What were we talking about?  Oh, yeah, game balance...

There does need to be some balance provided by the rules, but only in those areas covered by the rules.  Magic-users should not be the mobile path of destruction the whin- errr...  the detractors claim they are.  Neither should the other classes get tweaks to provide a constant DPS equivalent to the burst damage from the wizard.

The decision to multi-class can't be adjudicated by the rules, but the results can be.  Which isn't to say multi-classing should be punished; if the multi-classing rules are properly integrated with the rest of the game, it will be an interesting choice instead of the 'right' choice.

The degree to which a game is balanced is the degree to which it provides a greater number of interesting choices than obvious choices.

Quote from: robiswrong;680992It's not bad, but I'd rather avoid "balance via houserule".

Sure, I don't have any quarrel with that idea in particular.  Obviously, I don't adhere to it.  

QuoteNot surprised about the retry.  I don't mind the rule, because frankly I don't like the "I'll just try and try til I get it" philosophy, though the old D&D assumption of wandering monsters makes it *not free*.

I can see why the rule is in place as well, from a couple of perspectives.  As you mention, if the odds are 20% with "unlimited" retries, the player may as well automatically Open Locks, and just roll a d6 for how many rounds it will take to open instead.

QuoteI also think it's somewhat more reasonable than the "locksmith" scenario, because you're working under pressure, in poor light, and in a dangerous environment.

I would be more inclined to present those as modifiers to the roll than limitations on the number of attempts.  I know what you are saying, there are valid reasons for the one attempt.  Just to be clear, I am not making an argument that you should stop using the one attempt rule, only that I understand why it's considered a bit wonky and not my preferred method.

Quote from: StormBringer;680996The degree to which a game is balanced is the degree to which it provides a greater number of interesting choices than obvious choices.

I think this is actually the key, especially if you look at it from a Game Theory (math, not GNS) viewpoint.

And a lot of the fun in older games is "making do with what you get", thus constraining you to a set of choices that may preclude the "obvious" best choice.

In a game where you can "design" your character, yeah, you don't want an obvious "win" button.  In games where GMs actively fudge at low levels (or just bypass them), early weakness is not a balance point for later power - that "can I survive" tradeoff just isn't there any more.

In a lot of cases, it's recognizing that factors that made these choices valid in certain scenarios in older games just don't come up the way the game is (generally) played today.

Quote from: StormBringer;681000Sure, I don't have any quarrel with that idea in particular.  Obviously, I don't adhere to it.  

I have no problem with houserules.  I just don't think that it's an interesting argument to say "this isn't a bad rule, because you can houserule it".  Because you can say that about any design, so it's not particularly useful.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't (or even that I wouldn't) houserule it.  It's just not a good defense for the design itself.

Quote from: StormBringer;680996I would be more inclined to present those as modifiers to the roll than limitations on the number of attempts.  I know what you are saying, there are valid reasons for the one attempt.  Just to be clear, I am not making an argument that you should stop using the one attempt rule, only that I understand why it's considered a bit wonky and not my preferred method.

I'd probably go the opposite way, actually, and add modifiers for working in a peaceful, safe, quiet environment with lots of time.  In general, I think that the default usage of a skill should reflect the "normal" circumstances in which it would be used.

And I don't really have a *problem* with multiple attempts, so long as there's some cost (hey, random monsters and supply consumption!) to it.  I'm just saying I can understand why it's there, and that I think it's better than "unlimited retries with no penalty".

I think the rule you suggested is pretty reasonable, all things considered.  I'd be tempted to use it as a houserule, actually.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680980good call.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: robiswrong;681013I think this is actually the key, especially if you look at it from a Game Theory (math, not GNS) viewpoint.

And a lot of the fun in older games is "making do with what you get", thus constraining you to a set of choices that may preclude the "obvious" best choice.

In a game where you can "design" your character, yeah, you don't want an obvious "win" button.  In games where GMs actively fudge at low levels (or just bypass them), early weakness is not a balance point for later power - that "can I survive" tradeoff just isn't there any more.

In a lot of cases, it's recognizing that factors that made these choices valid in certain scenarios in older games just don't come up the way the game is (generally) played today.

I think a little mathematical Game Theory would go a long way in RPG design.  The rest I completely agree with.

QuoteI have no problem with houserules.  I just don't think that it's an interesting argument to say "this isn't a bad rule, because you can houserule it".  Because you can say that about any design, so it's not particularly useful.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't (or even that I wouldn't) houserule it.  It's just not a good defense for the design itself.

Absolutely.  As a blanket fix, houserules are not the best solution.  "It's not broken if you can houserule it" is total bullshit, but that also requires the ability to determine if something is legitimately broken, or just not working for your group.  But houserules to tweak the game to taste are vital.

QuoteI'd probably go the opposite way, actually, and add modifiers for working in a peaceful, safe, quiet environment with lots of time.  In general, I think that the default usage of a skill should reflect the "normal" circumstances in which it would be used.

I can see that.  The baseline is wretched conditions, so having a well lit, safe environment would be much easier.

QuoteAnd I don't really have a *problem* with multiple attempts, so long as there's some cost (hey, random monsters and supply consumption!) to it.  I'm just saying I can understand why it's there, and that I think it's better than "unlimited retries with no penalty".

Complete agreement.  Retrying with consequences is far more interesting than no or unlimited retries.

QuoteI think the rule you suggested is pretty reasonable, all things considered.  I'd be tempted to use it as a houserule, actually.

I can't take credit for that one:  Thief skills, redux

I thought it was an inspired bit of houseruling myself.

Id like a game to be balanced against the physics of the game world rather than the insecurities of the players.

Quote from: The Traveller;680939Why? It will work just as well on a magic user or fighter, and unlike a thief they aren't third wheels. You're talking about balancing out the character's abilities with magical items that could be used by anyone else. Surely you must see it's a better idea to start the thief out at a base 50% in most abilities, push it up by 10% per level, maxing out at 200% and adjusting for the difficulty of the task? Not to mention a whole variety of additional level related bonuses. That's how you'd balance on the thief, not by depending on the largesse of fellow players and the GM.


I'm mostly referring to the blue book expert set rulebook since that's where I had the most experience, but my point is that as a class the thief represented itself very poorly when compared to any other class. It's a textbook case of little to no thought being given to balance.

My favorite tweak is to make the percentages into saves for failure.  A trap that is missed, a lock that is like a movie safe (unpickable) and do forth.  Not perfect but it reinforces that anyone can scout or look for a trap.  A thief just gets a save when it goes sideways.

I think I do 'Move silently' and Hide in shadows' differently than some people.

I assume that a thief with those skills is effective even at level one at being quiet and hiding. The actual roll is to perform those skill 'flawlessly'

I don't make level 1 thieves stomp around screaming loudly just because they failed the low percentage roll.

Quote from: Bill;681150I think I do 'Move silently' and Hide in shadows' differently than some people.

I assume that a thief with those skills is effective even at level one at being quiet and hiding. The actual roll is to perform those skill 'flawlessly'

I don't make level 1 thieves stomp around screaming loudly just because they failed the low percentage roll.

That is the general interpretation, as far as I am aware.  Simply missing the roll means they didn't move silently; it doesn't mean they are automatically heard.  They are still moving very quietly, and will probably get the drop on anything ahead of them.  Similarly, if they botched the Hide in Shadows roll, they aren't suddenly glowing or the focus of everyone's attention.  They are probably still exceedingly difficult to see to the point they will likely go unnoticed anyway.  Hide in Shadows is probably more like Blend with Shadows, where it isn't pitch black, but the Thief is crunched back into a corner where the light is very dim.

Quote from: StormBringer;680973No, that's wrong, too.  The correct analogy would be to roll a d20, and when it came up as a 19 or a 20, you would give me ten dollars.  You know, 10%.  On any other result, nothing happens.

Again you're talking about a different system despite having my having specified which one I was referring to twice previously, but even then if you fail to climb walls does it happen ten feet up or fifty feet up? When you fail to move silently, does it happen when you're next to a nest of trolls?

Quote from: StormBringer;680973That is the kind of thinking that has taken over modern games.

The kind of thinking that has overtaken modern games is apparently 'lets play rapists'. Thankfully 'modern' games are and will forever remain a pimple on the flank of actual RPGs since nobody outside of a very few will actually buy them.

Anyway I hope everyone is clear on what I was trying to say at this point - balance in character creation options is usually a good thing, certainly to the extent that making a drastically weaker class for no apparent reason is a bad thing.

Quote from: Bill;681150I think I do 'Move silently' and Hide in shadows' differently than some people.

I assume that a thief with those skills is effective even at level one at being quiet and hiding. The actual roll is to perform those skill 'flawlessly'

I don't make level 1 thieves stomp around screaming loudly just because they failed the low percentage roll.

right.
And I always did and still do allow the amount of failure or success guide me, and then still need to see what the effect is.

So in Move silent or Hide, if they miss by one a bit they made a bit of noise, and a critical miss can be, well, comedic.  But then you need to check what and who is around to hear and see.

Quote from: TristramEvans;681131Id like a game to be balanced against the physics of the game world rather than the insecurities of the players.

And see, I have always interpreted the emotional state at the table as equivalent to these forces.  It it wouldn't be fun for that lock to be locked, then it never was.  It isn't as if I have a hard time imagining an unlocked door.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681241And see, I have always interpreted the emotional state at the table as equivalent to these forces.  It it wouldn't be fun for that lock to be locked, then it never was.  It isn't as if I have a hard time imagining an unlocked door.

Its more fun to let the players imagine a way to get past a door. Eliminating obstacles just because the players fail to overcome them with a single approach and their feelings are hurt is a type of illusionism coddling I won't do and it would bore the hell out of me as a player.

Many, many times as a dm I have had a locked door, chest, portal, etc...that pc's failed to open.

Never seemed a real problem. In most cases the players eventually found a way to open it.

I would never place a locked door and then automatically let it be opened no matter what.

Likewise, a bank vault is not going to suddenly open just because a pc is standing there.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;681248Its more fun to let the players imagine a way to get past a door. Eliminating obstacles just because the players fail to overcome them with a single approach and their feelings are hurt is a type of illusionism coddling I won't do and it would bore the hell out of me as a player.

Like I said, 'more fun' is the goal.  If I thought you were enjoying unlocking them, I would lock more of them.  I try hard to read my table and adapt things to fit.

I bet some of you already do this with other things, too.  Like number of opponents,  maybe? Say you get a sense that people are tired of combat tonight, so you trim the number of kobolds?