Quote from: Green Demon on February 19, 2025, 06:50:02 PMInteresting vid. I was struck by the highly individualistic ethos in this endeavour to make all characters equal in their ability to contribute across all situations. I've never played a game with this design approach, but I take your word for it. I think it is ironic though, given that the political ethos of these game companies (e.g. WOTC) is allegedly left wing.

In a collaborative, cooperative model of play, where players are willing to pass the torch around, waxing and waning in terms of their (mechanical) efficacy at times, each character's distinctive abilities benefit everyone (e.g. when the thief pulls off that backstab or the fighter delivers a devastating blow).

But the individualistic approach to game balance you described operates on the assumption that players will not be able to abide being in the background sometimes, or that other players might enjoy a temporary limelight (mechanically) when a situation fits their distinctive capabilities.

In other words, these game designers treat players as fragile and assume they need to experience a 'group equality' that's thoroughly individualistic.

Yup, that's right. And its such an error because it makes overall game play much less interesting.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on February 20, 2025, 09:01:14 AMAs a classic one example - clerics with undead. Against undead traditionally clerics are kinda OP due to their specifically anti-undead abilities. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the party is worthless.

But that's actually an example of niche protection, as I pointed out in the video. Clerics can fight in any battle, and contribute, but when Undead show up it allows the cleric to play a special role.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2025, 12:10:28 PM1- What are good ways to avoid the "we have a guy who is good at repairing hyperdrive engines, and look what breaks in the middle of combat" situations, wherein a specialist / rogue / expert / engineer character ends up with a situation just crafted for him?  It's well within the kit of a fantasy game to have a locked door, but as a general trope how can these situations be constructed so as to not be forced?

I use mixed encounters with a variety of creatures. The simplest example i can think of right now is that while the fighters are taking on the bigheat threat i also include weaker, but fast enemies who will try to target the spell casters. Skirmishers/outrider etc. They don't require as much combat prowess to take out so the thief is still useful for fighting those and also things like finishing off weakened enemies to less of the fighters damage output is wasted.

Theres also the idea of gimmicky weapons like something like a pepperball to blind enemies. The fighter could use it but the party is missing out on more if he does because he'd do more damage otherwise (thief will have good to-hit with missles and melee combat is more damaging due to adding strength bonuses. Its reasonable the thief will match or exceed the Fighter's Dex, or Agility in my case).

Granted, not every battle uses intellegent creatures, but i think its okay for the less combat focused character to have combats where they're less useful. Though even then ive had times where the fighter gets disarmed and then the thief throws their weapon back or carries the flammable oil to stop regeneration.

If I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

In general, I agree with the early posts that macro level balance before the campaign starts should be considered - but going to the micro level is counter-productive.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 21, 2025, 08:25:55 AM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on February 20, 2025, 09:01:14 AMAs a classic one example - clerics with undead. Against undead traditionally clerics are kinda OP due to their specifically anti-undead abilities. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the party is worthless.

But that's actually an example of niche protection, as I pointed out in the video. Clerics can fight in any battle, and contribute, but when Undead show up it allows the cleric to play a special role.

The balance of this critically depends on how often undead show up. For example, if I have an AD&D campaign about the war against the Deathknight lord, where most enemies fought are undead, then I might want to tweak how clerical turning works - like having it work only a limited number of times per day.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

That's presuming that the spellcasters fight duels separate from what the barbarian is doing. Conan was written as the hero of his stories, but that's not necessarily how things will work in an RPG.

In my AD&D experience, at high level the spellcasters would often make mundane action irrelevant. Spells like Teleport or Mass Invisibility meant we didn't have to fight our way through the guards or lift the gate. We could potentially just scry the enemy leader, jump to him, and wipe him out there.

On the other hand, low-level magic users were often reduced to just throwing darts as a minor aid to combat.

This balance made sense for long-term campaigns, but for one-shot adventures, I was tempted to tweak things for high or low level.

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 01:19:49 PMThat's presuming that the spellcasters fight duels separate from what the barbarian is doing. Conan was written as the hero of his stories, but that's not necessarily how things will work in an RPG.

In my AD&D experience, at high level the spellcasters would often make mundane action irrelevant. Spells like Teleport or Mass Invisibility meant we didn't have to fight our way through the guards or lift the gate. We could potentially just scry the enemy leader, jump to him, and wipe him out there.

On the other hand, low-level magic users were often reduced to just throwing darts as a minor aid to combat.

This balance made sense for long-term campaigns, but for one-shot adventures, I was tempted to tweak things for high or low level.

Okay, so the wizard scrys (scries? can scry...whatever) the bad guy, teleports the party there, then the fighter kills him. That's what I would expect from high level AD&D, though. Even if the wizard then cast a fireball to kill the dude, any sort of threat that requires high level wizards probably has magic resistance and/or lots of contingencies to deal with magic, hence the "mundane" fighter can whack him with a club if necessary. Also I have brought this up before, but technically in AD&D, MUs can't do shit against a high level fighter in a real combat situation. Well, NO characters can due to how initiative works. A fighter with 2 attacks per melee goes first, every single combat round. Hits the MU trying to cast a spell (or cleric, illusionist, druid, whatever) because no dex bonus when casting and a high level fighter doesn't even need to roll to hit AC 4 probably (without ANY bonuses), 1s don't miss! Good luck trying to have some evil wizard beat Conan. Hell, if you do not have a high level fighter in your group, again due to how initiate works, facing any monster with multiple attacks means your party is essentially fucked.

So, okay, "mundane actions" are EASIER, they are not irrelevant. Just using your example, eventually the Bad Guys are going to start using anti-magic shells to keep out the PCs from murdering them in their sleep. It'd be easier and cheaper to just hire a 15th level assassin to do that sort of thing, which again means "mundane actions" still matter.

I don't even know what I'm arguing here, because I agree that at high levels AD&D does become much more magic-focused, I just don't think that means there has to be some sort of "balance". I have only played one campaign where anyone was using 9th level spells, and my character was the aforementioned assassin. My character had PLENTY to do that would be considered "mundane".

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 02:42:08 PMI don't even know what I'm arguing here, because I agree that at high levels AD&D does become much more magic-focused, I just don't think that means there has to be some sort of "balance". I have only played one campaign where anyone was using 9th level spells, and my character was the aforementioned assassin. My character had PLENTY to do that would be considered "mundane".

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're arguing either.

The issue isn't whether a fighter can beat a wizard in melee combat. The issue is that high level magical abilities become so far-reaching that individual melee combat stops being as important.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 02:42:08 PMGood luck trying to have some evil wizard beat Conan. Hell, if you do not have a high level fighter in your group, again due to how initiate works, facing any monster with multiple attacks means your party is essentially fucked.

Charm, summon, illusion, polymorph, and other spells give spellcasters tons of options for melee capability without ever needing to get within melee range personally - this over the base defensive guard of henchmen and hirelings.

I ran an AD&D tournament adventure with only a bunch of high-level magic-users as PCs. The idea was the first half would take place within a huge anti-magic field, so they were forced to rely on their wits without spells. The second half was completely chaos with all the page-flipping and spell-casting, and it was interesting to see what they came up with.

Greetings!

Hmmm. I don't think "Balance" between Character Classes is really all that important to many players. As my commentary earlier, on the "Macro" level of the campaign, various degrees and elements of balance are important and meaningful for a great variety of reasons. At the "Micro" level, I don't think "Balance" is very important at all. Intellectually, many Players comprehend that Wizards, for example, are uber powerful, especially at high levels. That consideration alone, however, doesn't seem to be very compelling, let alone the dozens of arguments about what high level Wizards can do, compared to a similar, high level Fighter. Players just want to play whatever Character Class they are in the mood for, or otherwise are excited and jazzed about.

For example, I have one friend that just *loves* playing Wizards. He really gets jazzed about researching spell effects, and different min-max rules combinations, spells, and magic items so that he can ride around like a humanoid nuclear weapon. *Laughing* Yes, roleplaying is also important to him, characterization, being faithful to his Character background and personality, and so on. But no matter what, he always wants to find the angle where he can maximize his battlefield efficiency and impact.

Another Player is just always into playing Druids or Witches. She is at heart, a kind and gracious woman that just loves the whole forest-witchy-healing-cute animals thing.

Another Player loves playing Barbarians, Paladins, or Fighters. Just humble, otherwise ordinary men that are courageous and skilled with armour, weapons, fighting, and tactics.

Maybe I am cursed or blessed with rather normal gamers, but *most* of them don't care about min-maxing that much, or certainly ideas about what Wizards can do compared to Fighters. For the one particular Player, he loves Wizards, and enjoys min-maxing. Others though? They are entirely low-key uninterested. They are interested in what they like, almost in spite of whatever the rules are.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 04:17:51 PMMaybe I am cursed or blessed with rather normal gamers, but *most* of them don't care about min-maxing that much, or certainly ideas about what Wizards can do compared to Fighters. For the one particular Player, he loves Wizards, and enjoys min-maxing. Others though? They are entirely low-key uninterested. They are interested in what they like, almost in spite of whatever the rules are.

A lot of players are like that, as long as the thing they are interested in gets to shine sometimes.  And I don't even mean every hour or every session, as long as the shine when it comes pays off for the delay.  Furthermore, gets to shine means something different to each one of them, as you elaborated in the post.  Being sneaky and getting to scout out where the enemy is and thus avoid ambush is all of that and a bag of kittens to one player, while the next one sees the value to the party but has no interest in doing that themselves. 

Also, there is a kind of perverse enjoyment out of being a somewhat weaker combatant and getting the finishing shot.  About once every 3 sessions or so, I'll have some tough monster just refuse to go down, absorbing hit after hit, sometimes critical shots.  I know it's almost gone, but the players are starting to wonder even as I describe it as reeling. Then the wizard tosses a dart, rolls 1 point of damage, everyone groans waiting for its next round of attacks, and then burst into cheers as I describe it tottering and falling. 

Yeah, it's cool when you get that massive critical and practically one-shot some creature.  It's also cool when it goes the other way.  If you don't have somewhat unbalanced abilities in different areas, no one at the table gets to experience that.

Min-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

The point is the GM establishes what "balance" is at the table.

The elements of the game that are playable and interactable are (and should) be determined by the GM in accordance with the setting's conceits. The setting should, *ideally*, established what degree those elements that exist from the rule are extant in the setting.

This is how "D&D" has mutated into the freakshow it's become. By removing itself from the conceits of its setting(s) the core rules now tries to include everything without giving express guidance on expressing those rules within a setting.

So if everyone could be a Wizard - how would the world look? Why would Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms appear as it does in their original boxsets if "Good" Drow and Orcs were perfectly normal? If Wizards could and *would* dominate those settings?

Balance among classes has never *really* existed beyond certain small assumptions - the Glass Cannon of Spellcasters, vs. the HP-Bag of Tanks. But in-setting, those memes are subject to the realities of the rules in actual play. Which spawned other memes like the "Linear Fighter/Quadratic Mage".

Among all these things is the one single person - not the system - that determines *what balance is*. It's the GM.

The degree to which the GM can make these things work is dependent on their experience and skill with the system. This is partially why some systems "click" with you more than others. It's also why discussions of balance are almost always relegated to discussing "rule systems" because most people never actually GM. Their experiences of Balance or Imbalance are equally at the feet of GM's that have done their games dirty, either by misusing or not understanding the implementation of the rules and lacking GM-skills, or the opposite: They understood exactly how to apply the rules and express them in their games to make their setting come alive.

Balance is a dirty word because most people think rules alone are what makes game work. They don't. They never will in an RPG. They can only describe how things in the setting which they're used *might* work. The GM has to enforce those expressions, and if done right, no one will complain and everyone will say "ahh... this is balanced."

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 21, 2025, 05:20:58 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 04:17:51 PMMaybe I am cursed or blessed with rather normal gamers, but *most* of them don't care about min-maxing that much, or certainly ideas about what Wizards can do compared to Fighters. For the one particular Player, he loves Wizards, and enjoys min-maxing. Others though? They are entirely low-key uninterested. They are interested in what they like, almost in spite of whatever the rules are.

A lot of players are like that, as long as the thing they are interested in gets to shine sometimes.  And I don't even mean every hour or every session, as long as the shine when it comes pays off for the delay.  Furthermore, gets to shine means something different to each one of them, as you elaborated in the post.  Being sneaky and getting to scout out where the enemy is and thus avoid ambush is all of that and a bag of kittens to one player, while the next one sees the value to the party but has no interest in doing that themselves. 

Also, there is a kind of perverse enjoyment out of being a somewhat weaker combatant and getting the finishing shot.  About once every 3 sessions or so, I'll have some tough monster just refuse to go down, absorbing hit after hit, sometimes critical shots.  I know it's almost gone, but the players are starting to wonder even as I describe it as reeling. Then the wizard tosses a dart, rolls 1 point of damage, everyone groans waiting for its next round of attacks, and then burst into cheers as I describe it tottering and falling. 

Yeah, it's cool when you get that massive critical and practically one-shot some creature.  It's also cool when it goes the other way.  If you don't have somewhat unbalanced abilities in different areas, no one at the table gets to experience that.

Greetings!

Yeah, Steven Mitchell, great commentary. It's good to know I'm not alone in playing with some normal players. Most of my players seldom argue with me, certainly not on rules judgments. Most of them are just fine playing whatever Character Class, and they don't really bother with the minute details. They are content with my judgments or interpretations on what they can or can't do. Most of the time. Same thing goes with race selection. I tell them what races they can choose from for the starting area or whatever, and they are good with it.

I don't have to worry about any unexpected or stupid race and class combinations. For 5E for example.

And, Steven, you are definitely preaching there, man. I have several players that *LIKE* the "Underpowered" Character Class. They enjoy being mostly "Normal" with just a few extra tricks. I think you are right. There is definitely a emotional payoff for "Punching above your weight" you know? They enjoy having the odds kind of stacked against them. They like being given the beat-down. *Laughing* You really see them come alive when they struggle, and fight back, and TRIUMPH. They practically have a party when that happens. I admit, that is also contagious, even inspiring, you know? I enjoy it immensely when they crawl and struggle and achieve victory, despite odds being against them most of the way.

With Shadowdark, it has been refreshingly brief and much truncated in both rules, but also core game assumptions and overall campaign "Tone." I am free, then, to specifically create and add whatever I feel is apprropriate, say for races or even Character Classes. In Shadowdark, to be honest, all of the Character Classes are somewhat fragile, even at higher levels. They never become super heroes, or just as importantly, become so wacky and unbalanced as to cause the campaign to look like a weird Sci-Fi "Kitchen Sink" more than a more traditional, Dark Ages campaign setting. Which, is generally what I strive to maintain for Thandor.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 22, 2025, 08:58:47 AMMin-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

Yeah. I think there's some mixing up of what happens in game design versus what happens at the table by the GM. A game designer makes some roughly balanced choices at the macro level, and as a result, there are some micro-level more or less popular choices. Just because everyone doesn't take the top option doesn't mean that some basic balancing shouldn't be considered.

Some posts cited AD&D as an example, but Gygax was outspoken in favor of game balance as a principle - which makes sense coming from wargaming. From Dragon #16 (1978):

Quote from: Gary GygaxWhy can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Later in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2025, 01:59:14 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 22, 2025, 08:58:47 AMMin-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

Yeah. I think there's some mixing up of what happens in game design versus what happens at the table by the GM. A game designer makes some roughly balanced choices at the macro level, and as a result, there are some micro-level more or less popular choices. Just because everyone doesn't take the top option doesn't mean that some basic balancing shouldn't be considered.

Some posts cited AD&D as an example, but Gygax was outspoken in favor of game balance as a principle - which makes sense coming from wargaming. From Dragon #16 (1978):

Quote from: Gary GygaxWhy can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Later in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Yes Gary was certainly concerned about balance for the game as a whole. Sometimes players would make the argument that since all weapons do 1d6 damage, why not just let magic users wield swords? Well the answer to that question was presented in the magic item tables-not something a player deals with. 20% of ALL magic items found are magic swords. Magic swords are where the fighting man comes into good power ups. This is an example of how game rules can look non-sensical to the players but are actually integral to the game as a whole.

White-room concerns about spellcasters often come from the perspective that:

1. The game system perpetually adds more spells (due to publishing-creep)
2. The PCs have virtually unlimited access to more spells
3. The PCs have all the spells at any given point and no other limitations (material components, time to prepare, relationship with Deity, etc)

When you're only playing with ~25% of the game rules (selectively chosen) then it's understandable when the game seems a bit off-kilter.

This is an area where you have a lot of issues going on, mostly stemming from poor GM-Player communication and establishing mature table etiquette. If we're playing my homebrew "Wrath of the Badgers" campaign I'm not letting your level 1 "Immunity to Badgers" spell that you got from Mordenkainen's Splatbook of Horrors completely trivialize 80% of the campaign (and as a mature GM I'm going to tell you that up-front, not rug-pull you halfway into the campaign).