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

[Bedrockbrendan]

Throwing out the term MTP isn't going to shame anyone into agreeing with you here. How much hack n slash you have in a game has more to do with A) how lethal the combat system is for PCs and b) how the gm designs adventures than hiw much of the rule book is devoted to combat in my experience.

[Bedrockbrendan]

But hat said if you bother to read the 2E and 1E books you will find many sections devoted to stuff like exploration and NPCs. Now I haven't gone through and tallied up everything so there could be something to your claim about their content, but at least read the things and test them a bit before making sweeping pronouncements based only on the fact that Hackmaster exists. The one thing many of us at least bring to the table is we were around playing the game in the 80s and 90s and can shed some light on what was actually going on at our tables at the time. I think a lot of your ideas about "Grognards" is really based on a caricature more than anything else.

[Lord Mistborn]

But hat said if you bother to read the 2E and 1E books you will find many sections devoted to stuff like exploration and NPCs. Now I haven't gone through and tallied up everything so there could be something to your claim about their content, but at least read the things and test them a bit before making sweeping pronouncements based only on the fact that Hackmaster exists. The one thing many of us at least bring to the table is we were around playing the game in the 80s and 90s and can shed some light on what was actually going on at our tables at the time. I think a lot of your ideas about "Grognards" is really based on a caricature more than anything else.

Most of my ideas about grognards are based on how people conduct themselves on this form and respond to opposing points of view, and now that I think of it several GMs I've gamed with. It's not a pretty picture.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Another factor to consider is this: GM support material matters. When I was running 3E so much of the advice was about structuring your adventure around the right number and level of ELs and CRs. That kind of advice absolutely leads to hack n slash. Contrast that with the stuf TSR was putting out in the 90s which was more about encouraging the Gm to do things beyond hack n slash. Try reading the van richten guides for instance. Those are all about encouraging the Gm to design investigative adventures where the PCs follow clues, research their enemy and interact with NPCs.

People are not just resisting your position to be difficult. Your argument genuinely doesn't match my experience of the game at all.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Most of my ideas about grognards are based on how people conduct themselves on this form and respond to opposing points of view. It's not a pretty picture.

With all due respect, it is pretty clear to me you came in here with this impression of grognards already. But even if you didn't I really don't you should let the internet be your basis for judging a group of gamers. There have been a handful of regular posters who attacked you here (a lot of the regulars have simply been avoiding the gamer den discussions, in part because they dont like the tone on either side). But as I have said countless times before, the issue isn't simply that you have a different point of view, it is that a bunch of posters from the den came in about the same time and aggresively pushing their position. Dont act surprised when you get some hostility form folks in a forum with pretty much the opposite mindset of the gaming den. Also from the beginning most of you guys have been condescending and arrogant in the way you make your arguments. Again, no rule against that here but dont be surprised if you get angry responses when you are clearly baiting people.

My advice is ignore people who are overly hostile and try to engage the people who act reasonable.

[Lord Mistborn]

With all due respect, it is pretty clear to me you came in here with this impression of grognards already.

100% of the older edition fans who I have gamed with have been DMs of the worst kind. So I'm not well disposed to Grognards.

[Lynn]

The Decker/Rigger problem's a big thing in Shadowrun, and still gets talked about.

Cross-overs in World of Darkness games are infamously hard to do, and even certain kinds of Vampires/Mages have radically different power levels.  The New World of Darkness system discourages combat, meaning that mental and social-focused characters are king.

Star Wars RPGs have the "Jedi problem," regarding a trained Force-User's power level in relation to non-Force-using PCs.

Good examples. Id forgotten about SR.

After reading most of the nWOD core books, it sure doesn't seem to me that the goal was to present a true unified system. Rather, a simple extraction and polishing of a small, shared kernel of a system. In no way does it seem to set out to allow for an expanded universe of "Being Human".

[RandallS]

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.

Depending on GM rulings is a perfectly valid type of game design with a long history in both wargaming and roleplaying games. The fact that you apparently do not like game designs which include using GM rulings for portions of their system (and refer to it as "Magic Tea Party" to express your dislike of it) does not make it bad game design nor is suggesting in in a thread on RPG design "arguing in bad faith". Neither is disagreeing with that you believe to be good game design in general.

[Bedrockbrendan]

100% of the older edition fans who I have gamed with have been DMs of the worst kind. So I'm not well disposed to Grognards.

Fair enough, some people simpy have incompatible styles and old school gaming may not be for you. but out of curiosity; how many older edition fans have you gamed with? Was there something specific about their approach you didn't enjoy?

[RandallS]

100% of the older edition fans who I have gamed with have been DMs of the worst kind. So I'm not well disposed to Grognards.

I'm sorry to hear that. However, I suspect much of that is because you strongly object to large parts of what makes older editions work the way they do. GMs using rulings over rules and enforcing the restrictions on spells and the like in older editions are likely to always seem to be "bad GMs" to you as they are using a style of play you seem to strongly disapprove of.

For example, I suspect if you played in one of my games, you would hate it and hate my GMing. I would not care. I can't please everyone and have seldom had any shortage of players for my games in the many years I've been a GM. Generally have have more players wanting to play than I have space for.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Depending on GM rulings is a perfectly valid type of game design with a long history in both wargaming and roleplaying games. The fact that you apparently do not like game designs which include using GM rulings for portions of their system (and refer to it as "Magic Tea Party" to express your dislike of it) does not make it bad game design nor is suggesting in in a thread on RPG design "arguing in bad faith". Neither is disagreeing with that you believe to be good game design in general.

I think this is well stated. Equating what one likes with "good design" and equating what one dislikes "with bad design" really misses the point ImO. A good game designer can have his preferences but also understand people who come form other perspectives with different sets of preferences. By all means, learn what you like and be that kind of designer, but walking around dismissing people who take other approaches will just lead to blinkered design.

For example, I don't think I share many of lord mistborns preferences in terms of game design and playstyle. But I am interested in what he likes and why he likes it (which is why I have encouraged him to start a thread designing his own d20 game).

[Lord Mistborn]

Depending on GM rulings is a perfectly valid type of game design with a long history in both wargaming and roleplaying games. The fact that you apparently do not like game designs which include using GM rulings for portions of their system (and refer to it as "Magic Tea Party" to express your dislike of it) does not make it bad game design nor is suggesting in in a thread on RPG design "arguing in bad faith". Neither is disagreeing with that you believe to be good game design in general.

If the GM has to houserule the game into playability that's a huge amount of work to put on someone who didn't sign up to be a game designer. Let the GM sort it out is to game design what homeopathy is to medicine.

Fair enough, some people simpy have incompatible styles and old school gaming may not be for you. but out of curiosity; how many older edition fans have you gamed with? Was there something specific about their approach you didn't enjoy?

If you want some examples than there is a thread on TGD called Aparently Expeditoius Retreat, Swift is broken. Though some of my past GMs have made some far more egregious violations of the social contract.

[Bedrockbrendan]

If the GM has to houserule the game into playability that's a huge amount of work to put on someone who didn't sign up to be a game designer. Let the GM sort it out is to game design what homeopathy is to medicine..

It is just a different approach and one that appeals to many, many people. Again it is just preference. Trying to define it as automatically bad is intellectually lazy. It doesn't appeal to you, so for your style it is bad design. But if it fills a need in the community that is a good thing. I think you would get a lot further if you tried to really understand why some peope prefer rules systems like this, instead of just dismissing it as bad design. That doesn't mean you need to embrace it but why does it bother you so much that people out there make these kinds of games and plenty of folks like to play them.

[LordVreeg]

I have been working very heavily, and am joining the party very late.

But in many threads in the past dealing with balance, it is important to undestand that the rulesets were at least attempted to be balanced, but the fulcrum of that balance was very different than people understand.  They were balaced on a game that the GM(s) was playing and writing for at that point in time.  
This means that GMs who use that ruleset but play a game with a different focus will feel a lot more unbalanced based on this incongruence.  And frankly, it takes a better and better GM to overcome these imbalance, as the system takes away time from the other GM tasks.

I know Bedrock and Randdall at least have been on threads we've discussed this, so I am sort of going over old ground, but it is an area I feel very strongly about and have dealt with a lot.

Earlier games were based upon 'the adventure', and exploring the adventure.  Resource management and abilities were based upon the challenges the GMs were setting up for these. It was based on creative problem solving, and I really feel the spells of the magi-user to a great job of showing this.  The spells were NOT all combat related, but were based on problem solving, whether it was reading languages or creating light.

As the games went into more official editions, with more wilderness, etc, and the coming of 1E, combat mattered a bit more, but the real change in fulcrum became the setting, as the game became campaign based.  The roles were more balanced along the ideal of the long term campaign, as if the game was supposed to move on to the high level play.  Men at arms, strongholds, weapon proficiency, amount of treasure gained or kept, expenditures for supplies, the RAW became more important fot the balance.  

But the next major change was the already noted change to a game based on balancing the combat function of the game as a priority.  This is easier to do; since it is more of a straight numerical comparison, but also gives less tools to more creative game solutions.  
AS mentioned, this creates a game that is focussed differently, and adventures are also based this way.

[RandallS]

Though some of my past GMs have made some far more egregious violations of the social contract.

Whose social contract? The is no one social contract for all tables of players. Even how a social contract is selected varies from table to table.

For example, I set the social contract for my table, tell players about it when they ask about my game and if they can't live with it, I expect them to say so and not play. If you showed up at my table expecting your social contract to be followed, you'd likely be very disappointed as I suspect the social contract you would like/expect would be very different from the one at my table.  

Other tables set the social contract by mutual consent (usual for groups of people who already know each other) or other methods. I've even seen the players set the contract and then seek out a GM who will do things that way, although this often leaves players having a hard time finding a GM.