OP that if you don't like 4e's style of balance, you're either a bad person or ignorant. Lots of people like 4e and don't mind it's playstyle or balance descisions. I don't, so I don't play it. That doesn't make me a munchkin or slacker the way the OP says, or ignorant the way others have implied.



Obryn said:


> Like I said, there are better games to model this than 4e - or, IMO, any of the other D&D flavors.
> 
> 
> If they don't like the 4e playstyle, and if 4e doesn't fit their requirements, they should, indeed, be playing something else.  OTOH, I think 4e works great for what I do with it, and don't think it needs rules expansions to allow for total noncombatant PCs.
> ...




Of course it matters.  If it didn't there wouldn't be debates over what game to play. The problem is that the OP, and many people siding with him seem to get inordinately upset that there are people who dislike their system of choice either wholly or partially because of it's design philosophy about what balance is and how it should be achieved.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 29, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> It is my Opinion the Jedi should be the most powerful.  That is how he was in teh story.




Too far afield for me.... closer to home.

Power comes in Flavors... One of them is pure luck.

Frodo was gifted at choosing who to trust.. Gandalf rather sucked at it. This was central to the story.. because the writer worked to make it so.

Frodo like many hobbits was gifted with a mild mannered disdain for the trappings of "power" and the DM errrr writer made that central to the story line.

Frodo is fighting evil with luck and grit... he still single handedly tears down a towers worth of goblins... sure was lucky they turned against one another so there were very few left when Sam showed up with the ring... right. If Aragorn was there tearing down the tower would have had a different style and if Gandalf was there it would have had a different style again.

But them goblins was doomed.

I think Fate is probably the only game I can properly play that out in....


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Which class is "starkly limited"?  Classes have things they do well and things they do less well.  But it's possible to heal with any class (although leaders will always be better), to tank with most classes (Invokers have it tough), to do damage with any class, and to force bad choices on the enemy with any class.  The role indicates what they can do best, not their absolute limits.




Pretty much all of them, because they're all combatants. You find enough flexibility in them for you. That doesn't make those of us who don't wrongbad people.



Neonchameleon said:


> Because this is _Dungeons and Dragons_.  If it were Courtiers and Merchants it would be a different game.  And not everyone has to be a combatant.  You can play The Load if you like - it just takes dumping your primary stat.  And sit there like a lemon while the game is in combat (a significant proportion of the time) and your character is hiding under the table.  Or you can simply refuse to use your powers.




Ah, tautology. Because this is D&D you must go into dungeons and fight dragons. If you want to do otherwise, you're playing the game wrong and a bad person who ruins everyone else's fun. Why exactly is a non-combatant a drag on the other characters if he's valuable and contributes in other ways? There's more to a game then combat. Why vilify or belittle those who think balance should extend beyond the combat encounter and be done in a different way then 4e did so?




Neonchameleon said:


> We aren't slavishly following it.  If we were then the rogue would be hard coded into his own mini-game.




Ah, the good old days. 



Neonchameleon said:


> Because the alternative is to make everything vanilla out of the box (so you aren't reskinning so much as skinning).  Or you need a literally infinite number of feats.  As you seem to be requesting.




Actually, I dislike this aspect of 4e because, to me, the classes are too homogenius. Everyone's a full up combatant. I've seen class and level based 
 systems who hit the balance I want here, and I play them and not 4e for that reason. The issue is not what I want 4e to be, or what it is or isn't, but why, according to the OP, I'm a bad person for disagreeing with it's design philosophy.



Neonchameleon said:


> Because none of those deal with the character's overall approach.  Which is what Class indicates.  Which is to open up design space without warping the game into a pretzel and make it easy to build competently with minimal skill.  (Seriously, a 4e Shaman would be near-impossible in a pointbuy system.)
> 
> You can play classless.  I'm a fan of both GURPS and Spirit Of The Century.  But having classes brings its own advantage - I'm also a fan of 4e and Feng Shui.  Classed is easier to get into and set up.  And if done well it doesn't rule out a lot of design space.




And yet 4e has. The whole non-combatant thing.



Neonchameleon said:


> What point?  That you want infinite flexibility in character generation.  And a pony?




I want a system that balances based on the team and adventure using spotlight sharing, not on the individual and combat round using homogenization. And a Donkeyhorse.



Neonchameleon said:


> The point is that a good class-based system (and 4e is one) is a hell of a lot more flexible than you seem to think.




I never said it was a bad game. Just that I don't like it partially because it's balance philosophy puts me off. I own and play several class-level systems with more flexibility and with balance philosophies that better fit my preferences.




Neonchameleon said:


> Pre-4e an average first level wizard who had no combat spells available could be beaten up by the average housecat by the RAW.




Shenanigans. Pre 3e. Cats do less then 1 point of damage in 3e.



Neonchameleon said:


> You want to play a non-combatant in a game of _Dungeons and Dragons_.  Are you also complaining that _Librarian: The Return_ makes it hard for you to play an illiterate PC?




I want said characters to be possible. I want a game that doesn't consider combat to be the central element of the game that everything must be balanced around. And, as I said, I have one. The issue is why does the OP and others consider me a bad person for this desire.



Neonchameleon said:


> OK.  Non-combatant recipie: Put your sword down and only use weapons you aren't proficient in.




Cute.



Neonchameleon said:


> So not only do you want a classless system, you want a specific system to each gameworld.  And the homebrewers need to come up with their own?  Fortunately 4e is a bit more flexible than that.




I already have the game I want. It's not classless. I have no idea where you get the gameworld thing. What I want to know is why I'm a bad person for disliking 4e's definition of balance. Why my views on balance render me into a muchkin or slacker. Oh, and you may find 4e flexible, I do not. Again, that doesn't make me a bad person, or a fool.



Neonchameleon said:


> Then you want to be incredibly knowledgeable about everything at 1st level.  (Although starting with six out of seven trained skills from that list should be possible for any bard - and Streetwise isn't necessarily part of the core concept).  What if I want to be tough enough to beat up a dragon single-handed at 1st level?




How large a dragon, and to what narrative end?



Neonchameleon said:


> Seriously, it sounds as if your objection to 4e is that it is Not GURPS.  And that it doesn't have rules for everything you can come up with.




My objection to 4e is that I find it boring, fiddly, miniature and combat centric,too expensive, and because of it's design descisions regarding balance and class structure that it doesn't handle the sort of games I and my friends want to play. Purely subjective, I know. Don't try and convert me, that's not the topic. The topic I haven't seen answered is why do the OP and his supporters feel I'm a bad person for not liking the design philosophy of 4e?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Ack!  No, please!
> 
> A stat penalty would only be appropriate for genre- or campaign-specific reasons...




And personally, I see modeling races that are nearly 8 feet tall and approaching 400lbs as a potential reason for using unusual balancing tools, as opposed to merely making them slightly stronger than Gnomes and Halflings that are a quarter of their mass or less.

That's a LOT of shoe-horning going on there.


----------



## tyrlaan (Mar 29, 2010)

Did I miss the memo where this became about 4e/3e? The OP didn't mention an edition or even a SYSTEM.

To the OP: 
I have seen the bias you refer to, but I think it is mostly the result of hyperbole. In all cases I can drudge up in my memory, when someone came across as a naysayer for balance it was to back up a dislike for system/edition x. In reality, I don't think anyone is actually _against _balance, but sticking to your guns with white-knuckles can start skewing statements after a while.



Mournblade94 said:


> It is my Opinion the Jedi should be the most powerful.  That is how he was in teh story.  If the jedi is balanced with everyone else, the jedi loses its magesty.
> 
> I have never seen an incident of a member of my group not having fun because they are not playing the Jedi.  I don't buy the argument of the players not having fun because the classes are not balanced.




This is interesting (and also related to the topic  ). 

I've been in Star Wars games through various systems. I agree that a jedi by all rights _should_ be more powerful than any other player at the table and probably capable of killing the entire party should the jedi decide to do so. 

On the other hand, that would get pretty boring to me if I'm playing the Han Solo character. It works fine in a movie, but at the game table it gets old fast when the answer to every problem is "let the jedi do it." Why would I want to play in a game where everything is resolved by one player and the rest are all second fiddle in every situation?

In a way, I see the jedi scenario to be the perfect example to argue for/against balance in a game. To me, balance needs to exist so everyone can have fun. If the players in your game are cool with the power imbalance, more power to you, but it wouldn't fly for me. I don't need to be the hero every moment of every game, there's plenty of limelight for everyone. But I do need to feel relevant to the story. I mean, even Orko got his chance to shine, because otherwise he would have left Eternia ages ago.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 29, 2010)

Again, my question stands.

If there is nothing inherently WRONG about the various options being unbalanced, why not simply TELL the players that beforehand instead of letting the players discover it haphazardly through play?


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Second off, I'm not at all certain that D&D is (or should be) a cooperative game, in the same sense that Bus Depot Diner or Secret Door is a cooperative game.  At least, it is not (or should not be) in a sandbox-type environment, where a player's ability to improve his character(s) is fundamentally linked to his abilty to "steer" the environment.




I'm not saying that all RPGs are cooperative games. I do know, though, that I much prefer the ones that are. For one, my wife far prefers cooperation to competition, so I get to play with her more if the group is working together to achieve mutual awesomeness instead of competing for personal aggrandizement. 



> Finally, I note again that a game in which no one is allowed to demonstrate any form of personal excellence, while it might be cooperative, is very much liable to bore some folks.  And the minute Sue starts showing personal excellence rather than Bob, the game either ceases to be fully cooperative, or fails to reward Sue for her excellence.




I don't think I've ever seen an RPG balanced to that extent. Even in 4e, which is obviously the high end of design paid toward character balance, personal excellence happens every turn (barring the dice being horrible creatures). People excel at specific roles or tricks, doing stuff no other PC at the table can do; there's just less of a sense that to make the feylock's mobility (for instance) shine, you have to make other characters' mobility suck.


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> The topic I haven't seen answered is why do the OP and his supporters feel I'm a bad person for not liking the design philosophy of 4e?




I'm not sure where he said that.  That said, if you're getting a negative vibe here, it's because you seem obsessed with making a noncombatant character, and in many D&D games and most published D&D adventures, such a character is going to be a burden upon the rest of the group for large parts of the game.  That is ultimately a selfish choice in a team-oriented game, and so most people view it as a negative.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And personally, I see modeling races that are nearly 8 feet tall and approaching 400lbs as a potential reason for using unusual balancing tools, as opposed to merely making them slightly stronger than Gnomes and Halflings that are a quarter of their mass or less.
> 
> That's a LOT of shoe-horning going on there.



*shrug*  I'm just pointing out that not every stat is important to every character, and the "dump stats" vary greatly from PC to PC.  Hiding a stat penalty is even easier than it was in 3e, which means that only net effect of balancing bonuses like this would be to push certain races away from (or towards) certain classes and increase homogeneity.  As an example, I think it's safe to say that most 4e Wizards would gladly take a +4 in Intelligence in exchange for a -8 in Strength.  They'd see almost no game effects from the penalty.  Ditto, Fighters exchanging a higher Strength bonus in trade for Charisma.

It's not even balance, really; calling it balance is a dodge.  I think the balance implications on the table would be fairly negligible; most combats would be unaffected if a Minotaur had a +4 Strength bonus and a -2 Intelligence penalty, or if Gnomes had -2 Strength.  It's a race/class issue, and how much you value seeing unusual combinations.

Personally, I like to see unusual race/class combinations, and anything which discourages that is a bummer in my book.

-O


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 29, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Again, my question stands.
> 
> If there is nothing inherently WRONG about the various options being unbalanced, why not simply TELL the players that beforehand instead of letting the players discover it haphazardly through play?




I think that's a great idea, myself. I remember someone talking about how suboptimal choices in 3e like Toughness were intended to make players feel clever and rewarded for making the choice not to take them, which struck me as kind of a dodgy philosophy (if it's true at all; I can't remember the source). Players shouldn't feel good for dodging traps in the rulebook, they should feel good for dodging traps in the dungeon.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 29, 2010)

Didn't we have a gazillion page thread on this just a couple months ago?

"Game balance" means different things to different people.  Straw men of the concept are used in both sides of the edition wars to stoke the flames.

Until someone creates an operational definition of game balance that everyone can agree to work from, this is a pointless conversation that will only devolve into two people arguing about what the definition of the word "is" is.


----------



## OchreJelly (Mar 29, 2010)

Canis said:


> Didn't we have a gazillion page thread on this just a couple months ago?
> 
> "Game balance" means different things to different people.  Straw men of the concept are used in both sides of the edition wars to stoke the flames.
> 
> Until someone creates an operational definition of game balance that everyone can agree to work from, this is a pointless conversation that will only devolve into two people arguing about what the definition of the word "is" is.




Ditto.  The OP didn't provide enough constraints on what kind of "balance" we are discussing.  In a game as complex as DND it typically comes down to:


balance on classes against themselves.
balance on players vs. environment (the DM).

...and within those there are many subsets of discussion: non-combatant classes; unfair monsters; swingy-ness vs. grind; and so forth.  So which of these are we trying to discuss a bias against?


----------



## macrochelys (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Shenanigans. Pre 3e. Cats do less then 1 point of damage in 3e.




Nah, everything in 3.0 and 3.5 does minimum 1 damage.




> The topic I haven't seen answered is why do the OP and his supporters feel I'm a bad person for not liking the design philosophy of 4e?




The OP at most stated that (some people) want to be more powerful than the other players and/or a burden to the other players. You seem to be saying that it is fine to be (some people) when the character is balanced by DM action (spotlighting). I don't really see where the OP called you a bad person.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 29, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
> 
> What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.
> 
> I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.



Well, this may not be a popular opinion, but some people just aren't temperamentally suited to discussions of game balance.  This doesn't explain everyone, but there are certain people... I general, if someone connects "game balance" with "loss of wonder" then they fall into this category.  I don't believe they'd actually be happier with an unbalanced game, but I _do_ believe that they'd be happier with a game where they'd never seen behind the scenes.

Basically, if what you're looking for in a game is a sense of enchantment, you aren't going to be happy with the game after a long discussion of exactly which Great Wizards of Oz are really men behind curtains.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> I wasn't suggesting cramming 4e into any hole. If you don't want what 4e offers, look at other games. I was responding to the implication by the OP that if you don't like 4e's style of balance, you're either a bad person or ignorant. Lots of people like 4e and don't mind it's playstyle or balance descisions. I don't, so I don't play it. That doesn't make me a munchkin or slacker the way the OP says, or ignorant the way others have implied.



I think the OP was over the top, but I don't think anyone's claiming anyone else is ignorant here.  And certainly not that anyone's a bad person - where the heck is that coming from?

I responded to you, specifically, because a lot of the things that you claimed aren't possible with 4e actually are.  And others are better served by a skill-based system, instead of D&D.  4e is an RPG, and it _can _be played with a strong non-combat focus.  I don't think it's the best game for it, but you can do it.  (You can also make characters who are bad at combat, if that's your goal.)



> Of course it matters.  If it didn't there wouldn't be debates over what game to play. The problem is that the OP, and many people siding with him seem to get inordinately upset that there are people who dislike their system of choice either wholly or partially because of it's design philosophy about what balance is and how it should be achieved.



Hmmm...  If you say, "I don't play 4e because it can't/doesn't do A, B, and C," you might get a variety of responses.  One is, "4e actually has A, and if you stretch it can do B and C.  Here's how I'd make it work."  Another is, "No, and 4e shouldn't do A, B, or C because that's not the game it is, and making it work for that would make it work less well at the things it's good at now."  I've seen a lot of both of these.  Neither one is a personal attack, and neither one is anyone getting upset.  It's just two ways of approaching disagreement.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm not saying that all RPGs are cooperative games. I do know, though, that I much prefer the ones that are. For one, my wife far prefers cooperation to competition, so I get to play with her more if the group is working together to achieve mutual awesomeness instead of competing for personal aggrandizement.




Yup.

And, when the "Can somebody explain the bias *for* game balance" thread comes up, be sure to mention it.


RC


----------



## Krensky (Mar 29, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> I'm not sure where he said that.  That said, if you're getting a negative vibe here, it's because you seem obsessed with making a noncombatant character, and in many D&D games and most published D&D adventures, such a character is going to be a burden upon the rest of the group for large parts of the game.  That is ultimately a selfish choice in a team-oriented game, and so most people view it as a negative.




The OP said the only two types of people who don't like the sort of balance 4e employs are min/maxers who must be better then other players or those who want to make crappy characters who he will have to carry.

Munchkins or Slackers.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 29, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
> 
> What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.
> 
> I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.




Or maybe they want their character to be how they envision that character being, using the tools in that particular ruleset and not have the douchebag type motives that you've ascribed to them? How is it not anything more than a matter of playstyle preference and taste? 

How did this thread not get shut down when it starts off ascribing motives to a particular set of players (i.e everyone not playing 4E) in a totally negative way?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> How did this thread not get shut down when it starts off ascribing motives to a particular set of players (i.e everyone not playing 4E) in a totally negative way?



As a guess?  Because although the OP was being provocative (and some might argue green, warty, regenerating, and vulnerable to fire) the rest of the thread has been pretty calm and productive, overall.

-O


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> As a guess?  Because although the OP was being provocative (and some might argue green, warty, regenerating, and vulnerable to fire) the rest of the thread has been pretty calm and productive, overall.
> 
> -O




Ah. Got it. So it's okay to start a fire as long as everyone else responds in a clam manner. 

Cool. Got it.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Ah. Got it. So it's okay to start a fire as long as everyone else responds in a clam manner.
> 
> Cool. Got it.



Who said it was okay?  And why not just report the post?

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Ah. Got it. So it's okay to start a fire as long as everyone else responds in a clam manner.
> 
> Cool. Got it.










"Fire?  What fire?"


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 29, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> How did this thread not get shut down when it starts off ascribing motives to a particular set of players (i.e everyone not playing 4E) in a totally negative way?




So "people who are ill served by a balanced game" means to you everyone not playing 4e D&D?... how interesting. ;-).


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yup.
> 
> And, when the "Can somebody explain the bias *for* game balance" thread comes up, be sure to mention it.




So to your perspective, is the bias _against_ game balance rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players? I was sort of coming at it from the perspective of "not necessarily," but I admit as a non-competitive type it's only theory from the outside.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> So to your perspective, is the bias _against_ game balance rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players? I was sort of coming at it from the perspective of "not necessarily," but I admit as a non-competitive type it's only theory from the outside.




Part of the reason people play these games is so that they can feel able to change the world, even if it is just a fantasy construct world.

To be meaningful (IMHO), changing the world requires that (1) the outcome is not preordained, and (2) the change one strives for is one that suits the changer.  These two reasons are part of why I sandbox-GM.

It isn't that one player is out to "get" the other ones; it is that each player strives to leave his mark upon the campaign milieu, and each strives to make it better reflect his tastes.  Often, this means that players are working together for a common goal.  But this is _*because*_ the goal is a common one; it does not mean that they are shoe-horned into accepting a goal so that the game is cooperative.

Going back to another thread, if one player likes mounted characters, another likes urban adventure, and a third likes dungeons, all three are in competition to have the group follow adventures that they like.  It might mean that they split parties, creating one to follow each type of adventure, and trading which parties are used each session.  It might mean that they negotiate.  They may resolve their conflict however they like, but are almost always better off if they do so cooperatively.

Figuring out how to cooperate, in this case, is one of the challenges of the game.  It is also, I note, one of the things a person can take away from the game and apply to his own life.

Players compete against the campaign milieu.  They compete against each other for what limited resources the group has (barring, of course, APs that prevent the players from choosing what sort of adventures to choose, treasure parcels that ensure that the optimum treasure is always gained, and rules that do away with resource management).

In a recent game, I had one group hire another PC (whose player was present, and ran his other PC briefly) to appraise and _detect magic_ their treasure.  The other PC charged 5% of the total take.  Some of the group considered murdering him instead of paying him.  Everyone had fun.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 29, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm not sure that lessons learned from competitive games can always be applied to what are theoretically cooperative games.



That is the point, I think. It certainly was my own point in an earlier post. One misses it if one has the parochial assumption that "theoretically" all RPGs should be a certain way.

In D&D in particular, a lot of square pegs people keep trying to pound into round holes were actually designed to _fit_ square holes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2010)

Here's another thing:  Remember how, upthread, I mentioned that cooperative games like Secret Door and Bus Depot Diner only give the illusion of having separate turns?  

Well, since the 3.x era, and certainly in the 4e era, I have seen increasing incidence of some players telling other players what to do on "their" turns.  From threads on EN World -- where players have complained about other PC builds not being efficient enough -- I suspect that there are groups out there, right now, where even having separate characters is really an illusion.  The operative unit has become, as with Bus Depot Diner, the *team*.

Certainly not a universal truth, but something to be aware of.


RC


----------



## Nifft (Mar 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The operative unit has become, as with Bus Depot Diner, the *team*.
> 
> Certainly not a universal truth, but something to be aware of.



 This is something I've been saying for quite some time in the CharOp forums: the smallest unit of battle is no longer the PC, it is the party.

The most important optimization question is no longer: "What will your DM allow you to get away with?"

The most important optimization question is now: "Who else is in your party?"

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> So to your perspective, is the bias _against_ game balance rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players? I was sort of coming at it from the perspective of "not necessarily," but I admit as a non-competitive type it's only theory from the outside.




I can't speak for RC but I honestly don't think the bias against game balance is totally rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players, though I do think many people are drawn to games (not necessarily talking about rpg's here) in which some measure of competition takes place and is measured with concrete indicators.

One possibility is that there are actually people who enjoy the mini-game of creating better characters (the same way some enjoy the mini-game of grid-tactics). They enjoy finding combinations, powers, etc. to construct the character they enjoy. 

However I think for many it is also born of a dislike of the "game" in an rpg super-ceding tropes, imagination, archetypes, genre conventions and so on that the game is supposedly based upon. I think this is especially particular to D&D because it is billed as the premier fantasy roleplaying game. The problem is that one expects that this game would allow you to play the numerous tropes you've read in most generic fantasy... but in the most recent editions...game balance, moreso than anything else, dictates that you cannot... at least without jumping through numerous hoops.

As a counter example... In Exalted I can play a character with any trope, archetype or convention that would reasonably fit within the established world of Creation. Will everything be balanced?? Nope, but you will be able to play the character you imagine. For a more class based game we can look at Warhammer FRPG (2e), or Blue Rose. Both arguably class-based systems that accomodate a wide variety of their genre's tropes, conventions and archetypes in very different ways. Are they balanced... No. But again, you can play the character you imagine more readily.

As far as D&D specifically, I think in 3.0 and 3.5 we were moving towards a class based system with the freedom in character creation to design the character you wanted to within the tropes of most fantasy, and with Star Wars Saga edition (talent trees, feats, classes and skills)... I really thought WotC was on this track and had it nearly perfected. In my mind 4e was going to be the culmination of the evolutionary path D&D seemed to be on... only it wasn't.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 29, 2010)

Obryn said:


> It's still tied into levels, though.  Your Level 1 character can't have a +18 skill check on something, even with a Skill Focus feat.
> 
> Highly skilled characters must be high-level, per the mechanics.  Along with that increase in level comes an increase in HPs, saving throws, and combat skill.
> 
> ...



it is just that in my games someone with a +5 bonus is fairly competent and with a +10 bonus (easy for an expert lvl2) is an expert. 

And suddenly it works


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 29, 2010)

Nifft said:


> The most important optimization question is now: "Who else is in your party?"



This, for me, makes combat way more fun.  Developing reliable tactics with your teammates like the proverbial Fast-ball Special or making some combination up on the fly feels good.  It is also evocative of a well-oiled team of combat veterans.

This is fine when everyone at the table is on board.  Of course, all it takes is one blowhard or one person who takes it way more seriously than everyone else to screw it up for everyone, so there are no free lunches.  Personally, in this case, I'm willing to take the good with the bad.

Building a character that does something optimally in isolation bores me, and it's fundamentally no different than filling out my talent tree and gear list in WoW.  Building a character that will generate interesting emergent properties as part of a team... that will keep me entertained for a long time, especially since it also includes a social element.  I have to anticipate what others are likely to do with their characters and create organic synergies that also fit my character's predilections.  I also have to not be a jerk if my expectations are violated.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Mar 29, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I think that's a great idea, myself. I remember someone talking about how suboptimal choices in 3e like Toughness were intended to make players feel clever and rewarded for making the choice not to take them, which struck me as kind of a dodgy philosophy (if it's true at all; I can't remember the source). Players shouldn't feel good for dodging traps in the rulebook, they should feel good for dodging traps in the dungeon.




   The source was none other than Monte Cook. Here's the citation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 29, 2010)

I don´t like the party as the smallest unit. It should be the player. Everyone should be able to pull its weight in combat. Even in a 1 vs 1. Of course, the defender has nothing to defend and the leader has nothing to lead. But at least everyone should be competent enough to hold its own in a fight. (Having low AC doesn´t mean you are screwed by default)

It is just needed that a pary functions better than each part. But a party that crumbles as soon as a certain person is missing is in a bad tactical situation.

@chosing a game that better serves your needs: I find D&D very satisfying for nearly all kind of games. The only thing preventing it from beeing very good for urban settings was the easy access of low level divination spells which were too useful n 3rd edition. You really couldn´t do anything bad without an undetectable alignment ring.

You really don´t need  much for good roleplaying. It is just important that rules don´t get in the way of fun. And a very unbalanced game does. Be it in or out od combat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 29, 2010)

timmy cards can become real winners if used in the proper combination.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 29, 2010)

Canis said:


> Building a character that will generate interesting emergent properties as part of a team... that will keep me entertained for a long time, especially since it also includes a social element.  I have to anticipate what others are likely to do with their characters and create organic synergies that also fit my character's predilections.  I also have to not be a jerk if my expectations are violated.



 Very much agree. It's a good thing if the game gets you interested in everyone else's actions.

- - -

Anyway, the few times I've seen "anti-balance bias" on this board, the situation has usually been:

*Dude A*: Hey guys check out my cool idea!

*Forum Opinion*: That would unbalance the game.

*Dude A*: DARN YOU GAME BALANCE! How dare you exist to oppose my cool idea!

In this way, *dude A* either becomes an arch-villain petting a fluffy white cat, or he accepts that good ideas can take non-trivial work to implement. For me, the game balance argument was a no-brainer, because I'm allergic to cats.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Players compete against the campaign milieu.




Interesting. I see players coming into _conflict_ with a game's setting and the residents therein, but a competition.... well, the image that springs to mind is of some of those DMs we all used to know bragging about their kill counts to one another. I don't tend to think of PVE (to borrow from video game design terminology) as a competition because there's no real meaningful win condition for the environment, but it's an interesting perspective.



> They compete against each other for what limited resources the group has (barring, of course, APs that prevent the players from choosing what sort of adventures to choose, treasure parcels that ensure that the optimum treasure is always gained, and rules that do away with resource management).




That's something I see as a play style as more of a universal condition of the player (to clarify, because some groups evolve policies for sharing as evenly as possible even in resource-management RPGs rather than treating it as competition), but it's an interesting perspective. I do appreciate the clarification. 



Matthew L. Martin said:


> The source was none other than Monte Cook. Here's the citation.




Huh, how about that. Thanks for the cite! Nice to know my memory isn't fading too bad just yet.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> timmy cards can become real winners if used in the proper combination.




Indeed. A lot of people on the internet make a hullaballoo, all full of self-righteous fury, about how some options in 3e are "traps". But whether or not those choices are sub-optimal tends to depend on the context. They can be very useful from the DM's perspective when statting up NPC or creatures. They can be useful in one-shot modules with pre-gen characters or short-term characters. 

That's always been true about certain aspects of game balance from 1e through 3e as well. Context context context.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 29, 2010)

Ahnehnois said:


> Life's not balanced.
> 
> What's more, dramatic fiction (an intermediate step between life and rpgs) is also not balanced.




Life is usually balanced over the long haul by making it extremely hard for most PC's (compared to D&D) to up stats, gain skill points, or attain wealth. Cheating tends to get you shot at. Also, only maybe one in ten million is a PC-class-grade person. 

Fiction is balanced because there's an author there making sure his character only realizes at the last second that he can simply reverse his fire magic to draw heat instead of produce it, thus freezing the cold-vulnerable bad guy. The author's character is totally incapable of back-talking to the author and saying 'Any dumbass knows heat flows in directions; it should be child's play for me to reverse this spell', thus negating the entire novel.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 29, 2010)

Cadfan said:


> Well, this may not be a popular opinion, but some people just aren't temperamentally suited to discussions of game balance.  This doesn't explain everyone, but there are certain people... I general, if someone connects "game balance" with "loss of wonder" then they fall into this category.  I don't believe they'd actually be happier with an unbalanced game, but I _do_ believe that they'd be happier with a game where they'd never seen behind the scenes.
> 
> Basically, if what you're looking for in a game is a sense of enchantment, you aren't going to be happy with the game after a long discussion of exactly which Great Wizards of Oz are really men behind curtains.



Excellent observation, Cadfan.

Dare I take it a step farther and suggest the sense of enchantment has been sacrificed on the altar of balance (both real and perceived), along with some other things?

If 5e does nothing else of use, if it can bring back some sort of sense of enchantment I'll count it a success.

Lanefan


----------



## BryonD (Mar 29, 2010)

Canis said:


> "Game balance" means different things to different people.



I think I'm safe using the context of the OP's other posts...
But, yeah, good call and I'm guilty as charged.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 30, 2010)

Balance is something that the players have to bring to the table along with intelligence and imagination. The game itself can make attempts to pre-package balance but it will fail on some level because the balance needs vary so much from group to group. The game itself should focus on whatever it is supposede to be about and let the people playing tweak the balance to taste. No matter how good the intentions there will be too much or too little balance for someone.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 30, 2010)

I think game balance is about having multiple choices when faced with a problem and there is no clear optimal solution.  If there is a clear optimal solution the game isn't balanced.

If the mechanics of the game make it much easier to achieve my goals (whatever they are) if I play a PC with raw size and strength, playing a minotaur who outweighs humans by 200+ pounds is an obvious optimal solution.

Looking it like that, generating encounters/loot/DCs based on PC level isn't about game balance, it's about removing the consequences of the player's choices.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 30, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm not saying that all RPGs are cooperative games. I do know, though, that I much prefer the ones that are. For one, my wife far prefers cooperation to competition, so I get to play with her more if the group is working together to achieve mutual awesomeness instead of competing for personal aggrandizement.



Not meant to be a reply necessary to you specifically, but to the vibe in general: cooperation doesn't mean "everyone pulls their weight.  In combat."  It can mean a lot of other things too.  To me, cooperation means, "everyone works to accomodate the character concepts that the other players are interested in.  Within reason."

Frequently, in my groups, we have the dumbest, most incompetent bunch of nincompoops ever to set out in search of adventure.  Can you imagine an entire party made up of Cugel the "Clever" wannabes?  I can.  I've seen it over and over again.  It works because we all _cooperate_ to have a good time laughing at the hijinks of our ridiculous characters.

I'd say that a person who gets their panties in a wad about someone not "pulling their weight" in combat in a cooperative game is someone who, by my book, doesn't understand the first thing about playing a cooperative game.  Because at that point they're demanding that I engage the game in a way that they enjoy but which I do not.  And it's the demanding aspect of the disparity that makes it uncooperative.  We can work something out if there's playstyle differences... maybe... but don't start getting on my case because I don't enjoy the same things about the game that you do, and then have the stones to tell _me_ that the whole point is that it's a cooperative game.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 30, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I'd say that a person who gets their panties in a wad about someone not "pulling their weight" in combat in a cooperative game is someone who, by my book, doesn't understand the first thing about playing a cooperative game.



 It's really the same thing as the guy who has sand in his crevice about "but it's what my character would do!" -- when that thing is obnoxious to other players, like stealing from party members, or trying to do comedy in a hardball combat-centric adventure.

Both come down to: know your group, make your compromises up-front, make sure they're playing a game you want to play, and don't try to use social blackmail during the game to guilt other people into tolerating your anti-social behavior.

"_11: Thou Shalt Fit In_", -- N


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, since the 3.x era, and certainly in the 4e era, I have seen increasing incidence of some players telling other players what to do on "their" turns.  From threads on EN World -- where players have complained about other PC builds not being efficient enough -- I suspect that there are groups out there, right now, where even having separate characters is really an illusion.  The operative unit has become, as with Bus Depot Diner, the *team*.




Oh, you mean like in AD&D when each party had a *caller*? 

Seriously, bossy jerks at the table have been nothing new - but at least in 4E, there are whole classes built around the fact that a person can give their party bonuses if the party allow themselves to be bossed around.


			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Dare I take it a step farther and suggest the sense of enchantment has been sacrificed on the altar of balance (both real and perceived), along with some other things?




Me, I've perceived it as the game having taken a step back towards the older D&D way of empowering the DM to make the changes needed to shake things up and build that sense of wonder on the fly with magical effects unreproduceable by PCs, monsters and NPCs easily changeable again within the rules, and magic items again possessing unique or quirky effects - but still keeping it in a rules framework that gives the DM a guideline where he is less likely to throw something out there that is well outside the party's range.


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 30, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I'd say that a person who gets their panties in a wad about someone not "pulling their weight" in combat in a cooperative game is someone who, by my book, doesn't understand the first thing about playing a cooperative game.




At the same time, if five people get together to play _Scepter Tower of Spellgard_ or one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, and one player is playing a noncombatant, that is not really being fair to the rest of the group.

The scenario you are playing is important here.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> It's really the same thing as the guy who has sand in his crevice about "but it's what my character would do!" -- when that thing is obnoxious to other players, like stealing from party members, or trying to do comedy in a hardball combat-centric adventure.
> 
> Both come down to: know your group, make your compromises up-front, make sure they're playing a game you want to play, and don't try to use social blackmail during the game to guilt other people into tolerating your anti-social behavior.
> 
> "_11: Thou Shalt Fit In_", -- N



Absolutely.


Benimoto said:


> At the same time, if five people get together to play _Scepter Tower of Spellgard_ or one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, and one player is playing a noncombatant, that is not really being fair to the rest of the group.
> 
> The scenario you are playing is important here.



Oddly enough, we're now playing Rise of the Runelords.  And yes, we have our typically bizarre and eclectic group of characters, including a traveling lawyer, a sorcerer who refuses to take Magic Missile and fights with a _bladed scarf_, a half-orc who's sole purpose in life is to convince everyone that he's a human (and get that Tianese babe in the inn to fall in love with him) and a druid who's in denial about his magical abilities, a rogue who turns into a cat a la Ladyhawke every night, and her knight lover.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 30, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> I think game balance is about having multiple choices when faced with a problem and there is no clear optimal solution.  If there is a clear optimal solution the game isn't balanced.





It's not a question of there being an optimal solution when faced with *a single* problem. You can reasonably expect there be a single optimal solution to a problem (though hopefully, there are other solutions as well even if less optimal).
It's problematic when the optimal solution to *every* problem is the same solution or comes from too small a set of solutions.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 30, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> At the same time, if five people get together to play _Scepter Tower of Spellgard_ or one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, and one player is playing a noncombatant, that is not really being fair to the rest of the group.
> 
> The scenario you are playing is important here.




I've run Burnt Offerings in FC with a party including both a Medicine focused Keeper (skill monkey, like an Expert on steroids) and a Craft and Haggle focused Courtier (social manipulator). Both are typically non-combatant classes, and these played to type. I needed to beef the converted NPCs up a bit, but it was a pretty straightforward conversion.

Both typically plinked away with their bow (for the courtier) or their knife (Keeper) in a fight. They weren't worthless, but the Courtier didn't contribute much. Due to some lucky rolls and good gear choices, the Keeper 
was relatively effective. Both were invariable out of combat. The Keeper for patching the Mage or healing Priestless party up, and the Courtier for typically doubling their take, tripling their Reputation, and generally wrapping the town around his finger.

Both players had fun as far as I can tell. Were they drains on the party?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> a game in which no one is allowed to demonstrate any form of personal excellence, while it might be cooperative, is very much liable to bore some folks.  And the minute Sue starts showing personal excellence rather than Bob, the game either ceases to be fully cooperative, or fails to reward Sue for her excellence.



It's one thing for the game to allow Sue to demonstrate excellence (this is possible in 4e, for example - clearly some players are better at character building and combat tactics than others, and/or better at skill challenges and using p 42 to advantage than others).

It is a separate question whether, and how, this is to be reflected in the character build rules. The 4e design assumes that all characters will advance at mechanically the same rate, and that the "esteem" rewards that Sue is earning over Bob will work themselves out purely in the metagame. And unlike most boardgames, there is a very rich metagame in which these rewards can take effect (and thus, comparatively speaking, less pressure to ensure that the rewards of success are felt within the ingame context).

A game built in this way is obviously not going to reward a certain sort of competitive personality. But it does not fail to reward all competitive personalities.


----------



## BenBrown (Mar 30, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Both players had fun as far as I can tell. Were they drains on the party?




The question isn't whether they had fun, but whether everybody else had fun, and didn't feel like they weren't holding up their end.

If the answer is "yes", that's great.  There is nothing wrong with a game involving widely disparate characters as long as there is something for everyone to do, and aren't any long stretches where people either feel useless or dragged down.

I say this as someone who is generally a proponent of game balance.  Of course I'm also a proponent of games doing what they say they're going to do, of games doing what they set out to do, and of games which reward interesting play more than digging through supplements to look for optimal combinations.

Still, I'm not going to rain on anyone's fun.  If you want to play in a game where the characters are three demigods and a cheesemonger, and all the players and the GM are fine with that and willing to run with it, who am I to say you're doing it wrong.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 30, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It's not a question of there being an optimal solution when faced with *a single* problem. You can reasonably expect there be a single optimal solution to a problem (though hopefully, there are other solutions as well even if less optimal).
> It's problematic when the optimal solution to *every* problem is the same solution or comes from too small a set of solutions.




Those problems - with one clear solution and no choice to be made - are boring.  A game filled with those kinds of situations is going to be boring.  It turns the game into Snakes and Ladders.  No choices to be made, roll the dice.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 30, 2010)

Yeah, yeah, it's old now. Well _I'm_ feeling old right now (even though I'm probably not.) So there.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]YouTube - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame]


And yes, I could explain the bais against game balance, but I have a feeling that wouldn't go down too well, so I won't.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Those problems - with one clear solution and no choice to be made - are boring.  A game filled with those kinds of situations is going to be boring.  It turns the game into Snakes and Ladders.  No choices to be made, roll the dice.



Don´t think so: in filfe there are optimal situations too. It is only problematic if there is a single optimal solution to every situation. If the optimal solution varies from encounter to encounter and different characters have this optimal solution at hand the game becomes good. If a seemingly optimal solution can be a very suboptimal choice which you can find out through good play and other hints, the game becomes great:

imagine fireball in 2nd edition: very often it is the best solution

- there are monsters that convert fire damage into healing
- maybe the bard can use his bardic knowledge to recite a tale about this monster

- maybe you are in a tight space
- good skills in math can show you that using the fireball will make short work of everything in the room... including you...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Interesting. I see players coming into _conflict_ with a game's setting and the residents therein, but a competition....




To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Se-man-tics, se-mon-tics.

Hard to have conflict where there is no competition.



Hobo said:


> Not meant to be a reply necessary to you specifically, but to the vibe in general: cooperation doesn't mean "everyone pulls their weight.  In combat."  It can mean a lot of other things too.  To me, cooperation means, "everyone works to accomodate the character concepts that the other players are interested in.  Within reason."




Indeed, young man!  

(Funny, I'm 43 now, will be 44 later this year, and you couldn't pay me to be 14 again.  These are the best days of my life!)



Henry said:


> Oh, you mean like in AD&D when each party had a *caller*?




That's fair enough; but it's a mischaracterization of the role of caller.  I note that in 1e, PCs didn't have to follow the caller's orders.  They were not even encouraged to do so.

The caller existed to funnel player communication with the DM, so that he wasn't trying to understand 16 people talking all at once.  And it is critical that the DM understand what the players wish their characters to do.

What you are suggesting is rather like assuming that the mapper got to decide where the party went.

I never used a caller, personally....although I did run games with more than 16 players at the table.



> Seriously, bossy jerks at the table have been nothing new - but at least in 4E, there are whole classes built around the fact that a person can give their party bonuses if the party allow themselves to be bossed around.




So, to be clear:  Bossy jerks are nothing new, but they are now encouraged.   



> Me, I've perceived it as the game having taken a step back towards the older D&D way of empowering the DM to make the changes needed to shake things up




I would agree.   



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

pemerton said:


> It's one thing for the game to allow Sue to demonstrate excellence (this is possible in 4e, for example - clearly some players are better at character building and combat tactics than others, and/or better at skill challenges and using p 42 to advantage than others).
> 
> It is a separate question whether, and how, this is to be reflected in the character build rules.




So, "clearly some players are better at character building....It is a separate question whether, and how, this is to be reflected in the character build rules".  Sorry, but I am not following you here.

In 3e, particularly, the character build is the unit of excellence.  In earlier editions, what you did on adventures was the unit of excellence (i.e., using the character, and often somewhat unrelated to character build).



LostSoul said:


> Those problems - with one clear solution and no choice to be made - are boring.  A game filled with those kinds of situations is going to be boring.  It turns the game into Snakes and Ladders.  No choices to be made, roll the dice.




Agreed.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed, young man!
> 
> (Funny, I'm 43 now, will be 44 later this year, and you couldn't pay me to be 14 again.  These are the best days of my life!)



Wrong thread!  But I'm not that young either; you can't add 20 to 14; you also have to add a few more years for me to figure out how good I had it at 14.  I didn't realize that until... oh, sometime in my 20s at least.  

Not that I don't have it good now; far be it from me to complain!  But it's a totally different kind of thing, too.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> To-may-to, to-mah-to.
> 
> Se-man-tics, se-mon-tics.
> 
> Hard to have conflict where there is no competition.




I must admit I don't agree. Competitions tend to imply that all parties are aiming for the same resource, whereas conflict may be when two parties going for entirely different goals come up against one another. Player-versus-environment is a conflict, but the environment isn't competing for the same resources a player is. The frozen wasteland isn't trying to beat the players to the food and shelter. Competitions are a subcategory of conflicts, not a synonym. 

That said, I can certainly see games which choose to indulge only in competitive conflicts. I don't agree that it's the baseline, but I do appreciate the further explication.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I must admit I don't agree.




(Shrug)  You're free to do so, of course, but all I see in the rest of your post is semantics.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 30, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Pretty much all of them, because they're all combatants. You find enough flexibility in them for you. That doesn't make those of us who don't wrongbad people.




No.  The problem is that you make claims that are _wrong_.  That you don't want to play a game as fiddly as 4e isn't a problem in the slightest.  That you claim that some things are impossible when they are in fact pretty easy if you know what you are doing (or in some cases complex but possible) means that you should be rethinking your criticisms.



> Ah, tautology. Because this is D&D you must go into dungeons and fight dragons.




No.  Because it's D&D you must be able to support the playstyle where people want to go into dungeons and fight dragons.  And support it without any newbie traps such as near non-combatant characters who are effectively The Load in dungeon crawling expeditions.

To have classes that would be as much use as a chocolate teapot in such games would be offering a really sucky play experience to newbies and the overwhelming majority of D&D players.  On the other hand to have ways of playing people who contribute to combat while in character hiding and screaming (as 4e has) but that take some skill and finesse to build means you get the best of both worlds.



> If you want to do otherwise, you're playing the game wrong and a bad person who ruins everyone else's fun.




Given I'm about to start running War of the Burning Sky - and I don't recall seeing a single dungeon or dragon - that isn't my point.



> Why exactly is a non-combatant a drag on the other characters if he's valuable and contributes in other ways?




Because combat is a matter of life and death for the party.  And you are tying a large chunk of the party down to defend you.  They are worse off in combat with you there than they would be if you didn't exist.  And there are few times where every last extra inch helps than in fighting for your life against an overwhelming foe.



> There's more to a game then combat.




Yes.  But combat's a big one in 4e.  _And if you do not survive the combats you will not get to do anything else because you will be dead._



> Why vilify or belittle those who think balance should extend beyond the combat encounter and be done in a different way then 4e did so?




 Because your criticisms of thingks you can't do are _wrong_.  I've demonstrated how to do them.  Including people who do not swing a weapon or otherwise attack themselves (Warlord) or just rain abuse and encouragement (bard).  And you haven't yet shut up, listened, and apologised.



> Actually, I dislike this aspect of 4e because, to me, the classes are too homogenius. Everyone's a full up combatant.




Tell that to my changeling bard.  Lowest AC in the party, lowest damage.  Also the face man (and man of many faces), the utility caster (whatever the wizard may have thought), and the person inspiring the party onwards.  Comfortably the weakest combatant in the group.  But there's a massive difference between that and non-combatant.

Seriously, all the leaders are weak in direct combat (but get the healing to make up for it).  And it's pretty easy to make a bard or a shaman who doesn't know one end of a sword from another.



> I want a system that balances based on the team and adventure using spotlight sharing, not on the individual and combat round using homogenization. And a Donkeyhorse.




Meaning that the specific adventure needs to be written for the party.



> I never said it was a bad game. Just that I don't like it partially because it's balance philosophy puts me off. I own and play several class-level systems with more flexibility and with balance philosophies that better ft my preferences.




FantasyCraft and M&M?



> Shenanigans. Pre 3e. Cats do less then 1 point of damage in 3e.




Cats do 1 point of damage in 3e per attack.    Attacks reduced to less than 1 point of damage always do a minimum of 1 point.  And their full-round attack has a claw-claw-bite with all three being significantly more likely to hit than the wizard's dagger.  Next objecion?



> I already have the game I want. It's not classless. I have no idea where you get the gameworld thing.




Because feats to have groups on your side are significantly different per gameworld.



> Oh, and you may find 4e flexible, I do not. Again, that doesn't make me a bad person, or a fool.




No.  It does however make you ignorant when you claim that certain things are impossible when they are pretty easy to pull off in 4e.



> How large a dragon, and to what narrative end?




A young one to piss off its mother?  Seriously, there are half a dozen reasons I can think of.



> My objection to 4e is that I find it boring, fiddly, miniature and combat centric,too expensive, and because of it's design descisions regarding balance and class structure that it doesn't handle the sort of games I and my friends want to play. Purely subjective, I know. Don't try and convert me, that's not the topic.




I'm not.  And those are legitimate reasons to want to play something else.  What I'm objecting to are that your criticisms of 4e appear to indicate that you have not understood a damn thing about it that wasn't in the PHB1 or DMG1.  And if you only had those two books (and possibly the MM1) and they comprised the whole of 4e then you would have a point.  But the PHB 2 seriously and both obviously and subtly expanded the range of what was possible in 4e to heights not seen in any previous mainline edition of D&D (FantasyCraft and M&M don't count).  The DMG2 is the best damn book on running an RPG it has ever been my pleasure to read (the second being Robin's Laws of good GMing - Robin Laws being the common factor here).



> The topic I haven't seen answered is why do the OP and his supporters feel I'm a bad person for not liking the design philosophy of 4e?




I don't.  On the other hand you produced a list of criticisms of 4e that haven't been true since the PHB II was published.  And then refused to acknowledge that you are ignorant when it's pointed out that much of what you want and claim to be impossible is easy to do.

You do not like 4e.  Fine.  You do not play 4e *shrug*  You do not understand 4e.  Not a problem.  Most people don't.  You do not understand 4e then castigate it based on your lack of understanding?  Now we have a problem.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 30, 2010)

*At some point this turned from a thread about game balance into a thread rife with edition warring. Man, are we sick of edition wars, so that's going to need to stop. This means that you - yes, you! Woo, you've been specially chosen! - probably shouldn't reply to the edition-warring posts above. Trust me on this one.

Thanks, and PM me with any questions.*


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 30, 2010)

To reply regarding balance (and with respect to piratecat and his warning):

Take the base class from 3e that is most imbalanced. Remove it from the game. Is the game better?

Take the base class from 4e that is most imbalanced. Remove it from the game. Is the game better?



In my opinion, the answer to these questions would be no. No the game is not better...but to some of you, it may be.


Ok then, let's do a flowchart...If no, stop and add the class back in. If yes repeat until no.


If the game keeps getting better by removing the "most imbalanced" class...then eventually you play a game with all the same class...the "least imbalanced" one...which need not be the weakest. Arguably, in 3e, the bard was "imbalanced" due to weakness....It was, perhaps, further from (below) the median than the more powerful classes were above.



Note that the OP doesn't seem to discuss the lower end of balance, but I'd like to add that into the equation. What if I like imbalance because I want to play a "weak" character? What if I want suboptimal choices on purpose to play the "squire" of a friend? 

I wonder if a "well balanced system" would allow for poor choices to even be made? Or would such a system have "no mistakes/low end balance" built in?

A personal note was that in second edition/AD&D, my first character was a Fremlin (friendly gremlin of sorts) Wild Mage. He was a pc, but acted entirely like the party wizard's familiar. He also started 6 levels behind the rest of the party and "caught up" to being only 2 levels behind when the game ended. He was a blast to play.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 30, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> If the game keeps getting better by removing the "most imbalanced" class...then eventually you play a game with all the same class...the "least imbalanced" one...which need not be the weakest. Arguably, in 3e, the bard was "imbalanced" due to weakness....It was, perhaps, further from (below) the median than the more powerful classes were above.



 1/ You're assuming that every class is, to some degree, "imbalanced". That's not true in any edition: some (or many) classes were just fine.

2/ You're assuming that, if something is good to do once, it will still be good to do it N+1 more times. That is absurd.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> 1/ You're assuming that every class is, to some degree, "imbalanced". That's not true in any edition: some (or many) classes were just fine.
> 
> 2/ You're assuming that, if something is good to do once, it will still be good to do it N+1 more times. That is absurd.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I disagree.

(1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO.  I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results.  1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.

(2) This is not an assumption.  IF balance is always good, THEN if improving balance is good to do once, it will still be good to do it N+1 more times.

That the result is absurd only demonstrates that "balance" is not always good.  

That it may be good to remove or revise classes demonstrates that "balance" is not always bad.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I disagree.
> 
> (1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO.  I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results.  1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.




What is the unit of measure for balance?

Not picking on you specifically, RC.  I'm just amused by the ongoing conversations about this, and think it would be interesting to divine the first principles.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I disagree.
> 
> (1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO.  I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results.  1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.
> 
> ...



1) If balance is not measurable, and I do not believe it is, especially as you get closer to a balanced scenario, then your statement here is fairly meaningless.

2) No, it is absurd, because it assumes that balance is the only element of a game that has value.  To do it N times until you have... what, one class left? is not good, because diversity also has value.  You'd have a perfectly balanced scenario, but the cost of achieving that balance would be too high.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> What is the unit of measure for balance?




What is the unit of measure for an emotional state?

I am certain that you would agree that you can be more or less happy, whether or not a formal unit of measurement does (or can) exist.


RC


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 30, 2010)

I find that some of the talk about balance is simply arguements about genre appropriateness and disagreement about which genre D&D should fit into.  

Let's talk about Buffy.  In a show about the supernatural and fighting vampires, it would simply be a bad idea to introduce a main character who has no combat ability, no connection with the supernatural and no desire to engage in the supernatural.  Every character in that show eventually gained some combat ability over the seasons even if it was just to survive.  

Similarly, if you introduced Buffy, who has no medical knowledge or hospital expertise, into a medical drama, she would be a useless character.  If you take a look at the entries for The Scrappy and The Load at tvtropes, you'd find that a lot of them are simply characters who don't fit into their show's genre.  

I just think that a lot of the stuff about balance being thrown around is due to a) picking a genre/focus for a game and b) making sure characters are built to fit into said genre/focus.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Hobo said:


> 2) No, it is absurd, because it assumes that balance is the only element of a game that has value.  To do it N times until you have... what, one class left? is not good, because diversity also has value.  You'd have a perfectly balanced scenario, but the cost of achieving that balance would be too high.




No it does not; it only assumes that increasing balance is always a good thing.

As soon as you add the cost to increasing balance, you deny that base assumption.  In other words, it should be pretty clear to anyone that increasing balance is not always a good thing.

All that remains is to determine the cut-off point, and that will vary by individual taste.  

Thus, the question posed by the thread is answered.


RC


----------



## Nifft (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I disagree.
> 
> (1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO.  I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results.  1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.



 Nope. "Unequal" is different from "imbalanced".

Two choices may be equally good, but under different sets of circumstances. That's a valid, balanced choice.



Raven Crowking said:


> (2) This is not an assumption.  IF balance is always good, THEN if improving balance is good to do once, it will still be good to do it N+1 more times.



 That's not what he actually said, of course.

However, your marginally less absurd version retains the crucial absurdity: removing imbalance N+1 times implies that there will always be imbalanced elements. That is an assumption, and it's one that's rather more defeatist than I'd expect of a budding game designer.



Raven Crowking said:


> That the result is absurd only demonstrates that "balance" is not always good.



 Or it might be a demonstration that not everyone understands "balance".

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Nope. "Unequal" is different from "imbalanced".
> 
> Two choices may be equally good, but under different sets of circumstances. That's a valid, balanced choice.




I do not know how to answer that without specific examples, and I don't want to be accused of "edition warring".

Suffice it to say that we are now conflating different meanings of the word "balanced"; I certainly agree that different games and different editions have meant different things by "game balance".

However, I am not aware of any bias against "game balance" as you have defined balance here.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No it does not; it only assumes that increasing balance is always a good thing.



Which is, as Nifft pointed out, an absurd assumption.


> As soon as you add the cost to increasing balance, you deny that base assumption.  In other words, it should be pretty clear to anyone that increasing balance is not always a good thing.
> 
> All that remains is to determine the cut-off point, and that will vary by individual taste.



Indeed.  Since there's no qualitative way to measure balance anyway, the "will vary by individual taste" could be a shorthand for the entire answer to the question posed at the beginning, really.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Which is, as Nifft pointed out, an absurd assumption.




I am pretty sure that the whole point of Aberzanzorax's post was that it was an absurd assumption.  He can correct me if I am wrong.



> Indeed.  Since there's no qualitative way to measure balance anyway, the "will vary by individual taste" could be a shorthand for the entire answer to the question posed at the beginning, really.




Agreed.

Which makes one wonder why the question would need to be posed at all.  

Luckily, there are a lot of games out there, with different levels and types of balance.  And even the ones that aren't particularly suited to one's personal tastes usually have elements worth swiping!


RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am pretty sure that the whole point of Aberzanzorax's post was that it was an absurd assumption. He can correct me if I am wrong.




Correct.

The point is, that if we Reify balance as some perfect and measurable thing...

Then my post makes/made sense. But my post WAS absurd....hence balance should not be reified.



The responses to my post were exactly right...that balance is NOT the holy grail of gaming...that there are other factors to balance, er...weigh, against it, that it cannot be perfectly quantified...etc.etc.etc.


One thing I will disagree with...unless two classes are exactly the same, on the Reductio Ad Absurdum level...they are not balanced. Maybe they're balanced across x or y...but to EVEN BE ABLE to show that there is a situation where one is quantifiably better..well then they're not balanced.

I.E. in a game that is "all fighting, no socializing" a fighter is a much, much better class than a bard.

In a game that is all stealth, cloak and daggers, traps, infiltration, etc...a thief is a MUCH better class than a fighter.


That's situation specific some may say...of course. But this (further abusurdity) goes to point out that this is the case with some of the arguments earlier in the thread. For both editions mentioned, it has been said that "D&D is a game of combat"...I disagree personally, but if this is said, then the "situation" for one who believes that defines the bard and rogue as worse than the fighter. 


In essence...it's all absurd. The very nature of "balance" is not defined so we might as well be talking about which game is more Fugglewumpy than the other. (Which, of course is my game of choice!)

I play the most Balanced and Fugglewumpy D&D of all (homebrewed of course).

Edit: _and so do you._


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 30, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> I just think that a lot of the stuff about balance being thrown around is due to a) picking a genre/focus for a game and b) making sure characters are built to fit into said genre/focus.




One of the elements mentioned earlier that was burried in a big post that received a warning pointed out that ...characters who inspire people to fight for them and who are a in character "hiding and screaming" ... actually work well in 4th edition and the key component isnt even something brand spanking new (The Warlord). When I built my Frodo baggins  character I did build him with some of the latest rules... probably because I wanted him to be very good at hiding and made him hybrid rogue and warlord. ;-).

Frodo isnt a comedy relief but I do find the warlord useful for building comedy relief characters (out of genre characters). Non combatant In the middle of the fight get themselves in trouble almost constantly and coincidently the real heros are always in the right place to save them.

 Warlord doesnt have to be visualized exactly this way but it really lends itself to it.....and the warlord is actually an under appreciated class.

Did you catch that element ... Players through their characters powers and how they visualize them are often given control over "coincidence" it is not a pure province of die rolls or even dm fiat.  There is some role changes in 4e and it isnt about defenders and strikers. Its in DM and Player categories. Absorbing the difference is not necessarily at first glance but for me its significant.

[sblock=quoting myself about DM and Player Roles in 4e]
Role playing games have explicit limited set of mechanics which are used to govern/under-pine the nearly infinite actions a character chooses to take.

In 4e the player is encouraged to visualize the infinite choices the character can take in terms of that more finite set of mechanics and differentiate them narratively...Character says I can sing thousands of songs but the Player looks at the character sheet which only lists ... "Rock Blues" and "Hot Dance". . The character may want to do something plausible like do a romantic dance it isnt in the characters specialties but seems obvious to the player and DM it is plausible. So the DM excercises her job..and uses page 42 to extend the games mechanics ie to stretch or take off the lid

... she has less job than she used to involving converting from narrative to simple mechanics a lot of those have been given to the player, but her job of being an enabler for going beyond the explicit rules is now even more important. And there are actual guidelines for it.. Page 42 is used as a short cut reference for this but it is not limited to being expressed on pages 42/43, that say "yes, but.." philosophy applies directly to the idea of opening up the mechanics .. and DMG guidelines encourage doing it in a controlled sort of way.

Somebody reading the players perspective and ignoring the dms (whose job always has been enabling going beyond the rules), may see more restrictions than there are.
[/sblock]


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2010)

The most conservative approach to create low imbalances (in the definition of underpowerdness/overpowerdness) is make everything the same. 4e uses a base structure that is used for (now mosttly) all classes. With added mechanics you don´t notice it in actual play, but it makes sure that you have a good base.

There are other approaches and those are fine too (2nd edition)

And there are games without anything that resembles balance. Usually those games that are classless or mainly classless. My experience with such games is that creating a noncombatant is very unfun because combat happens in every rpg and it takes a lot of time. But if you are the host, you can hide and prepare the food for the rest of the party.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What is the unit of measure for an emotional state?
> 
> I am certain that you would agree that you can be more or less happy, whether or not a formal unit of measurement does (or can) exist.




Several exist, actually, but they are all very flawed, and conversation about them among psychologists and psychiatrists makes my head hurt and generally goes nowhere.

Interestingly, Gross National Happiness (7 compiled indices for a nation/state) seems to be a better, stronger measure than any single index (or group of indices) measuring happiness of any given individual.

I'm feeling another parallel here.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 30, 2010)

One more point I meant to add...

My Reductio Ad Absurdum was also meant to point out the most important part of a good game, which I believe just about every single person who posted in this thread so far would agree with (and many have outright said).


"Balance" itself is not the greatest good or only good in gaming (though good it may well be).

"Balance" must be "balanced" against other things, such as how much fun it provides (which will be different to different people), how the game is being used (which will be different to different groups), how much diversity is there, what flavor is provided (gritty, high heroic, fantasy with little or much magic), etc. etc. etc. Even "balance" as we have seen can mean many things....like balanced in combat...or balanced across all 20 or 30 levels...or balanced in terms of what one is able to do/contribute...or balanced via narrative rather than rules.

It is the convergence/synergy of multiple game elements combined with such factors as group and individuals that leads to personal taste. RC's example of lock-step Chutes and Ladders is a game perfectly balanced but absolutely un-Fugglewumpy to me. 

4e is more Fugglewumpy to me when I play with my friends from Colorado than my group around here. 3e is the opposite. 

In that sense, if we balance "balance" against the other factors of getting together and playing a game, things like how much fun you have, then one game is better for one group and another game is better for another. 

so, when I say you play the most Fugglewumpy game...I mean it. If you weren't doing that, you'd switch. You find the game that is most "balanced" for all factors that you prioritize.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 30, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> ...characters who inspire people to fight for them and who are a in character "hiding and screaming" ... actually work well in 4th edition and the key component isnt even something brand spanking new (The Warlord).



I'd never considered a leader who sits in the back, terrified, screaming "oh my God don't let them get me!" Not for every group, but it could be really funny until the shtick got old.

My definition for Balance is fairly practical. "Does one or more players feel irritatingly less effective because their PC is sub-standard or another PC is great?" If so (*cough*3.5psionics*cough*) then I consider there to be a problem that needs addressing. All classes are going to have some differences, but if they're not annoying anyone I don't give a damn.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 30, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'd never considered a leader who sits in the back, terrified, screaming "oh my God don't let them get me!" Not for every group, but it could be really funny until the shtick got old.




He might  lurch about trying to hit and missing ... and giving the other PCs opportunities....and saying "oh my god" at just the right moment its a broader schtick than it seems. It works well if the character is otherwise loveable and brave enough to try in spite of his short comings.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 30, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> It works well if the character is otherwise loveable and brave enough to try in spite of his short comings.



That's what she said!


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 31, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> That's what she said!




Snow I want you to know that I threw away 4 responses because I couldnt find any that didnt wend there way in to implied ratings passed R... all your fault. 

On with the Non-topic this has inspired me ;-)

I think it might be interesting to have somebody with skills at "aid other" ... out of combat they might inspire people to do better at skills and remember obscure bits... generally this might be by pointing out what might be dumb or unrelated things... they might sacrifice skill of there own to do it. This allows one to have a very non-skill monkey character who still contributes ;-)


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 31, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
> 
> What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.
> 
> I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.




In my opinion, trying to talk about game design in terms of balance is like trying to talk about cakes by talking about flour. You decide how much you need for your recipe, you pour it in, done. 4e is like a factory cake mix, and perfect proportions are a goal for making it come out just the same each time, just right, but if I am making a pound cake at home, I'm thinking, "Do I want lots of butter, or do I want an F-ton of butter?" The metaphorical butter in this case could be genre-emulation, wild magic, narrative, color, whatever. Things that are not balance.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, "clearly some players are better at character building....It is a separate question whether, and how, this is to be reflected in the character build rules".  Sorry, but I am not following you here.



In order to reward competitive players, the game does not necessarily have to reflect their greater skill at play within the character reward mechanics - even if they get the same treasure and XP for their characters as do all the other (less capable) players, for some competitive players their desire to win will be rewarded by non-game-mechanical esteem they receive from the rest of the play group (eg "We would have been totally hosed in that encounter if you hadn't XYZ . . .").

4e seems to be designed along these lines - the reward for a competitive individual's good play is outside the game mechanics, not internal to them.

That may not suit all competitive personalities. But if we look at a game like T&T, which is designed to reward competitive indidivuals within the game (more XP, more treasure, for the winning players) then a different sort of problem emerges - a vicious (or, from the point of view of the winner, virtuous) circle as the winner is stronger and so wins more and so gets stronger . . .  This might be fine in competitive wargames and board games, where the game starts again every so often, but can be more difficult in an RPG intended to support long-term campaign play with a high level of ongoing player/PC attachment.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 31, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This might be fine in competitive wargames and board games, where the game starts again every so often, but can be more difficult in an RPG intended to support long-term campaign play with a high level of ongoing player/PC attachment.



Tunnels & Trolls _is_ "an RPG intended to support long-term campaign play with a high level of ongoing player/PC attachment" -- as was the original Dungeons & Dragons game.

_So is_ 4e, and so are a lot of other designs different from those three!

T&T players tend to consider it plenty "fine" for the game to be in that regard as it has been for 35 years. Horses for courses.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 31, 2010)

removed snarky post... I dont even care about.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Tunnels & Trolls _is_ "an RPG intended to support long-term campaign play with a high level of ongoing player/PC attachment" -- as was the original Dungeons & Dragons game.
> 
> _So is_ 4e, and so are a lot of other designs different from those three!
> 
> T&T players tend to consider it plenty "fine" for the game to be in that regard as it has been for 35 years. Horses for courses.



I know that T&T has that intention. As does O/AD&D.

I was just pointing out that, depending on player preferences, it can produce problems. Just as I also pointed out that, depending on player preferences, mere esteem rewards for "winning" may not be enough.

The point of all my posts in this thread has been that balance is a complex notion that is highly relative to player preferences. Until the post to which this is a reply, I had thought that we were in agreement on that.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 31, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> To have classes that would be as much use as a chocolate teapot ...



I just had to highlight this, mostly as it's a wonderful expression I'd never seen/heard before!



> Meaning that the specific adventure needs to be written for the party.



Or that the party needs to learn how to choose its fights, and that sometimes the best course is to back off from an adventure that exploits their weaknesses and try something else.



> What I'm objecting to are that your criticisms of 4e appear to indicate that you have not understood a damn thing about it that wasn't in the PHB1 or DMG1.  And if you only had those two books (and possibly the MM1) and they comprised the whole of 4e then you would have a point.  But the PHB 2 seriously and both obviously and subtly expanded the range of what was possible in 4e to heights not seen in any previous mainline edition of D&D (FantasyCraft and M&M don't count).  The DMG2 is the best damn book on running an RPG it has ever been my pleasure to read (the second being Robin's Laws of good GMing - Robin Laws being the common factor here).



I've only got the first round of 4e's core three, along with some 4e adventures - I thought that would be enough to give me a fair idea of how the game is intended to work; particularly seeing as for the first year or so that *was* the game.  So yes, my opinions of 4e as a system are also based on the first round of releases; much as my thoughts on 3e as a system (and 2e, for that matter) also ignore a lot of the bloat that came after the initial release.

And to get back to the original question: I don't think there's much bias against game *balance*, but there certainly is a bias against game *blandness*; and as well documented elsewhere this thread the two seem to somewhat go hand in hand.

Lan-"still unbalanced after all these years"-efan


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> also ignore a lot of the bloat that came after the initial release.



That might be appropriate if what came after release was indeed just bloat.... 
But for those who are up to date... It makes your argument appear quite worthlessly out of date. Note I don't really blame you for it... If I lacked interest in a game because it wasn't my thing...  why would I even spend 12 dollars for an update on it. (The one month subscription to DDi could be seen as a minimalist... what is new in 4e excursion - between character builder - monster builder apps and the download of back pdfs there is an incredible amount of content. It still would only hint at things in DMG2 like character builder has an option to toggle inherent bonuses so if you have a magic item minimalist campaign the characters aren't out of sync with the encounter building guidelines)


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> T&T players tend to consider it plenty "fine" for the game to be in that regard as it has been for 35 years.



All two of them?


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I don't think there's much bias against game *balance*, but there certainly is a bias against game *blandness*; and as well documented elsewhere this thread the two seem to somewhat go hand in hand.




That's my position, with player choice and optimal solutions and all that.

If everything's balanced for your level, it doesn't matter if you fight goblins or undead - the risk is more or less the same and the rewards are more or less the same.  

That kind of balance breaks a game.

It does do some interesting things, opening up space for other kinds of choices; but then I have to ask, why have hour-long combats?  Why not play Prime Time Adventures set in the D&D world?


----------



## avin (Mar 31, 2010)

I think it's mostly a GM vs players thingy.

People who plays more often than GMs will often accept imbalance as a tool to make their characters more powerful than others.

This kind of behavior happens in any system or edition I ever played, sometimes leading campaign endings because one player does everything while the rest just watches.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 31, 2010)

LostSoul, If your undead and goblins feel the same in a fight I dont know what game you are playing.. I would say a feature of 4e is the monsters definitely do not feel the same in battle.

I find combat is far far less bland in 4th edition than it ever was in  AD&D ... and in fact more interesting than in completely different games I have played...  it is also more team oriented and tactical and position aware  (realistic in that regard  but necessarily what I was used to ... though we always kept track on paper drawing scene features then using coins and dice for positions... so its not completely new.

The above leads me to be more tolerant of longer battles  than I might be otherwise ... still you hear a lot of house rules and  even monster design guideline changes from WOTC in later DMG's  specifically to address this.



> Why not play Prime Time Adventures set in the D&D world?



huh?


----------



## catastrophic (Mar 31, 2010)

*Ladies and gentlemen, ignoring moderator warnings and doing your best to start edition wars gets you banned for a considerable time. I'll leave this post up as an example of what not to do.  ~ PCat*

There's nothing bland about 4e. 

Like most of the criticisms leveled at 4e, this one is just an excuse people use to bash 4e. That's where the hatred of game balance came from- 4e has vastly superior balance, making for a far better, more playable game, so then the 4e haters decided balance was a bad thing, or resulted in dull games. 

Like all issues of irrational 4e hate, it's a very fludid concept, so it changes over time. First is was game balance, and then it morphed into dullness, later on after a few more arguments people will change terminology again.

It's just another excuse for the endless, perpetual, comunity damaging, issue concealing, terminology hyjacking temper tamtrum which is 4e hate.

The truth is that none of the people who habitually bash 4e ever really gave it a chance- most of them have never even read it really, let alone played it. They hate it for existing, they have wotc for making it, and everything else is just window dressing.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> There's nothing bland about 4e.
> 
> Like most of the ciricisms leveled at 4e, this one is just an excuse people use to bash 4e. That's where the hatred of game balance came from- 4e has vastly superior balance, making for a far better, more playable game, so then the 4e haters decided balance was a bad thing, or resulted in dull games.
> 
> ...




Hey, you don't think it's bland. Other people do. It's an inherently *subjective* concept. 

Now can you knock off the edition warring?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2010)

Catastrophic, if that is supposed to be intentionally funny, let me know, and I'll XP you.


RC


----------



## catastrophic (Mar 31, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Hey, you don't think it's bland. Other people do. It's an inherently *subjective* concept.
> 
> Now can you knock off the edition warring?



In my opinion people pretending this is all subjective are the ones perpetuating the edition war.


----------



## catastrophic (Mar 31, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> Let's talk about Buffy. In a show about the supernatural and fighting vampires, it would simply be a bad idea to introduce a main character who has no combat ability, no connection with the supernatural and no desire to engage in the supernatural. Every character in that show eventually gained some combat ability over the seasons even if it was just to survive.



It's funny you should mention buffy because the buffy rpg proves that you can have characters of differing power levels as pcs in the same group, and do it well. 

In the buffy and angel RPGS, PCs vary between slayer type superhumans(slayers, demons, spellcasters, ect), and more normal mortal types(the scoobies or white hats). The difference is made up with a plot point mechanic, that allows the less powerful pcs to play pivotal roles in the story in a consistent an fun way. 

This is of course, the exact opposite of what happenes in 3e, despite what people argue. 

So you can have varying power levels in a pretty clear sense. It's just not done well in 3e, and doing it (well or otherwise) does not make the same more of less bland.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> In my opinion people pretending this is all subjective are the ones perpetuating the edition war.




Are you joking with us, or do you actually believe that personal taste is objective?

If you believe that there is an objective standard by which a game can be judged as "good", "bad", "better", or "worse", can you explain the standard you are using?

I am fully prepared to say that IF one accepts a certain standard, THEN game X is better than game Y.  Trying to get other people to accept your standard of personal preference as objective, though, is going to make that IF a mighty big IF.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 31, 2010)

Wow, catastrophic.  Nice attempt on living up to your username.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 31, 2010)

He won't be able to answer. Carry on, please.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 31, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> It's funny you should mention buffy because the buffy rpg proves that you can have characters of differing power levels as pcs in the same group, and do it well.




That's because the system is truthful with itself about power levels and takes steps to correct it.  DMGs don't normally go, "Assuming your game resembles how the average group plays; X, Y, and Z will be owerpowered and you'll need to do A, B, and C in order to compensate for this."


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 31, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> It's funny you should mention buffy because the buffy rpg proves that you can have characters of differing power levels as pcs in the same group, and do it well




You should have used a vague yet thread appropriate phrase like "and do it in a balanced way" ....snicker.  While I have been saying you could get the feel of this same aspect you are referring to by appropriate narration and handling of various leaders or sometimes other types (however it isnt as easy as I would like).
I do skin the tougness feat as god awful lucky (the definition of hit points encourages several presentations).... I have a wizard I have come to cherish with high CON but a frail body... he has fairies that he magically manifests (and which do much of his magic he barely remembers a lot of his magic) which do things to support him when he would be using CON like reabsorbing into his body to give him a burst of energy or carrying and lifting his arms when he would be weakening etc.. etc... etc)


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 31, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> LostSoul, If your undead and goblins feel the same in a fight I dont know what game you are playing.. I would say a feature of 4e is the monsters definitely do not feel the same in battle.




"Feel the same" and "Carry the same amount of *risk*" are two different things.

Let's say the game is set up so that the players choose goals for their PCs; the DM provides obstacles.  If the choice is, "Should we fight goblins or undead in order to reach our goal?", it's not really a choice since the risk is the same and the reward is the same.

I think that the lack of meaningful choices breaks a game.  (A game is unbalanced when the choices are balanced heavily to one side or another.)


I made the comment about PTA because the fact that this choice is not meaningful opens space up for new ones.

First, a little bit about Prime Time Adventures.  You play a protagonist of a TV show.  You have an Issue, like "I was raised by goblins and no one accepts me."  You focus your PC around that issue.

So, back to D&D.  If the choice between undead and goblins isn't a meaningful one, it opens up space for that choice to be about something else.  The PTA analogy is that you can make the choice be about your PC's issue - "I want to go talk to the goblins to see why they're raiding the towns; when they raised me, they may have been thieves but they were not murderous."

Another character (NPC or PC) might not want to deal with the goblins, for whatever reason (a Paladin gung-ho on defeating undead, a mercenary hoping to rob a specific item from a tomb, a wizard who wants to speak with the dead).  He might say, "Look, goblin-lover, we only hired you because those dirty bastards who raised you taught you how to deal with traps.  We don't pay you for your opinions."  (ie. It's all about the PC's issue.)

Taking away the risk-reward choice means you can focus on something else like this.

However, if you're focusing on an issue like that, does the tactical combat system add value to play?


----------



## Belen (Mar 31, 2010)

I prefer balance of opportunity rather than balance of outcome.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 31, 2010)

avin said:
			
		

> People who plays more often than GMs will often accept imbalance as a tool to make their characters more powerful than others.



Looking at the OP, I see an assumption about the games "people against balance" play that is far too myopic. What "make their characters more powerful than others" means does not necessarily have jack to do with what you mean!

Different games, different balances.

Are you playing a game in which the same four people show up session after GM-plotted session to play the same four characters, "built" on some point-based or similar system, doing the same things and advancing at the same rate like a marching band?

Well, that's dandy as candy -- but it's _not_ the only game in town!


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I've only got the first round of 4e's core three, along with some 4e adventures - I thought that would be enough to give me a fair idea of how the game is intended to work; particularly seeing as for the first year or so that *was* the game.  So yes, my opinions of 4e as a system are also based on the first round of releases; much as my thoughts on 3e as a system (and 2e, for that matter) also ignore a lot of the bloat that came after the initial release.




I think this is an important point, for the 4e aspects of this discussion.

It's fair to say that 4e did not present the full array of options with just the initial three books.  And, if you feel you should not have to buy a ton of books, or subscribe to the DDI in the alternative, to get the full array of options, then that's a fair reason to be critical of the options 4e offers.

However, 4e has changed a LOT since those first three books, and I think a lot of critics of the options available in 4e are simply unaware of those changes.  The expansion of not just races and classes, but actual mechanics (like a class that doesn't even have encounter powers, for example), is pretty massive as the books progressed.  

We've now gotten to the point where you can make a skill focused character, with skill powers, Martial Practices (skill based out of combat "tricks", including essentially a reintroduction of the Craft rules), significantly improved skill challenge rules and advice, and a host of additional things that allow for a lot of out of combat interesting activities.

We've now gotten hybrid rules, many additional classes and races, and more multiclassing options, and paragon paths, that allow for a great many more character concepts to be embraced fully with the rules.  And there is DM advice on reskinning names and descriptions as well.  If you can imagine the concept, you might not have been able to make that concept fully realized under the initial 2-3 4e books, but you probably now can since the supplements that came out since then.

So yes, the game has changed to allow for a lot more flexibility in character concepts, and out of combat adventuring, since the first three books came out.  It's fair to be bothered that you had to wait for supplements before your desired level of flexibility could be fully achieved with the rules.  But, I think some of the claims about lack of flexibility mentioned in this thread are a bit unfair.  The flexibility is there now.  With a single month of DDI access (which is cheap) you could get all the info you needed for whatever kind of character you want to play, with whatever level of focus the DM/Players want on combat vs. out of combat play.  You can now realize a lot more campaign ideas than you previously could.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 31, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> However, if you're focusing on an issue like that, does the tactical combat system add value to play?



Depends.  The game as a whole might be focused on the inter-character conflicts, but if combat with outside threats still takes up a portion of game time.... yeah, it might.

If the people playing enjoy that kind of combat, it's a value add, even if it isn't the explicit focus of the campaign.  Even if it only takes up 20% of your game time, you might as well make that 20% fun for everyone there.  If that means tactical complexity or it means super-abstract hand-waving is entirely up to the group.  The value for your group might not be as high as it is for a group that prefers to spend 90% of their time kicking arse and taking names, but unless you prefer a diceless system or something of that nature, I doubt the value of tactical combat reduces to zero.

Something that has driven me crazy since 3e was new and we had that edition war.... A complicated combat engine and less detailed social/skills engine _does *not* preclude_ complicated social/skills play.  Now, as the combat engine gets more complicated, some groups may find more of their time gets eaten by combat than they like.  But that doesn't make the combat engine objectively bad.  It makes it less suited to the needs of that group.  And it can be tailored very easily.  Take a power card and write "At will: Talk" on the fool thing.  I also keep around an "Encounter: Parlay" and "Daily: Palaver" for emergencies.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 31, 2010)

As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).

A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).
> 
> A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.




There aren't too many examples of organized play out there to form a real pattern.

In my experience, there are two major organized play venues - the RPGS (D&D) and the Camarilla (White Wolf's WoD).  D&D of late has tried to be a balanced system.  I know sure as anything that the old WoD was about as balanced as a drunken unicyclist carrying a squirming hyperactive Labrador Retriever.  I haven't read the new games to have a broad opinion.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There aren't too many examples of organized play out there to form a real pattern.
> 
> In my experience, there are two major organized play venues - the RPGS (D&D) and the Camarilla (White Wolf's WoD). D&D of late has tried to be a balanced system. I know sure as anything that the old WoD was about as balanced as a drunken unicyclist carrying a squirming hyperactive Labrador Retriever. I haven't read the new games to have a broad opinion.




Well, I guess I wasn't thinking specifically about TTRPGs but more about games in general, including CCGs, boardgames, and even videogames. It seems that single player games or multiplayer games expected to be played in a living room (ie. mario party games) can be more forgiving of game breaking elements than online games designed to be played primarily with a bunch of strangers.


----------



## CovertOps (Mar 31, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).
> 
> A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.




This.  I had a several hour long conversation with a friend a few months ago (and he doesn't care for 4e much).  He commented that he didn't like level based systems at all (or D&D in general because it's level based) and it made me realize something.  If characters of equal level are not roughly of the same power level, then there is *no point in having levels in that system.*  If a 1st level Fighter can (hands down) beat a 3rd level Wizard every time without trying hard then I think we can agree that "level" in this case means nothing.  Now since D&D is a level based system, level in this context *should* mean something and the something that WotC chose was combat effectiveness.

@Hobo:  I would think your "non-combatant" should just be several levels lower than the rest of the party and you'd be just fine.  Less effective than the others, but still able to do "something".  Using this methodology allows 4e to work like it's supposed to by lowering the DM's XP budget because your PC IS lower level while not having a significant effect on skills.  I don't recommend more than 4, however.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 31, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).
> 
> A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.




Considering some of the design commentary regarding the needs of Living Spycraft in regards to Spycraft 2.0 and then in regards to Fantasy Craft, yeah. A lot. The same with rules for every situation. A game designed to be run with a table of strangers needs consistency and predictability.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 1, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> If characters of equal level are not roughly of the same power level, then there is *no point in having levels in that system.*



Exactly.  This is something that gets missed in discussions of game balance.  All it means to say that an RPG is "balanced" is that the game system gives you accurate information about the power level of the characters, enemies, and various forms of challenges.

Nothing stops you from ignoring that information, except possibly your DM or the other players if they don't want to play an imbalanced game.  Which doesn't exactly make the system the bad guy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> > I've only got the first round of 4e's core three, along with some 4e adventures - I thought that would be enough to give me a fair idea of how the game is intended to work; particularly seeing as for the first year or so that *was* the game.  So yes, my opinions of 4e as a system are also based on the first round of releases; much as my thoughts on 3e as a system (and 2e, for that matter) also ignore a lot of the bloat that came after the initial release.
> ...




Besides the Core 3, I'm now the owner of the Player's Guide to Eberron and
Forgotten Realms, and plan to get the Dark Sun version when it becomes available.

And, to my eye, these books propigate same types of problems inherent in the initial release.  The massive, brutish races are still just +2Str, for instance, and the Goliath, for one, lost a very iconic and flavorful ability- Powerful Build.

Borrowing a page from Humans, why not just have races like Goliaths, Minotaurs, etc.- the BIG, hulking brutes- have a +4Str and no other stat mod?

I also mentioned before that unusual stat mods- including negatives- would be very appropriate for certain species, especially those with traditionally unusual racial attributes that lie outside the norm for most PCs.  Someone responded that negative mods would be horrible because that would mean that a race would be worse at...well, whatever that stat modifies.  That would penalize players for wanting to play a PC of a certain race and class combo.

The response would be that the problem isn't the stat mods, but the class rules.  A fighter fights- that is his reason for existing.  But there is more to fighting than brute force.  Strength helps, to be sure, but there should also be viable builds for Dex based warriors.  There is no reason for a Goliath to fights the same way as a Halfling.  A Halfling should be able to use his superior Dex to be a hard target and an effective ranged combatant...and be just as effective as the lumbering Goliath.

In addition, as has been pointed out by 4Ed proponents, the way 4Ed gets around oddball "legacy" builds from previous editions is to find the class with the desired abilities and call the PC whatever you want.  The same goes for oddball builds _within 4ED itself._  IOW, there is nothing stopping the player from taking a PC with a race with a unusually high Dex mod balanced with a negative Str mod (if one existed) and playing some kind of Dex-based Striker and_ calling_ him a Fighter. 

Or, quite simply, that same PC could, with the DM's permission, be allowed to use Dex as the defining characteristic for his Fighter powers instead of Str.


To sum up, there's more than one way to achieve balance with race designs while retaining the iconic capabilities of legacy races...and it doesn't seem to me as if the WotC designers have sussed that out yet.



> And to get back to the original question: I don't think there's much bias against game *balance*, but there certainly is a bias against game *blandness*; and as well documented elsewhere this thread the two seem to somewhat go hand in hand.




Agreed, 100%.

And on the flipside, a game virtually devoid of balance may have lots of flavor, but may be unmanageable for the DM...or even other players.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And on the flipside, a game virtually devoid of balance may have lots of flavor, but may be unmanageable for the DM...or even other players.




Rifts would most likely the poster child for this type of game.  I can also imagine some point buy systems like GURPS or maybe Mutants and Masterminds can turn out this way as well (under certain groups).  I imagine that's how some people feel about older editions of D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 1, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> "Feel the same" and "Carry the same amount of *risk*" are two different things.




The level of every encounter is not identical nor should it be or is it recommended to be its just "controllable" and it keeps things somewhat predictable for the DM (the only one who knows what the encounter level is). 

Even if it were perfect... levels are a tool to help the DM design and predict characters abilities to cope with encounters.. 

and is far from perfect.

Your example Goblins versus Undead is an especially good example of this imperfection.

Encounter composition number of minions (and pcs ability to cope with numbers) and strategic use or not strategic use can make a huge difference. I can make the goblins more strategic as a dm and much higher risk 

Note undead and the  number who are vulnerable to radiant or for which there are special powers which target "undead" ... specifically are an example where level might not work as that good of measure of risk . .. undead are lower risk for many groups than the encounter level would indicate. 

Another example... Ranged high speed adversaries can be unnapproachable unless you use the right tactics.

Whoo hoo level went from a p-poor tool to measure capability
and is now a reasonably accurate tool ... used with supervision.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 1, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> If characters of equal level are not roughly of the same power level, then there is *no point in having levels in that system.*



Levels as primarily combative effectiveness at least have a chance of being meaningful. I would further argue there is no way to measure that out of combat effectiveness in some sort of coherent way.  (Out of combat lacks a focused goal).

I can build a character in say Gurps that is incredibly out of combat effective but only for a very very narrow area of "out of combat" and the points are more meaningless... than anything else. HERO has point cost based closer to a things combative usefulness if you are ageless it has a low cost in HERO (because few attacks induce aging) and an arbitrary high cost in GURPS because of assumptions about the setting.   In 4e if a character is ageless it is rather like HERO more a question of fluff than anything else.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I think this is an important point, for the 4e aspects of this discussion.
> 
> It's fair to say that 4e did not present the full array of options with just the initial three books.  And, if you feel you should not have to buy a ton of books, or subscribe to the DDI in the alternative, to get the full array of options, then that's a fair reason to be critical of the options 4e offers.
> 
> ...



OK, fair enough; though it sounds from what you wrote (which I snipped for brevity) like it's gotten pretty complicated over that time as well.



> So yes, the game has changed to allow for a lot more flexibility in character concepts, and out of combat adventuring, since the first three books came out.  It's fair to be bothered that you had to wait for supplements before your desired level of flexibility could be fully achieved with the rules.



Just for clarity, I was never looking for a "desired level of flexibility"; that's someone else's beef.  I'd given up on the system long before getting to that level of examination, based on a bunch of other things I'd determined I didn't want as part of a game I ran. 


> With a single month of DDI access (which is cheap) you could get all the info you needed for whatever kind of character you want to play, with whatever level of focus the DM/Players want on combat vs. out of combat play.



A single month for you, maybe.  It'd take me half a year just to find what's where, given my usual lack of skill at web navigation. 

Lanefan


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> A single month for you, maybe.  It'd take me half a year just to find what's where, given my usual lack of skill at web navigation.
> 
> Lanefan




I am pretty sure the Character Builder and Monster Builder are an easy find rather big page 1 buttons (and after you have those you can absorb over the next 6 months to your hearts content  they dont stop working just because you are no longer "subscribed" you just dont get additional updates). 
Of course if you are a MacAholic there is no joy.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The response would be that the problem isn't the stat mods, but the class rules.  A fighter fights- that is his reason for existing.  But there is more to fighting than brute force.  Strength helps, to be sure, but there should also be viable builds for Dex based warriors.




There sure are and they are mechanically called "rogues"... note they are not defenders and so are not about absorbing attackers or about pulling enemies to themselves sort of anathema techniques for a spritely agile halfling/gnome anyway in my opinion.  

A "Fighter" is not the only fighter. A duelist build rogue (like Zorro) is an in your face combatant...who dances away periodically to keep from being overwhelmed  and exploits agility in all his moves. 

I actually have to assume strength is not raw brute muscle but rather the ability to use that physique and apply leverage etc. (because even 4 points of variation wouldnt feel enough to describe the difference just between a 200 pound human and 75 pound halfling) 

If an action requires pure strength maybe like can this weight be lifted I would be inclined to give small races a higher DC and larger races a smaller DC ...as different as a whole grade in either direction. There done.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 1, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> There sure are and they are mechanically called "rangers" and "rogues"... note neither are martial defenders and so are not about absorbing attackers or about pulling enemies to themselves sort of anathema techniques for a spritely agile halfling/gnome anyway in my opinion.
> 
> A "Fighter" is not the only fighter. A duelist build rogue (like Zorro) is an in your face combatant...who dances away periodically to keep from being overwhelmed and exploits agility in all his moves.
> 
> Rangers are not even wedded to having a nature skill... they are very dex agile move and hit fighters... The default flavoring of many of there powers are nature like but that is not required. A beastmaster build could just be a Soldier who fights in tandem with a war dog or a fighting tiger from baltazar.




Melee Rangers use Strength, actually. Though the Rogue is a perfectly good Dex-based warrior type, if that's what you want them to be. There's at least as good a case for wanting a warrior type that depends on Constitution, wearing someone down through stamina and persistence; or the mental stats, which all have something to contribute to possible success. All stats may contribute to fighting, but Strength is most important for the particular style of warrior the Fighter class represents.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 1, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Melee Rangers use Strength, actually.



Right ... arggh... I usually do the prefer the archer type myself... and I am going to blame sleep deprivation and edit the aforementioned post ;-)



Bluenose said:


> Though the Rogue is a perfectly good Dex-based warrior type, if that's what you want them to be. There's at least as good a case for wanting a warrior type that depends on Constitution, wearing someone down through stamina and persistence; or the mental stats, which all have something to contribute to possible success. All stats may contribute to fighting, but Strength is most important for the particular style of warrior the Fighter class represents.




Right I actively like the Melee Training Feat.But a basic attack isnt used that much it needs to be/affect the at-wills. Although maybe more martial fighting styles in the classes are needed. I can even see the stamina con build being a ranger variant.... that has always been the survivalist outdoorsy stat in my mind.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 1, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
> 
> What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.
> 
> I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.




First, as always, play the game you and your friends want to play. 

I think on the game balance thing, I think it is just a playstyle and design goal thing. It depends on what sort of experience you are looking for from the game. Balanced can mean lots of things, but here I take it to mean, there are no methods for making characters with the same amount more or less powerful than one another. I would say there is nothing wrong with this style of play. I think balanced play is a lot of fun.

On the other hand, I don't think there is anything wrong with a game that allows for power disparity. The most common argument I hear for this is it is important for choices during character creation and development to matter. I think if you are going for a more competitive style of play, or looking for more texture in party composition, this is also a great method.

Personally I play both ways. Sometimes I want to play a game with builds, weak characters, and super strong ones. Other times, I don't want to fall ten paces behind everyone else, or have to worry about my party picking the slack of a weaker comrade. 

So I don't have a problem with some games going more for balance, some games worrying less about it, and others embracing the gray in between. This just means I have more options to draw from as a player and GM.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 1, 2010)

I care passionately about game balance, and by this I mean balance between the PCs. It has been said that balance isn't measurable. This is clearly false. We watch the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit video (posted upthread) and we can see that one character is more powerful than the other. If they were characters in an rpg we could see the same thing. When one can determine that X > Y then some form of measurement must be taking place.

Perfect balance - all characters being equally useful at any given moment - isn't needful imo, a good rpg has PCs that are equal but different. An interesting question is the time scale over which this is achieved. The encounter? The session? The campaign? Multiple campaigns? I frequently play in oneoffs, so to me, game balance that takes longer than a session to achieve is of less use. 4e answers this question with the encounter. Gygaxian D&D achieves its balance at the campaign scale - the magic-user needs to be played from 1st to around 10th level (and no further) in order to be balanced with the other classes.

D&D has always been a fairly well balanced system imo, compared to others out there such as Rifts, original Stormbringer, or HERO. Points based rpgs that give the players total freedom are the most vulnerable to min-maxing. Level and class based systems, if designed well (which D&D, unlike Rifts, always has been) have more balance because they restrict player freedom. Not always a bad thing.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 1, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> Well, I guess I wasn't thinking specifically about TTRPGs but more about games in general, including CCGs, boardgames, and even videogames. It seems that single player games or multiplayer games expected to be played in a living room (ie. mario party games) can be more forgiving of game breaking elements than online games designed to be played primarily with a bunch of strangers.



Yes. It's really when there's a PvP element, as there is in most traditional games such as chess, and also in many online games such as World of Warcraft that there is the greatest need for balance. There can be a competitive element to raiding in WoW, when there are a limited number of places on a raid - currently 25 I believe - and more than 25 people in the guild wanting to go. You see a strong concern for balance there too (but not as strong as in PvP), that each class contribute equally to the raid's success.

Obviously with ttrpgs there is a major difference of opinion here, which we see in this thread. I'm mad for balance me, and happy to sacrifice some verisimilitude in order to achieve it. In fact I'm pretty happy to sacrifice verisimilitude to almost anything else that could be regarded as a good in roleplaying. For others, simulationism - maintaining belief in the secondary world - is the prime goal. And for another group, a more powerful character is the reward for skilled play.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 1, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> An interesting question is the time scale over which this is achieved. The encounter? The session? The campaign? Multiple campaigns? I frequently play in oneoffs, so to me, game balance that takes longer than a session to achieve is of less use. 4e answers this question with the encounter. Gygaxian D&D achieves its balance at the campaign scale - the magic-user needs to be played from 1st to around 10th level (and no further) in order to be balanced with the other classes.



 Yep, the idea of balance certainly has evolved over the editions.

IMHO the relevant time scale ought to be the *session*. It could be longer, if your players are the stoic type, but that's where the default ought to be.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> There sure are and they are mechanically called "rogues"... note they are not defenders and so are not about absorbing attackers or about pulling enemies to themselves sort of anathema techniques for a spritely agile halfling/gnome anyway in my opinion.




Exactly supporting my point that a negative stat mod to Str for a race with a Dex bonus doesn't prevent them from being an effective "fighter," it just minimizes their effectiveness as a Fighter.




> I actually have to assume strength is not raw brute muscle but rather the ability to use that physique and apply leverage etc. (because even 4 points of variation wouldnt feel enough to describe the difference just between a 200 pound human and 75 pound halfling)




I was a "gym rat" for a good portion of my life, which is why the 4Ed racial mods get under my skin and why I keep bringing up those as examples of "shoehorning."

A human kid of 80-100lbs body weight- about the size of a Gnome or Halfling- who is in excellent physical condition is going to be hard pressed to bench his body weight- roughly Str5 in 4Ed terms if you consider that a heavy load.

A typical "big" collegiate or NFL wide receiver of 180-200lbs (typical Human PC in D&D) would be able to bench around 300lbs, or about Str15 in 4Ed terms.  A 250lb linebacker (about the size of a Half-Orc) might be able to bench 450lbs, or Str20+ in 4ED, while a 350lb lineman or NBA center like Shaq (equivalent to Dragonborn, Goliaths, Minotaurs and the like) may bench 600lbs or more.

So you can see why that mere +2Str mod just bugs the heck out of me.


----------



## ST (Apr 1, 2010)

I have to say, I think the symbiosis between companies publishing overpowered splatbooks to make money, and players snapping up splatbooks to get overpowered stuff, made it pretty easy to push for a bias towards not really sweating balance to much. It's like a comparison between board games and CCGs -- the money element can really skew things, and some people get very tempted to just buy their way to a win.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A human kid of 80-100lbs body weight- about the size of a Gnome or Halfling- who is in excellent physical condition is going to be hard pressed to bench his body weight- roughly Str5 in 4Ed terms if you consider that a heavy load.




I assume adult physiology in a halfling or gnome in spite of there size. I do get that is still half the size of an average size man. 

The reason I figure putting the difference in DCs(+5 on the dificulty for the small folk and -5 for large folk) is because I dont think the use of strength in say various class powers is actually pure strength.

I dont actually have as physical of ideas about the strength of gnomes they are faerrie to me.. .and ever see how Tinkerbell lifts things ;p there is magic involved.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So you can see why that mere +2Str mod just bugs the heck out of me.



It bugs me too. I mean, if a 4e halfling and a half orc arm wrestled, a DM would probably settle it by way of opposed Str checks. Assuming the same starting stats, the half orc is only going to win 11 times out of 20 -- Standard deviation is likely to make much more of a difference than that! If the two characters weren't described to me, and I didn't know their Str scores I'd have see like a hundred wrestling matches to be reasonably sure that one was marginally stronger than the other.

Here's where we differ: I see this issue in every single edition of D&D. If a 3e halfling and half orc wrestled, the half orc still only beats the halfling 12 times out of 20. Hardly matters, IMO.

I guess the point is, D&D just ain't a realistic game.



ST said:


> I have to say, I think the symbiosis between companies publishing overpowered splatbooks to make money, and players snapping up splatbooks to get overpowered stuff, made it pretty easy to push for a bias towards not really sweating balance to much. It's like a comparison between board games and CCGs -- the money element can really skew things, and some people get very tempted to just buy their way to a win.



I've expressed the opinion on WotC's M:tG forum that players with a lot of dough have a significant advantage over players with more limited funds. Some people agree; but some people spend a lot of energy minimizing and rationalizing the result of more money = better cards.

So yeah, there definitely is a relationship between money and balance.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 1, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> It bugs me too. I mean, if a 4e halfling and a half orc arm wrestled, a DM would probably settle it by way of opposed Str checks. Assuming the same starting stats, the half orc is only going to win 11 times out of 20 -- Standard deviation is likely to make much more of a difference than that! If the two characters weren't described to me, and I didn't know their Str scores I'd have see like a hundred wrestling matches to be reasonably sure that one was marginally stronger than the other.



 It would be a rare Halfling who allocates his base stats the same as a Half-Orc.

There is a strong bias towards playing to your strengths -- and in a Halfling's case, his strengths don't include Strength.

So yeah, I think if you took some actual Half-Orc PCs and some sample Halfling PCs, there would be more than a 2 point difference in Str. The large bias would have been led by a small bonus -- not wholly represented by it.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Apr 1, 2010)

I prefer to think of Halflings in reference to Chimpanzees or other smaller than Human mammals, who for for their size can be stronger than the average person.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz, I think you could safely play with the bonuses and penalties for races in 4e without much harm to game balance.  There is room for a +1 bonus to attacks and damages and some skills (which is the bulk of what you are talking about for balance issues), without the game creaking much.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> It would be a rare Halfling who allocates his base stats the same as a Half-Orc.
> 
> There is a strong bias towards playing to your strengths -- and in a Halfling's case, his strengths don't include Strength.
> 
> ...



PCs are rare and special because they tend toward extremes. A halfling fighter is likely to be at least as strong as a half orc peasant.

For most NPCs, racial mods are the only difference. So a typical halfling wrestling a typical half orc is hardly less strong or more dextrous.



thecasualoblivion said:


> I prefer to think of Halflings in reference to Chimpanzees or other smaller than Human mammals, who for for their size can be stronger than the average person.



I also like to think that halflings, along with all Small creatures in D&D, have absurdly long arms to justify the equivalent Reach they have with Medium creatures.

I'm only half joking.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 1, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> For most NPCs, racial mods are the only difference. So a typical halfling wrestling a typical half orc is hardly less strong or more dextrous.



I've never played with basic npcs are straight 10s + racial mods.

I generally use something along the lines of 13 / 12/ 11/ 10 / 10 / 8 for even the most common of commoners.  Presuming an 8 STR for a typical halfling commoner, adjusted to 6, and a 13 Str for a typical (!!) half-orc commoner, adjusted to 15, gets the job done nicely.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 2, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I
> 
> I've expressed the opinion on WotC's M:tG forum that players with a lot of dough have a significant advantage over players with more limited funds. Some people agree; but some people spend a lot of energy minimizing and rationalizing the result of more money = better cards.
> 
> So yeah, there definitely is a relationship between money and balance.




Of course, once you start talking about Limited, that "money = win" goes away.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 2, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Of course, once you start talking about Limited, that "money = win" goes away.




Ah back in the day.. we liked making some serious decks constructed entirely of common cards. (Ornithoptres and red and blue enchantments for them ) - but there never was an answer for a black lotus channeled fire ball one turn kill deck.... except another of the same.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 2, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I've never played with basic npcs are straight 10s + racial mods.
> 
> I generally use something along the lines of 13 / 12/ 11/ 10 / 10 / 8 for even the most common of commoners.  Presuming an 8 STR for a typical halfling commoner, adjusted to 6, and a 13 Str for a typical (!!) half-orc commoner, adjusted to 15, gets the job done nicely.



I've no interest in splitting hairs with you. All I'll say is that even assuming the warrior array of scores, I see no reason why two individuals of similar profession would arrange their stats differently just because of their race. For example a halfling blacksmith and a half orc blacksmith will both probably have a base 13 Str, modified by racials. Again, hardly a difference.

If you've found ways to make D&D a little more realistic, good for you. Me, I've made my peace with the fact that it's a crazy game from top to bottom!



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Of course, once you start talking about Limited, that "money = win" goes away.



Limited are those events where you buy a limited number of booster packs, build your deck from them and then compete right?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 2, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I've no interest in splitting hairs with you.



I don't see the difference between 6 and 15 as splitting hairs.  Rather far from it, in fact.



> For example a halfling blacksmith and a half orc blacksmith will both probably have a base 13 Str, modified by racials. Again, hardly a difference.



Now you are assuming that halfling culture and half-orc culture would not be defined by their characteristics.  
Compared to seeing their societies as different, getting hung up on the stat mods *IS* very much splitting hairs.


----------



## Votan (Apr 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was a "gym rat" for a good portion of my life, which is why the 4Ed racial mods get under my skin and why I keep bringing up those as examples of "shoehorning."
> 
> A human kid of 80-100lbs body weight- about the size of a Gnome or Halfling- who is in excellent physical condition is going to be hard pressed to bench his body weight- roughly Str5 in 4Ed terms if you consider that a heavy load.
> 
> ...




I wonder if this makes more sense if you put the +1 level up increases into strength for the Goliath-type character?  

There is, admittedly, a trade-off here when you use things (like ability scores) for very different measures (i.e. effectiveness in melee as well as emcumberance).  A strong house cat can't lift a lot of weight but, in the same sense, it isn't at all unable to hit in melee (as many poor birds have discovered).


----------



## Quantarum (Apr 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A human kid of 80-100lbs body weight- about the size of a Gnome or Halfling- who is in excellent physical condition is going to be hard pressed to bench his body weight- roughly Str5 in 4Ed terms if you consider that a heavy load.
> 
> A typical "big" collegiate or NFL wide receiver of 180-200lbs (typical Human PC in D&D) would be able to bench around 300lbs, or about Str15 in 4Ed terms.  A 250lb linebacker (about the size of a Half-Orc) might be able to bench 450lbs, or Str20+ in 4ED, while a 350lb lineman or NBA center like Shaq (equivalent to Dragonborn, Goliaths, Minotaurs and the like) may bench 600lbs or more.
> 
> So you can see why that mere +2Str mod just bugs the heck out of me.




Not really. If the game was "Lifting and Pressing: A realistic RPG of pumping iron" it might be relevant, but in the context of D&D it's just a curious little aside like Batman being able to toss a hamburger ten miles in the 2nd edition DC RPG or a newborn baby being able to toss a football 25 yards in Champions. I don't worry about this sort of stuff anymore than I spend time wonder why a dragon the size of a small office building doesn't pulp the fighter the first time it's claw lands. 
-Q.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 3, 2010)

Quantarum said:


> I don't worry about this sort of stuff anymore than I spend time wonder why a dragon the size of a small office building doesn't pulp the fighter the first time it's claw lands.
> -Q.



Thats what abstract hit points for .... you know it was one of the things that bugged me back in the late 70's and its now a saving grace. (Of course other mechanics now support that definition better than in the past).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> It bugs me too. I mean, if a 4e halfling and a half orc arm wrestled, a DM would probably settle it by way of opposed Str checks. Assuming the same starting stats, the half orc is only going to win 11 times out of 20 -- Standard deviation is likely to make much more of a difference than that! If the two characters weren't described to me, and I didn't know their Str scores I'd have see like a hundred wrestling matches to be reasonably sure that one was marginally stronger than the other.
> 
> Here's where we differ: I see this issue in every single edition of D&D. If a 3e halfling and half orc wrestled, the half orc still only beats the halfling 12 times out of 20. Hardly matters, IMO.




True...up to a point.  A Half-orc is still only 2x to 2.5x bigger than a hafling...but a Minotaur, Goliath, or Dragonborn may be 3-4x more massive.




thecasualoblivion said:


> I prefer to think of Halflings in reference to Chimpanzees or other smaller than Human mammals, who for for their size can be stronger than the average person.




A chimp has different anatomical proportions and muscle/bone/other mass ratios that allow them to have that greater strength for their mass- Gnomes & Halflings don't.

But lets just leave that aside, saying instead that something about their nature- lets call it the same kind of magical nature that lets dragons fly- that lets them be stronger for their mass than you'd expect.

That still doesn't explain why the races that are utter slabs of muscle are so  much _weaker_ than we'd expect them to be.



Mistwell said:


> Dannyalcatraz, I think you could safely play with the bonuses and penalties for races in 4e without much harm to game balance.  There is room for a +1 bonus to attacks and damages and some skills (which is the bulk of what you are talking about for balance issues), without the game creaking much.




True, but I'll leave that to those who are willing to run the game.

I'm just bringing this all up as an example of how shoehorning these massive creatures into the balanced race structure of 4Ed- so far as it has been implemented- has diminished those races.  The Goliath and Minotaur simply aren't what they used to be.

They aren't even up to human powerlifter levels.



Quantarum said:


> Not really. If the game was "Lifting and Pressing: A realistic RPG of pumping iron" it might be relevant...




I was using those stats as an approximation of Carrying capacity from the 4Ed PHB.  Strx20 = Heavily loaded: you can lift it with 2 hands and carry it with difficulty.  It's not a bad approximation, either.  Someone's max bench press is easily discovered- its a very popular stat as compared to someone's dead lift- and while its usually lower than the dead lift, it wouldn't be easy to walk around with, either.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Apr 3, 2010)

Honestly, I think the key is to simply accept that statistics are no longer meant to be flat assumptions of an adventurer's actual, well, statistics.  They, like so many other things, are just abstracted now.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 3, 2010)

In one 4e session in which I was a player, a halfling was better at intimidation than a minotaur. Neither was trained, but the little guy had a _higher charisma_ -- the same factor governing (e.g.) diplomacy. There's a little problem in the ratings, and there was a bigger one in the DM's getting hung up on those rather than considering the circumstances.

However, considering the circumstances of a big, bull-headed guy swinging a big battle-ax (versus a child-sized guy pointing with a dagger) would have given a bonus based on something other than the abstract mathematical "build".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> > Here's where we differ: I see this issue in every single edition of D&D.
> 
> 
> 
> True...up to a point.  A Half-orc is still only 2x to 2.5x bigger than a hafling...but a Minotaur, Goliath, or Dragonborn may be 3-4x more massive.




I want to examine and clarify this a bit.

If we look back at 1ED, there were no playable races that were significantly more powerful or dexterous than any other.  All of the PC races were basically just a tiny bit of a variation away from humanity, at least in terms of physical/mental attributes.  Essentially, the issue we're talking about didn't exist.

In 2Ed, we got the _Complete Book of Humanoids_, which let us play creatures like Ogres and Minotaurs.  While their Str bonuses were only +2, realize that those races could go beyond the whole fractional Str chart.  That meant that an Ogre or Minotaur PC could get up to a Str of 20 (yes, I'm looking at the book as I write this), which was far outside the reach of most other PC races which were capped at 18/00 or even 18 or less.  They literally were as strong as some Giants...indeed _stronger _than a couple of subtypes.

3.X gave us wide open PC gen rules, _Savage Species_ (the spiritual descendant of _Complete Book of Humanoids_) and standardized stats- no more 18 to 18/00 stuff on the Str chart, so a +2 was a +2.  In THAT regime, Minotaurs (and other races with stats far outside of human variation) used for PCs didn't get a +2 bonus to stats like Str, they got bonuses of +6 or more.  In addition, some had abilities on top of those larger attribute bonuses, like the Goliath's Powerful Build ability.

4Ed, OTOH, stripped away some of the iconographic potency of these races in the interests of balance.  IMHO, this stripped away their flavor.

In 4Ed- looking at PHBs 1-3 plus FR and Eberron- there are 8 races or subraces capable of getting a +2 bonus to Str: Humans, Half-Orcs, Shifters, Genasi, Warforged, Minotaurs, Goliaths and Dragonborn.  Most have an average mass under 250lbs.  In that context, those that mass over 300lbs seem almost...wispy...in comparison to their mass.  They're not as impressively beefy as they used to be.

And other races that got the same kind of treatment suffer just as much.  Githzerai of previous editions were granted unusually large Dex bonuses.  They were agile in ways that Elves could only wistfully contemplate. This contributed to their aura and mystique.  Now, Elves are every bit as dexterous as Githzerai.  The grey-skinned monks of the Astral plane have lost some of their cache.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Honestly, I think the key is to simply accept that statistics are no longer meant to be flat assumptions of an adventurer's actual, well, statistics.  They, like so many other things, are just abstracted now.




If my Str doesn't tell me how strong I am relative to other beings, what good is it?

If my Dex doesn't describe my relative agility, what good is it?

If that's the level of abstraction you're proposing, I submit the game has abstracted such elements to so great a point as to reach uselessness.  You might as well not have stats.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If my Str doesn't tell me how strong I am relative to other beings, what good is it?



 Str, when combined with feat, class and race bonuses, tells you how good you are at Str-based tasks, including some attack and some skill checks. It may be responsible for one of your defenses, too.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If my Dex doesn't describe my relative agility, what good is it?



 Dex, when combined with feat, class and race bonuses, tells you how good you are at Dex-based tasks, including some attack and some skill checks. It may be responsible for one of your defenses, too.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2010)

Nifft said:


> > If my Str doesn't tell me how strong I am relative to other beings, what good is it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To which I'll counter that you might as well just fold that into the Feats and other mechanics and do away with the stats if the stats in and of themselves describe nothing unique and useful.

Such a system that would tell you things like "If you want your PC to be more dexterous, pump more build points into skills that reflect such agility, such as Tumble or Escape Artist, or into Damage Avoidance.  Strong PCs might want to buy more carrying capacity, basic damage, or even levels in Intimidate."  No stats required.

But D&D stats- like nearly every other RPG out there- tell you something about the physical and mental prowess of the PC in question, regardless of abstraction.  Not so what ProfessorCirno asserts.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 3, 2010)

_Villians & Vigilantes_ (1982 revision) is still one of my favorite games. When it was published, though, _Champions_ was already light-years ahead in the kinds of game balance that I think are most to the point of the OP.

It was necessary for a Champs ref to moderate how players spent their points, to make sure that supposed disadvantages and advantages really were properly assessed in the campaign context, and to nix "game breaking" notions. Flexibility always comes with such a price.

However, the points system made it easy (if often time consuming) to work out balances of character power. It helped that long combat sessions were -- par for the course in that genre -- the central focus. I have not seen the new (6th) edition, but from what I have read about it there is a decoupling of factors that might make such evaluations even easier.

V&V emphasized the element of surprise, and the downright wackiness, characteristic of the comics that inspired it. The recommended approach was to play oneself with the addition of a semi-random (but _mostly_ random) set of super-powers.



			
				V&V said:
			
		

> A character with few powers tends to be less powerful than a character with many. This being the case, the GM is encouraged to upgrade the usefulness of the powers received by a character with few powers, in order to make him capable of contending with more powerful characters. Also, random die rolls cannot be expected to consistently produce sets of powers which go well together. In many cases it is advisable to modify one or more powers, perhaps drastically, in order to create an interesting set of abilities. When modified, powers shouldn't be made more or less useful, except for the reasons stated above, or perhaps as part of a give-and-take situation where one power is diminished to increase another.




If players instead are choosing their powers, then even the probabilistic factors don't apply -- and it is easier to come up with extremely powerful synergies.

Some things just are not immediately provided for, and those can be surprising omissions. For instance, neither wall-crawling nor web-spinning turn up as "arachnid powers". To lift tons of weight, one really needs not just a high strength score but a lot of body mass (telekinesis, as written, not availing much).

Still, I find that it works out pretty well most of the time taking things just as written. Variations in character "stats" tend just to fit into the bigger picture of what players do, and how, along with a hefty helping of chance. The effects of experience levels are quite subtle next to those in D&D, serving much more to give a sense of growth than to determine the odds in encounters.

Like the D&D editions that had come out at the end of the '70s, V&V was still very much rooted in the original "just examples for your consideration" gamer-to-gamer mode of viewing and presenting RPG "rules".

Over all, I find the emphasis in those old games more on players _exploring_ the imagined world -- not just as a map, but as an often surprising process -- than on players _defining_ the milieu. Strategy is very important, more in choices in the role-playing context than in choices of mechanical scores. However, that "stuff happens" on the basis of swings in dice-rolls is also important. There's a keen appreciation of the novelty factor that makes "Man Bites Dog" news whereas "Dog Bites Man" is not.

The super-hero genre has its own peculiarities, of course. The vagaries of the comic book business and the value of trademarks have established that death is seldom more than a temporary state. On the other hand, it is just one of many occasions on which characters may be subject to radical transformations. Retroactive continuity is par for the course (and just as reversible). Of all forms of fantasy, this is the most far out!


----------



## Nifft (Apr 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To which I'll counter that you might as well just fold that into the Feats and other mechanics and do away with the stats if the stats in and of themselves describe nothing unique and useful.



 Then you must have missed the part where they do, in fact, contribute something useful. ("Unique" is an empty complaint, since every PC has every stat, and many PCs will have the exact same score in any given stat. Stats are the least unique aspect of any D&D PC, because the combinations are so limited. If this wasn't just blind rhetoric, and you actually had something to express here, perhaps could you find a better word for it?)

They aren't enough to fully describe all the stuff some people seem to want them to describe. They must be combined with all the other resources to which your PC has access.

However, many systems do get rid of stats, and some lack feat-like resources as well. Some of these systems are quite good. If you wanted to go that route, there's plenty of prior art from which you could steal.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 4, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't see the difference between 6 and 15 as splitting hairs.  Rather far from it, in fact.



The difference between 6 and 15 is four bonuses, which might be what you're trying to talk about but I'm talking about racial bonuses -- which are the difference of 2 at most.



BryonD said:


> Now you are assuming that halfling culture and half-orc culture would not be defined by their characteristics.



I'm assuming that both races have blacksmiths, and that all blacksmiths prosper in part by being strong.



BryonD said:


> Compared to seeing their societies as different, getting hung up on the stat mods *IS* very much splitting hairs.



Getting hung up on D&D's stat mods is a practice in hair splitting, period. That's my point. None of the mods are particularly "realistic," which is why I've given up analyzing what they "should" be.

My original comment is a reflection of how silly I find D&D's stat mods from a realistic PoV. They're inherently unrealistic, and therefore unworthy of prolonged attention or analysis (aka hair splitting).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> True...up to a point.  A Half-orc is still only 2x to 2.5x bigger than a hafling...but a Minotaur, Goliath, or Dragonborn may be 3-4x more massive.



Not sure what your point is.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 4, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Thats what abstract hit points for .... you know it was one of the things that bugged me back in the late 70's and its now a saving grace. (Of course other mechanics now support that definition better than in the past).




Why did it bug you back then? Hit points were abstract then and are still abstract now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2010)

Nifft said:


> If this wasn't just blind rhetoric, and you actually had something to express here, perhaps could you find a better word for it?)




Its not blind rhetoric- let's put this back in the context of ProfessorCirno's comment,



> Honestly, I think the key is to simply accept that statistics are no longer meant to be flat assumptions of an adventurer's actual, well, statistics. They, like so many other things, are just abstracted now.




To which I responded that if the stats are so abstracted that they don't describe the PCs physical and mental attributes relative to other beings in the game, then you might as well not have them.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its not blind rhetoric- let's put this back in the context of ProfessorCirno's comment,



 Still not seeing where you get ability scores being anything other than the least unique part of any PC.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> To which I responded that if the stats are so abstracted that they don't describe the PCs physical and mental attributes relative to other beings in the game, then you might as well not have them.



 They still do. They simply are no longer the *only* thing which does so. You need to combine them with other things -- as listed previously -- to get the whole picture.

This is not some new thing, either. Stats alone have never been enough to fully specify every PC's physical and mental capabilities.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Still not seeing where you get ability scores being anything other than the least unique part of any PC.




I'm not asserting that stats are anything other than the least unique part of a PC.  However, they should still tell you something unique about the PC and his place in the world.

For example, an extraordinarily high stat is perforce going to set you apart from most other beings.  An NPC may be considered quite notable if his Str was, say...22, even if he were nothing but a plowboy and a simpleton.  Despite his non-violent nature and humble life, he might nonetheless be a hit at the "County Faire" or the "Harvest Festival" for his feats of strength.




> They still do. They simply are no longer the *only* thing which does so. You need to combine them with other things -- as listed previously -- to get the whole picture.
> 
> This is not some new thing, either. Stats alone have never been enough to fully specify every PC's physical and mental capabilities.




Those are 2 mutually contradictory paragraphs: either there was some point at which they were the only thing are there was not.

FWIW, I'm not saying that a PC's class and Feats and all that stuff don't matter.  I'm just saying that the level of abstraction of the stats hasn't changed in any appreciable way.

Str tells you about your raw physical strength and always has.  Your class & other options tell you how you apply it and how well you use it.

To that end, it is disruptive of my immersive experience to have a race that is nearly 400lbs to be no stronger in raw physical strength than a race that is 220lbs.  It doesn't jibe with physics, it doesn't jibe with the fluff of the races in question, it doesn't jibe with the artistic depiction of the races in question, and it doesn't jibe with the history of the races in question across editions.  They've been watered down.


> > True...up to a point. A Half-orc is still only 2x to 2.5x bigger than a hafling...but a Minotaur, Goliath, or Dragonborn may be 3-4x more massive.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what your point is.



Akin to what was stated above, it is disruptive to the immersive experience that being that is nearly 8' tall and 400lbs is only marginally stronger than a being that is half its height and a quarter its mass.

As always, YMMV.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not asserting that stats are anything other than the least unique part of a PC.  However, they should still tell you something unique about the PC and his place in the world.
> 
> For example, an extraordinarily high stat is perforce going to set you apart from most other beings.  An NPC may be considered quite notable if his Str was, say...22, even if he were nothing but a plowboy and a simpleton.  Despite his non-violent nature and humble life, he might nonetheless be a hit at the "County Faire" or the "Harvest Festival" for his feats of strength.



 Skill Training in Athletics, Skill Focus (Athletics). Under SW Saga, that's a +10 to his check, the equivalent of 20 class levels. He still sucks as a fighter (and a farmer), but now he's pretty darn good at "feats of strength". What are you complaining about? A system with feats models your idea *better* than one which would compel him to also be really good at combat.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Those are 2 mutually contradictory paragraphs: either there was some point at which they were the only thing are there was not.



 They are not contradictory. I'll spell it out for you:

1/ Previously, *some* PCs had *some* of their capabilities fully specified by their ability scores.

2/ Previously and currently, *some* PCs have *at least some* of their capabilities not fully specified by ability scores -- they need other stuff, like class and level and perhaps some other limited resource.

3/ Currently, *all* PCs need a combination of ability score and other stuff to fully specify their capabilities.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Akin to what was stated above, it is disruptive to the immersive experience that being that is nearly 8' tall and 400lbs is only marginally stronger than a being that is half its height and a quarter its mass.



 I dare you to pick a fight with a chimp.

While you're in the hospital recovering from that experience, consider the possibility of simply removing the fluff which offends you: don't make the race in question eight foot eleven and over four hundred pounds of lean, angry muscle. Make it just like us humans, but with yellow Star Trek marks on its forehead, or something, and +2 Strength.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## billd91 (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Skill Training in Athletics, Skill Focus (Athletics). Under SW Saga, that's a +10 to his check, the equivalent of 20 class levels. He still sucks as a fighter (and a farmer), but now he's pretty darn good at "feats of strength". What are you complaining about? A system with feats models your idea *better* than one which would compel him to also be really good at combat.




SW Saga doesn't have an athletics skill. That's just 4e.
But even so, there's nothing about having a high strength that *compels* the character to be good at combat. He just ends up being good at strength checks. His BAB could still be very low with significant non-proficiency penalties with weapons. 



Nifft said:


> While you're in the hospital recovering from that experience, consider the possibility of simply removing the fluff which offends you: don't make the race in question eight foot eleven and over four hundred pounds of lean, angry muscle. Make it just like us humans, but with yellow Star Trek marks on its forehead, or something, and +2 Strength.




Yeah, yeah. The old "if the game doesn't work for you, fix it yourself" argument. If that had any compelling strength, we wouldn't have new editions of any game.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Str tells you about your raw physical strength and always has.




It tells _something_ -- but it has not always been as simple as one might like.



			
				1st DMG said:
			
		

> The strength characteristic of a human or humanoid of any type, and of player-characters in particular, is more than a simple evaluation of the musculature of the body. Strength is a composite rating of physical power, endurance, and stamina.




Fellows, if you really want to be so pedantic, then grasp this: _There is no such thing as "more" or "less" unique. A thing either is unique or is not._


----------



## lutecius (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> While you're in the hospital recovering from that experience, consider the possibility of simply removing the fluff which offends you: don't make the race in question eight foot eleven and over four hundred pounds of lean, angry muscle. Make it just like us humans, but with yellow Star Trek marks on its forehead, or something, and +2 Strength.



er... you realize that's exactly his point? game balance stripped away some of the flavour.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To that end, it is disruptive of my immersive experience to have a race that is nearly 400lbs to be no stronger in raw physical strength than a race that is 220lbs.  It doesn't jibe with physics, it doesn't jibe with the fluff of the races in question, it doesn't jibe with the artistic depiction of the races in question, and it doesn't jibe with the history of the races in question across editions.  They've been watered down.
> 
> Akin to what was stated above, it is disruptive to the immersive experience that being that is nearly 8' tall and 400lbs is only marginally stronger than a being that is half its height and a quarter its mass.



Ah yes, I agree. No edition of D&D has been particularly realistic in this regard; which is why I don't take D&D very seriously, regardless of edition.

(Nitpick: 1/2 Height = *1/8* mass)


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 5, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> (Nitpick: 1/2 Height = *1/8* mass)




Well there is a change in build as you get taller you get ganglier and as you get smaller you get stouter. so the relationship amongst human shaped beings is closer to 1/2 height  = 1/4 weight.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Skill Training in Athletics, Skill Focus (Athletics). Under SW Saga, that's a +10 to his check, the equivalent of 20 class levels. He still sucks as a fighter (and a farmer), but now he's pretty darn good at "feats of strength". What are you complaining about? A system with feats models your idea *better* than one which would compel him to also be really good at combat.




Great Str is just a measure of raw physical power.  A guy who is an utter brute may not be a competent combatant, and may still be able to level you with the single shot he lands by dint of its sheer force.

And if he never takes a level in a PC class, he'll be less of a threat in melee combat than a high-level mage just by the BAB the latter PC gained.



> They are not contradictory. I'll spell it out for you:
> <snip>




That's _not _what you said- your statement used absolutes in its formulation:



> They simply are no longer the only thing which does so. You need to combine them with other things -- as listed previously -- to get the whole picture.
> 
> This is not some new thing, either. Stats alone have never been enough to fully specify every PC's physical and mental capabilities.




The first statement says that stats "*are no longer* the only thing" that tells you about a PC's physical & mental talent- implying that there was a point in time when they _were_ the only thing.

The second statement says that "Stats alone *never have been*" a measure of raw talents- meaning that there was no point in which they were.

Those _are_ contradictory statements.



> > Akin to what was stated above, it is disruptive to the immersive experience that being that is nearly 8' tall and 400lbs is only marginally stronger than a being that is half its height and a quarter its mass.
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to pick a fight with a chimp.



I adressed this upthread.

They're about 60% the height of an average man, and mass about 110lbs.

An adult male chimp is, according to studies done by Glen Fitch at Yale in 1943, about 2x stronger than an _average_ human male (not an athlete).  The results were reproduced in a study done in 1960.

They are able to generate that kind of force because they have different muscle and bone percentages AND a different physique from humans- IOW, they have better mechanical leverage and the musclepower to work it.  A chimp's arms are longer than its legs, and are used for quadrupedal locomotion, whereas a human's arms are about 70% the size of their legs and are not used for locomotion.

My point?

Look at the proportions of all of the big powerhouse races- they're all very close to human proportions, just bulkier.  They'll have the same kind of mechanical advantages or disadvantages...and they'll be powered by a LOT more muscle.



> consider the possibility of simply removing the fluff which offends you




Not my job: I'm not the DM nor the Game Designer- I'm just a customer giving an example within 4Ed that illustrates the point of how certain aspects of the game were sacrificed in favor of balance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> (Nitpick: 1/2 Height = *1/8* mass)




Gnome: 3' 8", 75lbs.

Golaith: 7' 8", 340lbs.

At the top of the race's average range, a Goliath is 2.067X the height and 4.53x the mass of a similarly outlying Gnome.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 5, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It tells something -- but it has not always been as simple as one might like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nightwyrm (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Gnome: 3' 8", 75lbs.
> 
> Golaith: 7' 8", 340lbs.
> 
> At the top of the race's average range, a Goliath is 2.067X the height and 4.53x the mass of a similarly outlying Gnome.




Nitpick:
What TS is quoting is the square-cube law. If an object retains its shape and you double its length (or any other one dimensional measurement), you will get 4x (2 squared) the surface area and 8x (2 cubed) the mass. Of course, objects of vastly different sizes also tends to have very different shapes and construction.

Square Cube Law


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 5, 2010)

Garthanos said:
			
		

> And when applied in a simple form treat it as relative to ones mass. It was explicitly this in RuneQuest and other games... and acknowledge by having a separate size attribute from the strength attribute.



In 1st ed. AD&D, halflings have maximum natural strength scores (no 18s). Even exceptional strength "is modified by a restriction that no creature of human/humanoid nature can lift more than twice its own body weight above its head." A 60-pound halfling could thus lift no more than 120 lbs. -- but could still get other benefits of high strength.

The benefits to hit and damage rolls made lower limits for females contentious. Players might not picture their fantastic swordswomen as matches for the most musclebound men in terms of toting barges and lifting bales. However, the thought that a human female character could not get the _combat power_ benefits of a player's rolling 18/51 or better stuck in some craws.

Limiting hobbits to 4th level originally made sense, in my opinion, as reflecting the source material. It was to my mind no "game balance" against the 6th-level potential of dwarves (who lacked the hobbits' outdoorsy stealth and accuracy with missiles, but had more dungeon-oriented specialties). The elves, able to be both 4th-level fighters and 8th-level magic-users, were "just better" -- if not _as much_ superior as some Tolkien fans thought they ought to be. (It was not the elves but the hobbits excluded from the benison of the clerical Raise Dead spell in the original set.)

"Should any player wish to be one ..." was on the mark, except that the halfling as a role had appeal beyond its apparent power as a game piece.

In the "B/X" edition, dwarves and halflings had their level limits doubled (to 8th and 12th) while humans topped out at 14th. (A projected Companion volume did not come out until the Mentzer "BECMI" revision.) They got their own experience progressions and a shared saving-throw table, and dwarves seemed to come out very strong. (For another 180,000 XP, a top-level human fighter got on average 1 more hit point and +2 to hit, but worse saves across the board by 1 or 2 points.)

Elves got up to 10th in both fighting and magic, which just rocked -- especially versus the relatively pathetic human magic-user. Casting 6th-level spells (tops in that game) was neat, but maybe not worth the wait -- and survival to beat the elf's top casting ability, requiring as many XP as the elf's maximum, was dubious. Raise Dead worked on any of the PC types.

I suspect a "power gamer" would pick a cleric, dwarf or elf in B/X. Yet, I routinely see halflings, thieves, fighters and -- most surprisingly -- even human magic-users. The perhaps seemingly superfluous m-u gains experience levels (and thus spell levels) more quickly than the elf. The fighter and halfling also advance slightly more rapidly than the dwarf, the halfling having a very short career (while remaining viable alongside higher-level PCs when there is something other than XP to gain). The thief goes up like a rocket, getting about a level ahead of the others for the same XP, and its very own special abilities improve at each level.


----------



## Reigan (Apr 5, 2010)

I don't buy the balance vs flavour argument. Just because something is no longer supported by (often bad) mechanics doesn't mean it can't be done. You can use narrative and story to create that sense of wonder instead, even better your are no longer limited by "if the bad guy can do it, why can't I" expectation.

In regards to race, players tend to play classes that match racial stat bonuses. Most played Minotaurs will be strength  based classes and will start with a strength of 18+. Its the 18 that matters not the +2.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> consider the possibility of simply removing the fluff which offends you: don't make the race in question eight foot eleven and over four hundred pounds of lean, angry muscle. Make it just like us humans, but with yellow Star Trek marks on its forehead, or something, and +2 Strength.



Use the rules, don't let the rules use you.

If you are forced to change your story to comply with your mechanics, then your mechanics have already failed.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Use the rules, don't let the rules use you.
> 
> If you are forced to change your story to comply with your mechanics, then your mechanics have already failed.




Well put. Use whatever mechanics you wish but the game should come first. If the rest of the game has to be worked around the mechanics then the game is serving the rules which is a backwards approach.


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Akin to what was stated above, it is disruptive to the immersive experience that being that is nearly 8' tall and 400lbs is only marginally stronger than a being that is half its height and a quarter its mass.
> 
> As always, YMMV.



The thing is, when you look at PCs you find that the race with +2 to a stat is an average of 4-6 points higher in that stat (at first level) than the race WITHOUT the +2.

The +2 is only +2, but people then pick their stats to accentuate their strengths, meaning that a racial +2 gives most of the race +more.

A racial +4 vs. a racial +2 would probably be a boost of average about +2.5-3, while a +6 vs. a +4 would be +2


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Use the rules, don't let the rules use you.
> 
> If you are forced to change your story to comply with your mechanics, then your mechanics have already failed.




Then we are back to a contradiction.  What if I want a muscular race to _not_ have inherent, largely counter-intuitive bonuses to hitting things?

Fiddling with +2 strength vs +4 strength has a larger in-game impact on combat effectiveness than its in-narrative effect on flavor warrants.

To bring back the very relevant chimp example.... note that the chimp has a different distribution of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers than a human.  When it comes time to throw down and tear something's arms off, the chimp has more applicable strength.  When it comes time to pick up a heavy backpack and carry it around, the human has more applicable strength.

Oh... so y'all are tracking combat damage and carry weight with the same stat and then complaining that there are rules problems and logical disconnects?  Where _there's_ your problem.  If you actually wanted to simulate, you'd have several more stats in there to tease those apart.  If you're not inclined to simulate to that extent... i.e. you are willing to hand-wave the distribution of muscle fibers, proportions of the limbs, and so on... then you have to be willing to also hand-wave the precise size of the stat bonuses if you want to keep combat balanced.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 5, 2010)

One solution to the "minotaurs only get +2 Str despite being enormous" issue is to set a stat floor; require all minotaur PCs to have a base Strength, before racial and level bonuses, of 14 or higher.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 5, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> Nitpick:
> What TS is quoting is the square-cube law. If an object retains its shape and you double its length (or any other one dimensional measurement), you will get 4x (2 squared) the surface area and 8x (2 cubed) the mass. Of course, objects of vastly different sizes also tends to have very different shapes and construction.
> 
> Square Cube Law



Thank you, nightwyrm.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, yeah. The old "if the game doesn't work for you, fix it yourself" argument. If that had any compelling strength, we wouldn't have new editions of any game.



 Not quite. His point is that his interpretation of fluff doesn't match the game mechanics, and therefore the game mechanics must change to suit his interpretation of fluff.

It is the fluff that offends him. If thy fluff offends thee, chop it off.



lutecius said:


> er... you realize that's exactly his point? game balance stripped away some of the flavour.



 No. His point is that his interpretation of flavor ought to dictate game mechanics. My point is that the conflict is in his head, and he can fix that conflict without touching the mechanics. "Balance" hasn't stripped away anything -- it's his own preferences for a how flavor translates into mechanics that dictate what flavor he can allow.

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of the flavor -- my game works just dandy.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's _not _what you said- your statement used absolutes in its formulation:
> 
> The first statement says that stats "*are no longer* the only thing" that tells you about a PC's physical & mental talent- implying that there was a point in time when they _were_ the only thing.
> 
> ...



 Ugh, seriously? Logical statements and scoping operations were tested on the LSAT. You ought to be better at this.

First statement: previously, for at least one character, stats were enough to specify at least one mental and/or physical capability. This is no longer the case.

Second statement: previously, *not every* character's capabilities could be fully specified by stats alone. This remains the case.

Don't latch on to single phrases. Read the whole damn sentence.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not my job: I'm not the DM nor the Game Designer- I'm just a customer giving an example within 4Ed that illustrates the point of how certain aspects of the game were sacrificed in favor of balance.



 I see. It's not your job to remove fluff, therefore you must use fluff that you hate.

Good luck with that. I'm sure you'll enjoy hours of reading before you stumble across something equally absurd buried deep in your edition of choice... like hit points.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Use the rules, don't let the rules use you.
> 
> If you are forced to change your story to comply with your mechanics, then your mechanics have already failed.



 I do use the rules. My game works just fine with the current flavor, too.

I guess I could turn that around, though: *use the flavor, don't let the flavor use you*. If you are forced to change your game's mechanics to comply with some character art, then your fluff has already failed.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 5, 2010)

My fluff is freed up, because Strength doesnt mean just one simplistic thing ... For my Sorceror and Paladin theyre miracles are mighty not because there muscles are ... but rather there muscles are mighty because of their empowerment


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2010)

> What TS is quoting is the square-cube law. If an object retains its shape and you double its length (or any other one dimensional measurement), you will get 4x (2 squared) the surface area and 8x (2 cubed) the mass. Of course, objects of vastly different sizes also tends to have very different shapes and construction.




I'm aware of that- however, I'm working with the game's actual provided numbers, not reality.



Kingreaper said:


> The thing is, when you look at PCs you find that the race with +2 to a stat is an average of 4-6 points higher in that stat (at first level) than the race WITHOUT the +2.
> 
> The +2 is only +2, but people then pick their stats to accentuate their strengths, meaning that a racial +2 gives most of the race +more.
> 
> A racial +4 vs. a racial +2 would probably be a boost of average about +2.5-3, while a +6 vs. a +4 would be +2




Its not just the +2 in the context of races that don't get the bonus- as I've pointed out, its also the logical disconnect with other races that DO get the bonus.

A Half-Orc, Human, Genasi and Longtooth Shifter all top out in mass under 230lbs on average, and some don't even hit 200lbs.  Meanwhile, the "hulking humanoid" Minotaurs (PHB3 p11), "strongly built" Dragonkind (PHB p35) and the "tall and massive" Goliaths (PHB2 p12) are not one bit stronger, despite all starting off at least at 280lbs and topping out well over 300lbs on average.

What is that 70+ lbs?  Fat?  Hair?  In this context, the REAL bruisers are the lightweights who manage to fight far outside their weight class...

I mean- Minotaurs USED to be as strong as or stronger than some Giants, right from the get-go.  Now?  They're exactly as powerful as Half-Orcs and have to gain XP before they can touch that level of power.

Githzerai USED to be uncannily agile, beyond the grace of even the Elves.  Now, they're no different.

(FWIW, I do think that a Str min as suggested by Dausuul would mitigate this to a certain extent...but doesn't quite solve it.)



Nifft said:


> No. His point is that his interpretation of flavor ought to dictate game mechanics. My point is that the conflict is in his head, and he can fix that conflict without touching the mechanics. "Balance" hasn't stripped away anything -- it's his own preferences for a how flavor translates into mechanics that dictate what flavor he can allow.




No, my point is that the fluff and mechanics are 1) out of synch with each other, and 2) were not so in previous editions' versions of these races, which 3) makes them a prime example of a tradeoff between balance and flavor/evocative elements, such as we have been describing.

In order to make races like Minotaurs or the "Powerfully Built" Goliaths of previous editions balanced with the other PC races, their incredibly high Str or iconic racial abilities were stripped away from them.  A PC of neither race will outshine any of the other "strong" races when it comes to raw, brute strength or damage dealing.  Indeed, they _cannot._



> Ugh, seriously? Logical statements and scoping operations were tested on the LSAT. You ought to be better at this.
> 
> First statement: previously, for at least one character, stats were enough to specify at least one mental and/or physical capability. This is no longer the case.
> 
> ...




I did read your sentences.  You gave no "at least for one character" type language qualifier.  It was a simple absolute.

And the second sentence's use of "never" would eliminate the possibility of such a character's existence.


> They still do. They simply are no longer the only thing which does so. You need to combine them with other things -- as listed previously -- to get the whole picture.
> 
> This is not some new thing, either. Stats alone have never been enough to fully specify every PC's physical and mental capabilities.




For the record, I'm with you 100% on that second sentence- stats only tell part of the story.  They tell you about the PC's raw physical or mental potential, and nothing more.  Class and other choices represent the realization of that potential...or in some cases, the rejection of it.

However, that PC's baseline stats have a contextual meaning- PC1 is "stronger than" PC2; PC3 is "more agile than" PC 4.  That doesn't mean that PC1 is by necessity the better Warrior or that PC3 is the better Rogue, just that they may have a bigger upside.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, my point is that the fluff and mechanics are 1) out of synch with each other, and 2) were not so in previous editions' versions of these races, which 3) makes them a prime example of a tradeoff between balance and flavor/evocative elements, such as we have been describing.



 In 3e, a halfling can be built who can power attack better -- hitting more often, and for more damage -- than a half-orc with the same weapon. D&D stats have never made sense.

You blame the conflict between mechanics and flavor solely on mechanics. That's a bit one-sided, don't you think?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In order to make races like Minotaurs or the "Powerfully Built" Goliaths of previous editions balanced with the other PC races, their incredibly high Str or iconic racial abilities were stripped away from them.  A PC of neither race will outshine any of the other "strong" races when it comes to raw, brute strength or damage dealing.  Indeed, they _cannot._



 My half-orc Barbarian can outshine a human Barbarian on damage dealing, because +1d12 damage is nothing to sneeze at. It's not just his Str score: his racial ability encapsulates some of his brutal power.

That said, not all racial abilities are perfect, but that's not enough to tear down the system IMHO.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I did read your sentences.  You gave no "at least for one character" type language qualifier.  It was a simple absolute.



 I said neither "for every" nor "there exists at least one". Thus, you're left to assume which I meant from context. Since one assumption is nonsense, and the other actually fits into the context, which one do you honestly think I meant?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> For the record, I'm with you 100% on that second sentence- stats only tell part of the story.  They tell you about the PC's raw physical or mental potential, and nothing more.  Class and other choices represent the realization of that potential...or in some cases, the rejection of it.



 Agreed 100% about potential. This is a great way to look at ability stats. You may be strong, but if you never train, you can lose to someone weaker (lower potential) who works hard (spends feats & other limited resources).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, that PC's baseline stats have a contextual meaning- PC1 is "stronger than" PC2; PC3 is "more agile than" PC 4.  That doesn't mean that PC1 is by necessity the better Warrior or that PC3 is the better Rogue, just that they may have a bigger upside.



 Sure, but only in the most abstract sense. When you actually go to measure your Str against someone else, you most often do so via a check that also shows your training in a skill, or your BAB, or your Fortitude bonus.

IMHO there's no problem describing an NPC as huge, burly, and strong, even if his on-paper Str is middling, so long as any reasonable use of his Str-related checks would get a high bonus.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 5, 2010)

Danny, you're right that the 4e system for racial stats is less simulationist than 3e's. I'm guessing the change was due to criticism of the LA system which had a major flaw - you couldn't play a creature of LA +X until level X+1. So a minotaur couldn't be played as a character until 3rd level. It's true that Savage Species fixed this but SS was itself very unbalanced imo, to a degree which I think most gamers would find unacceptable.

So what you're really looking at here is a choice between systems with different flaws. Which is always the case with roleplaying games. However I would also point out that for most of its history D&D has chosen playability over realism. That's the case with its core mechanics - classes, levels and hit points - so one could argue that the 4e approach is more true to D&D's history. 3e is something of an aberration, as the most simulationist edition of the game. Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.



 4e is a flumph.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 5, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.




I don't think so. I think D&D in general has more in common with magical beasts than aberrations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> In 3e, a halfling can be built who can power attack better -- hitting more often, and for more damage -- than a half-orc with the same weapon. D&D stats have never made sense.





Sorry, but comparing WotC-D&D with WotC-D&D does not evidence that D&D stats have never made sense, only that WotC-D&D stats have never made sense.

As has already been pointed out upthread, earlier editions of D&D did things like impose level limits, ability score limits, limits on lifiting related to weight, etc., in order to help D&D stats make sense.

It should also be obvious that something which works sporadically is not improved by being made either to work more sporadically, or to not work at all.

"It's new and improved, and it has the benefit of having always been this way!"   


RC


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but comparing WotC-D&D with WotC-D&D does not evidence that D&D stats have never made sense, only that WotC-D&D stats have never made sense.
> 
> As has already been pointed out upthread, earlier editions of D&D did things like impose level limits, ability score limits, limits on lifiting related to weight, etc., in order to help D&D stats make sense.
> 
> ...



 Like how in 2e, the strongest Human Fighter hit measurably harder than the strongest Human Cleric, but the strongest Half-Orc Fighter hit exactly as hard as the strongest Half-Orc Cleric?

Or like how in earlier editions, non-fighting classes were NOT measurably tougher even if their Constitution scores were higher than 14?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> In 3e, a halfling can be built who can power attack better -- hitting more often, and for more damage -- than a half-orc with the same weapon.




Not if both PCs have the same distribution of build points in their stats and choose the same class & feats...especially since the Halfling will have the smaller weapon.

Now, if they make DIFFERENT choices, sure.  That's what the difference between Stats and Training (Feats, Classes, etc.) are about.



> You blame the conflict between mechanics and flavor solely on mechanics. That's a bit one-sided, don't you think?




I'm not blaming the conflict solely on mechanics.  I'm pointing out a particular kind of dissonance where the new mechanics don't reflect the fluff NOR the game history of the races in question; where the changes were done in the name of balance.

There are issues with 4Ed- AND other games- where the problem is the fluff- this isn't one of them.

And the reason WHY I chose 4Ed to illustrate this kind of point is because its the most recent game I've purchased that isn't HERO or a 3.5 or a variant thereof.  It has nothing to do with 4Ed itself.



> My half-orc Barbarian can outshine a human Barbarian on damage dealing, because +1d12 damage is nothing to sneeze at. It's not just his Str score: his racial ability encapsulates some of his brutal power.




And the racial abilities of Minotaurs reflect none of their brutal power- just their horns.  And Goliaths' abilities don't reflect their strength, but their toughness.



> That said, not all racial abilities are perfect, but that's not enough to tear down the system IMHO.




I'm not trying to tear down 4Ed!

We're in a thread where we're talking about "Bias against game balance."  Some of us have said that we don't like it when balance is achieved at the expense of certain other elements.

This happens to be one of those elements.



> ...which one do you honestly think I meant?




I honestly couldn't tell.



> When you actually go to measure your Str against someone else, you most often do so via a check that also shows your training in a skill, or your BAB, or your Fortitude bonus.




I can't say I agree, here.  Most of the ways in which I see people measuring their Str is in pure competitions of Str- not combat.  Bench presses, dead lifts, Caber tosses, sled pulls and the like.

Now, all of these involve learning some skills, like how to do the task with the proper form so you don't injure yourself, but most don't have true combat application.

Some more esoteric Str competitions DO involve a bit more...combat-centric ...training, like breaking or bending of things like ice, wood, or iron, but they're applying that training in unusual ways.  The Pumphreys are world-famous for their displays of breaking and bending techniques, but it would be a rare circumstance when they'd get the chance to actually USE those techniques to their fullest extent in combat- they take too much time.

In a sense, those techniques are almost like 4Ed Rituals...except that they involve the application of physical force, not the manipulation of magical energies.




Doug McCrae said:


> Danny, you're right that the 4e system for racial stats is less simulationist than 3e's. I'm guessing the change was due to criticism of the LA system which had a major flaw - you couldn't play a creature of LA +X until level X+1. So a minotaur couldn't be played as a character until 3rd level. It's true that Savage Species fixed this but SS was itself very unbalanced imo, to a degree which I think most gamers would find unacceptable.




OTOH, a 2Ed Minotaur COULD be played at 1st level, even with its bonus that put it solidly into Giant-class strength...in a system that had no way to increase stats over time.  They simply didn't have much of a future in gaining levels after a certain point.  They may start off impressive, but they eventually conformed to the average...or less...as initial stats mattered less and class abilities mattered more.

FWIW, for 3.X, I tended to use AU/AE's take on racial classes/monster classes, which did a good job of correcting SS's mistakes.

4Ed made a design decision- instead of balance over time for races with traditionally high stat mods, they opted for contemporaneous balance.



> So what you're really looking at here is a choice between systems with different flaws.




No, I'm just pointing out an example of sacrificing flavor and evocative mechanics in favor of balance which just happens to exist in 4Ed.

I mean, I could use other systems to do so, but given the nature of this site, I'd probably have to do a LOT of quoting of rules to illustrate the point- with D&D, most people here are going to know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.



> one could argue that the 4e approach is more true to D&D's history. 3e is something of an aberration, as the most simulationist edition of the game. Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.




I disagree.

With varied class XP/advancement charts and other mechanics, 1Ed and 2Ed functionally embraced the the model of balance over time.  Low level Warrior types ruled, but after a certain point, it was all about the spellcasters.

3Ed/3.5Ed was similar in this, but unified the XP/advancement charts and attempted to expand the "sweet spot"- but ultimately, how much you think it succeeded depends upon your experiences.

4Ed is easily the most balanced version of the game that has ever existed.  At each given level, the designers took great pains to ensure that no class outshines the others.  The concept of "balance over time" has been completely ditched.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Like how in 2e, the strongest Human Fighter hit measurably harder than the strongest Human Cleric, but the strongest Half-Orc Fighter hit exactly as hard as the strongest Half-Orc Cleric?




Why is this a problem?



> Or like how in earlier editions, non-fighting classes were NOT measurably tougher even if their Constitution scores were higher than 14?




Only in hit points.  Again, why is this a problem?


RC


----------



## Nifft (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not if both PCs have the same distribution of build points in their stats and choose the same class & feats...especially since the Halfling will have the smaller weapon.
> 
> Now, if they make DIFFERENT choices, sure.  That's what the difference between Stats and Training (Feats, Classes, etc.) are about.



 Nope, the Halfling can hit harder. It's an unintuitive result, which is why you don't see it. Basically, the halfling gets +2 to attack (+2 Dex, +1 size bonus), which translates into +4 damage via Power Attack. The Half-Orc's +2 Strength gives him at most +3 damage. I'll point you to the CharOp thread if you care about the details.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And the racial abilities of Minotaurs reflect none of their brutal power- just their horns.  And Goliaths' abilities don't reflect their strength, but their toughness.



 You have to include the effects of their racial feats to get the whole picture. Goliaths I know can be quite brute-like with the addition of their Great Weapon feat.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can't say I agree, here.  Most of the ways in which I see people measuring their Str is in pure competitions of Str- not combat.  Bench presses, dead lifts, Caber tosses, sled pulls and the like.



 Yeah, with no Athletics skill, those would be flat-out Str checks.

Still, for many tests of Strength -- like jumping, climbing, or swimming -- some skill is involved. Those are most of the tests of Strength that occur in my games.




Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, a 2Ed Minotaur COULD be played at 1st level, even with its bonus that put it solidly into Giant-class strength...in a system that had no way to increase stats over time.  They simply didn't have much of a future in gaining levels after a certain point.  They may start off impressive, but they eventually conformed to the average...or less...as initial stats mattered less and class abilities mattered more.



 It might be an interesting discussion (for another thread) to look at how the idea of "balance" has evolved across D&D editions, from "balanced over the course of a 20-level campaign" (in early editions) to "balanced over the course of a session" (more recent editions).

In both cases, there were sacrifices.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> In both cases, there were sacrifices.





This is true.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can't say I agree, here.  Most of the ways in which I see people measuring their Str is in pure competitions of Str- not combat.  Bench presses, dead lifts, Caber tosses, sled pulls and the like.
> 
> Now, all of these involve learning some skills, like how to do the task with the proper form so you don't injure yourself, but most don't have true combat application.




Using base stats has knock on effects that break the flavor to pieces.

Let's do a human-chimp, pound for pound comparison again....

Bench press: Chimp with a bullet
Dead lift: Human, with a bullet
Sled pull: Human, but I'm not sure about the degree of difference
Caber toss: pretty sure this goes to the human, because I don't think chimp physiology supports it, eventhough the relevant muscles are stronger in the chimp
Arm wrestling: the chimp has this one locked

How about two that really test the same muscles?
Leg press: Chimp as a function of body weight, but human for total weight
Squats: Human, even pound for pound, because our back and hips are better built for it

Or how about something we don't think about as humans... bite strength?
Chimp by a huge amount

These are all "raw" measures of strength, but they aren't remotely comparable to each other.

Why are we tracking all these things with the same stat?

Because it's cleaner and easier, but it is _terrible_ simulation and has always had ludicrous consequences for flavor if you actually stop to think about specific tasks.  If you were statting out a chimp and gave him +2 strength, by the book he would be better than a human at every one of those tasks, whereas in reality, a fairly educated set of guesses on my part puts the human a clear winner at better than half, and overwhelmingly better at some.  And the ones the chimp is better at would look more like a +4 strength difference.

Strength or Dexterity mods have many, many effects, most notably on combat.  You are better to say "Chimps have a racial bonus to arm wrestling and bench pressing, and a racial penalty to dead lifts and sled pulling" than "Chimps have a +2 strength."  After all, a +2 strength would also give them bonus attack and damage with a spear.... and their elbows aren't hooked together properly to use the fool thing.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 6, 2010)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Or like how in earlier editions, non-fighting classes were NOT measurably tougher even if their Constitution scores were higher than 14?



Really? *Which* "earlier editions" would those be?

- _not_ Gygax & Arneson (1974)
- _not_ Holmes (1977)
- _not_ Gygax (1978 PHB)
- _not_ Moldvay, Cook and Marsh (1981)
- _not_ Mentzer (1983)


----------



## Crothian (Apr 6, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Really? *Which* "earlier editions" would those be?
> 
> - _not_ Gygax & Arneson (1974)
> - _not_ Holmes (1977)
> ...




I think he got the number wrong.  In 1e the 16 Con was the best bonus wise for non fighters.  So a cleric with an 18 con still only gets the +2 HP per level and not the +4.  

This assumes I'm recalling these details correctly.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 6, 2010)

Crothian, you are correct about how the _hit point modifiers_ work in _one edition_.

However, it is still about as much better in AD&D to have a high constitution score of 15 than an average 10 (or weak 6) as it was in the original game.

In Supplement I, Holmes, Moldvay or Mentzer, _anyone_ with a constitution of 18 gets +3 points per hit die (in addition to better chances to "withstand adversity" such as polymorph and resurrection).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 6, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Nope, the Halfling can hit harder. It's an unintuitive result, which is why you don't see it. Basically, the halfling gets +2 to attack (+2 Dex, +1 size bonus), which translates into +4 damage via Power Attack. The Half-Orc's +2 Strength gives him at most +3 damage. I'll point you to the CharOp thread if you care about the details.




I don't see you accounting for is the smaller damage die the Halfling will be using, which usually translates into about a 1 to 1.5 point drop in damage per blow, which makes it a wash.  Assuming they're both using a 2 handed sword, the Halfling's greatsword's average base damage will be 5.5 per hit before any other adjustments.  The Half-Orc's will be 7.



> You have to include the effects of their racial feats to get the whole picture. Goliaths I know can be quite brute-like with the addition of their Great Weapon feat.




Again, you're talking about stuff beyond the PC's raw potential in the form of stats and I'm not.  Apples and Oranges.



Canis said:


> Using base stats has knock on effects that break the flavor to pieces.
> 
> Let's do a human-chimp, pound for pound comparison again....
> 
> ...




If we're comparing a 110 pound adult male chimp and a 110lb human, the chimp should win in most categories since you're talking about a human who is either 1) a child 2) a woman, or 3) an undersized adult male.

If we get into the outer limits (not averages) for chimp vs human body strength, things even out a bit.  Elite powerlifters are, pound for pound, about as powerful as chimps.

But when we start comparing ourselves to the larger primates, we don't even rate within a given weight class.  In terms of raw power, we go down every time.

The reasons are anatomical in their origins:


> Slate
> In 1943, Glen Finch of the Yale primate laboratory rigged an apparatus to test the arm strength of eight captive chimpanzees. An adult male chimp, he found, pulled about the same weight as an adult man. Once he'd corrected the measurement for their smaller body sizes, chimpanzees did turn out to be stronger than humans—but not by a factor of five or anything close to it.
> 
> Repeated tests in the 1960s confirmed this basic picture. A chimpanzee had, pound for pound, as much as twice the strength of a human when it came to pulling weights. The apes beat us in leg strength, too, despite our reliance on our legs for locomotion.
> ...




When we look at a chimp vs a human, some of those anatomical differences are immediately obvious in the form of the shape of the torso and the size of their arms as compared to their legs.

When we look at the fantasy art of D&D, the ones with the visibly powerful anatomies are the ones who are coming up underpowered in this discussion.




> Strength or Dexterity mods have many, many effects, most notably on combat.  You are better to say "Chimps have a racial bonus to arm wrestling and bench pressing, and a racial penalty to dead lifts and sled pulling" than "Chimps have a +2 strength."  After all, a +2 strength would also give them bonus attack and damage with a spear.... and their elbows aren't hooked together properly to use the fool thing.




You're right about that, and I said as much when I put forth the observation that if stats become too abstracted, you're better off just folding those modifiers into other mechanics.  Targeted racial skill adjustments would be a perfect example of this.

That said, targeted racial skill adjustments work just as well in a system that _includes_ stats.

A question, though, is inspired by this whole sideline...

I don't have any relevant MM in front of me, so I don't know if they've statted out anything like a chimp in the game.

Given that adult male chimps are about the same height as Dwarves (around 4'6"), and weigh about 110lbs, are they actually size S or size M?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 6, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I think he got the number wrong.  In 1e the 16 Con was the best bonus wise for non fighters.  So a cleric with an 18 con still only gets the +2 HP per level and not the +4.
> 
> This assumes I'm recalling these details correctly.




You're 100% right.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't see you accounting for is the smaller damage die the Halfling will be using, which usually translates into about a 1 to 1.5 point drop in damage per blow, which makes it a wash.  Assuming they're both using a 2 handed sword, the Halfling's greatsword's average base damage will be 5.5 per hit before any other adjustments.  The Half-Orc's will be 7.



 Not a sword, they're using spiked chains -- a weapon which is both Finessable, and amenable to two-handed Power Attack.

If you care, it was discussed at length in the CharOp forum back when WotC had usable forums. The discussion is still there, though it may be annoyingly hard to find, since their forums are now painful to use.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, you're talking about stuff beyond the PC's raw potential in the form of stats and I'm not.  Apples and Oranges.



 Nobody ever rolls a "raw potential" check. They do roll attacks, and they do roll Climb / Jump / Swim checks.

What I'm talking about are observable effects within the game world.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Also, I forked a thread about historical balance here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...8-game-balance-study-imperfection-forked.html


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 6, 2010)

> Not a sword, they're using spiked chains -- a weapon which is both Finessable, and amenable to two-handed Power Attack.




Well, a spiked chain for a Small sized creature does on average 3.5 points of damage before other mods, while the same weapon sized for a Medium sized creature does 5 points of damage on average- again, .5 more than that one point swing the hafling gets for finessing the weapon.

(FWIW, I've never visited WotCs CharOps boards...heck, I haven't been to WotC's site in a couple of years except to find the occasional link to a 3.5 PrCl, like the modified Kineticist in Mind's Eye...and I don't see a pressing need to change that anytime soon.)



> What I'm talking about are observable effects within the game world.




And what _I'm_ talking about is the precursors to those effects.  The starting conditions.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Apr 6, 2010)

1) If a Gnome were as tall as a 6ft. man, he would weigh 325lbs.

Conclusion: Gnomes are either very fat, or extraordinarily dense.


2) If a Goliath were as short as a 6ft. man, he would weigh 163lbs.

Conclusion: Goliaths are rather skinny, or have hollow bones.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 6, 2010)

Sepulchrave II said:


> 1) If a Gnome were as tall as a 6ft. man, he would weigh 325lbs.
> 
> Conclusion: Gnomes are either very fat, or extraordinarily dense.



I like this, because it fits with how I've always had them (and Dwarves) anyway: very dense, and somewhat burly.

Throw 'em in water and they sink.

Lan-"the Dwarven word for _boat_ is the same as the Dwarven word for _vomit_"-efan


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And what _I'm_ talking about is the precursors to those effects.  The starting conditions.



No.  You're talking about one very bad metric, strength score, which is practically meaningless.

Since you missed most of my point last time, let's try this another way.... 

Not every muscle in the body gives a hoot about the strength score.

Should the Tyrannosaurus Rex be awesome at the bench press because it has a high strength score?  How about a purple worm's leg press?

I don't have an MM of any edition in front of me, but I imagine one of those two critters above has a higher strength score than the other... but what the heck does that _mean?_

You're being very selective about when you apply verisimilitude and pseudo-physics.  These hand waves sort of work when you're comparing halflings to goliaths, but the system as a whole doesn't really hold together that well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 6, 2010)

Canis said:


> No.  You're talking about one very bad metric, strength score, which is practically meaningless.



My response in this thread has consistently been: if it is practically meaningless, get rid of it.  Period.  Fold those stat modifiers into skill, feat, power and class modifiers that vary based on race.



> Since you missed most of my point last time, let's try this another way....
> 
> Not every muscle in the body gives a hoot about the strength score.




Didn't miss your point at all.

Your earlier example of chimp bite strength is already folded into the game in other mechanics: a creature's bite damage.

Throughout the history of D&D- 4Ed included- when you're talking about Str as a stat, you're talking about skeletomuscular strength: what kind of work your main limbs and torso can do.  Lifting.  Dragging.  Pushing.   In combat, punching and kicking power.

(Sure, jaws and their muscles are part of the skeletomuscular system, but as pointed out above, they've been given their own mechanic.)



> I don't have an MM of any edition in front of me, but I imagine one of those two critters above has a higher strength score than the other... but what the heck does that _mean?_




Basically?  One is a bit more capable in melee combat and able to lift/move/carry heavier burdens.


----------



## Votan (Apr 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In 4Ed- looking at PHBs 1-3 plus FR and Eberron- there are 8 races or subraces capable of getting a +2 bonus to Str: Humans, Half-Orcs, Shifters, Genasi, Warforged, Minotaurs, Goliaths and Dragonborn.  Most have an average mass under 250lbs.  In that context, those that mass over 300lbs seem almost...wispy...in comparison to their mass.  They're not as impressively beefy as they used to be.
> 
> And other races that got the same kind of treatment suffer just as much.  Githzerai of previous editions were granted unusually large Dex bonuses.  They were agile in ways that Elves could only wistfully contemplate. This contributed to their aura and mystique.  Now, Elves are every bit as dexterous as Githzerai.  The grey-skinned monks of the Astral plane have lost some of their cache.




If you are going to design a massively multiple source book game, like 4E, and have it run without serious tweaks at a table then some common design assumptions are needed.  If Minotaurs had +8 to strength then every strength based power woould need to be re-evaluated relative to PCs being able to start with a 26 (as opposed to a 20).  

There are ways around this.  The AD&D (1E and, to some extent, 2E) solution was to make few things dependent on ability scores.  Strength was a partial exception because it scaled so high 9as was constitution for Fighters; dexterity bonuses -- in contrast -- rapidly flattened).  But with strength there were core magic items (guantlets of Ogre Power) that made an 18/00 strength (+3, +6) attainable for a high level fighter.  

Another option is to balance the system across a more diverse set of scores; that is a lot easier to do with a small number of books (ideally a single players handbook) where you can work through all of the permutations.  I suspect that is the trick for point systems like Champions.  

Or you can restrict options to a narrow set of races.  In the extreme is the "human-only" games like Mage (from White Wolf) or Ars Magica.  

Finally, you can make focus very costly.  If the race has a +8 strength and -4 dexterity that could just about even out if the system sets bonuses and penalties appropriately (slow but strong could be evenly matched by fast but weak).  

The 4E solution simply assumes that races will ahve either a +0 or +2 in any relevant ability score.  So you baalnce across these two possibilities.  This means that only the racial powers are an avenue to allow power creep and they are much easier to evaluate by comparision (it this nice new ability stronger or weaker than Fey Step?).  

It's true that you lose some flavor with these decisions.  But a lesson of games that have tried to allow radically different racial power levels is that balance is very hard to maintain without active DM involvement.  For a very experienced DM, this may not be an issue.  But for a mass market system (intended for many, many books) I tend to agree that this is a feature and not a bug.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 6, 2010)

Here's my problem, Dannyalcatraz.

You keep talking as if "lifting, dragging, and pushing" as well as all the other "strength based" skills are actually tightly related.

They are not, not even within one individual, much less across species.  And they have a tangential relationship to combat effectiveness at best.

You're saying that a desire to balance one aspect of the strength score resulted in bad flavor effects.

I'm saying that those flavor effects were _always_ an unmitigated disaster.  That being the case... at least races are balanced now, and the flavor effects are no more or less silly than they have ever been.

As someone mentioned... apparently small races are made out of lead.  I assume that's due to the designers licking too many old miniatures.  You're pretending this stuff used to make sense, and that stopped.  In truth, it never held up to any scrutiny whatsoever.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 6, 2010)

Or...

...they could have let Goliaths keep Powerful Build as part of their racial makeup- only they and Half-Giants in the previous incarnation had this ability- and it could have been kept rare in 4Ed (instead of it simply being excised).  This would have reflected beings who were very strong, but not much stronger than Dragonborn or Half Orcs (more lean, slow-twitch muscle as opposed to bulky, fast-twitch muscle), but who, by dint of sheer size had sufficient leverage to wield weapons the next size up.

...Minotaurs could have had racial utility or encounter powers that reflected great strength that was only occasionally available (instead of the Gore ability which could have been a racial feat).

...one or more of these races could have received +4 Str and nothing else for stat mods, similar to how humans got a +2 to any one stat.

IOW, there were ways within 4Ed's regime to keep these races balanced without weakening them, both mechanically and in terms of flavor/history.


----------



## Votan (Apr 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or...
> 
> ...they could have let Goliaths keep Powerful Build as part of their racial makeup- only they and Half-Giants in the previous incarnation had this ability- and it could have been kept rare in 4Ed (instead of it simply being excised).  This would have reflected beings who were very strong, but not much stronger than Dragonborn or Half Orcs (more lean, slow-twitch muscle as opposed to bulky, fast-twitch muscle), but who, by dint of sheer size had sufficient leverage to wield weapons the next size up.
> 
> ...




I agree that reflecting the strength of these races through (baalnced) feats and powers would work well.  I'm less sure of the +4 approach; only because of how useful stat boosts can be for some powers.  But that might work also with active DM monitoring or a tolerant group.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 6, 2010)

Canis said:


> Here's my problem, Dannyalcatraz.
> 
> You keep talking as if "lifting, dragging, and pushing" as well as all the other "strength based" skills are actually tightly related.
> 
> They are not, not even within one individual, much less across species.  And they have a tangential relationship to combat effectiveness at best.




There is a rough correlation between someone's skeletomuscular mass and how much they can lift.  Its not linear, but its common enough that you can make reasonable predictions.  One need only look at powerlifting stats by weight class to see the relation.

But its not perfect.  In HS, I could do a single time leg-press almost 600lbs and couldn't bench over 180, but over time, I got my bench up to 300lbs.  By that time, though, I could do multiple sets of leg-press reps at 700lbs fairly easily.  So I know lifting is affected by build- my legs have always been inordinately stronger than my arms.  I somewhat resemble a fire-plug.

However, I didn't say word one about the relationship to combat effectiveness- others bring that up as_ a consequence_ of having greater strength.

My core complaint in this area- for both Str_ and Dex_- is that to which several respondents to the OP alluded to.  To whit, the sacrifice of flavor and evocative or iconic features in favor of balance.



> You're saying that a desire to balance one aspect of the strength score resulted in bad flavor effects.
> 
> I'm saying that those flavor effects were _always_ an unmitigated disaster.  That being the case... at least races are balanced now, and the flavor effects are no more or less silly than they have ever been.




You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

My opinion obviously differs greatly from yours.  Those flavor effects you call a disaster were, to me, charming...and largely didn't matter at all until they became PC races.

Now, I see 4Ed Minotaurs as "minitaurs" (thanks, whomever suggested that months ago), Goliaths as diminished from former flavor, Dragonborn as inexplicably equal in strength to creatures 2/3rds their mass and Githzerai as far clumsier than their predecessors in previous editions.  And so forth.

They've lost some of their "magic" in becoming balanced in the same fashion as other 4Ed races, and the tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way.

Several posters in this thread (besides myself) have come up with alternatives to the method the designers used, most of which seem to bring the fluff, game history & mechanics of each of these formerly outlying races into greater harmony than the actual 4Ed method...and would seem to be, at least at first blush, to be no less balanced than 4Ed's actual methodology.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 7, 2010)

Actually, they DID try alternate methods...

Before the PHB3, the MM minotuar (and bugbear) had the "Powerful Build" writeup.

The problem was that at 1st level, it isn't THAT big a difference but ironically, the higher the level you go up and the more powerful the effects become for the melee classes, the more the powerful build aspect started to overwhelm the other classes.

It is quite easy to design a monster/encounter that is scaled for such a creature but the problem of course was that any such creature designed to be a fair challenge for a minotaur/bugbear was liable to be a very hard challenge for a normal race to say nothing for the small races.

Indeed...I'm glad that WOTC went for balance as players aren't punished severely for wanting to play a race in a melee class that isn't a bugbear or minotaur.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Actually, they DID try alternate methods...
> 
> Before the PHB3, the MM minotuar (and bugbear) had the "Powerful Build" writeup.



Just looked at the MM Minotaur and didn't see such language.

I'm not saying it isn't there, just that *I* didn't see it- could you point it out for me, please?


----------



## FireLance (Apr 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just looked at the MM Minotaur and didn't see such language.
> 
> I'm not saying it isn't there, just that *I* didn't see it- could you point it out for me, please?



It's in the section for making NPCs near the back of the MM. It might not show up in DDI, so you will probably need a physical copy of the book. The DDI bugbear race might still have it, though, since it has not yet been given the PC race makeover.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

Thanks!

(I don't have DDI, just the books, BTW.)



> The problem was that at 1st level, it isn't THAT big a difference but ironically, the higher the level you go up and the more powerful the effects become for the melee classes, the more the powerful build aspect started to overwhelm the other classes.




I find this interesting since its completely at odds with my experience with the 3.X version of the ability.  The base damage of big weapons just kind of melts away into the noise of other modifiers.

What is it about 4Ed that makes Powerful Build so disruptive?  (Especially within the context of all of those complaints about 4Ed "grind" that have been floating around?)


----------



## Nifft (Apr 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I find this interesting since its completely at odds with my experience with the 3.X version of the ability.  The base damage of big weapons just kind of melts away into the noise of other modifiers.
> 
> What is it about 4Ed that makes Powerful Build so disruptive?  (Especially within the context of all of those complaints about 4Ed "grind" that have been floating around?)



 [w] multiplication.

4e is very much unlike 3e in this regard. In 3e, your weapon's base damage was often irrelevant compared to bonus damage. In 4e, a weapon's base damage matters more at higher level.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

That was my guess...but is that _really_ a problem in a game that has generated so many "grind" complaint threads?

(Besides, they could always make a 4Ed Monkey Grip feat...)


----------



## Nifft (Apr 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> but is that _really_ a problem in a game that has generated so many "grind" complaint threads?



 IMHO "grind" is irrelevant. The issues that caused grind were somewhat addressed by MM2, and not every group faced "grind" in the first place. It was a widespread complaint, but not even close to a universal one.

Increasing *im*balance isn't the way to help groups who faced grind -- unless you're going to require that someone in every group play one of those imbalanced races!



Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Besides, they could always make a 4Ed Monkey Grip feat...)



 Nah, crappy "trap" feats like Toughness and Monkey Grip are no longer part of D&D's design strategy.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

If you're redrafting things, "trap feats" don't have to be traps.  Monkey Grip could simply have been the Feat version of the Powerful Build racial ability- ditch the bathwater but keep the baby, baby.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you're redrafting things, "trap feats" don't have to be traps.  Monkey Grip could simply have been the Feat version of the Powerful Build racial ability- ditch the bathwater but keep the baby, baby.



 So your solution to Powerful Build being unbalanced is to introduce a *feat tax* on everyone else?

Can't say I like this idea. Feats should be nice, not required.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

Nifft said:


> So your solution to Powerful Build being unbalanced is to introduce a *feat tax* on everyone else?




Actually, I was putting aside the issue of whether or not Powerful Build was balanced.

In short, my solution to having something available to only one race that others want to use- balanced or not- is to make it available to everyone in some way.

For instance, if Minotaur's Gore racial ability were popular, I'd have no problem with WotC (or a HR) making a Feat that made it available to every PC who had horns...or even a specially designed horned helmet (though THAT might get you some combat penalties).  Minotaurs can Gore naturally, but others could learn how to fight that way.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 7, 2010)

Votan said:


> If you are going to design a massively multiple source book game, like 4E, and have it run without serious tweaks at a table then some common design assumptions are needed.  If Minotaurs had +8 to strength then every strength based power woould need to be re-evaluated relative to PCs being able to start with a 26 (as opposed to a 20).



By the time you get to this point, it's already too late to save the design.

The primary mistake, after which things become unrecoverable, is to allow Minotaurs and other such monsters as PC races at all; because once this happens either believability or balance goes out the window.  4e sacrificed believability.  3e sacrificed balance.  Either way it's a train wreck.



> Or you can restrict options to a narrow set of races.



Bingo. 

Lan-"I am not a Minotaur"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> By the time you get to this point, it's already too late to save the design.
> 
> The primary mistake, after which things become unrecoverable, is to allow Minotaurs and other such monsters as PC races at all; because once this happens either believability or balance goes out the window.  4e sacrificed believability.  3e sacrificed balance.  Either way it's a train wreck.




I'll just state at this point that, IMHO, Monte Cook's AU/AE RPG modified Savage Species' approach solved the monster race issue pretty handily.  Adding those racial benefits over time is pretty balanced...and has worked pretty well for me when I built racial character classes for my homebrewed campaigns.

It does involve a bit of work, though.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> [w] multiplication.
> 
> 4e is very much unlike 3e in this regard. In 3e, your weapon's base damage was often irrelevant compared to bonus damage. In 4e, a weapon's base damage matters more at higher level.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




If 4e had gone the route of fixed damage a la ToB (so that you at higher levels had say 5d6 plus wpn dmg), it wouldn't be THAT big of issue (although even then, the big brute races would still be better choices).

Of course, that means that basically wpn choice become irrelevant and that's something I'm not really a fan of.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I was putting aside the issue of whether or not Powerful Build was balanced.
> 
> In short, my solution to having something available to only one race that others want to use- balanced or not- is to make it available to everyone in some way.
> 
> For instance, if Minotaur's Gore racial ability were popular, I'd have no problem with WotC (or a HR) making a Feat that made it available to every PC who had horns...or even a specially designed horned helmet (though THAT might get you some combat penalties).  Minotaurs can Gore naturally, but others could learn how to fight that way.



 So, you'd allow PCs to cherry-pick the best racial powers and traits? IMHO that's a terrible idea.



AllisterH said:


> (...) Of course, that means that basically wpn choice become irrelevant and that's something I'm not really a fan of.



 Yeah. It's a trade-off. I'm actually pretty happy with weapon choice still mattering at 30th level.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> So, you'd allow PCs to cherry-pick the best racial powers and traits? IMHO that's a terrible idea.




It works just fine in M&M, HERO, GURPS and other point based systems.

Besides, you'd still have to meet the Feat's prereqs- Gore, for instance, would require some kind of horns on the head...or at least on the body.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It works just fine in M&M, HERO, GURPS and other point based systems.



I'm less familiar with GURPS but I'd say lack of balance is the biggest flaw of M&M and HERO. It's a direct consequence of the freedom of point buy systems. More options = more divergence between the most optimised and least optimised character.

One would think that it would be possible to create a properly balanced point buy system where 1 point always gets you an equal amount of utility. But seemingly that's not the case. No one's even come close.


----------



## Glyfair (Apr 8, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> One would think that it would be possible to create a properly balanced point buy system where 1 point always gets you an equal amount of utility. But seemingly that's not the case. No one's even come close.



You'd need to complete eliminate any synergy between abilities or else have a super complex system that changed the point value of an ability based on a lot of subtle things.  For example, buying an ability with a ranged power is much more "powerful" for a character who focused on range than one who focused on melee.

Pretty much a completely balanced system is a pipe-dream.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2010)

Glyfair said:


> You'd need to complete eliminate any synergy between abilities or else have a super complex system that changed the point value of an ability based on a lot of subtle things.  For example, buying an ability with a ranged power is much more "powerful" for a character who focused on range than one who focused on melee.
> 
> Pretty much a completely balanced system is a pipe-dream.




It would be interesting to see if you could build a TTRPG with this sort of point buy system - one that accounts for other choices - using some sort of spread sheet type computer program.  

It would be insanely complex to do in a pure pnp game, but, you'd think that a bit of synergy with a computer could do the trick.

I do agree with your second point completely though.  You cannot ever have a completely balanced system.  Nor, honestly, would you really want to in a game which allows so much player freedom.  There's just no way to do it without ramming huge walls around player choices inside the game world.

But, you can still attempt to approach it though.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 8, 2010)

I personally think there is merit to both the 4e (highly balanced approach) and the 3e (power disparity approach). I also think the key to running any 3e game is the GM. Once builds and splat books became the norm, it took me about a month as a GM to figure out how to reign in the excesses. I noticed was players basically fell into two camps--those who really liked the options and the disparity of power in 3e (which to them was really just about making their choices have an impact on the game in most cases), and those who couldn't stand that about 3e. I could be wrong, but it looks like the later are basically the ones who play 4e now and the former are the ones who continue to play d20 or pathfinder. 

Honestly I think this is good for the hobby. Toward the end of 3e, everything was d20. There wasn't anything new or fresh (or at least, it didn't seem like there was a whole lot of non-d20 stuff coming out). But now it feels like there is new spark in gaming. In  a way, I am glad everyone (at least i the groups I play with in my area), didn't make the 4e shift (a lot of them did, though). Now my options are open. If I want to play 4e, I know of about 4 groups in my area that are playing. If I want to play d20, I know of a bunch of groups for that as well. But I also noticed that there are more alternatives out there as well. There are groups playing games like Savage Worlds.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> The primary mistake, after which things become unrecoverable, is to allow Minotaurs and other such monsters as PC races at all; because once this happens either believability or balance goes out the window.  4e sacrificed believability.  3e sacrificed balance.  Either way it's a train wreck.





A point here, if I may:

When discussing AP design, a thing that often comes up is giving players an "illusion of choice".  I.e., the clever GM, although directing events, makes the players believe that what occurs is the result of their choices.  In reality, regardless of their choices, the outcome is the same.

I bring this up because it feels as though we are discussing the same idea, applied to game design.  The player is allowed an "illusion of choice" -- You get to play a minotaur! -- but because the design doesn't actually reflect the strengths and weaknesses a player would expect "playing a minotaur" to embody, regardless of this "choice", the outcome is the same.

I know that the outcome is not _*exactly*_ the same, but it is the same within broad strokes, as is the outcome in the AP.  

I know this analogy is far from perfect, but that is what it feels like......I would be interested in what others think, and I would like to hear that I am dead wrong.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> A point here, if I may:
> 
> When discussing AP design, a thing that often comes up is giving players an "illusion of choice".  I.e., the clever GM, although directing events, makes the players believe that what occurs is the result of their choices.  In reality, regardless of their choices, the outcome is the same.




What, like real life? 

On a similar note, it is worth reflecting that having more choices actually does NOT make people happier.  Usually quite the opposite.  Look at any TED talk by Barry Schwartz or Dan Gilbert for some illustrations.  But the short version is that people who no choices or a very narrow selection of choices almost always end up happier with their outcome than people who have a huge variety of options.  For example, people decorating a room from a very short, limited catalog of options versus people with a giant, comprehensive catalog.  The first group often doesn't see "exactly what they want" but somehow if you go back to them a few days, weeks, or months later, they are always happier with the final room than the people who had a giant, comprehensive list of options.

Infinite options does not improve quality of life.  And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It works just fine in M&M, HERO, GURPS and other point based systems.
> 
> Besides, you'd still have to meet the Feat's prereqs- Gore, for instance, would require some kind of horns on the head...or at least on the body.



 Great. But I don't want a lame Minotaur Gore attack. I want Elven Accuracy, I want an extra At-Will power, I want to use my Second Wind as a Minor action, and I want an At-Will from another class.

That's four feats, right?



Hussar said:


> I do agree with your second point completely though.  You cannot ever have a completely balanced system.  Nor, honestly, would you really want to in a game which allows so much player freedom.  There's just no way to do it without ramming huge walls around player choices inside the game world.
> 
> But, you can still attempt to approach it though.



 Even if no one game can allow freedom of choice in all dimensions, IMHO we should still think about it, because different games can be built around different axes*.



Bedrockgames said:


> I personally think there is merit to both the 4e (highly balanced approach) and the 3e (power disparity approach). I also think the key to running any 3e game is the GM. Once builds and splat books became the norm, it took me about a month as a GM to figure out how to reign in the excesses.



 It seemed to me that balance was a design goal of 3e, but it was secondary. The primary design goal of 3e was simply *systematization*. Before 3e, things were so fragmented, and house rules were so common, that it was hard to say you were playing the same game as anyone else. 3e tried to change that -- and succeeded overwhelmingly, to the point that people changed their entire mindset about the game.



Raven Crowking said:


> I bring this up because it feels as though we are discussing the same idea, applied to game design.  The player is allowed an "illusion of choice" -- You get to play a minotaur! -- but because the design doesn't actually reflect the strengths and weaknesses a player would expect "playing a minotaur" to embody, regardless of this "choice", the outcome is the same.
> 
> I know that the outcome is not _*exactly*_ the same, but it is the same within broad strokes, as is the outcome in the AP.



 I could buy that. It already takes some willing suspension of disbelief to play a non-human race, so why not err on the side of balanced mechanics?



Canis said:


> Infinite options does not improve quality of life.  And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.



 Interesting. I'll bet this could be usefully applied to dungeon design.

Cheers, -- N

*) For all you Dwarves in the audience, "axes" here is the plural of "axis".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I could buy that. It already takes some willing suspension of disbelief to play a non-human race, so why not err on the side of balanced mechanics?




As with Canis's "infinite options", I am somewhere in the middle.  I want real options; I do not want an infinity of them.  I would rather, for example, have a smaller set of races that provide actual divergence in terms of playstyle strength than a larger set of races that are functionally the same.


RC


----------



## Nifft (Apr 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As with Canis's "infinite options", I am somewhere in the middle.  I want real options; I do not want an infinity of them.  I would rather, for example, have a smaller set of races that provide actual divergence in terms of playstyle strength than a larger set of races that are functionally the same.



 Largely agree. The one area where we might diverge is that, once those (few) real options are in place, I'm fine just reskinning them and having several non-real options also exist. For example, if my game world has Goliaths and some player wants to play a Minotaur, I'd be cool with just reskinning the Goliath. His race is mechanically distinct from all normal, non-beefy races -- but functionally rather similar to all other beefy races, no matter what kind of flavor he used on the beef.

"_... and now I'm hungry_", -- N


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As with Canis's "infinite options", I am somewhere in the middle.  I want real options; I do not want an infinity of them.  I would rather, for example, have a smaller set of races that provide actual divergence in terms of playstyle strength than a larger set of races that are functionally the same.



That's valid. But is a minotaur with a Strength bonus of only +2 instead of some higher number functionally the same as other races?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> It seemed to me that balance was a design goal of 3e, but it was secondary. The primary design goal of 3e was simply *systematization*. Before 3e, things were so fragmented, and house rules were so common, that it was hard to say you were playing the same game as anyone else. 3e tried to change that -- and succeeded overwhelmingly, to the point that people changed their entire mindset about the game.
> 
> .




I agree that balance was a goal. And I am actually more in the 3e than 4e camp. But I think 3e and 4e have very different definitions of game balance and are really going after different audiences.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2010)

IMO this thread is devolving into the equivalent of a debate between baseball fans and football fans on whether it is better for the offense or the defense to handle the ball.

The starting presumptions between the two sides are so different that the debate becomes surreal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Largely agree. The one area where we might diverge is that, once those (few) real options are in place, I'm fine just reskinning them and having several non-real options also exist.




And that's both cool and understandable.



Fifth Element said:


> That's valid. But is a minotaur with a Strength bonus of only +2 instead of some higher number functionally the same as other races?




That probably depends upon one's metric for "functionally the same", which, IMHO, is pretty much open to opinion & preference.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> IMO this thread is devolving into the equivalent of a debate between baseball fans and football fans on whether it is better for the offense or the defense to handle the ball.
> 
> The starting presumptions between the two sides are so different that the debate becomes surreal.




Very true!  


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Interesting. I'll bet this could be usefully applied to dungeon design.



Almost certainly.  I think it's much more directly applicable to character creation, of course.  Now that I have a few minutes.....

When you can choose from 10,000 different starting combinations of class/race, you _should_ be able to find the "right one for you."  When presented with this wide set of choices, most people profess to be happy about having options.  But as you move forward, whenever something rubs you slightly wrong about how it's playing out, the average human being comes to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the choices they made.  "There were thousands of possibilities!  One of them had to be right."  This leads to unhappiness with the state of affairs, and unhappiness with the choice you made.  Frequently, this anger is redirected at someone proximate.  Your DM tricked you into it, WotC didn't make the class right, WotC made it look better than it actually played, etc.  Over time, there's simply cognitive dissonance generated by the fact that you had "perfect" choice, but at the end of the day, nothing is ever perfect.  The expectation of perfect choice cannot be fulfilled.

But when you have only 12 possible combinations... you select one and are more likely to "roll with the punches" when things rub you a little wrong early on.  Over time, "making the best of it" leads naturally into actually _being_ happy with it.  You went in with no illusion of perfection to be punctured, and are more likely to focus on the positive.

There are many experimental designs that shape up that way.  A couple books and several TED talks have examples.

Of course, there's always the small percentage of the population who operate in precisely the opposite way.  These people are vanishingly rare.



> *) For all you Dwarves in the audience, "axes" here is the plural of "axis".



And here I thought the discussion was finally getting interesting.  Sub-games for each of my axes would be fulfilling.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Great. But I don't want a lame Minotaur Gore attack. I want Elven Accuracy, I want an extra At-Will power, I want to use my Second Wind as a Minor action, and I want an At-Will from another class.
> 
> That's four feats, right?




Sounds like it- each one with its own prereqs.

And before you say "feat tax" again, I don't have a problem with that- its no different than a PC wanting to play a Wizard who is proficient in all weapons.

If you want to play something extremely unusual, its going to cost you in almost any system.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 8, 2010)

Canis said:


> Of course, there's always the small percentage of the population who operate in precisely the opposite way.  These people are vanishingly rare.



 I am not 100% clear on what "opposite way" means here.

They don't gain unrealistic expectations from a wide array of choices?
Or they don't gun for a perfect choice in the first place?
Or ... ?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

Canis,

I understand your reasoning, but fail to see how it is applicable here.

RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I am not 100% clear on what "opposite way" means here.
> 
> They don't gain unrealistic expectations from a wide array of choices?
> Or they don't gun for a perfect choice in the first place?
> ...



They prefer choice to all else.  They get so upset by lack of choices at the outset that they take their toys and go home (or stay pissy in perpetuity).

My unconfirmed suspicion is that if we look at their inherent affect towards their choice, it would actually look just like everyone else, but they are making a very conscious choice to make a point.  It could also be an artifact of the experimental design.

Famous example:
Students were given an opportunity to take several pictures of campus for a study (at least in the initial run, they were all seniors, as to leverage nostalgia).  They were then told they could keep *one*.  Group A got to choose which one.  Group B had their choice made for them by the researcher.

Group A was happier with their picture they day they picked it.  But when the researchers check back a week later, Group B was much happier with their picture than Group A.  There is a very small subset of people who grudgingly admit they like the picture chosen for them, but continue to whine and moan about lack of choice.... probably because they know that some other people got to choose.

Expertise of the person doing the choosing is sometimes a factor, but not always.



Raven Crowking said:


> Canis,
> 
> I understand your reasoning, but fail to see how it is applicable here.
> 
> RC




Game A gives you Minotaurs, Goliaths, Half-giants, Half-orcs, Gorilla-men, and Klingons to choose from, all being stronger than "average" but with slightly different modifiers.

Game B gives you "Strong guys."

At the time of character creation, Game A players who want a strong race are happier.  But check back in session 2, or session 5, or session 10 and ask them how happy they are with their character.

I will bet you good money that even within the group of gamers (who hilariously and reliably claim a degree of iconoclasty that is over 9000) that Game B's "Strong guy" players are will rate their character higher on whatever scales you're using.

For a more specific and direct application to this thread....  By focusing on character creation, the "problem" of lack of +4 strength modifiers for Minotaurs seems inflated, relative to it's actual importance over time in game.  When you get to the game in-play over time, this will take a back seat.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

So, "Your choices are fighting man, magic user, cleric, or rogue" is superior to the number of class options of later editions, and the "cantina effect" inherently causes dissatisfaction?


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> It seemed to me that balance was a design goal of 3e, but it was secondary. The primary design goal of 3e was simply *systematization*.



Yeah, I agree with you, though I think I'd call it unification or consistency. 3e gave D&D what RuneQuest had had since the late 70s - a unified system. In fact, by the mid-80s onwards, virtually all rpgs had unified systems. HERO, GURPS, anything by Chaosium, WEG Star Wars, White Wolf. The only exceptions were D&D-style throwbacks like Palladium/Rifts, that were still stuck in the 1970s. It was Hong, I believe, who talked about the HERO-isation of D&D with regard to 3e. He was right.

However 3e isn't quite as unified as it could be. I always felt the spell system looked a bit weird, by virtue of being mostly a copy and paste from previous editions. Lots of spells have their own little sub-systems, like _Entangle_ traps its victims in a different way than _Web_ does, for, imo, no good reason.


----------



## Votan (Apr 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll just state at this point that, IMHO, Monte Cook's AU/AE RPG modified Savage Species' approach solved the monster race issue pretty handily.  Adding those racial benefits over time is pretty balanced...and has worked pretty well for me when I built racial character classes for my homebrewed campaigns.
> 
> It does involve a bit of work, though.




Agreed.  It's not really portable into a 4E framework which is much more highly templated but it is (at least theoretically) a way to mix powerful and less powerful race in a d20/3.X context while retaining balance.  You still have the issue that the level 1 minotaur is awful weak relative to the level 1 human but at mid-levels this issue will be resolved.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, "Your choices are fighting man, magic user, cleric, or rogue" is superior to the number of class options of later editions, and the "cantina effect" inherently causes dissatisfaction?



There are degrees involved.

If the only choices were human magic-user and human fighting man, I daresay most people would find that far too limiting to be enjoyable. They spend more time "rolling with it" than they do actually enjoying their character.

On the other hand, having 23 races and 47 classes to choose from the start can and does lead to the situation described. Add 987 feats and it gets worse and worse.

There's a comfortable spot in the middle, that's slightly different for everyone.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> There are degrees involved.
> 
> If the only choices were human magic-user and human fighting man, I daresay most people would find that far too limiting to be enjoyable. They spend more time "rolling with it" than they do actually enjoying their character.
> 
> ...




Ah.

Well, here we agree.

At the dawn of 3.0, I thought feats were a great idea.  Now I do not.  And I am no fan of monster PCs.  Except flumphs.  If you want to play a monster PC, I always say Yes to flumphs.


RC


----------



## Nifft (Apr 8, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, I agree with you, though I think I'd call it unification or consistency. 3e gave D&D what RuneQuest had had since the late 70s - a unified system. In fact, by the mid-80s onwards, virtually all rpgs had unified systems. HERO, GURPS, anything by Chaosium, WEG Star Wars, White Wolf. The only exceptions were D&D-style throwbacks like Palladium/Rifts, that were still stuck in the 1970s. It was Hong, I believe, who talked about the HERO-isation of D&D with regard to 3e. He was right.
> 
> However 3e isn't quite as unified as it could be. I always felt the spell system looked a bit weird, by virtue of being mostly a copy and paste from previous editions. Lots of spells have their own little sub-systems, like _Entangle_ traps its victims in a different way than _Web_ does, for, imo, no good reason.



 IMHO 3.0e was trying its hardest to change as little as possible, while fitting (nearly) everything into a single mechanical framework.

3.5e is where they said, "Okay, that kinda worked, now let's make it work right."

"_A fan of HEROoization_", -- N


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, "Your choices are fighting man, magic user, cleric, or rogue" is superior to the number of class options of later editions, and the "cantina effect" inherently causes dissatisfaction?




Fifth Element nailed it.  I was schematizing a bit excessively.  And there are differences depending on the nature of the choice to be made.  In most cases, a small, manageable number of options leads to better outcomes than having everything under the sun available.  Occasionally, having the choice made for you actually leads to the best outcomes.

I humbly suggest that randomization (and its small group of vocal adherents) are an outgrowth of the latter within gaming circles.

EDIT:
Overall, there has been a tendency to increase the number of available choices across all decision points as time has gone by.  The first trick is to figure out which choices add to overall player happiness and which do not.  The second is to hit on how many options continue to be a value add, and at which point there are too many options.  The third is to figure out how to make money once you've hit that limit and adding more classes, races, feats, powers, etc is just decreasing overall player enjoyment.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2010)

It was similar thinking that led to me removing feats from RCFG......I decided that they were actually a trap, making the game less fun overall, rather than more fun.  And I haven't missed them!

(Obviously, some people's mileage may vary.)


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 9, 2010)

"HERO-ization"? Yes, when I encountered 3e it seemed to me designed for people who would (or perhaps should) have been playing Champions instead of AD&D in the 1980s-90s. In the early 2000s, though, WotC's D&D won them over. I think the Hero System is more flexible, more robust, and easier to balance. Complex character builds and long combats: Hero Games since 1981!


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm not going to bother to read 303 posts, but I will answer the OP.

I don't think there is a bias against game balance per se. It's a simple matter of not wasting time in an ultimately futile attempt. If you want your game to be balanced, throw out dice, make everyone play the same class with the same stats, same equipment, and same abilities.

Monopoly is a balanced game. The only variables are luck and player skill. RPGs are built upon a different concept, that each of the players get to play by a different set of rules. Imagine playing Monopoly where one player was allowed to steal from the bank, another was able to land on any square desired instead of rolling dice, and another could send other players to jail each turn. Now imagine trying to balance these abilities against each other without removing them completely.

It is impossible to balance RPGs. No matter what approach you take, you can never make all players equal without removing the essence of the game. The true balancing factor in RPGs is the Game Master, although even the Game Master cannot establish true equality. It is simply his/her job to make sure that everyone is having fun, contributing, and enjoying themselves. Game designers should spend less time trying to create "balanced" games and more time creating fun and interesting ways for players to play the game.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 9, 2010)

airwalkrr said:


> Monopoly is a balanced game. The only variables are luck and player skill. RPGs are built upon a different concept, that each of the players get to play by a different set of rules. Imagine playing Monopoly where one player was allowed to steal from the bank, another was able to land on any square desired instead of rolling dice, and another could send other players to jail each turn.



I'd play that version in a heartbeat.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 9, 2010)

Your ability to contribute is through your game token... not feeling able to contribute because your game token either quickly becomes useless or starts out massively useless... is the exact reason that balanced is great.  And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

airwalkrr said:


> I don't think there is a bias against game balance per se. It's a simple matter of not wasting time in an ultimately futile attempt. If you want your game to be balanced, throw out dice, make everyone play the same class with the same stats, same equipment, and same abilities.



 Literal equality is not the only form of balance, but it may well be the most boring.



airwalkrr said:


> Now imagine trying to balance these abilities against each other without removing them completely.



 Perhaps it could be done. If so, it would be a more complex game than the death-spiral grind-fest that is Monopoly.



airwalkrr said:


> Game designers should spend less time trying to create "balanced" games and more time creating fun and interesting ways for players to play the game.



 "Balanced" games are more fun and interesting to play than games where one of the choices is "win", and all the other choices are "suck".

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> "Balanced" games are more fun and interesting to play than games where one of the choices is "win", and all the other choices are "suck".



On a right-here-and-now basis you're quite right; but what about the long term?  You're forgetting the time factor.

The choice you make might show "win" now, but in 6 levels you could be on the short end.

If there's a clear choice between "win now, lose later" or "lose now, win later", or "kinda be in the middle all the way along", that's not imbalanced overall...and in fact might give the players serious pause for thought.  It's certainly far better than forcing everyone into the "kinda be in the middle all the way along" bracket whether they like it or not.

Lan-"I'll just suck, and then rise from the ashes and rule them all"-efan


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Your ability to contribute is through your game token... not feeling able to contribute because your game token either quickly becomes useless or starts out massively useless... is the exact reason that balanced is great.  And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.




"GM fix it" can be a great boon to roleplaying games.  It allows someone to make creative contributions to the game.

Now, if your best choice while playing the game is "Let the other guy do it", you don't really have any choices to make.  So, once again, it comes down to optimal choices.

If all the players have meaningful choices to make, the game is balanced.  And yes, that could mean a game of RIFTS where one guy plays a Glitter Boy and another a City Rat.


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 9, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> If all the players have meaningful choices to make, the game is balanced.  And yes, that could mean a game of RIFTS where one guy plays a Glitter Boy and another a City Rat.




While such a thing is possible, it's far from easy, or likely to find. In most cases I think it is the GM's responsibility to step in and say either:

"You may not have fun playing a City Rat in my campaign. It's going to be mostly combat."

-or-

"You may not have fun playing a Glitter Boy in my campaign. It's going to be mostly stealth and intrigue with little chance for combat."

GM responsibility goes beyond just showing up to recite read-aloud text from an adventure. He should assist in the character creation process to ensure everyone creates a character that can contribute.

For example, when I began my Ravenloft campaign and one of my players wanted to play a ranger, I explained which favored enemy choices would be appropriate for a Ravenloft campaign. Sure, I could have let the player (who knew nothing about the setting) choose blindly, but I had a greater responsibility than that. It's the same reason you don't let the new player choose a fighter when they have a 10 Strength (or you let them swap Strength with one of their higher stats). Now if a player WANTS to play an underpowered character because they enjoy it, that's one thing. But it is every GM's job to make sure every character has a chance to contribute, and that starts with character generation. That way, situations like the one Garthanos brought up don't happen.


----------



## innerdude (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> "Balanced" games are more fun and interesting to play than games where one of the choices is "win", and all the other choices are "suck".
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I wrote a lengthy post on this a couple of weeks ago about a problem with the underlying assumption of this statement--because when people talk about balance in this context, 99.9 percent of the time they're talking about "balance in combat." 

The problem assuming that "balance = combat balance" is that it naturally assumes that every single player at the table can only be happy if their character is just as combat balanced as every other player--when this is not the case. 

People who enjoy the role-playing aspect of RPGs often don't give a rat's butt about combat balance--they just want to play an interesting _character_, and explore that character's motivations, world-view, and experience the milieu of the game world through that character's eyes. Sure, if the system is "combat balanced," that's an added bonus, but for some role-players, an over-emphasis on combat balance in the rules can actually take away from their enjoyment of playing the game, because the _combat system itself_ dictates some of the requirements their character must meet. And if the dictates of the combat system force the player to create a character in a way they really don't envision, then that player is actually having a "sub-optimal" experience--regardless of how amazingly balanced the combat system is.

Someone else in that same thread also rightly pointed out that in this case, sometimes "combat balance," in terms of rules or character concept, is less important than the assumed social contract between the GM and players, and player-to-player. Some groups are okay with having a "sub-optimal" combat character, because they want to encourage the player to have "uber-optimal" fun with their character concept. To some groups, a "sub-optimal" combat character is anathema, a betrayal of the group. To a group that's heavily into the combat portion of a game, playing a character that isn't helping them "win the combats" is hindering their fun.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 9, 2010)

Speaking from experience, in the last Burning Wheel game I played it was an important fact that my PC was _not_ up to par with the other PCs in combat (or pretty much anything else, for that matter).

This was demonstrated to good effect when one of the other PCs killed my PC.  Good times!  It was the climax of the game and had a lot of meaning.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Literal equality is not the only form of balance





I don't believe that statement to be true, at least not as it pertains to rpgs.

The "other forms of balance" are, IMHO, rather "forms of imbalance that person X finds acceptable".


RC


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> On a right-here-and-now basis you're quite right; but what about the long term?  You're forgetting the time factor.
> 
> The choice you make might show "win" now, but in 6 levels you could be on the short end.
> 
> ...




But that's not really balance.  That's just multiple points of imbalance.

You suck for six months and then I suck for six months means that someone is sucking ALL THE TIME.

At no point in time, should the mechanics of a game sideline any character through absolutely no fault of his own.  Forcing a player to ride the pines because of a choice he made six months ago  is very poor game design.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 9, 2010)

There have been examples in this thread of contributing non-combatants.  All it takes is a willingness to take the descriptions of things as less than literal.

Powers in 4e, for example, are about effects and narrative control.  Where the effect comes from is up to the people at the table.

For example, you could reflavor your Fighter such that he's a complete incompetent with incredible luck.  "Come and Get It" is him nearly falling on his arse so spectacularly that all the enemies rush in for a quick kill.  Most of his damage could be attributed in flavor to the other characters in the party protecting him or taking advantage of the opportunities he creates by careening around the battlefield.  That 6W+whatever wasn't done by the Fighter, it was done by his archery Ranger buddy when the Fighter's wild swing caused the enemy to rear back and expose a weak spot.  Just be creative with description.  

A little creativity nets you whatever character you want without forcing the DM to rebalance all the encounters around having a wet noodle in the party.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 9, 2010)

airwalkrr said:


> For example, when I began my Ravenloft campaign and one of my players wanted to play a ranger, I explained which favored enemy choices would be appropriate for a Ravenloft campaign. Sure, I could have let the player (who knew nothing about the setting) choose blindly, but I had a greater responsibility than that. It's the same reason you don't let the new player choose a fighter when they have a 10 Strength (or you let them swap Strength with one of their higher stats). Now if a player WANTS to play an underpowered character because they enjoy it, that's one thing. But it is every GM's job to make sure every character has a chance to contribute, and that starts with character generation. That way, situations like the one Garthanos brought up don't happen.




Now, maybe it's because I used to run a lot of superhero games, but GM involvement in PC creation has always been an important job for me. I find it difficult to relate to stories in which this does not occur and players are left to themselves to make characters that may or may not fit in radical ways.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 9, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Speaking from experience, in the last Burning Wheel game I played it was an important fact that my PC was _not_ up to par with the other PCs in combat (or pretty much anything else, for that matter).
> 
> This was demonstrated to good effect when one of the other PCs killed my PC.  Good times!  It was the climax of the game and had a lot of meaning.




The thing is you knew exactly what you were getting into when you made your character.  Some people will make characters that they believe will be effective but will end up sucking.  That's a problem.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 9, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> The thing is you knew exactly what you were getting into when you made your character.  Some people will make characters that they believe will be effective but will end up sucking.  That's a problem.



Very good point. It's great if you want a character of that type, but if the system is built in a way that lets players fall into "traps" such that their character is ineffective when they don't want them to be, that's a problem.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> For example, you could reflavor your Fighter such that he's a complete incompetent with incredible luck.  "Come and Get It" is him nearly falling on his arse so spectacularly that all the enemies rush in for a quick kill.  Most of his damage could be attributed in flavor to the other characters in the party protecting him or taking advantage of the opportunities he creates by careening around the battlefield.  That 6W+whatever wasn't done by the Fighter, it was done by his archery Ranger buddy when the Fighter's wild swing caused the enemy to rear back and expose a weak spot.  Just be creative with description.




Here is another contribution to the incompetent fighter grab bag... the cleave maneuver works well the main attacks is the wimpy secondary effect and the really damaging effect is a accidental... like a back swing that hits somebody different or you interrupted the bad guys attack and they hit their own ally.

Honestly it takes less heavy breathing to abuse the Warlord ... kind of a whipping boy designed for this dont you think ;-p

Beastmaster rangers might never land an effective attack themselves.

A haunted character built on the wizard class who is defended by ghosts ... can be done interestingly.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> On a right-here-and-now basis you're quite right; but what about the long term?  You're forgetting the time factor.
> 
> The choice you make might show "win" now, but in 6 levels you could be on the short end.



 Over in the other thread, I call this *Amortized Pwnage*. It's a form of balance that is no longer well thought of, but which seemed to be popular in early editions.



innerdude said:


> I wrote a lengthy post on this a couple of weeks ago about a problem with the underlying assumption of this statement--because when people talk about balance in this context, 99.9 percent of the time they're talking about "balance in combat."



 That's probably because balance in combat is easy to talk about, because it's easy to *verify*.

But all your follow-on assumptions are invalid: I'm not only talking about combat. I'm talking about the ability to solve any obstacle, any conflict, any problem just-plain-better than another PC.



Hussar said:


> But that's not really balance.  That's just multiple points of imbalance.
> 
> You suck for six months and then I suck for six months means that someone is sucking ALL THE TIME.
> 
> At no point in time, should the mechanics of a game sideline any character through absolutely no fault of his own.  Forcing a player to ride the pines because of a choice he made six months ago  is very poor game design.



 Over in the other thread, I call this *Niche Protection*. It is another previous attempt at balance which now I think isn't very good.



Canis said:


> A little creativity nets you whatever character you want without forcing the DM to rebalance all the encounters around having a wet noodle in the party.



 Your example is hilarious. I kind of want someone like that in my campaign now.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 9, 2010)

airwalkrr said:


> Monopoly is a balanced game. The only variables are luck and player skill.




And who goes first.



> RPGs are built upon a different concept, that each of the players get to play by a different set of rules. Imagine playing Monopoly where one player was allowed to steal from the bank, another was able to land on any square desired instead of rolling dice, and another could send other players to jail each turn. Now imagine trying to balance these abilities against each other without removing them completely.




That's a little extreme for an RPG.  Few short of Mage or Exalted let you break the laws of physics - and your party is equivalent to a martian, a hivemind, and a Cray Supercomputer.  On the other hand it might be possible to balance a similar game with characters with personality.  E.g. The Speculator gets to roll three dice and pick two, or to adjust one of his dice.  The Crooked Cop sends people to jail on any double unless they bribe him.  And the Scum Landlord gets d6*5 income per property from the bank every turn but on the roll of a six goes to jail.

Once you've got sane-ish rules like that then balance (based on starting cash) is looking practical.



> It is impossible to balance RPGs. No matter what approach you take, you can never make all players equal without removing the essence of the game.




If we're going to give up on attempting something just because a perfect form is impossible, we can throw out truth, beauty, and justice as goals.  Thanks, but no thanks.



> The true balancing factor in RPGs is the Game Master, although even the Game Master cannot establish true equality. It is simply his/her job to make sure that everyone is having fun, contributing, and enjoying themselves. Game designers should spend less time trying to create "balanced" games and more time creating fun and interesting ways for players to play the game.




Except that BMX Bandit might be an inherently fun and interesting concept.  But not in games where someone else gets to play Angel Summoner.  The mere presence of Angel Summoner has destroyed what would be a number of fun and interesting ways to play the game.

The one exception would be games like Ars Magica where the imbalance is made extremely explicit - and the player who signed up for BMX Bandit did so knowing there would be Angel Summoner there.  (The Buffy and Dr Who systems have good answers for this).

All balance really is is providing accurate information on the expected in-game utility of the game elements.  And then providing this to the GM and PCs to make the choice (there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with a mismatched party - as long as everyone knows in advance).

A lack of balance means one of three things: 1: The game has been taken outside expected parameters, 2: The game designer didn't know enough about his own game to provide highly useful information, or 3: The game designer didn't care about providing information that would help the GM and the other players.  In the first case this might be bad, it might be awesome - but in both cases a different system would probably work better.  Cases 2 and 3 are inherently bad.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Your example is hilarious. I kind of want someone like that in my campaign now.




I think the incompetent fighter may end up on the list.. Joxter might or might not be hybrid warlord.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...non-combatant-princess-how-abuse-warlord.html


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Apr 9, 2010)

> If there's a clear choice between "win now, lose later" or "lose now, win later", or "kinda be in the middle all the way along", that's not imbalanced overall...and in fact might give the players serious pause for thought. It's certainly far better than forcing everyone into the "kinda be in the middle all the way along" bracket whether they like it or not.




Question: I understand why players who are in "lose now, win later" mode would stick with the game--the prospect of something better down the road. But why would someone playing a "win now, lose later" character stick with the game once they got to the "lose later" section? They know its all down hill from there and they have very little to look forward to, what keeps them motivated? Simple obligation and sense of fairness to the guys who played losers for the first half of the game? That doesn't sound fun.

I perceive a real lack of motivation with this balancing mechanism. if the game reaches a point where it would, simply, be more fun for most of the players to go back and restart at level 1 (when they were awesome), then to keep battling and battling for the right to become increasingly irrelevant, you're going to have issues with player apathy.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> The thing is you knew exactly what you were getting into when you made your character.  Some people will make characters that they believe will be effective but will end up sucking.  That's a problem.






Fifth Element said:


> Very good point. It's great if you want a character of that type, but if the system is built in a way that lets players fall into "traps" such that their character is ineffective when they don't want them to be, that's a problem.




I recall that people used to talk about the necessity of "System Mastery" as though it were a good thing.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

awesomeocalypse said:


> Question: I understand why players who are in "lose now, win later" mode would stick with the game--the prospect of something better down the road. But why would someone playing a "win now, lose later" character stick with the game once they got to the "lose later" section? They know its all down hill from there and they have very little to look forward to, what keeps them motivated? Simple obligation and sense of fairness to the guys who played losers for the first half of the game? That doesn't sound fun.
> 
> I perceive a real lack of motivation with this balancing mechanism. if the game reaches a point where it would, simply, be more fun for most of the players to go back and restart at level 1 (when they were awesome), then to keep battling and battling for the right to become increasingly irrelevant, you're going to have issues with player apathy.



 1/ Because, back when this was thought to be a valid form of balance, people hadn't thought about it in terms like "suck now, win later". Our modern perspective includes implicitly discrediting this form of balance.

2/ Like the parable of the frog in a pot of slowly boiling water, those doomed to suckage did not feel their lameness come upon them, because it crept slowly, with paws quiet as the fog. They did not notice that their damage output scaled linearly while the spellcasters scaled geometrically, because if they were good at math they would already be playing a Druid.

3/ Many games did, indeed, not play out all 20 possible levels before starting over at level 1. In fact, there is a whole school of game designers who *deliberately* limit all PCs to levels 1-6. This school of design is -- at least in part -- a reaction to the overwhelming late dominance of "suck now, win later" classes.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 9, 2010)

The problem comes from a misnomer. 

_Game balance_ is actually something different than _Rules balance_, where the former is the act of balancing the game as it is being played at an actual game table, versus the latter which balances the mechanical elements used in this game and written on paper.

Some amount of _Rules balance_ in a game is a commandable goal. It ensures that players have choices to play the characters they want, and yet do not get a mechanical upper hand that would rob other players from their own thunder. That's all fine and good. 

_Game balance_ does not solely rely on _Rules balance_ to happen, though. 

Good communication and cooperation between the participants in the game, whether DM and/or players, is paramount. There's a informal rule for this: "don't be a dick". Don't rob other players from their moments to shine, cooperate with them, don't try to be the best at everything all the time, don't try to break the rules on purpose... these kinds of things are part of the Social aspect of the game. No amount of rules in the world will ever be able to stop some selfish player to break the game or spoil it for the others involved if he just wants to. 

There's also the way the DM uses the rules and challenges specific characters. If a character is noticeably more powerful than some other character(s) in the group, it makes sense for enemies knowing the party's layout to want to take that powerful guy out first, to make him the target of powerful spells and ranged attacks, etc. It should not happen all the time of course, but it completely makes sense, as the characters rise in the world, for the world to react to their specific makeup, attitudes, powers, and so on, so forth. 

There's obviously more to it than this, but really, the bottom line simply is: _Rules_ balance should not be substituted for _Game_ balance. Some amount of fairness and relatively equal choices in the game's design is good, and beneficial to the game. Obsessing over the "fairness" of choices on the written page, and thus reducing, limiting these choices while exponentially increasing the game's codification and complexity to reach some theoretical "fairness" on said page, is not. 

It is all in the excluded middle, to me, here: some amount of _Rules balance_ is fine; Mistaking _Rules balance_ for _Game balance_ isn't.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 9, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> "HERO-ization"? Yes, when I encountered 3e it seemed to me designed for people who would (or perhaps should) have been playing Champions instead of AD&D in the 1980s-90s. In the early 2000s, though, WotC's D&D won them over. I think the Hero System is more flexible, more robust, and easier to balance. Complex character builds and long combats: Hero Games since 1981!




   Take a look at Monte Cook's resume. 

   And this is why I gave up on 3.X: If I'm going to deal with that level of complexity and detail, I'll take HERO and get the precision, flexibility and transparency it offers in exchange, rather than being limited by D&D's 'black box' mechanics.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2010)

It occurs to me that "niche protection" is a form of short-term "suck now, win later".

It seems to me, also, that how hard "niche protection" in particular blows, or does not blow, is based on three factors:

(1)  How involved are the players of the "suck" characters while their characters are "sucking"?

(2)  How much "win" vs. "suck" is there?

(3)  What is the difference between "suck" and "win"?

Item (1) is affected by expected game play.  In a "challenge the player" game, even if the character sucks, the player can contribute with advice or problem-solving skills.  Thus, for example, in 1e, I have played many magic-users without feeling that I was ever not contributing.  I always felt vital to the party's success, even when my PC had no spells left and was relegated to tactical advice, observation, and inference.  In a "challenge the character" game, sucking means you suck.

Item (2) s strongly affected by how long it takes to resolve any given encounter.  Assuming a four-hour play session, in Game A it takes 15 minutes (average) to resolve an encounter, in Game B it takes 1 hour (average) to resolve an encounter, and in Game C it takes 4 hours (average) to resolve an encounter.

Players of Game A can afford to suck sometimes, so that they can shine at other times.  After all, with an average of 16 encounters per session, no single encounter bears the load of that session being "fun" or "unfun".  Conversely, the players of Game C must be able to contribute well to every encounter -- if they "suck" during the encounter, the session "sucks" for them!  Players of Game B have a trade-off.  They cannot afford as much niche-protection as players of Game A, because each encounter bears 1/4 of the session's "fun load"....but a little suck for a lot of win is probably a good trade-off.

Item (3) is, AFAICT, the "modern" focus of niche protection.  It is okay to suck a little now, and win a little later, but you should never suck too much (and consequently can never win too much either), for a game to be "well balanced".  The theory is that, even if taking away the lows also excises the highs, you can get a consistantly acceptable experience.  Sort of a "win a little all the time, suck a little all the time" approach to game design.  This seems quite popular right now.  I suspect that the current "bad-assery" of PCs in various games is an attempt to make the median feel more like "win" and less like "suck".

We can call this *balance by hiding the median*.

----

In conclusion, it is difficult to fully explore balance of any type without examining how other systems/design philosophy impacts the experience of play.  Older forms of balance are not "implicitly discredited" -- they are victims to the fads of our times, and design philosophy that makes a game hostile to their inclusion.


RC


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 9, 2010)

Most of what you said was awesome on awesome good stuff.



Raven Crowking said:


> Older forms of balance are not "implicitly discredited" -- they are victims to the fads of our times, and design philosophy that makes a game hostile to their inclusion.



Calling something a fad is an attempt to implicitly discredit... ie implying the new is bad  or intrinsicaly temporary. I reacted negatively to the old balancing methods... 30 years ago... this is not a fad response.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It occurs to me that "niche protection" is a form of short-term "suck now, win later".



 I'd call it more a form of circular reasoning.

"Rogues are special, because nobody else can disarm traps!" <=> "All dungeons have traps, so the Rogue has something special to do!"

Cheers, -- N


----------



## billd91 (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I recall that people used to talk about the necessity of "System Mastery" as though it were a good thing.




System mastery will *always* exist in any game that requires decisions to be made. Players who can discern and implement good strategies will generally fare better than ones who cannot unless you introduce more random elements to trip them up in favor of less skilled players.

Personally, I think a bit too much has been made out of designers' statements about 3e and system mastery.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I recall that people used to talk about the necessity of "System Mastery" as though it were a good thing.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




With regards to D&D, it doesn't seem to have been a major concern before 3rd edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 9, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Except that BMX Bandit might be an inherently fun and interesting concept. But not in games where someone else gets to play Angel Summoner. The mere presence of Angel Summoner has destroyed what would be a number of fun and interesting ways to play the game.




This assumes that everyone playing the game can only have a fun and interesting time when playing with equal power distribution. Any number of fun and interesting concepts can remain in games with varying power levels without destroying anything.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 9, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> With regards to D&D, it doesn't seem to have been a major concern before 3rd edition.




Because there was no standardization to the system.  As I've said before, I never played at two tables that were playing remotely the same way.  Getting really good at playing at Bob's table only mattered at Bob's table.  You go play at Jim's table and almost nothing is the same (barring people cursing at the THAC0 table.  That was standard issue).


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This assumes that everyone playing the game can only have a fun and interesting time when playing with equal power distribution. Any number of fun and interesting concepts can remain in games with varying power levels without destroying anything.



Depends on the table and the people playing.

It is very easy to get into the Superman effect (or the Neo in Matrix 2 corollary).  You can't put the Heavy in the party in danger without automatically killing everyone else.  So you're trapped into always pulling the Heavy away from the group and basically putting him in one-on-one fights with Planet-killing monstrosities while his friends mop up the inexplicable and unnecessary minions.

You have to really not mind being the sidekick/comic relief to play alongside such a Heavy.  Being the best computer programmer in the world is cool, but it's far less visceral than channeling unlimited cosmic power.  I would put it to you that more people are interested in having a serving of the visceral thrill than not.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

billd91 said:


> System mastery will *always* exist in any game that requires decisions to be made.



 IMHO it's a matter of degree. In 4e, for example, it's relatively easy to make a character that is highly effective, and relatively hard to make one that is significantly stronger than the default baseline.



ExploderWizard said:


> This assumes that everyone playing the game can only have a fun and interesting time when playing with equal power distribution. Any number of fun and interesting concepts can remain in games with varying power levels without destroying anything.



 Those systems certainly do exist. I've been wanting to play Buffy forever, which is an example of such a system.

I'd question if D&D is among those systems, but I guess you could play it as though it were one anyway, if all your players were cool with that.



Bluenose said:


> With regards to D&D, it doesn't seem to have been a major concern before 3rd edition.



 Agreed, and also agree with: 







Canis said:


> Because there was no standardization to the system.  As I've said before, I never played at two tables that were playing remotely the same way.  Getting really good at playing at Bob's table only mattered at Bob's table.  You go play at Jim's table and almost nothing is the same (barring people cursing at the THAC0 table.  That was standard issue).



 Yeah. Reading through explanations of how the Basic / Expert / AD&D rules actually worked leads me to deeply question my old group's actual understanding of those rules. It's not that we wanted to heavily house-rule everything, it's more that we had the attention span of 10 year old boys, because... well...

Cheers, -- N


----------



## innerdude (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> That's probably because balance in combat is easy to talk about, because it's easy to *verify*.
> 
> But all your follow-on assumptions are invalid: I'm not only talking about combat. I'm talking about the ability to solve any obstacle, any conflict, any problem just-plain-better than another PC.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




To a point, I agree with you, characters/players should have as many meaningful choices as possible--but I don't know if I agree with the underlying assumption implied by this statement, which is, "A game's rule system should allow all characters to have an equal opportunity at every encounter/problem/choice to have the same probability of success as any other character." Why have a DM at all if this is the case? Doesn't that change the game from an RPG to something else at that point? If the rules can completely govern "balance," you don't even need a referee (think: chess). 

Well, if this is the case, why would anyone with this mindset play ANY pen and paper RPG with a _group_? Why even have other characters, if your character (and conversely, every other character at your, and every other game table) is equally likely to be able to solve any encounter? If taken too far, this type of rules design ethos can fall into the trap of "everyone's special, so no one is." If everyone gets to "have the spotlight" on them all the time, then no one does. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important for characters/players to have as many meaningful choices as possible. But one of those meaningful choices is to _choose to play a character that interests you, regardless of the "mechanical" consequences_. And if this means the GM has to adjust encounters/play style to let that character have fun, well then that's why we have a GM in the first place.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2010)

innerdude said:


> "A game's rule system should allow all characters to have an equal opportunity at every encounter/problem/choice to have the same probability of success as any other character."



 Fortunately for both of us, that's not my position at all.

IMHO, each character ought to be able to contribute to *most* encounters, ought to be able to shine a *few* times per session, and ought to have exactly the right tool to perfectly solve a problem perhaps once every few session.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Most of what you said was awesome on awesome good stuff.




Thanks.  I'm still not giving you a kidney.  



> Calling something a fad is an attempt to implicitly discredit... ie implying the new is bad  or intrinsicaly temporary. I reacted negatively to the old balancing methods... 30 years ago... this is not a fad response.




Nah.  Calling something a fad is intended to recognize that it is transitory, and that its value is subjective to the time in which it is popular, rather than inherent.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 9, 2010)

innerdude said:


> If taken too far, this type of rules design ethos can fall into the trap of "everyone's special, so no one is." If everyone gets to "have the spotlight" on them all the time, then no one does.



_If taken too far_. That's a big if.



innerdude said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think it's important for characters/players to have as many meaningful choices as possible. But one of those meaningful choices is to _choose to play a character that interests you, regardless of the "mechanical" consequences_. And if this means the GM has to adjust encounters/play style to let that character have fun, well then that's why we have a GM in the first place.



If taken too far, this design ethos would be to jettison all rules, because having specific rules might prevent someone from playing exactly the character they want.

Nearly anything is bad if taken too far. Just don't take it too far.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  Calling something a fad is intended to recognize that it is transitory, and that its value is subjective to the time in which it is popular, rather than inherent.



You can see his confusion. You implied that newer forms of balance are fads which overtook older forms, which presumably then were not fads? Otherwise why would you phrase it as them "falling victim" to the fads of our times? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the older forms of balance were fads whose times had passed?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> Because there was no standardization to the system.  As I've said before, I never played at two tables that were playing remotely the same way.  Getting really good at playing at Bob's table only mattered at Bob's table.  You go play at Jim's table and almost nothing is the same (barring people cursing at the THAC0 table.  That was standard issue).




On that, I disagree. There was plenty of standardization in the system. That's what the rules were supposed to provide. If there was less standardization *in implementation* of the rules from table to table before 3e, I'd be inclined to underline a couple of factors that may have made a difference:

1) fewer immediate resources to consult
2) fewer computerized tools in use

It's a lot easier to conform in your interpretation of the rules if you have the means to communicate about those interpretations, get the designers' intentions, gain access to Q&A or other interpretations via customer service, or use standardized tools in dealing with certain aspects of running the game or building characters/monsters/other NPCs. 

System mastery definitely existed before 3e, but I would say that by adding more customization options to characters in 3e/4e, more opportunities to wield system mastery were created. 4e's major deviation from 3e on this score is in building in more ways for combined system mastery to be used by the players as a group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You can see his confusion. You implied that newer forms of balance are fads which overtook older forms, which presumably then were not fads? Otherwise why would you phrase it as them "falling victim" to the fads of our times? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the older forms of balance were fads whose times had passed?




I was referring to the design philosophies ("What do folks today want in a game?") as fads.  Forms of balance fall victim to those philosophies.

The fads of yore fell victim to the fads of now, which in turn will fall victim to the fads of tomorrow.

Monopoly and chess are excellent games, but had they not already existed, I doubt they would be designed today.


RC


EDIT:  And I'm _*still*_ not giving away my kidney.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 9, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You can see his confusion. You implied that newer forms of balance are fads which overtook older forms, which presumably then were not fads? Otherwise why would you phrase it as them "falling victim" to the fads of our times? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the older forms of balance were fads whose times had passed?




Note the new balancing scheme was adopted by numerous games.. decades ago RuneQuest pops to mind making none of the fads at all fad like... just different


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Agreed, and also agree with:  Yeah. Reading through explanations of how the Basic / Expert / AD&D rules actually worked leads me to deeply question my old group's actual understanding of those rules. It's not that we wanted to heavily house-rule everything, it's more that we had the attention span of 10 year old boys, because... well...
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Oh, aye, a significant portion of the variance was accounted for in my early years by.... my early years.  The issue continued to exist even after we were old enough to read and follow rules, however, and among new groups I met where everyone was older.

This wasn't a rules issue per se, though.  As Billd91 points out...



billd91 said:


> It's a lot easier to conform in your interpretation of the rules if you have the means to communicate about those interpretations, get the designers' intentions, gain access to Q&A or other interpretations via customer service, or use standardized tools in dealing with certain aspects of running the game or building characters/monsters/other NPCs.



Communication tools also changed.



Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  Calling something a fad is intended to recognize that it is transitory, and that its value is subjective to the time in which it is popular, rather than inherent.



I fail to recognize the transitory nature.  The kind of thinking that "discredits" older forms of balance has been around in board games, computer games, and basically everything but D&D since I was a pup.  The "fad" is in thinking a good idea in all those types of games might also have some traction in D&D.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 9, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> _Game balance_ is actually something different than _Rules balance_, where the former is the act of balancing the game as it is being played at an actual game table, versus the latter which balances the mechanical elements used in this game and written on paper.
> 
> Some amount of _Rules balance_ in a game is a commandable goal. It ensures that players have choices to play the characters they want, and yet do not get a mechanical upper hand that would rob other players from their own thunder. That's all fine and good.
> 
> _Game balance_ does not solely rely on _Rules balance_ to happen, though. (...)



If I may bounce on my own post, here, I will also point out that advice to DMs and players not only explaining why this or that mechanical aspect of the game's design matters, but also _how_ it matters, in which particular game play assumption and particular situation as it relates to other elements of the game's design, is absolutely critical for the users of the game to make actual _game_ balance happen in play. 

It seems to me that in too many game designs, the rules, and the rules only, are thought to provide the frame through which enjoyable game play can happen. This is a dangerous fallacy, in my opinion. 

RPG rules come in play through one medium only: not the rules book, not what the game designer thought the rules' role in game play ought to be, and certainly not in some sort of theoretical vacuum where "the average group would do this or that", but through the particular users of the game, the specific game group, as they actually play it. Therefore, making these users understand what the game designer had in mind, and providing them with the tools to understand the logic that sustains the game's design, is extremely important for them to be able to handle the system properly and extrapolate on its tenets as they come to "own" it through play.

Just as the rules themselves cannot make game balance happen, advice themselves probably won't either. There's a careful balancing act to be played here by the game designer. How well the audience of the game is identified, and what is thought to bring the most pleasure to each particular game table, ought to be one of the major tools to balance these two particular aspects of the design.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Note the new balancing scheme was adopted by numerous games.. decades ago RuneQuest pops to mind making none of the fads at all fad like... just different




(Shrug)

As you like; the term isn't germaine to my point, except to denote that preferences of a given set, rather than intrinsic value, drive the change.....We may also note that these preferences are often reactionary to whatever was previously considered "best" or "normal".


----------



## BryonD (Apr 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.



You have stated this as an absolute.  
If you meant it that way, then the only conclusion is that RPGs must be designed to work with the lowest common denominator.  
Or, if it is intended as a relative comment, then at what threshold does your statement stop being true?  Is it a sudden change?  Or is it shades of grey?

What if, instead of discussing the universe in games in abstract, we discuss the specific game of one highly skilled DM....
Does your statement apply?


----------



## ST (Apr 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> What if, instead of discussing the universe in games in abstract, we discuss the specific game of one highly skilled DM....
> Does your statement apply?




What's a "highly skilled DM"? Where do I get one? Why isn't there one in the box? Isn't it possible for one person's "highly skilled DM" to be someone else's "DM I really didn't have fun playing with"? Why is it all on the DM?

Et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> If you meant it that way, then the only conclusion is that RPGs must be designed to work with the lowest common denominator.



If I were to go down that alley, I would say that yes, a mass-market RPG should be designed with the assumption that the DM will not be all-world calibre. That's better than assuming a great DM (who will be a great DM regardless), which few of us are or have, and letting the middling DMs struggle through.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 9, 2010)

ST said:


> Why is it all on the DM?




Because the DM is the person in the best position to do so. Only the DM, with his unique view of the game world, the adventures in play, and the dynamics of the players at the table, has a prayer of managing all of the different aspects of balance involved in running an RPG.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 10, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Because the DM is the person in the best position to do so. Only the DM, with his unique view of the game world, the adventures in play, and the dynamics of the players at the table, has a prayer of managing all of the different aspects of balance involved in running an RPG.



Which is why for the sake of quality of life, a designer should present options that abstract out as much as possible, to decrease the cognitive load on the DM, leaving him free to handle the world and not micromanage the fiddly bits unless he really, really wants to.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If I were to go down that alley, I would say that yes, a mass-market RPG should be designed with the assumption that the DM will not be all-world calibre. That's better than assuming a great DM (who will be a great DM regardless), which few of us are or have, and letting the middling DMs struggle through.



Ok, should an all-world calibre DM play this mass-market game?  Or does it make sense for them to play something else?

I'm not in the least opposed to having games available for middling DMs.  But, I think games that assume middling DMs tend to make certain that middling DMs stay middling.  And I also think that really good DMs shouldn't be shackled to the limitations of middling DMs.  And the good news is, there are great systems out there that avoid this issue.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

ST said:


> What's a "highly skilled DM"? Where do I get one?



You get one by working at it and not hand holding every step of the way.



> Why isn't there one in the box?



The tools for getting one may very well be in the box.  And things that stand in the way of getting one may be there as well.




> Isn't it possible for one person's "highly skilled DM" to be someone else's "DM I really didn't have fun playing with"?



No.  The specifics of style are certainly a huge factor.  But that isn't capability.



> Why is it all on the DM?



Where did "all" come from?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2010)

awesomeocalypse said:


> Question: I understand why players who are in "lose now, win later" mode would stick with the game--the prospect of something better down the road. But why would someone playing a "win now, lose later" character stick with the game once they got to the "lose later" section?



Whoever posted that original comment can clarify what was meant, but I see potential confusion here with the pioneering D&D game.

A key point here was pretty common to the early RPGs. The expected mode of play was like today's RPGA "Living Forgotten Realms" in terms of a large pool of people forming ad hoc parties for specific adventures, and having "stables" of characters of various levels (and, in old D&D, henchmen and hirelings possibly including monsters).

It was not expected to be a game of finite duration, either, with some final finish line to cross as a "winner" or "loser".

So, a character could retire from adventuring without the player retiring from the game.

Originally, a Hobbit was limited to attaining 4th level (Hero) as a Fighter. It made sense to retire that character, bringing it back into action only when there was some incentive. Defense of the Shire might be a reason, or a quest for some special treasure. One such treasure might be a means (such as a Wish) allowing the character to exceed the normal level limit!

The Hobbit's special advantages could keep it a viable contributor to parties averaging a couple of levels higher, or more with magic. Indeed, it could be more than a match for a 6th-level Fighter (the Dwarf's limit) after the latter had taken some hits.

Moreover, a 4th-level Hobbit was quite powerful relative to a 1st-level _anything!_

Finally, the advantages of gaining levels -- even for magicians -- were mostly to do with the kinds of activities mainly yielded more levels. See the circle? Raid and pillage the underworld, and you get better at ... raiding and pillaging the underworld.

There were other things one could do, and most people doing them were 0-level normal men. There was no rigid "skills system" limiting characters to being only so good at Diplomacy or possessing only so much Knowledge.

It did not matter very much whether an individual Hero was the 120th or 536th best Fighter in the world. In either case, he or she was probably better than more than 99% of the soldiers in any army -- able to beat several at once, and more in succession.

Above all, that was a character who dared what ordinary people would not, who went where they could not with any hope of returning, and possessed thereby both wealth and personal power. Just how much of the latter depended greatly on charisma, which was _not_ a "dump stat" to canny players!

The Hobbit could have powerful henchmen, hire mercenaries, build a stronghold, and cut a domain from the wilderness -- so becoming truly a Lord or Lady in the socio-political scheme, as opposed to the scheme of experience-level titles.

When "you and what army?" has an answer, attitudes sometimes come in for adjustment.

There can be much less "power-seeking" undertakings, as well, when a character's game shifts to concerns having less to do with levels.

None of that prevented a player from _also_ having at last gotten a Magic-user to the eminent station of Wizard. That was a different kind of game, a very dangerous one. M-us were sort of like Old West gunslingers.


----------



## F700 (Apr 10, 2010)

The only balance that matters is mechanical balance.
Screw interparty balance.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 10, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Finally, the advantages of gaining levels -- even for magicians -- were mostly to do with the kinds of activities mainly yielded more levels. See the circle? Raid and pillage the underworld, and you get better at ... raiding and pillaging the underworld.




yah and the best way to become a mightier hero or cast more powerful spells was .... stealing stuff... until you hit AD&D2 which I never quite reached.(skipped two and three).


----------



## Chrono22 (Apr 10, 2010)

I'd say a mass-market tabletop RPG is a contradiction in terms. Most people don't have the time, interest or inclination to play tabletop RPGs. It's a dedicated hobby, not a casual pastime, even for the "casual" subset. It requires knowledge of a sophisticated rules system, coordination and cooperation, and a table (this can be hard to come by for some).
So give your audience some credit. They aren't newborns or blathering idiots. Smoothing off the sharp edges and softballing the challenges _is not_ worth it if it compromises the experience.
Because, when all is said and done, the dice are back in the bag and the table is cleared, that's all you'll have left of the game. Your experiences. I'd rather have memorable ones.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 10, 2010)

Ariosto
I suppose you are pointing out in general that in some versions of D&D there was quite of a bit of not so direct personal power emphasized... Your characters ability to influence the world in that broad sense of fame and status and prestige is also power... or is it? In my experience those followers were just tokens like having name status... they rarely affected the adventures. 

For me the point is having "player" power at the table in the adventure be balanced

If your character has lower direct personal power their can be a compensation "for the player" that doesn't involve making the character specifically more powerful. This seems frequently what is happening when heroic luck is put under the control of players...both in games like Fate (Dresden Files RPG)... or what can be achieved by "de personalizing the powers"  ... see descriptions of the "incompetent fighter" in posts by Canis above.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Because the DM is the person in the best position to do so. Only the DM, with his unique view of the game world, the adventures in play, and the dynamics of the players at the table, has a prayer of managing all of the different aspects of balance involved in running an RPG.




I think that places WAY too much on the DM's plate.  The rules should be there to take that off the shoulders of the DM/GM and let him get on with actually running the game.

Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer?  Isn't that what I pay people for?  I have no interest in being a game designer.  I don't want to.  I just want to run my game and have fun doing it.  Every minute I have to spend retooling someone's rule set is a minute that is detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

If you want to be a game designer, that's fine, but, why presume that all DM's want to be?  Why not make games that actually function at the table with a minimum of fuss, and let those who want to be game designers go off and do their thing?



BryonD said:


> You get one by working at it and not hand holding every step of the way.




How can you teach someone anything without actually first SHOWING them how?



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> > Isn't it possible for one person's "highly skilled DM" to be someone else's "DM I really didn't have fun playing with"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This I totally disagree with.  What one person considers a great GM, another might totally loathe.  Great GM will depend on so many factors - the GM's playstyle, the player's playstyle, being probably the biggest, but, there are also a number of others as well.  I've had players tell me I was the worst DM they've ever had.  I've had other players tell me that I'm great.

Which one is right?  I dunno.  I just run games.  I try my best.  But, the idea that there is some sort of Platonic Ideal of GM's is something I strongly disagree with.


----------



## Psion (Apr 10, 2010)

Krensky said:


> The merchant with no combat abilities beyond swinging a sword (or shooting a bow) and harsh language.




In our common fantasy game of choice, harsh language can actually be pretty effective. There's a priest in our group built around stress attacks.


----------



## Psion (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think that places WAY too much on the DM's plate.  The rules should be there to take that off the shoulders of the DM/GM and let him get on with actually running the game.




That's one perspective.

Some GMs:
1) Get the best results for their groups and themselves by tweaking existing games.
2) Enjoy this activity.

Indeed, I wonder if in some new fangled games, the Game Designer is intruding too much into the territory of "running the game remotely" by creating a rules set that creates too narrow an experience.



> Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer?




Heh... that's my usual argument for class based games over freeform games, though that's more a case of making the player into a game designer.



> Isn't that what I pay people for?




Again, that's one perspective.

The other extreme is "why should I pay for the dubious privilege of running the Game Designer's unique vision of gameplay at my table?"

What the truth is lies somewhere between, and will vary from table to table.



> I have no interest in being a game designer.  I don't want to.  I just want to run my game and have fun doing it.  Every minute I have to spend retooling someone's rule set is a minute that is detracting from my enjoyment of the game.




I would agree, but I find that my retooling is more difficult given a ruleset that assumes too narrow a play model and builds its singular balancing point around that play model, and I want something a little different.

The trade off here is that if you design flexibility in a game, you create opportunities for imbalance. In my case, that trade off is usually worth it. I don't feel like I'm fighting the system.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer?  Isn't that what I pay people for?  I have no interest in being a game designer.  I don't want to.  I just want to run my game and have fun doing it.  Every minute I have to spend retooling someone's rule set is a minute that is detracting from my enjoyment of the game.




It doesn't and it never did equate to being a full blown game designer. That's just hyperbole. Unlike a professional game designer, who has to put something into final form for publication, a DM can adjust it according to how it's playing out with his players.

But *some* game design almost always comes in unless the DM does absolutely everything by the book and does not deviate a jot from the rules. And I don't see too many DMs like that around. They're usually creating some kind of spell, magic item, creature, house rule for their own campaigns.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How can you teach someone anything without actually first SHOWING them how?



You put "showing" in all caps, and yet it has nothing to do with anything I said.



> This I totally disagree with.  What one person considers a great GM, another might totally loathe.  Great GM will depend on so many factors - the GM's playstyle, the player's playstyle, being probably the biggest, but, there are also a number of others as well.  I've had players tell me I was the worst DM they've ever had.  I've had other players tell me that I'm great.
> 
> Which one is right?  I dunno.  I just run games.  I try my best.  But, the idea that there is some sort of Platonic Ideal of GM's is something I strongly disagree with.



"Totally disagreeing" with me, and then repeating my position is an odd claim.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer?



 Why do people who want least common denominator games games keep using words like "have to" and "every" and "always"?  



> If you want to be a game designer, that's fine, but, why presume that all DM's want to be?



Problem 1: No one is saying that all DM's want to be.  They are saying that games that presume a higher standard of DM have benefits.  Those benefits are completely optional and you are welcome to play easier games if the reward exceeds the cost.

Problem 2:  I jumped back into the thread when Garthanos said:


			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.



To which I specifically asked if he meant that as an absolute, in which case he is the one trying to force all DMs into the same constraints.  (in other words *HE* is doing what you are accusing others of doing)
I also asked if he felt there was a boundary at which point his claim stops being true, and, if so, where is it.

I've yet to see an answer to that question from anyone.

But the disconnect when one says:  "fine, play your game your way, I want more" and someone else replies: "Why should everyone have to pay your way?" is boggling.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2010)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But the disconnect when one says: "fine, play your game your way, I want more" and someone else replies: "Why should everyone have to pay your way?" is boggling.




Sorry, you made it sound like the default should be a "higher standard".  Or, that's how I took it to be.  That's certainly the way a lot of DnD has been designed in the past.  The idea that you will get a system that expects you to constantly tinker with it to make it work at the table.



billd91 said:


> It doesn't and it never did equate to being a full blown game designer. That's just hyperbole. Unlike a professional game designer, who has to put something into final form for publication, a DM can adjust it according to how it's playing out with his players.
> 
> But *some* game design almost always comes in unless the DM does absolutely everything by the book and does not deviate a jot from the rules. And I don't see too many DMs like that around. They're usually creating some kind of spell, magic item, creature, house rule for their own campaigns.




"Full blown game designer"?  What's that?

I have zero interest in tinkering with systems anymore.  I just don't.  If a particular system doesn't do what I want, I'll try a different system.  Considering how many bajillion systems there are out there, there's most certainly one that will fit what I want.

Now, equating inventing a new spell with creating a new system to handle things is a bit above and beyond.  Considering the rules in D&D have always covered guidelines on what new spells should be capable of - 3e explicitly spells it out as far as damage is concerned - I'm thinking that a new spell isn't game design.

See, I have zero problems with games that want to force DM's to constantly play the role of rules police.  That's fine for those that want to play them.  Rifts is a perfect example of this.  The rules force the GM to constantly pay attention to how the rules interact and place a great deal of the responsibility for making the rules work into the lap of the GM.

But, then again, I don't play RIFTS specifically because of this.  I consider it terrible game design.  If you cannot create a game that works at any reasonable table, don't bother creating one at all.  I know that might seem harsh, but, I'm tired of buying half assed games that people push out the door only to have them go pear shaped in the first three sessions.

The biggest reason, the single biggest reason I love 3e is because the number of rule arguments at the tables I played at dropped to about zero compared to earlier editions.  Why?  Because the rules work.  The designers actually took the time to make sure that the rules are balanced and work most of the time.

I realize there are those out there that want to play games which presume the DM will be on the ball.  That's fine for them.  But, I think it's lazy game design.


----------



## Chrono22 (Apr 10, 2010)

You call it lazy, I call it preemptive.
The player and GM are the ones that arbitrate what constitutes "fun" and "enjoyable" and "balanced". You aren't doing them any favors by trying to do that for them- you're just getting in their way.
Going out of your way to build a game that can play itself is a waste of time and effort. Building a game that can be molded by the players and GM to conform to their own standards isn't.
Case in point- d20 has rules for modern, past and future play. Should the developers force the players and GM to avoid using future technologies because they are "unbalanced"? Who should be the one directing the experience? The person who wrote the rules, or the people at the table? I'd say the opinions of the players and GM are more important than the developers'.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 10, 2010)

I would put it to you all that Hussar's position is more common among the general population and even the general run of gamers than the position that the GM would want or need to step seriously into a design arena.

I've said it before, but the GM commitment around here is leaps and bounds beyond anything I've ever seen in real life.

Either most people who post regularly here are several deviations better than the mean for engagement and skill, or every single person I've played with in real life is several deviations below the mean.

The odds that I've stumbled into that many bad groups by chance are low.  The odds that an online community has attracted a niche group of relatively hardcore gamers.... much higher.

There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design.  Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 10, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Ok, should an all-world calibre DM play this mass-market game?  Or does it make sense for them to play something else?



If it's the type of game he and his players want to play, by all means. Great DMs can be great DMs without much support. But if there is another game that better meets the group's desires, then that game would be preferable.



BryonD said:


> And the good news is, there are great systems out there that avoid this issue.



Indeed. Which means it's absolutely, 100% okay that there are some systems that do cater to middling DMs.

(Also, a pet peeve about your sig: Perseus was a Christmas Tree with divine interventation, and was a demigod to boot. Winged sandals, a cap of invisibility, a sword from Hermes and a reflective shield from Athene. Medusa never stood a chance.)


----------



## Chrono22 (Apr 10, 2010)

^@ Cannis
That's strange, because every group I've played in is heads and shoulders above what Hussar's position is.
Statistically, the odds I stumbled into such awesome groups by chance is very low. Does that mean most gaming groups are awesome?

I also _strongly_ debate that somehow being a casual gamer makes you less likely to post online. My experience with forums have proven to me time and time again, anyone that can type on a keyboard (and a few that can't) can be found on the internet. If anything, the internet has just as many dumb people as smart people. Do smart people self-organize? I dunno, but I hardly see a majority position for playing casually or hardcore on this forum.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If it's the type of game he and his players want to play, by all means. Great DMs can be great DMs without much support. But if there is another game that better meets the group's desires, then that game would be preferable.
> 
> 
> Indeed. Which means it's absolutely, 100% okay that there are some systems that do cater to middling DMs.



 I agree 100% and have never hinted at anything to the contrary.  

Again, is "And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution." an absolute or not?



> (Also, a pet peeve about your sig: Perseus was a Christmas Tree with divine interventation, and was a demigod to boot. Winged sandals, a cap of invisibility, a sword from Hermes and a reflective shield from Athene. Medusa never stood a chance.)



Medusa never had a chance for the same reason Darth Maul never stood a chance.  The story was written that way.

From a gaming point of view...  you have failed to make a case.
The combat was swingy and the the math didn't work.  And it is a great story and one piece of the bedrock foundation of gaming.  If you want to experience that story, then it is best done by simulating the kinds of conditions that were in play in the events.

Non-swingy combat and working math are great for some gaming experiences.  I've no remote dispute for that.  But there are other gaming experiences for which they are inimical.


----------



## Chrono22 (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:


> There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design.  Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.



Actually, there is a point. The redesigners are very often also the ones that end up GMing. If you want to expand your player and GM base, do it through the hardcore niche. Just like with any other viral media, the hardcore contingent of gamers are the ones that spread it to the wider audience. They are the ones that lead the way in fashion, game design, and just about any other popular media.
Sure, you'll have fewer casual players in the short term. But considering what percentage of D&D players are lapsed, are they worth it? I don't think so. They may be playing now, but in two or three years they'll have moved on to some other fad, hobby, or entertainment. The dedicated customers are the ones you want to keep.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 10, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Again, is "And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution." an absolute or not?



I'll have to let he who you are quoting respond to that.



BryonD said:


> Medusa never had a chance for the same reason Darth Maul never stood a chance.  The story was written that way.



Indeed, which makes it a poor comparison for an RPG experience, one way or the other.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:


> I would put it to you all that Hussar's position is more common among the general population and even the general run of gamers than the position that the GM would want or need to step seriously into a design arena.



  I disagree with the extent to which you make this claim, but I certainly agree that there are plenty of poor to middling DMs out there.  

I'm 100% content with all poor to middling DMs exclusively playing games that assume they are poor to middling DMs.  If that makes them happy, there is nothing further to discuss.

Warning: pure opinion ahead
That said, if you want my completely non-binding and fully disposable advice, poor and middling DMs will improve much more by doing a substandard job DMing a more advanced game than they will perpetually accepting middling as good enough.

Getting better is not required.  In some cases, maybe it isn't even possible.  I personally doubt that it is even difficult in the great majority of instances, but I can only generalize.  But, regardless, there is zero obligation to even try.  



> I've said it before, but the GM commitment around here is leaps and bounds beyond anything I've ever seen in real life.



I'm sorry.  Seriously.



> Either most people who post regularly here are several deviations better than the mean for engagement and skill, or every single person I've played with in real life is several deviations below the mean.
> 
> The odds that I've stumbled into that many bad groups by chance are low.  The odds that an online community has attracted a niche group of relatively hardcore gamers.... much higher.



From my point of view, my perception of gamers as peers has declined in the post internet age.  I knew some crappy DMs before I ever heard of ENWorld. But the snap prejudices I have developed over the years regarding someone I met as a GM have dropped substantially.



> There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design.  Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.



Based on what you described as your experience, how could you possibly be in a position to know this?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I'll have to let he who you are quoting respond to that.



 What is your opinion? 



> Indeed, which makes it a poor comparison for an RPG experience, one way or the other.



BINGO  

You and I are not playing REMOTELY the same games or seeking REMOTELY the same experiences.   

Which is FINE!!!!!!  But our perceptions have no more bearing on each other than someone who loves knitting and someone who loves skydiving.


----------



## Psion (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:


> There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design.  Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.




I seriously disagree there, to the extent that I am reading "re-design" as "tweak".

I'd much rather tweak a game built with flexibility or a toolkit approach in mind than one built for a single play experience. Elsewise it becomes too much effort to build the gaming experience I want.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 10, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Based on what you described as your experience, how could you possibly be in a position to know this?



Couple of reasons... Among them that I've worked with people on other types of games who are very good at what they do.  I know competence when I see it, I just rarely see it in my D&D groups.  I've seen competent D&D groups, but they live in other cities or are full and insular.

I watched awful 2e DMs become competent 3e DMs, based on the CR system alone, even with its warts.  I'm a competent DM myself, but haven't had the time to do it since 2003, and before that the last time was before 1996.

DIY is DIY.  You don't assume everyone can build their own radio if you are trying to make money in the field of selling radios.  You don't even need to make niche products available for the hardcore anymore, because they will go out and find them on their own, create their own newsletters and websites, and be nice and hardcore all amongst themselves.  Generally, they will, in fact, spit on your attempts to make radios accessible to normal people.

Logic is logic.  There are fewer DIYers than there are "give me the car/radio/game/whatever and let me run with it" people.  History shows that you don't become a mass market phenomenon catering to the DIYer.

EDIT:
Psion, that's a semantic grey area.  I've seen people call something a tweak around here that is basically a re-build from scratch, and I've also seen minor re-skins called major overhauls.  Assume I'm talking about some moderate lifting.


----------



## Chrono22 (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:


> DIY is DIY.  You don't assume everyone can build their own radio if you are trying to make money in the field of selling radios.  You don't even need to make niche products available for the hardcore anymore, because they will go out and find them on their own, create their own newsletters and websites, and be nice and hardcore all amongst themselves.  Generally, they will, in fact, spit on your attempts to make radios accessible to normal people.



That's a terrible analogy. A radio is a terrible metaphor for a game. With a radio, you are selling a product. With a game, you are selling the experience.
But let's run with this and see where it takes us.


> Logic is logic.  There are fewer DIYers than there are "give me the car/radio/game/whatever and let me run with it" people.  History shows that you don't become a mass market phenomenon catering to the DIYer.



Then the iPod is a failure? How about customizable vehicle purchases? Illumination adjustable lightbulbs? WoW? Windows xp?
The big sellers are the ones that let the user customize the tool or their experience.
One-size-fits-all is a perfect fit for nobody.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 10, 2010)

The ipod is *not* a DIY device.  It is a very mass market device.  The ability to make a playlist does not make it DIY.  That's like saying making mix tapes on your shelf stereo back in the 80s made you an audiophile.

Also, the first ipod, which was less a pure music player than a small portable hard drive, didn't sell anywhere near as many units as the dedicated music devices that came later.


----------



## Chrono22 (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:


> The ipod is *not* a DIY device.



Neither are RPGs.


> It is a very mass market device.  The ability to make a playlist does not make it DIY.  That's like saying making mix tapes on your shelf stereo back in the 80s made you an audiophile.



Which is more casual? Listening to the radio or making mix tapes? One person's laid back hobby is another person's obsession. The distinction isn't clear- but the more passive the activity is, the more likely it is to be considered casual. iPods aren't casual- you seek out and listen to music, organize it into playlists, rate the songs, learn to use the device- all of this is user-driven as opposed to being some intrinsic quality of the device. The iPod is built specifically to allow the user to modify it for his own enjoyment. Does that make the iPod a lazily-designed device? I think not.


> Also, the first ipod, which was less a pure music player than a small portable hard drive, didn't sell anywhere near as many units as the dedicated music devices that came later.



Blah. The first lightbulb was less an industrial revolution and more of a high-society novelty. It didn't sell. I don't see the point you are trying to make.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> "Full blown game designer"?  What's that?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now, equating inventing a new spell with creating a new system to handle things is a bit above and beyond.  Considering the rules in D&D have always covered guidelines on what new spells should be capable of - 3e explicitly spells it out as far as damage is concerned - I'm thinking that a new spell isn't game design.




Welcome to the difference between being a "full blown game designer" and doing *some* game design. And yes, making new spells in D&D is a game design process. It might not be so much in Hero because there you're applying a fully designed system for making spell powers in which every decision is balanced by point costs most of the time. That's really not the case in D&D.



Hussar said:


> The biggest reason, the single biggest reason I love 3e is because the number of rule arguments at the tables I played at dropped to about zero compared to earlier editions.  Why?  Because the rules work.  The designers actually took the time to make sure that the rules are balanced and work most of the time.




I agree that 3e's rules, for the most part, work pretty well. But I think there are distinct character balancing elements of previous editions that work better than either 3e or 4e.
I also find it interesting that, based on the general gist of balance debates, the very arguments you're making against editions before 3e, the 4e players level at 3e as well.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have no interest in being a game designer.



Well, that's a pretty narrow use of the term, fellow. I have read many times about your interest in designing your games! For, in truth, the greater part of the game lies in the conditions settled among the DM and players. What is the nature of the world? What character types are in it, and what other resources? The bigger picture is very important.

That is also where the actual scope of the game gets defined. Is the campaign narrowly limited or wide open? Of a set duration? What of the roster of participants, characters and players?

Then of course there is the design of scenarios, from maps right down to encounters.

When you have no interest in anything but having all that dictated to you, _then_ you can wash your hands of being a game designer.

It seems to me that, historically, for most RPGers, that element of design has been an essential part of the hobby. So, for that matter, has been creating "house rules". Both aspects go back deep in the wargames roots -- with which, admittedly, the changing demographic is increasingly out of touch.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry, you made it sound like the default should be a "higher standard". Or, that's how I took it to be. That's certainly the way a lot of DnD has been designed in the past.



I of course cannot speak for BryonD, but _following the logic of the argument:_ Yes, it should be just fine for a game's default to be a higher standard. There's no gun pointed at your head forcing you to play it instead of some other.

That includes _Dungeons & Dragons_.

In fact, a lot of people are choosing not to play a game they don't like while insisting that this means the game should be changed into something else to please them. They are choosing instead a game that is already to their taste.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:
			
		

> There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design. Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.



Yes, there is a point. It is what I pointed out to Hussar. It is what was meant in the original D&D introduction by:


> As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign.




Now, plenty of people just are not cut out -- as referees or as players -- for what that meant. And there are plenty of games designed as *anti-*"sandbox", or whatever you will call it.

Beyond that, there are *even more* people who find the demands placed on participants in _those_ games too odious.

In case you haven't noticed, RPGs are a pretty small niche of the game world.

If you think we have already crossed the finish line in a race to the bottom, think again. The lowest common denominator is a _lot_ lower.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Either most people who post regularly here are several deviations better than the mean for engagement and skill, or every single person I've played with in real life is several deviations below the mean.



There is a shifting demographic. The relationship between RPG and video-game markets, for instance, may be interesting. At any rate, the early appeal of the original (1974) D&D game far beyond its target audience quickly suggested the potential of fantasy games with different aims.

If memory serves, there were a number of studies in the 1970s-80s that found FRPers (the common term back then) were indeed above the general population's average in some characteristics. To some extent, play itself developed those -- but at least partly by placing greater demands on them.

There is a synergy in the selection for an audience and what the audience subsequently selects. A design that takes a firm stand that A, B and C are "not fun" is likely to select _against_ people who have the opposite view. With them removed from the field, the polling trend is only enhanced.

The discarded demographic is still an audience, still a market, just no longer for the brand they previously bought (which now stands for what they do not want).

To insist that they must be permitted no publication to their taste is absurd, at least in a fairly free market both for ideas and for commerce!


----------



## Nifft (Apr 10, 2010)

Canis said:


> That's like saying making mix tapes on your shelf stereo back in the 80s made you an audiophile.



 Wait, it didn't? High Fidelity lied to me!

"_Top Ten songs when you feel betrayed..._", -- N


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2010)

Psion said:


> I seriously disagree there, to the extent that I am reading "re-design" as "tweak".
> 
> I'd much rather tweak a game built with flexibility or a toolkit approach in mind than one built for a single play experience. Elsewise it becomes too much effort to build the gaming experience I want.




But, as this is all related to game balance, tweaking is a thousand times easier in a balanced system than in an unbalanced one.  It is ridiculously easy to unbalance a balanced system to produce a particular effect.  Case in point:

You want Tolkienesque elves that are just "better" than everyone else.  Ok, 4e out of the box (and 3e as well) doesn't do that.  So, how can it be done?  Well, all elves start with a 35 point buy (in either edition) while everyone else starts with 22 or 25 (depending on 4e or 3e respectively).  

There, done.  Elves are better.

Now, you want to remove the "elves are better" in AD&D.  How?  You could whack on higher level restrictions I suppose, but, that would result in elves never being played, or campaigns ending before the hard limit is reached.  You could strip out all the benefits of being an elf, but, then, now he's just a skinny human.  You could increase the level limits of all the other races and give bonuses to humans, but, now you have to balance all those changes against each other, since all we want to do is make elves equal, not another race better than everyone else.  On and on.

Move away from D&D to an even more imbalanced game like RIFTS and the problem gets even more difficult to solve.  Because you lack any real baselines to work from, monkeying with the mechanics becomes a trial and error process.  That's great for those that want to, but, unless you get lucky the first time around, you're in for a fair bit of work to sort out all the issues before you get something that works.

DIY games are fine.  I disagree with the idea that they are somehow "better" than out of the box games, but, that's a personal taste issue.  I have zero interest in futzing about with mechanics.  I just want to play the game, focus on the game and not worry about whether or not this or that rule will work today.  I just want the mechanics to sit in the background and come out when needed, with a tool that will work well enough right now.  It doesn't have to be perfect, I'm more than willing to accept that.  But, it has to work.

In my not so humble opinion balanced systems are robust.  Imbalanced systems aren't.  I prefer robust systems.


----------



## Psion (Apr 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, as this is all related to game balance, tweaking is a thousand times easier in a balanced system than in an unbalanced one.  It is ridiculously easy to unbalance a balanced system to produce a particular effect.




Ridiculously easy, but trivial.

But you seem to be responding to a point I'm not making. Balance compromises flexibility, but it does not follow that an unbalanced game is flexible.

Making an unbalanced game it trivial. Making a well balanced game is difficult, and desirable. Making a flexible game is desirable. But setting up balance vs. flexibility is a trade-off, but not a dichotomy.


----------



## Krensky (Apr 11, 2010)

Psion said:


> In our common fantasy game of choice, harsh language can actually be pretty effective. There's a priest in our group built around stress attacks.




 That was intentional.  
Threaten and Tire are great ways for a 'non-combatant' to take down NPCs.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2010)

Psion said:


> Ridiculously easy, but trivial.
> 
> But you seem to be responding to a point I'm not making. Balance compromises flexibility, but it does not follow that an unbalanced game is flexible.
> 
> Making an unbalanced game it trivial. Making a well balanced game is difficult, and desirable. Making a flexible game is desirable. But setting up balance vs. flexibility is a trade-off, but not a dichotomy.




I think we're saying the same thing then.  I would say that flexible+balanced=robust.  You can have balanced mechanics that are not robust, simply by removing their flexibility.  Mechanics that are only balanced between a small, limited range of variables would be a good example of this.

However, I don't think you can have robust mechanics that are imbalanced in the first place.


----------



## Krensky (Apr 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> However, I don't think you can have robust mechanics that are imbalanced in the first place.




  Sure you can. Ars Magica or the Buffy/Angel games, for example.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Item (3) is, AFAICT, the "modern" focus of niche protection.  It is okay to suck a little now, and win a little later, but you should never suck too much (and consequently can never win too much either), for a game to be "well balanced".  The theory is that, even if taking away the lows also excises the highs, you can get a consistantly acceptable experience.  Sort of a "win a little all the time, suck a little all the time" approach to game design.  This seems quite popular right now.  I suspect that the current "bad-assery" of PCs in various games is an attempt to make the median feel more like "win" and less like "suck".
> 
> We can call this *balance by hiding the median*.




Going back a few pages to this point, I wanted to mention that as I see it, this is what systems that incorporate group synergies attempt to solve.  The general idea is that when one person is doing well, through great luck or just plain good play, that person ends up creating opportunities or flat out granting bonuses that allow the rest of the group to do well.

Thus, what happens is that when the group is playing well together, they end up elevating the baseline so that there is much more "win" than "suck" for everybody.  It's not necessarily a zero-sum game where for one person to kick ass everyone else has to be sucking, but neither is is a game where everybody kicks ass all the time.

To be successful, the system has to have some slack in it.  There are still individual lows and highs.  But, due to the group element, when you are at your individual highest peaks, the rest of the group is right there with you.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 12, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> With a game, you are selling the experience.



This might be true for something like the Dragonlance modules, or Expedition to Ravenloft. But taken literally it suggests that all RPGs are pastiche.

For some, mayble a lot of RPGs, the experience comes at the table. You're selling a set of tools and techniques for achieving that experience.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Sure you can. Ars Magica or the Buffy/Angel games, for example.




But again...those games EXPLICITLY tell you beforehand.

There's a big difference IMO between a game that says "ok, these classes/options are worse because that is how the "world" of the game functions" (or at least makes options cost different amounts) and a game that HIDES it either by not stating it or by implying that all options are equaly valuable.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Sure you can. Ars Magica or the Buffy/Angel games, for example.




And, just to add to AllisterH's point, how robust are those rules?  How much can you start futzing with these rules before they become so unbalanced that the game goes kerblooie.  I'll be completely honest here and say I've never read/played those games, so, I have no idea if you can or not in those systems.

IME, when mechanics are unbalanced, any changes by and large only exacerbate the problem, not solve it.


----------



## Krensky (Apr 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, just to add to AllisterH's point, how robust are those rules?  How much can you start futzing with these rules before they become so unbalanced that the game goes kerblooie.  I'll be completely honest here and say I've never read/played those games, so, I have no idea if you can or not in those systems.
> 
> IME, when mechanics are unbalanced, any changes by and large only exacerbate the problem, not solve it.




The Unisystem comments are second hand, Ars Magica is fairly robust. Magi are the most powerful, Consori are the middle, and Grogs are the bottom. It specifically recommends a troupe style of plat with each PC running a Magus, a Consor, and a Grog or three. There's not really much to fiddle with, the system is similar to Storyteller.

We appear differ on what robust means, I guess. You seem to mean "I can take it apart, put it back together wrong (meaning different then how it was originally) and it still works."

I mean "It won't break down unexpectedly on me in the middle of a game because someone took three apparently innocuous things and put them together and blew up the power curve, and the game doesn't give me any tools to recover."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 12, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> The general idea is that when one person is doing well, through great luck or just plain good play, that person ends up creating opportunities or flat out granting bonuses that allow the rest of the group to do well.
> 
> Thus, what happens is that when the group is playing well together, they end up elevating the baseline so that there is much more "win" than "suck" for everybody.  It's not necessarily a zero-sum game where for one person to kick ass everyone else has to be sucking, but neither is is a game where everybody kicks ass all the time.




Nice description of _*hiding the median*_.  The game is balanced so that you think you are doing better than you really are; the median is hidden.  By making you think that 0 is at the centre of the number line, while the centre is really +4, you keep thinking "Wow, we're doing great!" when, in fact, you are doing average.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm not sure how group synergies hide the median, unless only the players get them, and their opponents do not.  In which case it could just as easily be called "lobbing softballs" as "hiding the median."


----------



## Nifft (Apr 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Sure you can. Ars Magica or the Buffy/Angel games, for example.



 Aren't those cases of mechanics which exist to enable unbalanced characters to play out (in some sense) as though they were balanced?

The extra Drama points that a Scooby gets, for example, can be used to buy problem-solving (and therefore spotlight time), which the Slayer gets just by kicking things really hard. The Scooby can't use Drama points as often as the Slayer can kick, but often it's better to solve problems without violence, so it works out. (Except vampires. They are best solved with violence.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Votan (Apr 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think that places WAY too much on the DM's plate.  The rules should be there to take that off the shoulders of the DM/GM and let him get on with actually running the game.




I think that this also makes the learning curve less steep for the system and encourages "casual play".  Heavy system redesign can be done but I like the idea of a core base of heavily play tested rules that I can run out of the box.   People can do odd things off of this base (I think of monster PCs in D&D 3.5 as the classic example) but at least you can start with something useful.  

I do think that AD&D, as played, was closer to this standard than is commonly accepted.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Aren't those cases of mechanics which exist to enable unbalanced characters to play out (in some sense) as though they were balanced?



For the Unisystem yes  
Character power versus Player power is the dynamic going on. If you have mechanisms which give the player power to compensate for lower character power ... Fate is another good example... if you take aspects which only buff your character up then they are likely to restult in you gathering fewer fate points... which means you the player earn less power over the narative by other routes.  

Ars Magica uses a pigeon holing and makes sure each player has access to all three holes ;p. It is possible to introduce mythic heros who are not mages in to it... but as this is highly untested etc... etc... you are flying your own canvas to do it.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nice description of _*hiding the median*_.  The game is balanced so that you think you are doing better than you really are; the median is hidden.  By making you think that 0 is at the centre of the number line, while the centre is really +4, you keep thinking "Wow, we're doing great!" when, in fact, you are doing average.
> 
> 
> RC




Sure, there's a little of that going on.  If a character has a +0 when alone, and more usually gets a +1 or a +2 in a group, then that both promotes group play and pushes the median a little, making the character feel more powerful in a party.

In my experience though, the games I'm thinking of will typically balance around the "common" synergies granting a +1 or +2, but good play or good luck will push bonuses into the (just handwaving here) +4 or even +6 range.

In the broader context of the thread here, this kind of synergistic play gives an interesting spin to the optimizing game.  The OP complains that imbalanced systems allow either one highly-optimized player to make the rest of the group irrelevant, or conversely  hangs a poorly-made character around the rest of the group's necks like a millstone.  By sharing bonuses among the group, or even making them purely altruistic, it takes away from the selfishness that the OP was complaining about.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 13, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> In the broader context of the thread here, this kind of synergistic play gives an interesting spin to the optimizing game.  The OP complains that imbalanced systems allow either one highly-optimized player to make the rest of the group irrelevant, or conversely  hangs a poorly-made character around the rest of the group's necks like a millstone.  By sharing bonuses among the group, or even making them purely altruistic, it takes away from the selfishness that the OP was complaining about.



 IMHO this is one of the most interesting things about 4e.

Look at the complaints about the Pacifist Cleric: "*He makes everyone else too good*!"

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2010)

Krensky said:


> The Unisystem comments are second hand, Ars Magica is fairly robust. Magi are the most powerful, Consori are the middle, and Grogs are the bottom. It specifically recommends a troupe style of plat with each PC running a Magus, a Consor, and a Grog or three. There's not really much to fiddle with, the system is similar to Storyteller.
> 
> We appear differ on what robust means, I guess. You seem to mean "I can take it apart, put it back together wrong (meaning different then how it was originally) and it still works."
> 
> I mean "It won't break down unexpectedly on me in the middle of a game because someone took three apparently innocuous things and put them together and blew up the power curve, and the game doesn't give me any tools to recover."




I would say that both are examples of robust rule systems.  If you can change the rule (to a degree) and the mechanics just keep right on trucking, that's a robust rule.  Conversely, if you mix and match multiple mechanics and you can keep right on trucking, those are robust mechanics as well.

My belief is that balanced mechanics are inherently more robust than imbalaced ones.


----------

