Quote from: flyingmiceBrilliant analysis, Holmes! I say! I MUST write that down!

-Watson

Which part - that I'm making an unsubstantiated claim, or the claim itself? And speak up, you're not the only old man around here...

Quote from: James J SkachWhich part - that I'm making an unsubstantiated claim, or the claim itself? And speak up, you're not the only old man around here...

I'm not?

The claim, boss! The CLAIM!

-Tattoo

Quote from: TattooThe claim, boss! The CLAIM!

-Tattoo

I don't like Clams.  And what's seafood go to do with it.  And where'd this short gentleman come from. Where are my lunchtime pills..

I'm hungry...

But don't you want a certain amount of that kind of bravery?

I'd rather not have a game where players timidly skulk and slink and stop timidly at every door--afraid to open it without a set of tongs. I do want them to get a little punished (and perhaps even have a  PC die) if they take on an encounter stupidly.. but I want them to go forward with complete courage, with the knowledge that they can win, especially if they play it right.

what were we talking about, again?

time for my nap. . . .:flop:

Quote from: James J SkachI'm going to make a claim now with nothing to back it up.

Balance is actually hurting D&D. How is it hurting D&D? Warthur and Drew both provide logical reasons for having one versus not: it's a tool, one that you can ignore.  I don't disagree.

The problem is the players have it too - and they don't want it ignored.  In fact, it builds the expectation that it won't be ignored.  So then, when they blindly stumble into a cave and bust through the iron-bound open door at the end of the "front-porch," without listening, without searching around, they feel safe in doing so because whatever's onthe other side should be EL appropriate, right?  I mean, what else are all those rules in the DMG for?

This is where you want to say, before the campaign even starts, "here's how I plan on running the game: some encounters you won't be able to beat straight off the bat, and some encounters you'll struggle with - possibly to the point of a TPK - if you don't use your head".

The exact definition of "fair" isn't something that a game company can define from on high - the best they can do is say "A party of X PCs of Y level should be able to beat Z levels of monsters in a fair fight, assuming no tactical advantage to either side". What "fair" is, and when it's OK to be "unfair", is something which has to be hammered out at the group level. This has always been the case; I refuse to believe Gygax would have devoted that big ol' section on dealing with player complaints in the 1E DMG if there wasn't a healthy contingent of whiny bitches in the hobby from day one.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut don't you want a certain amount of that kind of bravery?

I'd rather not have a game where players timidly skulk and slink and stop timidly at every door--afraid to open it without a set of tongs. I do want them to get a little punished (and perhaps even have a  PC die) if they take on an encounter stupidly.. but I want them to go forward with complete courage, with the knowledge that they can win, especially if they play it right.

dungeon-delving was (AFAIC) a mix of caution and bravado.  yes, there's timidity.  that's exploration part.  then when they get to the fights, that's where some bravery comes in.  i say "some" since they don't know what's after that encounter, so they don't blow their resource load right off.  

this extra level of twinky-power thing is starting to bug me. . . .

AM - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Look, you're playing a heroic game.  If you're timid about your character and you feel the need to skulk and slink, so be it.  It's proabably a smart move if you have to go out with these crazy in the fucking head "adventurers." Other's will say - fuck it.  I only live once and I don't care if it's a dragon in the room, I'm going in. Of course, when they carry him out on his shield to the local priest, he may decide to me a bit more careful in the future. Or not.

The balance should be something the players learn and instantiate through their characters - that's their power.  Some characters will be fool hardy, some devoutly brave, others will lobby for skulking. But if there's something in a book they can point to and say "you made that encounter too difficult - it's at least 3 higher than it should have been for a party at our level," they will.  Or I should say some will, some won't.  But it sure seems there's a lot of it about.  I guess my point is that in a weird way, when I look at it, where did players get the idea that things should be balanced (as evidenced by the complaining I've seen - YMMV)?  From the fact that the rules even exist.

It's a catch-22.  A conundrum.  A sticky wickett.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's a catch-22.  A conundrum.  A sticky wickett.

One that's easily solved by clear communication prior to the campaign beginning.

Your hypothesis seems to rely on the players being an intractable bunch who are obsessed with metagaming concerns. I think it's far less of an issue with mature and reasonable people who are aware of one anothers expectations.

As long as everyone knows what page they're on (and can deal with it) then I really don't see it being a problem.

Quote from: WarthurThis is where you want to say, before the campaign even starts, "here's how I plan on running the game: some encounters you won't be able to beat straight off the bat, and some encounters you'll struggle with - possibly to the point of a TPK - if you don't use your head".

The exact definition of "fair" isn't something that a game company can define from on high - the best they can do is say "A party of X PCs of Y level should be able to beat Z levels of monsters in a fair fight, assuming no tactical advantage to either side". What "fair" is, and when it's OK to be "unfair", is something which has to be hammered out at the group level. This has always been the case; I refuse to believe Gygax would have devoted that big ol' section on dealing with player complaints in the 1E DMG if there wasn't a healthy contingent of whiny bitches in the hobby from day one.

That's why I say I don't disagree.

but what's seems to have happened in my experience and perspective is that people have interpreted "A party of X PCs of Y level should be able to beat Z levels of monsters in a fight, all else being equal," in the following way:

• "A party of X PCs of Y level should be able to beat Z levels of monsters in a fight, all else being equal."
• The above is a "balanced" encounter.
• A game is not fair if it is not balanced.
• Therefore, a game is not fair if the encounters aren't balanced in the way described.

I'm not defending the logic, I've just seen something like it underlying arguments of both players and GM's. Look at the thread about the Bodak.  Look at all the people screaming "Balance!" It's like a party of True Neutrals...

And that's really what I guess I'm trying to say.  Unified mechanics seem like a good idea - they certainly streamline aspects of the game and it's logical.  What was given up when they became a kind of defacto goal? I don't know, but I think we're going to see the pendulum swing. That's what's happening with "Balance" as the uber-goal it seems to have become.  It's a fine idea and tools for DM's to make sure they don't accidentally TPK seem logical. But what are the consequences?  What's it doing to the game?

I'm not sure we know yet...

Quote from: DrewYour hypothesis seems to rely on the players being an intractable bunch who are obsessed with metagaming concerns. I think it's far less of an issue with mature and reasonable people who are aware of one anothers expectations.

As long as everyone knows what page they're on (and can deal with it) then I really don't see it being a problem.

No offense, Drew - but I can write off just about every single design decision ever made by saying this.  It's why everyone nods their heads at Kyle's Cheetoism - on the surface it seems to simple, really.

And yet, when the first arrow flies, all plans go out the window...to paraphrase.

Quote from: WarthurThis has always been the case; I refuse to believe Gygax would have devoted that big ol' section on dealing with player complaints in the 1E DMG if there wasn't a healthy contingent of whiny bitches in the hobby from day one.

Duly noted. However, I can't help but believe that the whiny bitches eventually came to dominate - either because they were always the loudest and most persistent complainers, or because a generation who grew up with a mentality is so traumatized by PC death that they regard the eventuality as a breakdown in the game.

When I look at the changes in mechanics and tone brought in by 3.x and proposed for 4E, I see a frustrated spaz behind most of them. "It says right here in the book that three ogres are an EL 5! You're not being fair!"

There's a reason why I only play D&D with my long-time buddies who I've played with since 1980; I just can't handle the pissy book-lawyers who seem to dominate the game these days.

I can't help but think that over-elaborate chargen sequences feed into that spaz's sense of entitlement.  When it takes a long time to build a proper PC I can't help but think that killing that character will be a tremendous pain in the ass.

Quote from: James J SkachNo offense, Drew - but I can write off just about every single design decision ever made by saying this.  It's why everyone nods their heads at Kyle's Cheetoism - on the surface it seems to simple, really.

And yet, when the first arrow flies, all plans go out the window...to paraphrase.

No offense taken. It's just that the only way I can imagine encounter balance being damaging to the hobby is if it's solely populated by empty-headed metagamers who think winning combat is everything. Anyone who's ever read The Hobbit will know that just because you're the heroes it doesn't mean you can take out the dragon. Yet.

And sometimes the simplest soloutions do apply. In this case at least, I think.

Quote from: DrewNo offense taken. It's just that the only way I can imagine encounter balance being damaging to the hobby is if it's solely populated by empty-headed metagamers who think winning combat is everything.

Well, there seem to be some people working on 4E who believe unbalanced encounters = bad design. I have to assume they got that idea from a widespread sentiment among people who play D&D these days.