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

[dbm]

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 my experience it does this by homogenisation to the point of pasteurisation. It removes variance between characters to the extent that a chunk of flavour is also removed. I will caveat that by saying I haven’t played Dresden Files which is recognised as a chunky and flavourful game, so a good designer can probably build a great game on the chassis.

I really can't understand why the internet wants to make him the villain.

I try to live by the maxim “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” but the internet seems to have that in reverse...

 

[Mankcam]

In my experience it does this by homogenisation to the point of pasteurisation. It removes variance between characters to the extent that a chunk of flavour is also removed.

This doesn't seem to be my group's experience.

Well, at least, not in this setting. However, in a less familar setting for us then that could have easily be the case with Fate Core.

In objective terms I agree that the characters were similar (ie: same starting skill levels, same stress & consequence slots, etc), however the defining part of the character sheet comes from the Aspects. These descriptors can really add so much flavour to the characters, just as long as people are very familar with the setting material that the characters are from (like my group, whom are heavy into the lore of Middle Earth).

In our game it has allowed us to portray Tolkien's world quite well, by removing the more objective way to measure these kind of characters. Otherwise the Nandor Elf would have been an exceptionally high level PC, outclassing the Ranger and the Hobbit from the inital session.

For those that are not familar with Middle-Earth lore, the Nandor Eldar are one of the ancient Elven lineages (The Teleri). The other ancient lineages are the Noldor (High Elves) and the Sindar (Grey Elves). Essientially the Nandor are the ancient Wood Elves, with their descendents being the dwindling Laiquendi (Green Elves) of Lindon, and the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood. The older Eldar among these Wood Elf populations are Nandor. They have all the assumed Wood Elf traits, but also have lived for an immense passage of time that their lore and memories can be drawn upon.

So the system allowed the player to portray an ancient Elven character the way the player wanted one to feel, without imbalancing the game at all.

 

[dbm]

In objective terms I agree that the characters were similar (ie: same starting skill levels, same stress & consequence slots, etc), however the defining part of the character sheet comes from the Aspects. These descriptors can really add so much flavour to the characters, just as long as people are very familar with the setting material that the characters are from (like my group, whom are heavy into the lore of Middle Earth).

In our game it has allowed us to portray Tolkien's world quite well, by removing the more objective way to measure these kind of characters. Otherwise the Nandor Elf would have been an exceptionally high level PC, outclassing the Ranger and the Hobbit from the inital session.

I love Fate on paper, it is so compact in the way it allows you to implement a whole range of ‘stuff’ as long as people agree what ‘Nandor Elf’ means (had to look them up, personally, but I’m not a Tolkien fan).

For my group, it came back to a lack of widgets to play with. There are only four actions and you my or may not be able to spend Fate points on your action. Stunts shake that up a little but it didn’t seem much.

That didn’t tick our boxes but if I wanted to run a game for people with no role-playing experience who were more focused on playing a character whilst avoiding the need for lots of rules knowledge then Fate would be my first choice. I think it is a great entry to RPGs, despite a lot of common wisdom to the contrary.

 

[Mankcam]

I love Fate on paper, it is so compact in the way it allows you to implement a whole range of ‘stuff’ as long as people agree what ‘Nandor Elf’ means (had to look them up, personally, but I’m not a Tolkien fan).

For my group, it came back to a lack of widgets to play with. There are only four actions and you my or may not be able to spend Fate points on your action. Stunts shake that up a little but it didn’t seem much.

That didn’t tick our boxes but if I wanted to run a game for people with no role-playing experience who were more focused on playing a character whilst avoiding the need for lots of rules knowledge then Fate would be my first choice. I think it is a great entry to RPGs, despite a lot of common wisdom to the contrary.

Yeah I don't mind Fate, but it's not for every group. Although it can do any genre, that doesn't mean the experience of it is what people are often after. We felt that it worked well with Middle-Earth, and also our Action Flick homebrew. I certainly wouldn't do it with everything, and if I'm after a good old fashioned dungeoncrawl or a more tactical combat game, then I don't think Fate would scratch that itch at all.

As an aside, you don't need to spend Fate Pts to get the bonus from the Aspects. If you can find a way to set the action up first with another action that is justified by the Aspect, then you get the bonus for the subsequent roll. If you think of that as the default way to rationalise Aspects, then Fate Pts are just there as shortcuts.

It is an odd game in the fact that the rules mechanics are simple, yet often it can take alot more mental effort to put in practice than many more complex games require of someone.

So yep I totally see why some like it and some hate it. I straddle both of those camps at times.

In terms of game balance, I had to raise Fate as it does level that issue.
But yep, it's certainly not the be-all-to-rpgs that it was hailed as a few years ago.

 

[Nobby-W]

[ . . . ]
That didn’t tick our boxes but if I wanted to run a game for people with no role-playing experience who were more focused on playing a character whilst avoiding the need for lots of rules knowledge then Fate would be my first choice. I think it is a great entry to RPGs, despite a lot of common wisdom to the contrary.

I think this is one of FATE's weaknesses. You really have to know how to design and use aspects and stunts to make it work properly - and this takes a bit of practice. When it works it works well, but it is a bit of a paradigm shift from (say) D&D. The rules are intentionally abstract, and the effects are pretty much up to the individual group to fill in the narrative for. That gives FATE its flexibility, but at the same time it constantly requires the narrative fluff to be filled in, which means that the DM and players have to be on pretty much the same page W.R.T. the setting and capabilities of the aspects. It also requires that scenes are broken down into aspects that can be used with the mechanics, which will require a bit of thought on the part of the DM.

 

[AsenRG]

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).

There are always options. The same magic user might spread caltrops around himself, for example.
But an warrior that needs to skulk because "being caught in the open" by a wizard is likely to end with the warrior losing the fight? Yeah, that - to me - means the warrior class ain't doing its job! It's the wizard who should need to rely on skulking around.

So, I'm not even saying anything about "balance", here. These are just poor mechanics (i.e. mechanics that end up balanced around a point that the designers didn't want).

 

[robertsconley]

AsenRG, I looked and can't find the save character file or any of the convention character sheets I used. All I have is Boog at 5th level with a 21 strength, improved initiative, and great cleave added to what I wrote earlier.

 

[AsenRG]

AsenRG, I looked and can't find the save character file or any of the convention character sheets I used. All I have is Boog at 5th level with a 21 strength, improved initiative, and great cleave added to what I wrote earlier.

Great. But it only gets worse at this point...
Here's what a sorcerer can do at 5th level (3rd level spells).

Summon Monster III
Monster Alignment
Celestial black bear LG
Celestial bison NG
Celestial dire badger CG
Celestial hippogriff CG
Elemental, Small (any) N
Fiendish ape LE
Fiendish dire weasel LE
Hell hound LE
Fiendish snake, constrictor LE
Fiendish boar NE
Fiendish dire bat NE
Fiendish monstrous centipede, Huge NE
Fiendish crocodile CE
Dretch (demon) CE
Fiendish snake, Large viper CE
Fiendish wolverine CE
Conjuration (Summoning) [see text for summon monster I]
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Effect: One or more summoned creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions like summon monster I, except that you can summon one creature from the 3rd-level list, 1d3 creatures of the same kind from the 2nd-level list, or 1d4+1 creatures of the same kind from the 1st-level list.

So I go for "Summon Monster III". You don't get a Save. What can I summon?
Why, let's say he's a NE Sorc... Fiendish Monstrous Centipede, Huge: 6d8+6 (33 HP), Reach advantages due to being Huge. Bite +5 melee (2d6+4 plus poison). Various damage immunities.

What matters is, he buys me way to stop your charge. And then I hit you with Hold Person. Or Ray of Enfeeblement. Or, you know, Suggestion: Go and protect the villagers over there. There's an imminent kobolds attack.
Or I cast Fly, and grant you all of the above at my leisure. And did I forget Deep Slumber?]

Hold Person
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
And if the spider is still alive, he's going to eat you while you're paralyzed.

And I don't even like playing spellcasters.

 

[Chris Brady]

AsenRG, I looked and can't find the save character file or any of the convention character sheets I used. All I have is Boog at 5th level with a 21 strength, improved initiative, and great cleave added to what I wrote earlier.

Why would you choose Great Cleave in a 3.x game??? It's not useful in the least. By the time you can get, you won't be killing anything in one blow any way. Assuming you have a two handed weapon (2d6+5) the max damage you will be doing is 17-37 (With Power Attack and hoping the monster has a miserable AC, which isn't likely) and most level appropriate monsters will have 20+ HP, usually in the 30s. And that's in the more generous 3.5.

 

[TristramEvans]

level appropriate monsters

I think that phrase right there is the essence of the great divide between how I GM a game and the expectations of people I wouldn't even begin to know how to game with.

 

[Chris Brady]

If I were throw monsters (ignoring XP rewards) that a Great Cleave user can wipe out in a few swipes, the Wizard has already done it even if they go last on the initiative scale.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think that phrase right there is the essence of the great divide between how I GM a game and the expectations of people I wouldn't even begin to know how to game with.

See, this sentiment right here is what always gets me into trouble with people claiming I'm saying they're not REAL roleplayers or whatever. What I'm usually trying to say is people like that are literally playing a different game using the same product. We're pretty much incompatible. Like Tristam, I wouldn't even know how to start with someone from The Gaming Den or Giant in the Playground who is into playing D&D with MMO build culture, with all options on the table and every encounter curated.

 

[robertsconley]

Why would you choose Great Cleave in a 3.x game??? It's not useful in the least. By the time you can get, you won't be killing anything in one blow any way. Assuming you have a two handed weapon (2d6+5) the max damage you will be doing is 17-37 (With Power Attack and hoping the monster has a miserable AC, which isn't likely) and most level appropriate monsters will have 20+ HP, usually in the 30s. And that's in the more generous 3.5.

Because I am adventuring in a world where not everything is level appropriate and also often solo adventuring as well. Great Cleave allows me to mow down mobs of weaker creatures. Which are problematic due to their mutiple attacks. I am already doing a stupid amount of melee damage to handle the boss monsters. I keep multiple cure light wounds potions on me at level five.

 

[robertsconley]

If I were throw monsters (ignoring XP rewards) that a Great Cleave user can wipe out in a few swipes, the Wizard has already done it even if they go last on the initiative scale.

Great I can then focus on the creature with the most HP and that creature can't get to the Wizard tasty crunchy center. The point of Boog is to handle a variety of situations solo. If Boog is part of a team then I will accordingly to what circumstances demand.

Now I won't quite as a effective as some ultra specialized fighter or another that is a cog in a well oiled fine tuned adventuring team. But those teams can't deal with adventuring in campaigns where the full variety of a setting is utlized. Nor individual members are as effective when forced to solo or thrown in with a random group of adventurers. Whereas with Boog I am able to tailor what I can do across a variety of situations.

 

[robertsconley]

See, this sentiment right here is what always gets me into trouble with people claiming I'm saying they're not REAL roleplayers or whatever. What I'm usually trying to say is people like that are literally playing a different game using the same product. We're pretty much incompatible. Like Tristam, I wouldn't even know how to start with someone from The Gaming Den or Giant in the Playground who is into playing D&D with MMO build culture, with all options on the table and every encounter curated.

One thing to keep in mind that those with MMO sensibility are focused on finely tuned teams of character. It different if your goal is to solo or build in flexibility. That is if you are not trying to break the system by tying together multiple supplements like with Pun Pun the kobold.

 

[Chris Brady]

Great I can then focus on the creature with the most HP and that creature can't get to the Wizard tasty crunchy center. The point of Boog is to handle a variety of situations solo. If Boog is part of a team then I will accordingly to what circumstances demand.

You honestly think you Boog can reach the bad guy before the Wizard can shut the bad guy down? That's not your job. You're job is to run interference so that the Wizard can do the real work. This is how 3.x is built.

Now I won't quite as a effective as some ultra specialized fighter or another that is a cog in a well oiled fine tuned adventuring team. But those teams can't deal with adventuring in campaigns where the full variety of a setting is utlized. Nor individual members are as effective when forced to solo or thrown in with a random group of adventurers. Whereas with Boog I am able to tailor what I can do across a variety of situations.

That's adorable, you think 3e Fighters are effective. I used to think like that, I spent hours, weeks, months, trying to fix the class. Never succeeded, but then I'm not that smart. The best melee build was a two level dip in Fighter and the rest in Barbarian, but that's only if you want to do damage, and at high levels (10+), damage is irrelevant, too many magic abilities (Or Spells) can simply target stats or end the fight in a single save.

The optimum party for BASIC 3e play was determined to be 2 Clerics, 2 Druids and 1 Wizard. This party is not some sort of hard core mode, that's the baseline for simple progression through the game.

As always, House rules fix everything, so I won't argue those.

Because I am adventuring in a world where not everything is level appropriate and also often solo adventuring as well. Great Cleave allows me to mow down mobs of weaker creatures. Which are problematic due to their mutiple attacks. I am already doing a stupid amount of melee damage to handle the boss monsters. I keep multiple cure light wounds potions on me at level five.

The problem is that the game's math is built upon level appropriate, and by limiting the monsters to lower level creatures, the DM is robbing the ENTIRE PARTY of XP, just so you can have some use off your Great Cleave.

But again, if you're group is OK with this, I ain't telling ya to stop.

Personally, I think the Fighter could have use a scaling damage ability, and I don't mean extra attacks, because every melee class used to get those AND they used to get a scaling damage system (Paladin's Smite, Rogue's Sneak Attack), but I just couldn't figure out how to do it without just getting silly.

 

[dbm]

I think this discussion is another excellent example of the difficulties of engineering balance into a rule systems. robertsconley is talking about building a tough, flexible solo character. C Chris Brady is talking about building a finely tuned team member working with others in the same vein.

The game author needs to either set out their vision for how the game will be played or give up on that goal and ideally provide guidance to help the GM work out the implications of the table-style themselves.

System with the fewest moving parts are easiest to engineer, which is why Fate can be more easily balanced. Games with a high degree of customisation and an expectation of GM oversight in character creation can be made balanced for a table. It’s falling in between which is potentially problematic, and this is the ground modern D&D tends to occupy, especially in internet discussion where there is no GM or social contract keeping things aligned to expectation.

 

[Chris Brady]

Here's the rub, I am more of a fan of widely skilled characters. I love Conan of Cimmeria, who although in my mind maps best as a Fighter (simply because his approach to life is very warrior like) is a tough, flexible character with a myriad of skills that can help cover many a situation.

D&D on the other hand is a game about having a niche and fulfilling it, being part of a whole, rather being able to do it all. Sadly, however, the basic assumptions that were set up by the original brown books have changed, they changed the moment the players realized and created all sorts of versatile spells/exclusionary spell blocks that can do most of what the other classes can do, and often better. 3.x is just where the wheels fell off going over the cliff, but it's always been.

 

[dbm]

Here's the rub, I am more of a fan of widely skilled characters.

Me too

Funnily enough, D&D is not my favourite RPG...

 

[Sommerjon]

I think that phrase right there is the essence of the great divide between how I GM a game and the expectations of people I wouldn't even begin to know how to game with.

Isn't this

what you are relying upon to not require level appropriate encounters?

 

[TristramEvans]

Isn't this
View attachment 11332
what you are relying upon to not require level appropriate encounters?

Not me, no, you must be thinking of someone else

 

[Black Vulmea]

. . . what we're actually talking about is players being equal at the character creation stage.

Players are rarely equal.

Inexperienced or poor players can make unbalanced, ineffectual characters using 'balanced' rules. Inexperienced or poor players can take 'balanced' characters and play them badly.

Rules can't fix sucking as a player.

 

[Chris Brady]

Rules can't fix sucking as a player.

That's why you teach new players the rules and help them.

 

[Ladybird]

That's why you teach new players the rules and help them.

Also, though, as a designer not make "trap" rules... and if you're going to specifically include elements in your game that are designed for short-form games instead of long-form games or vice versa (Like the infamous Toughness feat, good for one-offs, bad for long-term play), note that down somewhere.

 

[TristramEvans]

Eh, there's a certain kind of player that likes a certain kind of game - the type that rewards system mastery and includes "trap options". It's a bout the farthest thing in the world from what I want, but the hobby is big enough to cater to everyone, and I don't see any issue with "ivory tower" design, as long as (and here's the rub) the game clearly identifies itself as such.

It's probably a bad idea for the most mainstream RPG and common gateway to the hobby though.

 

[Sommerjon]

Not me, no, you must be thinking of someone else

Wasn't really a specific you, more of the general you.

If you are not a fan of the level appropriate encounter, how do you go about establishing the relative 'strength' of an 'oppositionistic' encounter? Meaning how do the players know which is a realistic choice they have in an encounter?

 

[TristramEvans]

Wasn't really a specific you, more of the general you.

If you are not a fan of the level appropriate encounter, how do you go about establishing the relative 'strength' of an 'oppositionistic' encounter? Meaning how do the players know which is a realistic choice they have in an encounter?

I mean I don't establish that beforehand, and I can't see any way how a player's character would know, unless it's something common or they posses some general "education" ( which would likely be 50% rumour and 50% folklore or some variation thereof).

I mean, a squire, a wizard's apprentice, and a bard probably know they stand no chance against a dragon, but could probably take a small group of goblins. Everything between those extremes is kinda up in the air though. Like, could a Navy seal take a bear? How would a green beret fare against a rhino? I'd say a player's ability to answer those questions would be about equivalent to their character's ability to judge how they'd fare against an owlbear or a Jabberwocky.

But that's just how I game.

 

[robertsconley]

Wasn't really a specific you, more of the general you.

If you are not a fan of the level appropriate encounter, how do you go about establishing the relative 'strength' of an 'oppositionistic' encounter? Meaning how do the players know which is a realistic choice they have in an encounter?

How did Wellington, Blucher, and Napolean assess their chances prior June 15th, the start of the Waterloo Campaign? Through training, planning, experience, and observation.Omit any of the three and you will have trouble.

 

[Sommerjon]

I mean I don't establish that beforehand, and I can't see any way how a player's character would know, unless it's something common or they posses some general "education" ( which would likely be 50% rumour and 50% folklore or some variation thereof).

I mean, a squire, a wizard's apprentice, and a bard probably know they stand no chance against a dragon, but could probably take a small group of goblins. Everything between those extremes is kinda up in the air though. Like, could a Navy seal take a bear? How would a green beret fare against a rhino? I'd say a player's ability to answer those questions would be about equivalent to their character's ability to judge how they'd fare against an owlbear or a Jabberwocky.

But that's just how I game.

Why would a Navy Seal need to take a bear? Why would a Green Beret need to fight a Rhino?
Are Rumor and Folklore known for being "accurate"?

How did Wellington, Blucher, and Napolean assess their chances prior June 15th, the start of the Waterloo Campaign? Through training, planning, experience, and observation. Omit any of the three and you will have trouble.

And how do you represent that when the Fighter, Noelopan, is being played by 19yr old Buford T Johnson? You know who has no training, planning, experience or observations, all three of those are absent from his repertoire. What then?

 

[TristramEvans]

Why would a Navy Seal need to take a bear? Why would a Green Beret need to fight a Rhino?

Why would a peasant need to fight a hydra?

Are Rumor and Folklore known for being "accurate"?

Is mythology synonymous with zoology?

 

[Endless Flight]

Why would a Navy SEAL need to take a bear?

If you are playing.a G.I.Joe campaign it might come up!

In this case it’s an Army tracker.

 

[Black Vulmea]

That's why you teach new players the rules and help them.

There's more to playing roleplaying games than the rules.

As I said before, even with rules-effective characters some gamers are simply poor players: they're not good problem-solvers, or they're disorganized, or they lack inferencing skill, or they don't grasp genres, or they're weak tacticians or strategists, or whatever.

And I believe this may be part of what tenbones is trying to get at. 'Balanced' characters are not a fix for failures of imagination or critical thinking.

 

[robertsconley]

And how do you represent that when the Fighter, Noelopan, is being played by 19yr old Buford T Johnson? You know who has no training, planning, experience or observations, all three of those are absent from his repertoire. What then?

Everybody was a Buford at age 19, they got better. I expect Buford will too in much in the same way. Especially since in gaming, negative outcomes still means you get to try again.

 

[Baulderstone]

Everybody was a Buford at age 19, they got better. I expect Buford will too in much in the same way. Especially since in gaming, negative outcomes still means you get to try again.

I think that's a benefit of the lightning-fast character generation and flimsiness of low-level characters in early D&D. People often complain about it, but it provides new players the chance to screw up and die, then come back into the game five minutes later with a new character.

In my B/X games, the players are willing to be more experimental and reckless early on, which give them lots of learning opportunities for when one of their characters does level up.

Later editions of D&D have a much higher fun-tax attached to character death as making a character actually takes a fair amount of reading and work. If your character dies in the first minutes of a session, you will probably spend most of the session working on your new character before coming back into the game.

This fun tax is a big part of why 3E was better suited to balanced adventure paths which minimize the chance of death, and earlier editions work better with sandboxes, where you can stumble onto your doom unexpectedly.

One of the things I like in Delta Green is the way it has really streamlined character generation. Call of Cthulhu isn't the crunchiest system in the world, but spending all those skill points can be time-consuming, and a little daunting for people new to RPGs. While you can still spend place your points yourself in Delta Green, you can also just pick a template for your career and one for your background and be done with it. Character generation was the one thing in Call of Cthulhu that made it slightly less than perfect as a game for introducing people to the hobby.

 

[Sommerjon]

Why would a peasant need to fight a hydra?



Is mythology synonymous with zoology?

IDK why a peasant would be fighting a hydra. Seems awfully bold of them to be doing.

Folklore isn't mythology

Everybody was a Buford at age 19, they got better. I expect Buford will too in much in the same way. Especially since in gaming, negative outcomes still means you get to try again.

So you are admitting it is System Mastery. Once Buford memorizes the Monster Manual he will be fine.

 

[Baulderstone]

So you are admitting it is System Mastery. Once Buford memorizes the Monster Manual he will be fine.

I'd say that knowing the relative toughness of monsters is more setting mastery, but how many D&D games are really limited to the monsters on the Monster Manual anyway?

 

[robertsconley]

So you are admitting it is System Mastery. Once Buford memorizes the Monster Manual he will be fine.

Getting a college degree in computer science is system mastery of that particular field. Of course the more experienced is going to have an easier time of it. It how life works.

The question for an RPG is whether can you use what you can see as if you were there as your character to be effective without having to plumb the depths the rulebook and supplements. In general the answer is yes even with 3.X.

Why?

Because 3.X like most RPGs of it class model reality in a way that position, time, speed, and space are important tactical consideration. Which means things like splitting your forces, flanking, cover, range all play a role. Ideally like life encounters would be occurring in a variety of terrain in a variety of circumstance. Meaning that even if you master the rule system, you still need to master how to apply them as part of a consistent tactical doctrine.

It turns out that with various wargames and RPGs like 3.X like GURPS, the application of tactics is often more important than the specifics of the rules. Of course the rules have some effect, if there a rule that give a power that allows you to vaporize anybody you see well position and range doesn't matter much.

But the 3.X Wizard doesn't have that level ability. The 3.X system is riddled with effects, counter effects, and defenses. So situation is still one where the application of tactics is the more important.

My point has been playing a 3.X fighter is as fun and enjoyable and effective as a 3.X wizards because of the process I had to do to apply what I can do to the situation at hand. However it would be as enjoyable if the only thing I fought on is the equivalent of a blank grid of square like the below only ever fighting level equivalent creatures. Because that piece of terrain and situation will favor a certain set of tactics used a certain way. It is "superior" because it is the same situation every single time. So aside from luck it works the same every single time.

 

[Sommerjon]

I'd say that knowing the relative toughness of monsters is more setting mastery, but how many D&D games are really limited to the monsters on the Monster Manual anyway?

IDK how many?

 

[Necrozius]

I'd say that knowing the relative toughness of monsters is more setting mastery, but how many D&D games are really limited to the monsters on the Monster Manual anyway?

Which is why I tend to:

• avoid describing creatures by their names,
• re-skinning them to have a completely different appearance
• avoid using the popular monsters altogether.

My most memorable example was re-skinning an Aboleth to a giant sentient tree. Its roots and leaves spread out throughout the woods instead of a watery domain. Otherwise it was the same creature and no one knew. Awesome.

I did like the Tome of Foes, though (for brand new monsters).

 

[Justin Alexander]

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.

People talk about the need to specify which version of D&D you're talking about, but that even applies to 3e and this is a good example of that: 3.0 was designed with setting-specific consideration. You can see that setting. Monte Cook published it. It's Ptolus.

And when you look at Ptolus -- the setting material, the published scenarios, the actual campaign journals of the games run as part of Cook's playtesting for 3e -- you discover a very different paradigm of play than that found in most published scenarios (particularly post-Forge of Fury) and in the general online meme-sphere of "how 3.X plays." Ptolus was a pressure cooker of an urban setting with lots of different factions that were always getting proactively involved in whatever the PCs were interested in built on top of a massive megadungeon complex. Which leads to...

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.

IME, the difference is driven by scenario design far more than any mechanical changes (which I think feeds directly back into Tenbones' original point): The move from strategic-oriented play to tactical-oriented play inherently favors mid-to-high level spellcasters whether you're playing OD&D or 3E.

The second largest problem is one I rarely see mentioned at all: Quantifying the value of magical items and then setting an expected amount of wealth for a given character level is necessary for mechanical balance, but also naturally results in (a) groups splitting loot according to monetary value instead of maximum utility and (b) creates paradigms of "balance" in which the fighters are expected to dump all of their magical money value into attack bonuses (which becomes a feedback loop in a system without bounded accuracy -- you've assumed they're doing that, so CRs are calculated that way, which essentially forces the fighters to do that because otherwise they can't hit anything).

As others have pointed out, a lot of magic items were most useful to fighters and, therefore, I think it was fairly common in pre-3E versions of the game for fighters to be carrying a lot more "GP value" of magic than the spellcasters. This self-balancing mechanism was short-circuited by both the "all items have a perfectly quantified value and the fair thing is to split them evenly" and also the standards of organized play (which basically systematized that behavior).

Once again, when I had groups that ignored that sort of thinking in favor of long-term strategic considerations of "what's good for the group?" the non-spellcasters would once again have suites of magic items with interesting utility.

(This assumes we ignore the largest elephant in the room, the fact that the removal of domain-level play from the expected play of D&D means that fighters lose all of their high level toys while the wizards get to keep all of theirs. But I think we can broadly agree that even though those mechanics were found in most pre-3E versions of the game, the reality was that they were not being used by any more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the players out there.)

Like Tristam, I wouldn't even know how to start with someone from The Gaming Den or Giant in the Playground who is into playing D&D with MMO build culture, with all options on the table and every encounter curated.

I've done that a couple of times: They ended up dead. Once because it was the Tomb of Horrors and their combat-to-the-exclusion-of-all-other-things builds did really, really, really poorly. Once because, "We blew all of our resources in 15 minutes and now we're going to retreat and-- what do you mean someone is scrying on us?" The group simply wasn't capable of dealing with opposition that didn't let them completely control the rules of engagement.

(This only happens when I'm running one-shots or mini-campaigns where people bring in pre-built high-level characters. When the same people actually play in a campaign I'm running from low levels, they seem to naturally learn that their one-trick-pony builds aren't going to work.)

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.

This is complete and utter bullshit, and I will never NOT call it out as the complete and utter bullshit which it is.

He's also the only one who mentioned the use of 'Timmy cards'

...in the specific context of saying that D&D doesn't do that.

What matters is, he buys me way to stop your charge. And then I hit you with Hold Person. Or Ray of Enfeeblement. Or, you know, Suggestion: Go and protect the villagers over there. There's an imminent kobolds attack.
Or I cast Fly, and grant you all of the above at my leisure. And did I forget Deep Slumber?

One of the weird revelations in discussions of balance in D&D is that there are so many people who are playing it as a 1-vs-1 gladiatorial game instead of an RPG about small groups of wandering heroes.