The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)

[Bedrockbrendan]

If combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules. I'm not on a crusade against your favorite edition so stop trying to circle the wagons. So let me say this one more time.

-Combat is a large part of D&D so everyone should have some relevence there.
-D&D should also have non-combat stuff and everyone should have somthing useful they can do out of combat.

If a class is only useful in combat then that makes the game even more likely to devolve into hack and slash. At the least that means that any fighter class in future editions should have a skill list that people care about so as not to suffer the disgrace that is the 3e fighter class outside combat.

Keep in mind in older editions the thief abilities were largely non combat abilities and unavailable (and in cases like climb available at very, very diminished levels) to most other characters. Their backstab was usually much easier to pull off leading up to combat and quite a bit harder to use during combat in my experience. Bards in 2E were very much a non combat oriented class as well. Wizards were largely seen as having all kinds of cool non combat tricks as well.

Combat rules are a large part of the game, because that is where you are going to have the most disagreement over outcome. That doesn't mean the game was always just about hack n slash (though obviously dungeons crawls and combat have long been an important part of the game). Though I didn't play 1E very long because 2E came out a few years after I started, but I do remember that exploration was a major feature of that edition. It was also the kind fo game where playefs routinely worked around combat challenges by coming up with innovative in game solutions (and the DMG tackles all kins of stuff outside combat).

I cant speak as much on 1E but in 2E there was a lot of focus on stuff outside combat, and game masters were encouraged to reward role play in addition to killing things with XP. NWPs were very much about non combat stuff (with a handful of exceptions like bind fighting). The complete books were very different from their 3E counterparts, with a lot more flavor, background and RP material in general. A setting like ravenloft was explicitly combat light in the rule book itself. Our games were very role play heavy and I think it was largely due to the rules. most of my games in the ravenloft setting were investigation and intrigue (with some exploratory haunted house style adventures as well. When 3E came out it felt like it had a bigger focus on combat than 2E to me.

[Lord Mistborn]

To quote Wikipedia, [Citation_needed]

You need to PROVE what you say. With ARGUMENTS and LOGIC (or citations). Which so far you've never really done in this thread, since all you seem to do is state things assertively without bothering to provide actual arguments to support the veracity of your claims. And that just doesn't fly.

~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat. Like I've said before Hackmaster is a real game the people actually printed as a retroclone.

The game can and dose devolve into hack and slash in every edition so I'm not trying to argue against anyone’s preferred edition or playstyle. I'm not going to fight an edition war here if I can avoid it.

Combat rules are a large part of the game, because that is where you are going to have the most disagreement over outcome. That doesn't mean the game was always just about hack n slash (though obviously dungeons crawls and combat have long been an important part of the game). Though I didn't play 1E very long because 2E came out a few years after I started, but I do remember that exploration was a major feature of that edition. It was also the kind fo game where playefs routinely worked around combat challenges by coming up with innovative in game solutions (and the DMG tackles all kins of stuff outside combat).

Like I said I'm not arguing against anyones edition. 2E attempeted to move away from hack and slash, but given that as I said hackmaster is based on that era I'm not sure how sucessful it was.

[Panzerkraken]

~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat. Like I've said before Hackmaster is a real game the people actually printed as a retroclone.

Hackmaster was printed as a joke based on the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip.  Jolly Blackburn had the old TSR edition rules license given to him by WOTC after they bought the rights to D&D just so that he could make the game that his comic was about.  It's a modified set of 1e rules (not 2e) with a huge skill system, crit tables that make Rolemaster look like "Double damage on a cit" but with FAR less style, and an arcane method of tracking personal honor.

It was a playable game, but it was a joke nonetheless.  If you're basing all your assumptions about old editions off hackmaster you're entirely mistaken, and even HM has HUGE sections of the rules devoted to out of combat events.

The game can and dose devolve into hack and slash in every edition so I'm not trying to argue against anyone’s preferred edition or playstyle. I'm not going to fight an edition war here if I can avoid it.


Like I said I'm not arguing against anyones edition. 2E attempeted to move away from hack and slash, but given that as I said hackmaster is based on that era I'm not sure how sucessful it was.

See above.  Hackmaster is a satire.  It's like basing your opinion of Jonathan Swift off A Modest Proposal

[Bedrockbrendan]

~


Like I said I'm not arguing against anyones edition. 2E attempeted to move away from hack and slash, but given that as I said hackmaster is based on that era I'm not sure how sucessful it was.

The reason knights of the dinner table was so succesful in the 90s is because they were making fun of hack and slash style of play. Hackmaster is just a send up of hack n slash based on the kodt using AD&D.

[Lord Mistborn]

See above.  Hackmaster is a satire.

That's kinda the point KotDT was a satire of the way some people played older editions. Excessive hack and slash is a part of that.

D&D can devolve into a hack and slash game and I don't think that "fixing" that part of D&D is somthing possible or even desirable to the game.

I'm not saying older editions are bad or that people shouldn't play them. I'm talking about class balance. To capture 50% on the same game test a class needs to be able to "beat" 50% of a wide selection of challenges that would be appropriate to that level. that need not mean that the class scores 50% of every encounter.

As long as combat is such a large part of D&D then every class needs to be good at some combat, but not necessary all combat.

Conversely if we want to have non-combat be a bigger part of the game than every class need a viable non-combat thing.

If you think that the SGT is a bad way to balance classes and think you have a better way to do so I'm willing to hear it.

[Bedrockbrendan]

That's kinda the point KotDT was a satire of the way some people played older editions. Excessive hack and slash is a part of that.

D&D can devolve into a hack and slash game and I don't think that "fixing" that part of D&D is somthing possible or even desirable to the game.

I'm not saying older editions are bad or that people shouldn't play them. I'm talking about class balance. To capture 50% on the same game test a class needs to be able to "beat" 50% of a wide selection of challenges that would be appropriate to that level. that need not mean that the class scores 50% of every encounter.

As long as combat is such a large part of D&D then every class needs to be good at some combat, but not necessary all combat.

Conversely if we want to have non-combat be a bigger part of the game than every class need a viable non-combat thing.

If you think that the SGT is a bad way to balance classes and think you have a better way to do so I'm willing to hear it.

Dungeons and dragons CAN devolve into hack n slash, but that doesn't mean the game needs to cater to and be built around hack n slash assumptions. SGT is just a preference. If you want it to be balanced his way, that is fine, but that doesn't mean the game HAS to be designed that way. All this talk about balance is really just a preference and playstyle issue.

[Panzerkraken]

That's kinda the point KotDT was a satire of the way some people played older editions. Excessive hack and slash is a part of that.

No, Hackmaster was an in-joke for gamers about what people THOUGHT D&D was about.  It was a set of over-exaggerations.

Conversely if we want to have non-combat be a bigger part of the game than every class need a viable non-combat thing.

If you think that the SGT is a bad way to balance classes and think you have a better way to do so I'm willing to hear it.

Every class DOES have a viable non-combat thing.  It's called "roleplay".  And I'm with the group that feels that balance is the responsibility of the GM, so I haven't even paid attention to what your SGT thing is.  

I just couldn't stand to see you so completely wrong about what Hackmaster was supposed to represent.

[Lord Mistborn]

Dungeons and dragons CAN devolve into hack n slash, but that doesn't mean the game needs to cater to and be built around hack n slash assumptions. SGT is just a preference. If you want it to be balanced his way, that is fine, but that doesn't mean the game HAS to be designed that way. All this talk about balance is really just a preference and playstyle issue.

If you want a game that devolves into hack and slash less than you should be advocating every class having a non-combat thing.

SGT =/= hack and slash

Avoid fighting that dragon, convince the king/duke/some guy to help you, or find the macguffin are all things that could be on a SGT.

If you're going to argue against SGT I'd like to see a viable alternative

[Bedrockbrendan]

If you want a game that devolves into hack and slash less than you should be advocating every class having a non-combat thing.

SGT =/= hack and slash

Avoid fighting that dragon, convince the king/duke/some guy to help you, or find the macguffin are all things that could be on a SGT.

If you're going to argue against SGT I'd like to see a viable alternative

I don't need every class class to have non combat features to not have hack n slash in my games. Whether the game devolves into hack n slash is really up to the group playing it. Personally I don't care if other peoples' games devolve into it (though in my experience it wasn't a problem for most 2E groups I played in---was a much biggger issue in 3E actually). Just because there isn't a "diplomacy" or "detect" button on your sheet it doesn't mean you cant engage the setting in a non combat way. In fact sometimes not having those buttons leads to more of this kind of interaction with the setting ImO. That said, the NWP system 2E offered was more than sufficient for me for out of combat stuff. I was fine with fighter class abilities being pretty much combat focused (though they did get NWPs and followers as well). The SGT formula may be something you feel you need, but I am just fine without it.

I think people have offered viable alternatives here. They might not work for you which is fine. Nothing wrong with SGT. But if you are trying to convince people that SGT is the only and best way to balance, it is on you to prove your case (and I don't think you have or that you can since it is really just a preference). You have offered reasons why it might be a good idea, but you haven't proven that the designers of D&D should embrace it.

There was a very long conversaiton about relative power levels in Cmbat, Exploration, and Role Play. i suggest you try to find it because all the major points you are touching on were addressed pretty well by both sides. Keep in mind, I am not knocking SGT, I am just saying I don't see why I ought to embrace it as a design goal for D&D.

[RandallS]

If you want a game that devolves into hack and slash less than you should be advocating every class having a non-combat thing.

SGT =/= hack and slash

I've been avoiding the game turning into a hack-n-slash fest for years (since I got bored with hack-n-slash a few months after I started GMing in 1976. I had no trouble doing so in any version of D&D I've GMed (all TSR versions and 3e) - and without worrying about class balance (at least at anything near the level you seem to) or stuff like SGT. So have lots of other GMs. You see, all classes have this very powerful non-combat ability called "roleplay" (which can even be used in combat) By roleplaying (and GM decision making based on that roleplay, what you may have referred to as "mother may I"), all characters have a near infinite number of things they can choose to do.
 

If you're going to argue against SGT I'd like to see a viable alternative

Roleplaying. It's worked for many, many, many campaigns over the years.

[Premier]

~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat.

You keep spinning in one place beacuse there's a single issue you refuse to understand. I'll lay it out really, really simply:

The contents of the rulebook (of any game) are NOT INDICATIVE of actual gameplay experience. Got that?

Yes, most of the written rules are about combat, but there's also a huge amount of stuff - actual gaming practice, the culture around the game, the nudging by various extra books, things that naturally crop up in a campaign, etc. etc. - which is not in the PHB but also has a significant effect on how the game is played. You don't know about this stuff because you haven't been there to see it yourself. But it's still there, and older, more experienced people than you have actually seen it, and when they're describing this aspect of the game to you, maybe you should say "I didn't know about that, thanks. It does put things in a different light." rather than put your finger in your ears and go "NA-NA-NA can't hear you so what you're saying doesn't exist!!!"


But you know what? It's fucking pointless. Once again, someone has demonstrated how the human mind is wired to "win" at all costs. You're not going to listen to anything I or Brendan or, were he still alive, Gary Gygax could possibly say. You'd still just stick your finger in your ear and stick to your factually wrong preconceptions, because the "I must win the argument" is wired into your brain so strongly that making an utter fool and a prick of yourself in public is still less painful to you than admitting that you were ignorant and wrong.

[Lord Mistborn]

Roleplaying. It's worked for many, many, many campaigns over the years.

The contents of the rulebook (of any game) are NOT INDICATIVE of actual gameplay experience. Got that?

Do we have to do this, please tell me you guys aren't going here already... yep you guys went there and now I have to have this discussion again.

I'm just going to ask nicely that you take the rules vs magic tea party debate to another thread. I'm not knocking anyone here but if you keep trying to shut down the discussion like this I'm going to have to start suspecting you're arguing in bad faith.

Listen If having this debate is so important to you please start another thread.

[Sacrosanct]

. I'm not knocking anyone here but if you keep trying to shut down the discussion like this I'm going to have to start suspecting you're arguing in bad faith.
.

Wait a second.  You're the one making claims about how AD&D (1e and 2e) were like despite never having actually played either one with any significance, and adamantly arguing your position against people who have and still do play it.  And you're accusing others of arguing in bad faith?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I bring up hypocrisy.  This whole thing is, "if you don't agree with me, you're arguing in bad faith."  Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, and this:

~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat.

Hate to break it to you, but the AD&D PHB had almost no rules for combat.  You really need to stop making these claims when you know nothing about which you talk.  Especially when you're arguing with people who are intimately familiar with the material you're arguing against.

[Lord Mistborn]

Wait a second.  You're the one making claims about how AD&D (1e and 2e) were like despite never having actually played either one with any significance, and adamantly arguing your position against people who have and still do play it.  And you're accusing others of arguing in bad faith?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I bring up hypocrisy.  This whole thing is, "if you don't agree with me, you're arguing in bad faith."  Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Bringing up MTP in a thread about game design is the definition of arguing in bad faith. If you just want people to MTP everything then just release a big book full of pictures and fluff writhing.

This keeps happening, someone says something about the rules or game design and then people immediately get defensive and start drowning the thread in MTP and edition wars.

I've been trying really hard to no make this an edition war thread so why is everyone trying to make it one.