Game "Balance" - the missing assumptions of social-dynamics

[robertsconley]

It been several years but it starts out at first level. This evening I will fire up Neverwinter Nights and see if I still have the high level version from the old server.

Boog Half-Orc Fighter (standard Array)
Str: 17 +3 (15);
Dex: 13 +1 (13);
Con: 14 +2 (14);
Int: 10 +0 (12);
Wis: 10 +0 (10);
Cha: 6  -2 ( 8);

AC: 16;
HP: 12;
Fort: +4;
Ref:  +1;
Will: +0;

Feats
Power Attack;
Cleave;

Equipment (starting 240 gp on average)
Greataxe 1d12; Crit: x3; 20 gp;
Chainmail +5 Ac; Max Dex +2; Chk -5; Spd 20ft/15ft; 150 gp;
Cure Light Wounds Potion, 50 gp; (if allowed);


Boog Half-Orc Fighter (Point Buy)
Str: 18 +4 (10)
Dex: 12 +1 ( 4)
Con: 14 +2 ( 6)
Int: 10 +0 ( 4)
Wis:  8 -1 ( 0)
Cha:  6 -2 ( 0)

Fort: +4;
Ref:  +1;
Will: -1;

 

[robertsconley]

Not sure Rob understands that by using System Mastery to find the correct build to succeed, he’s proving the point he’s arguing against.

The point I am arguing against is about the relative balance between Wizards and Fighters in 3.X.

As for System Mastery it doesn't matter if it is real life or a set of game rules. Experience is the trump card when all other factor as equal. To me that is an obvious point.

What most people complain about are those who try to master system by crunching numbers on a spreadsheet and then expect those results to apply at every table they sit at.

 

[robertsconley]

Also this is the AD&D version of Boog at 1st level, I was lucky on the strength roll.

 

[robertsconley]

As a general note, experience/system mastery aside, I found that for novices (at least novices to my take on OD&D) the rule I found made a difference to players perceptions of bog standard fighters was they got to add their to hit bonus to the initiative die. So if you hit AC 9 on a 14, you got +4 to add to your 1d6 initiative roll. That mechanic more than anything else I did change player's perception of the fighter class.

The consensus I was told is that the fighter being able to nearly always go first in combat is considered a huge advantage. I played with enough groups see the same opinion emerge from relative novices to tabletop gaming as well as those who were experienced.

 

[Edgewise]

As a general note, experience/system mastery aside, I found that for novices (at least novices to my take on OD&D) the rule I found made a difference to players perceptions of bog standard fighters was they got to add their to hit bonus to the initiative die.

I can accept that Dexterity might not always be the best ability to contribute to initiative, but I've never understood why experience level has never been a modifier. I definitely like this houserule.

 

[Ladybird]

Nor it was a white box because I tried this in a variety of scenarios. The only thing that Neverwinter Nights allowed me to do is repeatably try again and again against the same scenario that my friends designed.

You had a consistent target that you could reliably measure your performance against, so you could tell if things were providing an improvement or not... IDK man, that feels pretty white room to me.

I can't stress how much all of it was an average. What I found that for their reputed "brokenness" 3.X wizards" had their bad days. And not just when a 1 is rolled d20.

But again though... if (Arbitrary numbers!) one class gets to be good 75% of the time and the other gets to be good 25% of the time... possible balance concern. Worth looking into.

If you'd put the effort into optimizing a wizard like you did a fighter, you could doubtless have found something just as good, but starting from a stronger base.

As a general note, experience/system mastery aside, I found that for novices (at least novices to my take on OD&D) the rule I found made a difference to players perceptions of bog standard fighters was they got to add their to hit bonus to the initiative die. So if you hit AC 9 on a 14, you got +4 to add to your 1d6 initiative roll. That mechanic more than anything else I did change player's perception of the fighter class.

Oooh, I like that. I added generic "d6" initiative to my 1974 D&D, but just giving fighters a straight bonus hadn't occurred to me.

(That said, IMO 1974 fighters don't really have any balance concerns compared to magic users; they get few numbers, the numbers are important, and they have the best numbers. I'd be careful of giving them too much so I don't make them too good.)

 

[robertsconley]

I can accept that Dexterity might not always be the best ability to contribute to initiative, but I've never understood why experience level has never been a modifier. I definitely like this houserule.

Thanks. I still add in a dexterity bonus. Also I can't say that trying this was a result of deep thoughts on design. My thought was something "OK what I can do to make fighters in OD&D a little more exciting in terms of mechanics." combined with the fact there are not a lot of mechanics in OD&D.

I knew where the path of multiple attacks, special abilities/feats, led. And so I looked at the entire combat sequence and asked "so what if I really juiced up their initiative role?", "It makes sense that experienced fighters would gain initiative more often due to superior position and other tactics that a lower level fighter or a non-fighter wouldn' t have mastered.". So I tried it and it was well OK. It wasn't like I added +5 to damage or anything radical. Then over time I noticed what I talked about either and kept it.

 

[Dumarest]

It also doesn't help that every spell is a separate little rule block that's exclusionary to every other rule, except for select spells, like Dispel and the more recent addition Counter Magic.

For me that's what makes the spells interesting and playing a magic-user fun.

 

[robertsconley]

You had a consistent target that you could reliably measure your performance against, so you could tell if things were providing an improvement or not... IDK man, that feels pretty white room to me.

The white room aspect was an artifact of how a Neverwinter Night server worked. The server administrators were creating new content all the time. So I figured out how to deal with the one and then it was changed up with the next thing I adventure with. And what I was dealing with part of an specific adventures with a bunch other stuff going on. However because it was a computer program and periodic reset for the other players, I could re-equip and give it another run.

And I didn't think it would having any applicability to tabletop play but then I tried the character at conventions and organized play events along with one time with a 3.X campaign. And it worked about just as well.

But again though... if (Arbitrary numbers!) one class gets to be good 75% of the time and the other gets to be good 25% of the time... possible balance concern. Worth looking into.

That the thing, tabletop campaign are so varied in their circumstances that you can't say that a class is good 75% of the time. Only that is good 75% time in that campaign with that setting.

I am sure I could come up equally useful tactics for the other D&D 3.X classes but what time I did put in with those rules was spent on a Fighter.

And I can't stress enough that I had to take the circumstances into account. I could not do the same thing all the time. For I could only defeat multiple weaker opponents by setting up ambushes to fight them in groups that I could handle. What I had to do to setup those ambushes varied. And if I couldn't do that, my option narrowed and risks multiplied.

Finally, I am arguing against that in D&D 3.X the Wizard is a superior class to play than a Fighter.

If you'd put the effort into optimizing a wizard like you did a fighter, you could doubtless have found something just as good, but starting from a stronger base.

The fundamental weakness of 3.X Wizards is that they can't take multiple hits. They have to avoid damage. The trick to defeating them is being able to endure what they throw at you to get those hits in. I realize it this is a simplistic answer but that the high level view of what I did to take out wizards. Again, I did not win eveytime, but then the wizards I went up against didn't either. To me that what true balance is, the winner is goes to the side with the better plan and a little luck and it not all based on raw power.

(That said, IMO 1974 fighters don't really have any balance concerns compared to magic users; they get few numbers, the numbers are important, and they have the best numbers. I'd be careful of giving them too much so I don't make them too good.)

[/QUOTE]
Which is why I stayed away from adding things from AD&D and later editions. The only thing I took tweak the attribute bonus so the max was +3 instead of +1.

 

[robertsconley]

For me that's what makes the spells interesting and playing a magic-user fun.

One reason I dislike the theater of the mind style as opposed to miniature is that the terrain and specific placement of the opponents on that terrain is what provides variety for fighters like the different spells provide variety for wizards.

 

[tenbones]

Lots of gold here to mine!

The problem with the Fighter vs. Wizard thing, especially post 2e, is that the design of 3e and later was done without setting specific consideration. What's really weird to me is the assumptions based purely on paper should have indicated the *need* of in-setting realities based on these discrepancies (Mageocracies rule!) or... Non-casters have means of obliterating casters. Or Magic-Use is extremely rare - and there are *reasons*.

I'm not saying that players should be unduly limited from playing any class. I'm saying the conceits of the setting should be reflected in either direction. If Mages are going to be that much more powerful over the arc of assumed play - then the world should reflect whatever assumptions of Magic-Use would entail by population. A world where magic use and Magecraft is plentiful should reflect that. That means non-casters would be the Batmen in the world of Supermen. Or the inverse is true - where Mages are super-rare, and Non-casters rule the world. But the mere fact Mages exist implies they are dealing with challenges that non-mages either don't know about or can't easily deal with, and there is some in-setting reason they're rare, or there is some in-setting control for why Mages aren't ruling the world. Those considerations, in my mind, should be part of the game's design (if you plan on having a setting).

If not - then you need to make casting modular so a GM can tune it up/down as desired for whatever setting conceits they'll be using the system with.

What I'm getting at is unless you're creating a universal system - the "balance" factors of the setting assumptions ideally should be reflected in either 1) the mechanical expressions of the class/races in play 2) the in-setting social realities that enforce the status-quo (whatever it is - Mages rules, non-Mages rule) with a powerful (ideally mechanical) explanation of WHY this status-quo exists and HOW it is maintained. That status-quo should also be wide open to be destroyed/bolstered by PC's as they see fit (or try to).

 

[Khanwulf]

As usual, if you're not playing with assholes, "imbalance" can be interesting and fun.

That's practically a mantra "any RPG concept is great when you're not surrounded by assholes".

Lightly on this note: one of the most enjoyable DnD campaigns I ever played in involved what what effectively a Batman-and-Robin romp through the Temple of Elemental Evil (original) module with a friend's triple-classed, mid-teen-leveled drow and my initially 2nd-level human fighter.

Because there were only two PCs, there was no pretense of "balance" at the table, and it was a marketplace for ideas and story instead of tactical member-swinging on a point-buy.

--Khanwulf

 

[Sommerjon]

Lots of gold here to mine!

The problem with the Fighter vs. Wizard thing, especially post 2e, .....

Looking over D&D both TSR and WotC, never understood why people think the discrepancies "exploded" starting WotC 3e. The discrepancies has always been there.

There is a thread over at that... purple place... [WIR] Earthdawn Core Rules (1993) Lou(original LD of Earthdawn) talks about setting vs mechanics in the later half of the thread, like the last 50-/+posts.
I was in pretty regular contact with both Christopher and Greg during the development of the early ED products, and during one conversation with Christopher we got to talking about the Thief discipline, and said something along the lines of "The Thief discipline needs to have these 7 specific talents." When I asked why, he went on to remind me that J'Role (the main character in the original novel trilogy) uses all 7 of those talents in the course of the first book, and that J'Role was intended to be our "example character" - in this case, an example of a First Circle thief adept. Changing the game in the manner I suggested for consistency would introduce an unnecessary discrepancy between the fiction and the game rules. Now, I know that most game fiction plays pretty fast and loose with the rules, but this was how we planned to introduce people to Earthdawn, and we wanted to be as consistent and correct as possible. In the end, I asked myself "Is it such a big deal that one discipline has 7 talents at First Circle and the others have 6?" My answer: Not really.

edit. Looked it up LouP starts talking about it on Post#397

 

[robertsconley]

Sure but the broad gist what I was getting at that given the setting implied by 3.X RAW, Fighters are not hapless doomed forever to be enslaved to their magical betters.

But in a side way of supporting what you said.

The implied setting of 3.X has to be presented somewhat completely. I talked about using NWN but one thing I didn't mention is I was doing this in a environment with computer equivalent of maps, dwarven forge, and miniatures. So terrain, positioning, other environment factor had detail and mattered.

If it was a featureless white landscape, literally a white room, then my tactical options as fighter would have been far more constrained depending on the circumstances. Part of what makes fighters interesting are positioning, formations, terrain, etc. If that omitted or described adequately then well the wizard is going to be that more interesting or that more effective along with any other class with more mechanical fiddly bits.

I would say that part of the issue that more than a few referee omit an important part of the setting that part of the core book. A part that happened to be somewhat important in making fighters more effective.

 

[robertsconley]

Looking over D&D both TSR and WotC, never understood why people think the discrepancies "exploded" starting WotC 3e. The discrepancies has always been there.

There is a thread over at that... purple place... [WIR] Earthdawn Core Rules (1993) Lou(original LD of Earthdawn) talks about setting vs mechanics in the later half of the thread, like the last 50-/+posts.

Just saying if you look in OD&D, over a third of the magic items are fighter only. Page 23 and Page 24 of Monsters & Treasures.

In short you can't just evaluate the situation on the class description alone.

 

[tenbones]

Just saying if you look in OD&D, over a third of the magic items are fighter only. Page 23 and Page 24 of Monsters & Treasures.

In short you can't just evaluate the situation on the class description alone.

Correct... Itemization-as-"Balance" cascaded into other issues. Monty Haul etc.

The point being - it is an emphatic piece of evidence in terms of design that the Non-casters were disadvantaged on some level. OR - the assumptions of the world at large should reflect the amount of magic-item proliferation.

I'm not trying to poop on D&D. Let me say this first and foremost. We're talking about this with 40+ years of hindsight and multi-generational shifts in assumptions including several generational regressions due to outside influences like video-games etc. across 5+ editions of the same game design - specifically when it comes to D&D.

I also am not trying to castigate old-school D&D because frankly, there's no changing that (unless you're doing a Fantasy Heartbreaker) I'm trying to keep the needle on game-design in general on where "balance" is *really* supposed to happen - my contention is that RPG's in the modern context have largely stopped or never took into consideration in-setting controls *at design* to allow for what is now percieved to be "imbalanced".

People can look at my posts going back *DECADES* where the LFQM issue so completely rankled my nerves - I was in the trench with the worst of the Nerdzerkers. I am Pro-fighter all the way. Not because I hate casters... but because I realized after writing so much 3e/PF content that it's the internal assumptions of the design that are flawed and they *can* be corrected by tying the system tighter to the setting.

Universal systems have less of this problem (though it exists in varying degrees) - because they're designed to be modular.

The inverse of the argument still stands: If "balance" as perceived by the gaming public is real, in its general current state - why is there still these debates merely by asking the question? Yes I'm asking for nuance - but if it's real, it should be this difficult to explain why. We can go on and on about how specific systems, like 3e are fubarred and how to correct them. But that's kind of my larger point. The corrections tend to not exist free of in-setting context.

If you white-room it... you have what? Samey kinda classes/races that call into question the implied genre, right? The two are linked. But rarely is one side discussed in lieu of the other.

This makes me realize why I fanned the flames of Fantasy Craft for so long - it did, in hindsight pretty damn closely what got me asking these questions.

 

[AsenRG]

It been several years but it starts out at first level. This evening I will fire up Neverwinter Nights and see if I still have the high level version from the old server.

Boog Half-Orc Fighter (standard Array)
Str: 17 +3 (15);
Dex: 13 +1 (13);
Con: 14 +2 (14);
Int: 10 +0 (12);
Wis: 10 +0 (10);
Cha: 6  -2 ( 8);

AC: 16;
HP: 12;
Fort: +4;
Ref:  +1;
Will: +0;

Feats
Power Attack;
Cleave;

Equipment (starting 240 gp on average)
Greataxe 1d12; Crit: x3; 20 gp;
Chainmail +5 Ac; Max Dex +2; Chk -5; Spd 20ft/15ft; 150 gp;
Cure Light Wounds Potion, 50 gp; (if allowed);


Boog Half-Orc Fighter (Point Buy)
Str: 18 +4 (10)
Dex: 12 +1 ( 4)
Con: 14 +2 ( 6)
Int: 10 +0 ( 4)
Wis:  8 -1 ( 0)
Cha:  6 -2 ( 0)

Fort: +4;
Ref:  +1;
Will: -1;

Sleep
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (DC around 14, and you have a +0/-1 on Will saves).
Spell Resistance: Yes

Long story short: for each round that you let a sorcerer act, you have about 75-80% odds of losing immediately. Have fun!

 

[robertsconley]

Long story short: for each round that you let a sorcerer act, you have about 75-80% odds of losing immediately. Have fun!

Sure goes for the wizard as well. But they got to be aware of me first. If I can gain surprise I have a very good chance of felling them in a single shot with 1d12+ (3 or 4). On average I will be doing 9 to 11 points of damage. More than enough to KO wizards and sorcerers up to about 3rd level maybe 4th if they are unlucky in their hit points but not likely.

The range of Sleep is only a 100 feet + 10 /level a bow or other missile weapon easily out ranges a wizard/sorceror casting sleep. Now for Boog I opted to sneak around or just to run away if I caught in the open by a magic user type.

In short there are options. And if I caught in the open by a sorceror/wizard with sleep likely I will go down (and have).

 

[robertsconley]

Correct... Itemization-as-"Balance" cascaded into other issues. Monty Haul etc.

Yes but we are dealing RAW so you have to look at what the treasure table say about the implied distribution of treasure. Just as the core rules for 3.X imply that encounter take place amid terrain and other factors. [/QUOTE]

Rob's Note: I think equipment doesn't get considered in these discussion because everybody afraid of being painted as "Monty Haul" referee. But the truth of the matter, players develop a picture of an ideal load out given the style of their referee and work to try to fill it out. Because adventuring is obviously easier with better gear.

Continuing the discussion. In OD&D, High level Fighters have better gear. It part of what makes them more capable although it not part of their class description. From my work with the treasure type tables it obvious that Gygax's intention that fighters will have enough magic items to form a kit when they reach higher levels.

The point being - it is an emphatic piece of evidence in terms of design that the Non-casters were disadvantaged on some level. OR - the assumptions of the world at large should reflect the amount of magic-item proliferation.

And at least for the implied setting of OD&D there are some proliferation of magic items. And I think it is woven as part of D&D's DNA and is present in later editions. That if you forego consideration of magic items then fighters lose an important part of their higher level capabilities.

I'm not trying to poop on D&D. Let me say this first and foremost. We're talking about this with 40+ years of hindsight and multi-generational shifts in assumptions including several generational regressions due to outside influences like video-games etc. across 5+ editions of the same game design - specifically when it comes to D&D.

I played a lot of City of Heroes and World of Warcraft and got to experience the optimization culture first hand. One thing they always considered regardless of the game as part of what make one thing good and another not is equipment.

I also am not trying to castigate old-school D&D because frankly, there's no changing that (unless you're doing a Fantasy Heartbreaker) I'm trying to keep the needle on game-design in general on where "balance" is *really* supposed to happen - my contention is that RPG's in the modern context have largely stopped or never took into consideration in-setting controls *at design* to allow for what is now percieved to be "imbalanced".

I don't think you are dumping on D&D. I do think you are influenced by some of the common bias floating around. My view is that Equipment is just as much as part of the setting as any other element. Also the origin of my view is that early one I allowed magic item shops because the City State of the Invincible Overlord had magic item shop. So I learned to deal with them as part of the overall equation. And had campaigns where the players got wealthy and thus were able to commission or buy an arsenal of magic items.. In addition crossed their t's and dotted their i's so nobody would hassle them for it.

If you white-room it... you have what? Samey kinda classes/races that call into question the implied genre, right? The two are linked. But rarely is one side discussed in lieu of the other.

As an aside, the white room is a tool. It information about the odds of things happening with certain mechanics. For example what is better in classic D&D +1 to hit? or +1 to damage? The implied assumption when all other factors are equal. Of course all other factor are not equal. But since deciding whether taking +1 hit over +1 damage is a factor it would be useful to know so you can add that your evaluation either as a player or referee.

But to follow up on what i said either about rules in general. I am not beholden to that information. If it the set of options is truly sub-optimal and it what I want to play, then I will play and relish the challenge of trying to achieve the goals I set for the character. But it rare that I find a set of options that sub optimal in all or even most circumstances.

Why?

Because the heart of traditional RPGs is that they are a reflection of the reality of a setting. With all the complexity and detail that implies. As long as the referee presents a little of that reality I can make it work and either find or create the circumstance where my choices will be effective.

That the point I been imperfectly trying to communication in talking about Boog. I took it upon myself to play what was considered by my friends a suboptimal and see what it took to hold my own. And I found out it does hold it own. While not I win button, and require some practice with the tactics there were some wizard who rued the day they met Boog. And there were days where I rued the day that Boog met that Wizard.

 

[tenbones]

Old school D&D CERTAINLY suffers less from it than 3e onward.

What is crystallizing for me here is this codifying this - either for my own benefit or maybe as a "How to" thing down the road :

System - Task Resolution for all subsystems should be as uniform as possible to support baseline assumptions for the world - not the characters, classes, etc. but for the systems those characters will interact with. Combat/Meta-Combat (spellcasting etc)/Scaled Combat (vehicle/monstrous/supers etc).

Setting Conceits - Setting conceits will have systemic tools for GM's and Players to establish controls for perceived needs of the setting's baseline status quo. These will include examples of the staged development of culture, gear, magic/meta-abilities, with examples of how to handle them at scale with one another. Could provide even a generic developmental flowchart for campaign creation and possible ramifications with these things plugged in/out with corollary ramification tables for the GM sections.

"GM Best Practices" - GM guides and tools to explain the setting conceits organically, with tools for them to tweak up/down or even eliminate Conceits - with more granular rules and guides on how to handle these changes or INTRODUCE them at specific stages of your setting's developmental Conceits.

 

[robertsconley]

Followup on the Referee's side of the equation

So my point thus far been made by me as a player (in 3.X case Boog). I think the reason we see so much debate over 3.X (or any system's) balance is because it impacted by how the referee managed their campaign.

Let's face it what we do is a leisure activity, my opinion is that most referee don't get that deep into the setup of their games. In the case of D&D 3.X for what we are talking about, I bet many combat encounters are resolved by throwing out a battlemat, marking a few important pieces of terrain and throwing some miniatures and tokens. In short the referees are setting up a literal white room on that mat.

So it doesn't surprise me that many people find truth in what tenbones and other say about the relative balance of 3.X classes (or other classes).

But if I was to set the same encounters with all the bits and pieces that would logically be there like you would with dwarven forge and props, then opportunities are created that didn't exist with the marked battlemat previously.

But it not a case where Dwarven Forge is better, the same thing happen with theater of the mind. A referees just describes the encounter as being in a forest clearing or a 20' by 30' room with only one or two important details. The players assume that all there is and just goes with it. Thus turning the encounter into a literal white box.

Or the theater of the mind referee throughout encouraged the players to assume that yes if the encounter takes place in a forest clearing, they will find the thing one would expect unless the referee says otherwise. The players have enough life experience to know much of what could be in these various locales and also cooperate to point out things that other players may missed but logically be there.

Thus opportunities are created that didn't exist in the white box scenario.

These details are just as much as part of the setting as the things we talked about earlier and thus impact the relative utility of character elements and mechanics. Just the other thing we discussed impact the relative utility of character elements and mechanics.

Sorry if the above is a bit unclear, in someways it is a first draft consolidating my thoughts on the topic.

I will say the solution is simple as far as an RPG projects go. The author is presumably the one that most experience with the material. So in addition to the material and mechanics, tell the reader about your experience. Tell them what you did, why you did it, and what happen. Even if it is just a note.

The most consistent comment I get about my Majestic Wilderlands are all the notes that litter the text. People find them informative about why things are what they are in the supplement.

 

[tenbones]

Yeah I tweaked the crap out of 3e to get the "tone" of my 2e games... and it took insane effort especially post 10th lvl.

I think where a lot of modern game design - WotC I'm looking at you - and where the hat-tip needs to go to the OSR movement is *really* getting new GM's into the fold of roleplaying vs. system-playing. It's not entirely WotC's fault... new gamers coming into the hobby are as likely to come into TTRPG's from MMO's as anywhere else (hot sports opinion).

The idea is to get them ramped up with more than just "running modules" - which anyone can do. But giving them some toys to really dig into for making it their own with roadmaps beyond just "figure it out, kid." which is always on the table regardless.

My project will be an attempt to put this all into a unified practice.

 

[CRKrueger]

The big thing with Rob’s NWN example is party composition. Was this solo? The fighters’ AC and HP would allow them to hang longer in combat. In a group though, especially with multiple casters, you get a magnifying effect, where the casting ability to replicate non-casters ability starts to have an effect.

 

[robertsconley]

I find that two of the hurdles I need to overcome are.

• This is not a boardgame where everything you can do is defined by the rules.
• You are not cheating if you attempt something that not in the rule or will work contrary what the rules systems as long it consistent with your character and/or the world your character lives in

Setting I find is RPG jargon so World works equally well with experienced players or novices to get this point across. The way I teach/coach the concepts naturally is through first person roleplaying. They don't have to act or do funny voices but they do have to respond in first person. Even tho this make a small number of player uncomfortable I find this resolves a lot of questions about what can or can't be done in a situation as it puts the player more into the "moment".

Ideally I hope would also make them feel immersed but it sufficient if they are looking at where they are from a first person perspective.

 

[robertsconley]

The big thing with Rob’s NWN example is party composition. Was this solo? The fighters’ AC and HP would allow them to hang longer in combat. In a group though, especially with multiple casters, you get a magnifying effect, where the casting ability to replicate non-casters ability starts to have an effect.

This is solo. Which is why I had to adopt different tactics depending on the opponent including whether they were a group or not. But when it boils down to there comes a point that the numbers just doesn't work and there isn't a path to victory or achieving the goal without bringing in allies.

What I find with multiple players is everything is magnified not just caster. The dominant factor in my experience is cooperation and teamwork not the actual mix of ability within reason.

For example missile weapons can outrange spells so a team of fighters can create a situation to deal with a group of spellcasters.

But if solely comes down to fighting in on a whiteboard then the outcome will be whatever works best on a whiteboard. All I can say that there is a reason why history is littered with example of battles and campaigns where the "superior" force lost because of terrain and other factors. Just as history is littered with example of a better commander being defeated because his force was inferior and there was no opportunity to use any other factor to defeat the raw power of their opponent.

 

[CRKrueger]

Rob, no one’s saying that smart play and good GMing can’t mitigate to a certain degree the LFQW advantages. We’re also not saying that for people loving fighters, they didn’t love them in 3e.

We’re saying that the additional spells and removal of all spell casting limitations in 3e, meant casters were operating on a new fundamental paradigm with all new setting assumptions, while fighters were mostly unchanged, and that dramatically altered the dynamics and balance of power.

All the examples in the world of you defeating wizards with poisoned caltrops, angry bees, a lantern and some ball bearings aren’t going to change that.

 

[Chris Brady]

I am only arguing rules as written. I cannot and will not argue house rules. I believe they can fix anything, and they are unique to everyone.

 

[robertsconley]

All the examples in the world of you defeating wizards with poisoned caltrops, angry bees, a lantern and some ball bearings aren’t going to change that.

Sorry I wasn't clear, with NWN all I had was the terrain, the action economy, in-game equipment, and my character's abilities as tools to defeat the opposition. When I transferred the same techniques over to tabletop they worked just as well.

The poisoned caltrops, angry bees, lantern, and ball bearing certainly expanded the options I had with the human referee but that not what I was referring too.

We’re saying that the additional spells and removal of all spell casting limitations in 3e, meant casters were operating on a new fundamental paradigm with all new setting assumptions, while fighters were mostly unchanged, and that dramatically altered the dynamics and balance of power.

I understand. I disagree with the assessment and explained why. But I get why people reached the conclusion they did. NWN was popular but how many used it the way I did and try to transfer the character to a tabletop game. Then played enough time to get a general feel of how things were working between the two? A

It OK if you don't believe me. If you want to try it yourself the tools are out there, NWN can be obtained legally and cheaply from Good Old Games and you can try it yourself to see if I am full of shit or not. You can even cut out the computer AI by having one person enter in GM mode and possess a character. So it is human on human.

 

[robertsconley]

I am only arguing rules as written. I cannot and will not argue house rules. I believe they can fix anything, and they are unique to everyone.

The server I played on didn't have rules mods. Likewise house rules were not present in 3.X organized play.

As for using ball bearings, lanterns, etc. they are in RAW.

 

[CRKrueger]

Heh, I played NWN and ran a server for years.

You’re preaching to the choir about The Gaming Den type claims of things being irrevocably broken to be overblown. I fought those maniacs all the time when they’d come over to the Site.

However, you’re simply wrong and frankly, making a silly argument, if you claim all the changes to spell casting and spellcasters in 3.x didn’t fundamentally change the class, particularly in relation to the fighter class.

You’re basing this entirely on NWN alone, based on an early version of the 3.x rules and being quite different in some aspects. Full-blown 3.5 is a completely different animal.

I know you’re a good player, but the hundreds, if not thousands of threads on every gaming forum in existence talking about the issue aren’t just people who aren’t as good as you.

 

[Voros]

These debates usually seem to boil down to fighter vs. wizard. I recall finding after level 7+ in D&D the wizard tended to overshadow other players.

One of the effective counters to that in 2e was Magic Resistance, which make Dragons, Devils, Demons and other appropriate baddies for high level parties tough as hell. I’ve been thinking of implementing a stronger magic resistance into 5e, starting with dragons, but haven’t had the chance yet.

One tweak I was considering is that if a monster has magic resistance and makes its saving roll, it takes no damage or effect, if it fails it still only takes half damage, not sure about effects.

Outside of D&D are there any other games with balance issues that come to mind? Don’t recall much in CoC or PbtA.

Rifts is a bit infamous for the Glitterboy’s being way OP compared to everyone else but I’ve never played so haven’t seen that.

 

[dbm]

Outside of D&D are there any other games with balance issues that come to mind?

Rolemaster got pretty magic-centric, especially once ritual magic starts to feature. If you took a permissive approach a ritualist could cast pretty much any spell, and there are thousands of spells in Rolemaster.

Star Wars Saga Edition was pretty skewed towards Jedi.

 

[Chris Brady]

These debates usually seem to boil down to fighter vs. wizard. I recall finding after level 7+ in D&D the wizard tended to overshadow other players.

That's because the Fighter is considered THE baseline in the game. No matter what edition the Fighter is the basis that every other class is based on. And the Magic-User/Wizard is the top end. What's more is that the Fighter tends not to change all that much in terms of power. They don't have a scaling damage bonus, never get a save or suck/die ability of any sort. Meanwhile, most of the other classes do, Thieves got Backstab, then Rogues' Sneak Attack. Everyone knows of how spells ballooned the higher you got. But weapons in a fighter's hand don't scale, the supposed better they get.

Rifts is a bit infamous for the Glitterboy’s being way OP compared to everyone else but I’ve never played so haven’t seen that.

That's because it's never true in practice. It LOOKS tough with having the most MDC on the torso, but it came with some significant limitations. To actually participate in combat and not be detrimental to any allies, not to mention being the 'shiniest' target on the battlefield... It was a stationary turret with an open area of about 500ft. And really, you don't to destroy the body, remove the head and that's not much tougher than a UAR-1.

Remember, this is the game in which a group of five basic men (Coalition Soldiers) armed with Heavy Armour, but with average rifles can take out a robot that's supposed to be equal to a tank (The UAR-1 Enforcer) in about 1:15 minutes. They might lose a soldier, but the combat system allows them to turn the mech into a wreck.

But on paper, the GB looks oh so powerful.

 

[TJS]

The problem with playing the 3.X figher smart is that only mitigates issues if you're much smarter than the other players, and the GM (or the GM plays the enemies as dumb).

For example Assassins get Deeper Darkness and Improved invisibility as spells, meaning if they're played smart they'll be attacking a fighter who can't see them to effectively respond.

If it was Conan, his preturnatural senses would allow him to hear them approach at the last minute and make a dodge or attack. (And the 3.5 Barbarian has some options along this line). The Fighter doesn't even have Listen as a class skill.

Really as I've said before, a lot of the issues with WOTC D&D came from them making the system at a time when class/level systems were considered old-fashioned. As a result, they retrofitted a lot of elements in from the point-buy systems of the time. The 3.5 Fighter is basically like a player making a character in Gurps who has pretty much sunk all their points into fighting skills. If you were the GM you'd look at the character sheet and say "Dude, you might want to consider spreading your points around and making a bit of a more rounded character, or at least a plausibly functional human being."

Right from the beginning of 3.0 we were scratching our heads and basically concluding that the Fighter was not so much a class as package to be dipped in and out of if you wanted some extra feats.

Yes you can potentially get around these limitations by playing smart, but as 3.X has very specific rules for doing things and many of these involve skills, the rules for skills are very clearly defined, and Fighters basically don't get skills, it's hard to see how this can be done without effectively house ruling.

You want to sneak up on the wizard and get the drop on him? Well better hope the GM doesn't follow the rules and call for a Move Silently check, as this is not a skill that Fighter's get.

But when it comes to LFQW, the Fighter almost feels like it's weighting the scales too much in one direction. I can honestly say I never saw anyone play a single class Fighter for more than a couple of levels in 3.X unless the GM had greatly houseruled the skill list and the number of skills available.

 

[Chris Brady]

A lot of the issues with 3.0 is actually Monte Cook, his love of D&D magic, and his misundersanding on how CCG's and the term 'trap cards'. Everything in 3.x is built around the same thing that makes a lot of CCG's successful, system mastery. And in 3.0, that was knowing that the caster classes were superiour to anything without magic, and to pick the few feats that had a scaling bonus, rather than the static.

3.5 was an attempt at a course correct, but the damage was baked into the system, making it rather frustrating to anyone who wanted to play a Fighter or Rogue further than level 6. There's a reason that the 'E6' idea actually took off.

 

[TJS]

How do we know it was Monte Cook? He seems to get all the blame but wasn't Jonathon Tweet the lead designer?

Or are you referring to the much misunderstood and misrepresented "Ivory Tower Design" article - where among other things he talks about the assumptions of the design team's philosophy - not his own.

 

[Mankcam]

I'm pretty amazed how Fate Core excels at 'game balance'. I know it's no longer the novel game it was a few years ago, but balance between player-characters seems to be something it is pretty good at.

In our Middle Earth campaign, we have a Dunedain Ranger-Trader, a Hobbit Inquirer (like a Consulting Detective), and an ancient Nandor Elven Wanderer, a warrior from The Elder Days.

Given that is such an eclectic mix of characters, most of my other rpgs would have major issues trying to achieve 'game balance' between these characters

 

[Chris Brady]

How do we know it was Monte Cook? He seems to get all the blame but wasn't Jonathon Tweet the lead designer?

Or are you referring to the much misunderstood and misrepresented "Ivory Tower Design" article - where among other things he talks about the assumptions of the design team's philosophy - not his own.

Because he's said so in several interviews. In fact, the whole love of magic is from his 120 dollar setting... Ptolus, that's it. He had an example of how players who saw some mage turning into a Minotaur and rampaging, and they accepted it as 'normal' and he was raving on how they 'got' the setting.

He also had an interview where he mentioned his love of Magic The Gathering and their 'trap' cards and how Feats for 3e was meant to be his versions.

He spoke PERSONALLY, that HE loved those two things and how that influenced the design, which I believe he was a lead on.

It's on the internet. You can find them.

 

[TJS]

No. As I already said, Jonathon Tweet was the lead designer of 3rd edition D&D.

So the whole idea that Monte Cook was somehow uniquely or disproportianely responsible for 3.0 just doesn't hold water. Even if he was pushing the game in a certain direction (and expressed preferences for aspects of the game don't actually tell us what rules elements he was actually responsible for) he was part of a whole team of people, at least one who held some kind of senior position over him, who were able to push back if they didn't like the direction. Maybe he was the person pushing for the removal of restrictions to spellcasting and no one else cared enough to push back - certainly it's a plausible assumption - but I've never seen anything to suggest that it's any more than that - an assumption. (This is a bit like the assumption that elements in 3rd Edition that resemble Ars Magica* were put in there by Jonathon Tweet who was one of the designers of that game - again, plausible, but not necessarily true.)

I'm no great fan of Monte Cook. I found Numenera disappointing in a whole lot of ways, but I really can't understand why the internet wants to make him the villain.

And unless you have a link to a separate interview I can only assume that your reference to trap cards is a folk remembrance of the Ivory Tower Design article - which has become notorious for people's tendency to miscontrue it and to read it in extraordinary bad faith (For one, as I said earlier people ignore the fact that in that article he talks about what the design team did and what the design team were thinking, not his own individual thinking, except insofar as was a member of that team).

Monte Cooke[/URL]]
Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

Note the use of "we" throughout.
If blame needs to be assigned it should at least be apportioned fairly.

Of course it's also possible that the other designers would describe their collective thinking differently.

And, at least as far as I'm aware, no one has ever published an indepth discussion of the thinking that went in 3rd edition and the overall steps in the design process - so we're left, ultimately with speculaton.

* The game all about super powerful wizards

 

[Chris Brady]

He's also the only one who mentioned the use of 'Timmy cards' and he's also mentioned loving the D&D magic system over anything thing else, and Tweet may have been in overall charge, Cook clearly had a massive influence.