Across the whole board, generally the idea of having a game be "fair" is what some players are all about. Here, I'm going to give an example using a videogame; then cross it over the RPGs and how it's been with my group in the past when we've tried playing RPGs.
Our setting is a group of high school/college age guys sitting around playing some Halo 2 LAN.(I want to bring it back). My idea was a nice lounging time, playing some Halo with the guys. However, what was supposed to be a fun time. Quickly turned into arguments from half of the players complaining how the teams were not fair. And what I was supposed to do about it. Fair had nothing to do with it. If certain players took effort and implemented a little team work and communication; a team of 3 could have easily prevailed. We didn't get past a single game and they were complaining about the "unfair matchup" of teams.
So, now we're crossing over to our RPG history. So now it's
"How can he do that?" On something fairly reasonable. Coming from someone who sees everything that he's not doing as "unfair."
"He shouldn't be able to do that."
All on abilities or instances that are not all that reasonable to that person. But quite often we have someone saying "That's not fair that he can't take damage from a specific attack because he has an ability nullifying it."
And debating about how this or that should work. Basically democracy and player satisfaction in-game. Which I have grown to hate with a burning passion. Though how should it be approached? How do you handle it?
I don't desire to resort to the extremes of "always say yes" or "always say no" But rather to, "Yes, but..." How do you discipline a party that is set on everything being fair?
I understand balanced, yes. But this is not so much a "game" in terms of everyone having the equal chance to prove themselves. Or equal chance to get kills(which my party is used to, considering they've only ever competed with kills and stats). Or be in X position to execute this. In a lot of these cases, chances are equal or left to chance(Initiative checks, for example).
Now, call me out on being rash, or that I believe that life is not fair. Neither are all games("games"). And that the effectiveness of your character or your performance in a game solely relies on how you play and the effort you put into it. In my opinion: A person or collective body could succeed in simple tasks if they got past thinking about how "unfair" something was and began figuring out how to win.
Please note: I put in effort for that LAN party, for it to turn sour.
My occupation is roofing, so I boil in the sun all day.
I'm tired right now, slightly stressed. So forgive or pardon MY complaining
or lack of explaining every situation.
I agree with you.
But - it's also worth remembering that competitive gaming should be balanced (such as a HALO game, so to speak). RPGs are however, a cooperative game (players versus challenges presented by the GM), where there often is actually a state of inbalance - often desired, so that players and their characters may invent some various out of the box ideas to tackle them.
I've been watching my friends' kids all week... "that's not fair" is something I've been hearing a lot of. My usual response is, "there's no such thing as 'fair'!"
I KNOW that the OCD guy in our group really cares about having his PC fully optimized to do as much damage as possible in combats. That's his fun.
As long as I feel my PC can contribute something, including a decent bit of damage in combat, to the game I'm fine. Sometimes he'll remind me to tick off my usages of some resource... whatever so long as he's not pitching a fit about it.
I really don't get where the sense of competition between players in RPGs comes from... "He's getting more than meeeeee!"
Is it when two versions of my OCD guy are in the same game, bean-counting over how much damage they do and eyeballing each other to make sure the numbers add up correctly?
I really wouldn't play with those guys.
Now, if I sense some preferential treatment by the GM... such as when his wife is playing and all her NPC concepts get foregrounded and take over the whole evening with a wedding... then I get a bit annoyed.
There's also a matter of degree of imbalance. Everybody should be able to contribute meaningfully in the game, even if not in every particular situation.
Someone doing 20% more damage than someone else isn't a big issue, nor is being resistant or even immune to certain types of damage. What you just don't want to get into is Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit territory.
Quote from: robiswrong;683922Someone doing 20% more damage than someone else isn't a big issue, nor is being resistant or even immune to certain types of damage. What you just don't want to get into is Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit territory.
Not only true, but also an excellent example ;).
I love me some Halo 2 LAN, man! That's awesome! Are these guys playing Halo 3 raving about how MLG rules and all that? Because that kind of whining about game balance, weapon balance, unfair spawns blah blah blah sounds horribly familiar.
In any case. Long story short, I agree with you. Life isn't fair, and I for one can greatly enjoy asymmetrical games having to fight my way through a losing scenario. Playing Germans in 45 having to stop the Allies' advance on Germany, you know, that type of thing.
I think that fundamentally you've got a problem of gaming philosophies clashing against one another. I hate to say this to you, but someone's gotta give. Either they learn that asymmetrical games can be fun and play in the moment and just you know, get out there and enjoy the challenge, or you basically run the uber-balanced canned adventure catering to their every whim and that's that. I suspect there isn't much of a middle ground between the two: either you enjoy one aspect, or you don't, either you enjoy the other aspect, or you don't, though you very well can like both, of course.
I'd talk about it with them, assuming they are your buddies and that they can carry a conversation in an adult manner. Maybe you'll be able to find a way to create that middle ground for yourself? At least you'll know where everybody stands on this.
Oh. Also. When I run games there is a very simple rule about this sort of thing that I make VERY clear up front: don't bitch and argue about rules. Making a remark, asking for a ruling on something or saying this or that might have been wrong or whatnot is OK; creating a whole tangent conversation out of the game about this and having exchanges go on and on because you thought some aspect of game play was overlooked or a ruling was wrong and whatnot, that is NOT cool.
Talk about your issues with the GM before, or after the game, not during the game. But then when the discussion comes up before/after the game listen to the players, somewhat.
Know when to put your foot down to keep the game moving: "OK I got your point, we can always talk about it some more, but right now you've got three wererats going for you. What do you do?"
Everything in its own time. There's a time to bitch and be conciliatory and discuss and give/listen to feedback and stuff out of characters and all that, and then there's actual play time. Keep one separate from the other as much as reasonably possible.
Honestly I think the position of perfectly symmetrical fairness is a bit of a strawman. That's not to say that no one holds it, but I think they are few in number and misrepresented in arguments as being a much bigger thing than they are. I think most players can handle asymmetry so long as they can count on meaningful contribution.
Quote from: LibraryLass;683932I think most players can handle asymmetry so long as they can count on meaningful contribution.
That's been my experience as well.
I'd also point out that early versions of D&D arent 'well balanced' in the way we think of balance today. But that's because a lot of assumptions are different today, with most players.
In a lot of old campaigns the presumption was that character death was an ever-present reality, and players would have multiple characters. So the wizard being powerful at high levels wasn't an issue.
It was a reward. And it didn't really matter if Joe's wizard was outshining everyone in one session, because maybe he'd be playing his thief next week. And him playing the wizard in the first place meant putting that character at risk, and losing it was a *real* thing.
In more modern games, where the assumption is generally that it's going to be x number of players, each with their one character, and that character death is possible, but not probable, the type of balance that showed up in earlier versions doesn't work quite as well.
If the wizard is almost guaranteed to live past the low levels (or hell, let's just skip them, because being low level doesn't show how AWESOME we are), and is given magical gear out the gate to ensure that they can do stuff every turn from first level, then getting to high level isn't a reward. It's just assumed.
And if the fact that your wizard is still more fragile (+1 hp/level after level 9, anyone?) at high levels isn't true, and if the GM *still* probably wont' kill your character, then the risk of playing that character and *losing them* isn't there either.
And if everybody plays the same characters every week, then gross imbalances become more noticeable, because Bob is *always* outshining everyone else.
Now I'm not saying that everyone plays that way. When I play old-school games, I sure as hell don't. I'm just saying that 'balance' can mean different things based on how the campaign is run. And when you remove or minimize things that the game is balanced around, then it's easy for things to get wonky.
In the end Angel/BMX (which is really a 3e paradigm anyway)is fixed the same way a lot of problems are, not through rules but through a logical campaign. Where does a wizard keep all his spell books, components, magic items, how does he guard them, if he steps outside his tower how many magical enemies his power level or higher are waiting. Same with kingdoms, thieves' guilds, etc... The game just keeps getting bigger and the stakes higher.
You can forget all that stuff and just focus on adventuring, but the problem with balance then is the table, not the rules.
For the OP, my group has a couple well-used phrases for people who start whining about other characters..
"Play your character."
" Fuckin' Whaaaa!"
While the OP doesn't supply details of what, exactly, these players consider "fair" and "unfair," I strongly suspect it's the common BS in this culture that "fair" = "That which allows me to win/succeed" and "unfair" = "That which either prevents me from winning/succeeding, or which those cheating bastards over there use to win/succeed." That being said, I have a few thoughts:
* I do not run a "democracy." I run my game. The rules I use, with a small hatful of house rules, is effectively GURPS Lite, and I've been running with this game system for 28 years now; they are neither up for discussion nor debate. So ... the answer to "How can he do that?" boils down to "He's using his abilities," which the system allows him to do.
* I agree with you, strongly, that you get out of a game what you put into it. Those who trouble themselves to learn the rules will prosper. Those who don't will be behind the 8-ball. Those who engage with the game and the setting will prosper, and those who don't want to bother, well ...
* Communicate with your players. Tell them your expectations, tell them how your game works, and tell them that they can either buy into it or beg out of it. No hard feelings, but if they can't play the game you plan on running, then they should find a game which better suits their prejudices.
Quote from: CRKrueger;683969In the end Angel/BMX (which is really a 3e paradigm anyway)
It was a thing in earlier editions too, but 3e exacerbated it in any number of ways.
Quote from: CRKrueger;683969is fixed the same way a lot of problems are, not through rules but through a logical campaign. Where does a wizard keep all his spell books, components, magic items, how does he guard them, if he steps outside his tower how many magical enemies his power level or higher are waiting. Same with kingdoms, thieves' guilds, etc... The game just keeps getting bigger and the stakes higher.
Right. And people, in general, stopped playing that way, making a lot of those things non-factors in "balance." That's not advocacy for not playing that way, btw. Just to be clear.
Quote from: CRKrueger;683969You can forget all that stuff and just focus on adventuring, but the problem with balance then is the table, not the rules.
It's a mismatch between the campaign style of the particular table, and the campaign style that the game was balanced around. However, given that the majority of people *do* play the "adventuring all the time game" now (in addition to the things I pointed out), I think it's fair to say that some level of rethinking the balance is warranted.
I'm not speaking from *my* preferences here. I'd prefer D&D be a combination of what I described and your post. But if I was a WotC designer, my first instinct would be to design for the style that the majority of tables are actually playing.
Some people are argumentative by nature, can't ever be wrong, have control issues, etc...
They have to suck it up, shut the hell up, and play the game.
Everyone can't get their own way.
So in an rpg, the burden is on the gm to make the final calls, and the players are tasked to roll with it.
I really don't see any other option if the people in question have these issues.
"Mr. I am always right" is not going to become reasonable if you give in to him.
It seems to be a common misconception in our hobby but Balanced <> Fair.
Balanced means of equivalent power to other abilities of the same level/cost. Fair would make for a really dull story, imagine if everyone in your game world got a completely fair distribution of the resources, that would be so boring.
Quote from: Ravenswing;683975While the OP doesn't supply details of what, exactly, these players consider "fair" and "unfair," I strongly suspect it's the common BS in this culture that "fair" = "That which allows me to win/succeed" and "unfair" = "That which either prevents me from winning/succeeding, or which those cheating bastards over there use to win/succeed."
This seems to be the case in general (both inside and outside of rpg games). Especially in "zero sum" or "negative sum" situations, whether real or perceived.
Quote from: LibraryLass;683932I think most players can handle asymmetry so long as they can count on meaningful contribution.
++
That's the entire point of
Ars Magica. (And, to a lesser extent,
Rifts, if only implicitly.)
There is 'organic' meaningful contribution, and 'contrived' meaningful contribution.
Organic requires some degree of balance. As in, a scholar learns the weaknes s of a mummy through research, may be as useful as a warrior seeking a magic sword to slay the mummy.
Contrived does not. As in, Yes..yes of course the scent of oranges destroys that mummy...yes...because your pc is an orange farmer.
The only time I've seen balance work in play, is with wargaming ventures where each side starts out with the same number of points to build their units. Even then, it hasn't been fair because some Players have more experience/better tactical skills/better understanding of the rules than others.
A lot of times it is not what you have, but how you use it that wins the day.
As a GM it is my job to make sure each player has a fair chance to do stuff and that one player doesn't monopolize too much table time.
Where I draw the line? At whiny bitches. Don't need em.
Quote from: jeff37923;684147A lot of times it is not what you have, but how you use it that wins the day.
Ideally yes. Decisions at the table should matter more than build. Any game that doesn't do this isn't much fun to me.
The question is what tools do characters have in their toolbox? If one character has a saw, and the other has a hammer, that's fine. If one has a saw and a screwdriver, while the other has a hammer, that's okay, too.
Hell, if one's got a power drill and the other has a hammer, that's also fine. The hammer's still useful, and necessary. The fact that the drill is 'better' than the hammer isn't really relevant.
Where things become problematic is where one character has a full, portable, fusion-powered workshop including a repeating fusion powered hammer-o-matic, and the other has a rusty hammer. Angel Summoner vs. BMX Bandit.
And even *this* concept of balance is mostly important if you make the assumption that everyone will be playing the same characters for the whole campaign, and that characters, in general, won't die.
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit only works (or doesn't as you like) in games where there's just nothing but over the top powers. I've seen it happen - I made the mistake of making one of my first Champions characters a well-balanced "Real Roleplayer" kind of character and then got into a game with a clone of The Hulk, Iron Man, Batman and a homicidal insane spiderman.
In AD&D, if "Angel Summoner" is the mid to high level magic user, the rules will pretty much keep that in line; components, disruption of spell by attacks, limitations on spells cast, etc. do go a long way to preventing the fighters being left out. After 9 rounds, the high-level magic user is out of deadly spells to use and now relying on potentially irreplaceable magic items to do the work. Meanwhile the fighter with the 2-handed +3 sword is still up and hacking away, taking hits that would kill a magic-user (potentially in one blow).
So it balances (ugh!) out.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;684161Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit only works (or doesn't as you like) in games where there's just nothing but over the top powers. I've seen it happen - I made the mistake of making one of my first Champions characters a well-balanced "Real Roleplayer" kind of character and then got into a game with a clone of The Hulk, Iron Man, Batman and a homicidal insane spiderman.
In AD&D, if "Angel Summoner" is the mid to high level magic user, the rules will pretty much keep that in line; components, disruption of spell by attacks, limitations on spells cast, etc. do go a long way to preventing the fighters being left out. After 9 rounds, the high-level magic user is out of deadly spells to use and now relying on potentially irreplaceable magic items to do the work. Meanwhile the fighter with the 2-handed +3 sword is still up and hacking away, taking hits that would kill a magic-user (potentially in one blow).
So it balances (ugh!) out.
The problem really lies somewhere else - in that the most high level MUs will have their "buffs" cast beforehand, often making it very, very difficult for the fighter to be able to target them at all, without some magic of their own.
I know how to solve that problem, but it does not mean that the mechanics don't push a bit of an "upstream battle" for the GM, so to speak. I'd say that the best thing about AD&D's MU was his general lack of spell slots (starting with 1 if I remember correctly), which does balance it out a bit more, since you need to pick between buffing yourself out of the harm's way, and being able to take out enemies.
Quote from: Rincewind1;684163The problem really lies somewhere else - in that the most high level MUs will have their "buffs" cast beforehand, often making it very, very difficult for the fighter to be able to target them at all, without some magic of their own.
I know how to solve that problem, but it does not mean that the mechanics don't push a bit of an "upstream battle" for the GM, so to speak. I'd say that the best thing about AD&D's MU was his general lack of spell slots (starting with 1 if I remember correctly), which does balance it out a bit more, since you need to pick between buffing yourself out of the harm's way, and being able to take out enemies.
What buffs are these (assuming real pre-UA AD&D )? If the magic user spends too many spell slots on defensive magic the he hasn't got much zapping power.
Even invisibility can be overcome by high level characters. In AD&D you can detect invisible things easier if you are badass. Angel Summoner is more of a 3.X problem.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;684161Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit only works (or doesn't as you like) in games where there's just nothing but over the top powers. I've seen it happen - I made the mistake of making one of my first Champions characters a well-balanced "Real Roleplayer" kind of character and then got into a game with a clone of The Hulk, Iron Man, Batman and a homicidal insane spiderman.
In AD&D, if "Angel Summoner" is the mid to high level magic user, the rules will pretty much keep that in line; components, disruption of spell by attacks, limitations on spells cast, etc. do go a long way to preventing the fighters being left out. After 9 rounds, the high-level magic user is out of deadly spells to use and now relying on potentially irreplaceable magic items to do the work. Meanwhile the fighter with the 2-handed +3 sword is still up and hacking away, taking hits that would kill a magic-user (potentially in one blow).
So it balances (ugh!) out.
How many battles last longer then 9 rounds. When I played AD&D most battles lasted no more then 5 unless it was some kind of massive battle. The balance in old AD&D was that magic-users were very weak at the low levels and had very low survivability and utility (at lower levels). Once they approached 9th level the wizards in theory were more powerful then a fighter, but the game had shifted to a game of strongholds and armies. This was usually the ending point of the campaign and someone else took a turn at dming. Because of this,
in my gaming experience, people avoided magic-users.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;684164What buffs are these (assuming real pre-UA AD&D )? If the magic user spends too many spell slots on defensive magic the he hasn't got much zapping power.
Even invisibility can be overcome by high level characters. In AD&D you can detect invisible things easier if you are badass. Angel Summoner is more of a 3.X problem.
Nothin' much more to say here except "Howard Johnson is right!"
I think the creation of a lot of 3e's rules were based on "Well we don't do that," ("that" being count components, casting time, etc. etc.) "anymore because we just house ruled it out anyway back when we played." and that in turn created more problems than it solved, to wit, Angel Summoner etc.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;684164What buffs are these (assuming real pre-UA AD&D )? If the magic user spends too many spell slots on defensive magic the he hasn't got much zapping power.
Even invisibility can be overcome by high level characters. In AD&D you can detect invisible things easier if you are badass. Angel Summoner is more of a 3.X problem.
Let's assume a 10th level MU (and yes, I know they aren't commonplace, but nobody says that wizard's too powerful on low levels).
So we've got 4 circle 1 spells, 3 of 2 and 3rd circle, and 2 of 4th and 5th.
Let's say one spell from 3th is out for Clairaudience - after all the wizard needs to know the heroes are coming somehow.
1st circle buffs:
Protection from Good
Shield
2nd circle buffs:
Invisibility
Mirror Image (this one cast when the door open, though)
3rd circle:
Fly
Protection from Normal Missiles
Offensive spells:
Level one:
2x Magic Missile
Level 2:
Web
Level Three:
Level Four:
Fire Trap (Preferrably supported by Web)
Ice Storm
Or 2x Ice Storm
Level 5:
2x Cone of Cold? Or 1x Cone of Cold 1x Cloudkill
And yes, this can be countered by tactics and some magic from the heroes. But let's not say that a lone Fighter without any magical items will just walk in and slap the bitch.
That said, of course, at the same time - the "glass cannoness" of a wizard shows here, since after all that, he's pretty much going "beep beep, out of fuel" for the rest of the day.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;684169I think the creation of a lot of 3e's rules were based on "Well we don't do that," ("that" being count components, casting time, etc. etc.) "anymore because we just house ruled it out anyway back when we played." and that in turn created more problems than it solved, to wit, Angel Summoner etc.
3E Development:
Lets make magic users more fun!
Spell disruption isn't fun, lets make it possible but real hard.
Not getting to move isn't fun. Lets let them manuver to avoid getting hit while casting.
Only getting 1 spell isn't fun, lets give them bonus spells.
Even bonus spells don't provide enough pew-pew. Lets make scrolls & wands cheap and easy to make.
Thats better. Now everyone will want to play a magic user.....
Hey guys......
Quote from: Rincewind1;684173Let's assume a 10th level MU (and yes, I know they aren't commonplace, but nobody says that wizard's too powerful on low levels).
So we've got 4 circle 1 spells, 3 of 2 and 3rd circle, and 2 of 4th and 5th.
Let's say one spell from 3th is out for Clairaudience - after all the wizard needs to know the heroes are coming somehow.
1st circle buffs:
Protection from Good
Shield
2nd circle buffs:
Invisibility
Mirror Image (this one cast when the door open, though)
3rd circle:
Fly
Protection from Normal Missiles
Offensive spells:
Level one:
2x Magic Missile
Level 2:
Web
Level Three:
Level Four:
Fire Trap (Preferrably supported by Web)
Ice Storm
Or 2x Ice Storm
Level 5:
2x Cone of Cold? Or 1x Cone of Cold 1x Cloudkill
And yes, this can be countered by tactics and some magic from the heroes. But let's not say that a lone Fighter without any magical items will just walk in and slap the bitch.
That said, of course, at the same time - the "glass cannoness" of a wizard shows here, since after all that, he's pretty much going "beep beep, out of fuel" for the rest of the day.
Well the invis is shot when he casts mirror image so that is a wasted spell slot.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;684179Well the invis is shot when he casts mirror image so that is a wasted spell slot.
Well, touche :D. Someone who knows his stuff really good (I never was much of a "builder", so to speak) might optimise ;).
I admit that also a lack of Imp. Invis for Wizards (MUs, whatever) is a big game changer, as it is one of the most powerful buffs in 3e.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;684169Nothin' much more to say here except "Howard Johnson is right!"
I think the creation of a lot of 3e's rules were based on "Well we don't do that," ("that" being count components, casting time, etc. etc.) "anymore because we just house ruled it out anyway back when we played." and that in turn created more problems than it solved, to wit, Angel Summoner etc.
Yeah. I think they got rid of a lot of those things because they felt clunky/in the way/whatever. And any of those, in isolation, may have been okay. But combined, it ended up being a massive change.
And the practical effect of all of it was that pretty much every drawback to playing a caster was removed.
Quote from: Rincewind1;684173Let's assume a 10th level MU (and yes, I know they aren't commonplace, but nobody says that wizard's too powerful on low levels).
So we've got 4 circle 1 spells, 3 of 2 and 3rd circle, and 2 of 4th and 5th.
Let's say one spell from 3th is out for Clairaudience - after all the wizard needs to know the heroes are coming somehow.
1st circle buffs:
Protection from Good
Shield
2nd circle buffs:
Invisibility
Mirror Image (this one cast when the door open, though)
3rd circle:
Fly
Protection from Normal Missiles
Offensive spells:
Level one:
2x Magic Missile
Level 2:
Web
Level Three:
Level Four:
Fire Trap (Preferrably supported by Web)
Ice Storm
Or 2x Ice Storm
Level 5:
2x Cone of Cold? Or 1x Cone of Cold 1x Cloudkill
And yes, this can be countered by tactics and some magic from the heroes. But let's not say that a lone Fighter without any magical items will just walk in and slap the bitch.
That said, of course, at the same time - the "glass cannoness" of a wizard shows here, since after all that, he's pretty much going "beep beep, out of fuel" for the rest of the day.
Why bother with all those spells. Just use Polymorph other and turn the fighter into a bug, then step on him. Or maybe turn him into a mouse, put him in a cage, and save him for your pet owl.
It's certain players that still sit there, with their paper in hand, Dr Pepper in the other; and they want to compete and play a game. For kills. Or whatever. I've basically said "Kills are for you to keep track of." Because quite frankly, that's not what we're designing our own RPG for.
It's a deep desire of mine to draw them away from the idea that this is a "game" and more of a cooperative campaign. I like the idea of a collective of players trying to achieve a goal. However, some players are just hungup on someone casting a spell. I appreciate this because I'm going to implement "Play your own character."
Initially, I'd like them to not complain and actually think about how their party can most effectively defeat the Wizard and Dragon that have them trapped. I'll be GMing, and I don't want to be nice. But I don't want to "power emod." Which is also, alongside something being "unfair" or "fair", something the player(who wants to deal the most damage) will attempt guilt tripping me of. But only when things don't goes how he thinks they should. I like running things. I want to present them with challenges that may kill one of them.
@Benoist Oh yeah, man. I was young then. But that's the fun kind of Halo. Now Halo MP is just like CoD. And no, they won't dare touch MLG playlists.
Yeah. Or I'll also say "Everything is fair." Because if a wizard uses Meteor Shower and everyone accepts damage, well, that's perfectly fair. For what was supposed to happen.
And yes, philosophies or different mentalities. Because I also have players who will say:
"I think the teams should be switched, due to imbalance in skill." During Halo.
Then when we move to RPGs, we're playing an RPG. They're playing their own character. And only arising with a question when it's a undefined physics in the game that does not make sense to them.
I'll try to talk to them. Hah. I mean they're all writing up this story that me and the ones making the RPG will convert to a campaign that they get to experience. Catering to them with "Your character receives this special sword ehre." Destroys the purpose of the RPG. I'm not going to let that happen.
And also with that- it depresses the mood of the other persons playing, concluding to time that people were expecting to be fun. However, the atmosphere becomes tense because a player is mad because something was not ruled to his liking.
I'll end up telling them, "Play the RPG, then come to me after with what you think. Or leave." At this point, I don't care. They can not play. I won't stop them.
@LibraryLass Exactly. I believe it's a about a team effort where everyone contributes to accomplish the given task. Anything otherwise is just crossing over your wish to introduce competitive play to RPGs. And players may compete(attempting to reacha level or skill) however, with too much competing. Things turn south.
Quote from: hamstertamer;684223Why bother with all those spells. Just use Polymorph other and turn the fighter into a bug, then step on him. Or maybe turn him into a mouse, put him in a cage, and save him for your pet owl.
Because the 10th level fighter has great saves, the magic-user has to get in close for it to work, and just because he's polymorphed it doesn't mean he'll die with a single boot-step (he becomes a bug with 55 hit points assuming it works at all...)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;684259Because the 10th level fighter has great saves, the magic-user has to get in close for it to work, and just because he's polymorphed it doesn't mean he'll die with a single boot-step (he becomes a bug with 55 hit points assuming it works at all...)
A lot of spells have saves, so I don't see the point of mentioning that, and so what his hit points are 55 the wizard can just hold his foot down until death or just stump him multiple times. How much damage is a stomp on a bug? Well, it's up to a DM isn't it. I would probably go with instant death on a bug stomp though, due to realism. Hit points are not really that important at that stage of game play.
A pre-3E high-level fighter's got fantastic saves. A save or suck/die spell has maybe 25% to work at most.
Meanwhile said fighter could well do enough damage to kill the wizard in 1 round.
Quote from: The Ent;684367A pre-3E high-level fighter's got fantastic saves. A save or suck/die spell has maybe 25% to work at most.
Meanwhile said fighter could well do enough damage to kill the wizard in 1 round.
I rarely concerm myself with one charcaters ability to kill another,
but
Is 1 in 4 chance to die really 'fantastic' ?
Sure, if a fighter and a wizard appear unprepared in a 10' cell and fight, the fighter should win.
But all the wizard really needs is mirror image spell and it's all over for the fighter.
If they are both decked out in magic items it gets more murkey.
Quote from: Bill;684387I rarely concerm myself with one charcaters ability to kill another,
but
Is 1 in 4 chance to die really 'fantastic' ?
Sure, if a fighter and a wizard appear unprepared in a 10' cell and fight, the fighter should win.
But all the wizard really needs is mirror image spell and it's all over for the fighter.
If they are both decked out in magic items it gets more murkey.
Agreed on the "wich character can beat up wich" thing, that's largely not very interesting or relevant and I'm kinda sorry about bringing it up :o
And yeah, tactics is very important.
And even pre-3e---even pre-late 2e, really, where it's generally seen to have begun---magic-users do have a bunch of "anti-fighter" spells like mirror image, stoneskin, protection from normal missiles, etc etc.
Edit to add:
...because really, the fighter's job is to stop a troll/hill giant/whatevs from stomping the magic-user, the magic-user's job is to nuke the wraiths so the fighter doesn't have to fight them and thus avoids getting level-drained, the thief's job is among other things to get the other two in and out of the place without waking up every single monster AND without wasting precious spell slots, and so on and so forth. Well among many other cool things the fighters and magic-users and others do of course. :)
Quote from: The Ent;684389Agreed on the "wich character can beat up wich" thing, that's largely not very interesting or relevant and I'm kinda sorry about bringing it up :o
And yeah, tactics is very important.
And even pre-3e---even pre-late 2e, really, where it's generally seen to have begun---magic-users do have a bunch of "anti-fighter" spells like mirror image, stoneskin, protection from normal missiles, etc etc.
Well, it can matter in regards to battling villains :)
Quote from: Bill;684391Well, it can matter in regards to battling villains :)
Oh absolutely! :)
(And of course that kind of spells - stoneskin, flame shield*, etc etc - are really really cool for say a fighter/magic-user to have, among other stuff they mean that, if you're playing 2e say, the lack of armor doesn't hurt quite that much.)
*=now
that's a badass spell! And people say
stoneskin is horrible! Flame shield is probably at least as bad! :D
Quote from: Bill;684387But all the wizard really needs is mirror image spell and it's all over for the fighter.
Nope. Mirror image is a good defensive spell but not "proof" against anything, even if it was cast and not disrupted.
2-5 images if cast successfully.
This means the fighter (at worst) has a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the magic user on the first attack. At 2 attacks per round the magic user is in trouble rather quickly.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;684405Nope. Mirror image is a good defensive spell but not "proof" against anything, even if it was cast and not disrupted.
2-5 images if cast successfully.
This means the fighter (at worst) has a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the magic user on the first attack. At 2 attacks per round the magic user is in trouble rather quickly.
Say what?
And the wizard just spends 4-6 rounds doing nothing?
One hold person spell against a single target and its over.
The odds greatly favor the wizard.
Quote from: Bill;684409Say what?
And the wizard just spends 4-6 rounds doing nothing?
One hold person spell against a single target and its over.
The odds greatly favor the wizard.
4-6 rounds? That estimate greatly exceeds the magic users 25 hp life expectancy.
Round 1: 1 in 6 hit chance/ 1 in 5 hit chance
Round 2: 1 in 4 hit chance/ 1 in 3 hit chance
Round 3: 1 in 2 hit chance/ splat
This is assuming maximum images were rolled and the spell went off.
A hold person would be a fight ender IF it were cast successfully AND the very good spell save was failed. Meanwhile even average Joe the fighter is thwacking the magic user for 2d8 each round. At 9 points of damage per round the magic user is dead meat in less than 2 rounds of successful attacks.
This is assuming all average stats and hp for both characters. Heck I'm not even giving the fighter a STR bonus.
The magic-user would probably be casting stuff besides hold person at the fighter though. While fireball say isn't necessarily that effective, it's still several dice of damage, and while the magic-user probably can't cast 6 or so fireballs he's probably also got magic missile wich while wimpy is also unavoidable and not something a fighter who's just weathered a couple fireballs want cast at him.
(Note: I'm pro-fighter! :D But really...there's a bunch of stuff the magic-user can do if he isn't just splatted. Note: big if.)
Quote from: The Ent;684426The magic-user would probably be casting stuff besides hold person at the fighter though. While fireball say isn't necessarily that effective, it's still several dice of damage, and while the magic-user probably can't cast 6 or so fireballs he's probably also got magic missile wich while wimpy is also unavoidable and not something a fighter who's just weathered a couple fireballs want cast at him.
(Note: I'm pro-fighter! :D But really...there's a bunch of stuff the magic-user can do if he isn't just splatted. Note: big if.)
The MU certainly has options and probably won't lose 100% of the time. The whole point was dispelling the myth of Angel Summoner and BMX bandit syndrome in AD&D. If the rules were actually used, the fighter was not automatically dominated by casters.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;684433The MU certainly has options and probably won't lose 100% of the time. The whole point was dispelling the myth of Angel Summoner and BMX bandit syndrome in AD&D. If the rules were actually used, the fighter was not automatically dominated by casters.
Agreed! That's much more of a 3e thing. MUs certainly got powerful at high levels in AD&D too but so did fighters too (a high-level AD&D fighter is like a force of nature. Dragons, giants, demons, whatevs, he hacks them to pieces).
Quote from: The Ent;684438Agreed! That's much more of a 3e thing. MUs certainly got powerful at high levels in AD&D too but so did fighters too (a high-level AD&D fighter is like a force of nature. Dragons, giants, demons, whatevs, he hacks them to pieces).
Actually, in most cases, who dominates is based on degree of preperation if you ignore magic items that can grossly favor either.
Fighter wins in a cage with no preperation.
Wizard wins with preperation.
Usually.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;6844234-6 rounds? That estimate greatly exceeds the magic users 25 hp life expectancy.
Round 1: 1 in 6 hit chance/ 1 in 5 hit chance
Round 2: 1 in 4 hit chance/ 1 in 3 hit chance
Round 3: 1 in 2 hit chance/ splat
This is assuming maximum images were rolled and the spell went off.
A hold person would be a fight ender IF it were cast successfully AND the very good spell save was failed. Meanwhile even average Joe the fighter is thwacking the magic user for 2d8 each round. At 9 points of damage per round the magic user is dead meat in less than 2 rounds of successful attacks.
This is assuming all average stats and hp for both characters. Heck I'm not even giving the fighter a STR bonus.
Fortunately the poor wizard is not always berift of any ac, trapped in a cage with a fighter armed with daggers for beating spell casting time.
More likely, the wizard will defeat the fighter before the fighter knows what the hell happened.
That's how it has been in countless games I have seen over the years.
A fighter that would prepare for a fight against a MU by saying "I ready my sword and wait" is a moron who deserves to die. If you put the fight in a barren white room you ignore 99.99999% of actual game situations where this type of confrontation would occur, and that's just theoretical wankery completely irrelevant to the game itself.
Quote from: Benoist;684467A fighter that would prepare for a fight against a MU by saying "I ready my sword and wait" is a moron who deserves to die. If you put the fight in a barren white room you ignore 99.99999% of actual game situations where this type of confrontation would occur, and that's just theoretical wankery completely irrelevant to the game itself.
Exactly. Even more goofy, the people who rail against LFQW complain that spellcasters are better at combat
and utility situations. They posit stuff like spamming divination, detect, and knock spells endlessly, and then put forward scenarios where a wizard is stacked with all combat spells to take on a fighter. The simple fact that spellcasters are limited in the number of spells they know, the number of spells they can study at any given time, and that every spell they have available is a bunch they don't have available is totally lost on them. Either they let spellcasters learn and use any spell at will, or they are just engaging in theory-wank.
The only real 'certainty' with Fighters and wizards is the wizard has a bigger toolbox.
I have heard quite a few people over the years state fighters or wizards are 'more powerful' but in actual play, I can't recall either feeling useless.
I don't want to get into a wizard versus fighter debate, but I do have some thoughts for the OP.
Are the players saying something is 'unfair' when it is allowed by the rules?
The rules aren't necessarily fair, but they provide a baseline for what players should expect. You seem to indicate that the players think something is unfair (an ability) that another player has. How did this player get the ability?
If you're using the rules and applying them fairly, I don't think anyone can really claim that you're being unfair. If you're giving a favorite PC all kinds of magical gear and/or bonus feats or somesuch, maybe you're not being fair.
If you're following the rules and they think the game is inherently unfair, it's worth asking why they think that's the case.
If it is something like 'I want to play a fighter because that's fun, but I don't think it's fair that Pete gets to solve every problem with magic and I never get to do anything cool', you might want to look at some houserules. In a game like 3.x, Fighters are noticeably weaker than most every other class, whether based on skills, special abilities, or spells. If your players feel that systemic issues from rules cause unfairness in play, you're looking at a houserule solution.
And finally, if your players are just unhappy that they're not the one doing everything and they don't want any other players to contribute, that's a people problem and needs to be dealt with in that manner.
Quote from: Haffrung;684476Either they let spellcasters learn and use any spell at will, or they are just engaging in theory-wank.
Theory-Wank is not without use. And there's not much difference between imagining a likely situation and playtesting a likely situation. If something can come up in a game, it probably will. If it destroys the game (pun-pun?) it probably needs to be addressed.
In 3.x, it's not difficult for a Wizard of mid- to high-level to be prepared for every situation. Item creation rules allow them to have scrolls and wands of a wide-variety of useful spells to address every situation, particularly since they don't need to spend large amounts of 'wealth by level' on swords and armor. If you're giving everyone 'equal money', Wizards tend to benefit because they don't have specific tools required to accomplish their goals, and are thus more easily able to convert that money into 'utility' items that make them better in a broad variety of circumstances.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;684490Theory-Wank is not without use. And there's not much difference between imagining a likely situation and playtesting a likely situation. If something can come up in a game, it probably will. If it destroys the game (pun-pun?) it probably needs to be addressed.
In 3.x, it's not difficult for a Wizard of mid- to high-level to be prepared for every situation. Item creation rules allow them to have scrolls and wands of a wide-variety of useful spells to address every situation, particularly since they don't need to spend large amounts of 'wealth by level' on swords and armor. If you're giving everyone 'equal money', Wizards tend to benefit because they don't have specific tools required to accomplish their goals, and are thus more easily able to convert that money into 'utility' items that make them better in a broad variety of circumstances.
One of the things that I hate the most about 3X is magic items trivializing the number of spells per day of casters. :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;684490In 3.x, it's not difficult for a Wizard of mid- to high-level to be prepared for every situation. Item creation rules allow them to have scrolls and wands of a wide-variety of useful spells to address every situation, particularly since they don't need to spend large amounts of 'wealth by level' on swords and armor. If you're giving everyone 'equal money', Wizards tend to benefit because they don't have specific tools required to accomplish their goals, and are thus more easily able to convert that money into 'utility' items that make them better in a broad variety of circumstances.
Agree completely. It is one of the reasons earlier editions don't suffer from the LFQW problem.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;684490Theory-Wank is not without use. And there's not much difference between imagining a likely situation and playtesting a likely situation. If something can come up in a game, it probably will. If it destroys the game (pun-pun?) it probably needs to be addressed.
But the situations posited by the balance theory-wanks are never likely game situations. "Rogues are useless because wizards can just use knock on every locked door and use invisibility to sneak around. And they can also do more damage than fighters." But it's impossible for a wizard to do all of those things. They have to choose. Beating every other class at their own game is angels dancing on a pin stuff because it can't happen in a real game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;684490In 3.x, it's not difficult for a Wizard of mid- to high-level to be prepared for every situation. Item creation rules allow them to have scrolls and wands of a wide-variety of useful spells to address every situation, particularly since they don't need to spend large amounts of 'wealth by level' on swords and armor. If you're giving everyone 'equal money', Wizards tend to benefit because they don't have specific tools required to accomplish their goals, and are thus more easily able to convert that money into 'utility' items that make them better in a broad variety of circumstances.
Then the real culprit is free access to magic items and item creation. And it looks like Next is dealing with that decisively by making magic items rare and given out only at the discretion of the DM. But we don't hear about that from theory-wanks. All we hear are arguments that the only solution to balance is adopting the 4e model of universal, generic abilities.
Quote from: Haffrung;684497But the situations posited by the balance theory-wanks are never likely game situations. "Rogues are useless because wizards can just use knock on every locked door and use invisibility to sneak around. And they can also do more damage than fighters."
Still steamed about that eh. Thieves are useless in basic/expert because they have a miniscule chance of succeeding at any of their special abilities until a fairly high level. The wizards being able to do their job 100% of the time if they so choose is just icing on the cake. I also suggested a few alternatives, none of which involved copying 4e. ;)
Quote from: The Traveller;684499Still steamed about that eh. Thieves are useless in basic/expert because they have a miniscule chance of succeeding at any of their special abilities until a fairly high level. The wizards being able to do their job 100% of the time if they so choose is just icing on the cake. I also suggested a few alternatives, none of which involved copying 4e. ;)
If I was inclined to change the 1E thief skills, I would have some of them start out a bit higher but increase slower.
Quote from: Bill;684501If I was inclined to change the 1E thief skills, I would have some of them start out a bit higher but increase slower.
They didn't increase all that fast either. I'd have started them out at 40% to 60% and bumped them up by 10% a level, maxing out at 200% to allow for penalties for picking exceptionally tough locks etc. Salt in a few abilities at level 3, level 6, level 9 etc like say detect magical trap, bypass glyph, invisibility to infravision, that sort of good stuff, and you have an attractive class.
The thief should have been a central feature in a game about raiding tombs, really, especially since most XP was gained from treasure.
I'm partial to the 2e way of handling thief skills, myself.
It's not at all hard for a 2e thief to start with good scores in his fave skills at 1st level.
Quote from: The Ent;684509I'm partial to the 2e way of handling thief skills, myself.
It's not at all hard for a 2e thief to start with good scores in his fave skills at 1st level.
True; I like 2e thief skills better.
One could also allow a 1E thief to move points around without any real trouble I think.
Quote from: Bill;684515True; I like 2e thief skills better.
One could also allow a 1E thief to move points around without any real trouble I think.
That'd certainly improve matters, yeah :)
Quote from: Haffrung;684497Then the real culprit is free access to magic items and item creation.
I don't think this necessarily follows, but absolutely access to magic items at the very least exacerbates the situation, so it's not worth arguing. I do think that if the 'DM is going to have sole discretion' on how magical items are discovered, it really makes sense to think about how magical items enter the game world. If magical items cannot be created, they should be rare, and you probably shouldn't give every orc captain a +2 longsword (heck, you probably shouldn't have
any generic items). If magical items can be created by SOMEBODY, then it doesn't make sense that they're only found in treasure hoards. Why would someone make them if they couldn't benefit (either by selling them or giving them away to people that support their goals). 3.x might not have the best possible solution to magical items, but they at least deserve credit for considering the impact of magical item creation in the world and actually presenting a way to make it happen.
Quote from: Haffrung;684497And it looks like Next is dealing with that decisively by making magic items rare and given out only at the discretion of the DM. But we don't hear about that from theory-wanks. All we hear are arguments that the only solution to balance is adopting the 4e model of universal, generic abilities.
I have no idea who you've been talking to, but I've had lots of discussions on how to address balance issues in numerous corners of the web, and I haven't met anybody who suggests universal generic abilities. But I don't hang with people who play 4th edition. I'm not saying it's not possible, but there are all kinds of ways to 'fix' the problem without universal generic abilities.
You can find some of mine here:
http://www.dndarchive.com/forums/rules-game/deaddms-35-houserules
The difficulty with the 2e model is that many players will pump all their points into one or two abilities. This means that the thief will have a couple of things they're good at and a whole bunch of things they're bad at. What we want though is for thieves to have a whole bunch of stuff they're good at. Abilities that have a 15% chance of success, but failure means you are now in a very awkward confrontation with some passing orcs, are trap abilities.
I think the correct solution is one I read on this site some time ago. Any character can sneak up on people or find traps by simply describing a sensible approach to the GM. Thief abilities are therefore extreme parkour ninja shit that let the character do things that other characters would find impossible. Thieves don't have move quietly, they have move silently, so on a successful roll they are totally undetectable even across snow, leaves, gravel. Thieves don't have hide behind cover, they have hide in shadows, so on a successful roll they are totally invisible even out in the open. Thieves don't have climb walls they have scale sheer surface, so on a successful roll they can get up even the sheerest rock face without needing rope or pitons.
And if the task is one that ordinary characters can already try to do, the thief % can be used as a kind of saving throw if something goes wrong.
Quote from: soviet;684543The difficulty with the 2e model is that many players will pump all their points into one or two abilities. This means that the thief will have a couple of things they're good at and a whole bunch of things they're bad at. What we want though is for thieves to have a whole bunch of stuff they're good at. Abilities that have a 15% chance of success, but failure means you are now in a very awkward confrontation with some passing orcs, are trap abilities.
I think the correct solution is one I read on this site some time ago. Any character can sneak up on people or find traps by simply describing a sensible approach to the GM. Thief abilities are therefore extreme parkour ninja shit that let the character do things that other characters would find impossible. Thieves don't have move quietly, they have move silently, so on a successful roll they are totally undetectable even across snow, leaves, gravel. Thieves don't have hide behind cover, they have hide in shadows, so on a successful roll they are totally invisible even out in the open. Thieves don't have climb walls they have scale sheer surface, so on a successful roll they can get up even the sheerest rock face without needing rope or pitons.
And if the task is one that ordinary characters can already try to do, the thief % can be used as a kind of saving throw if something goes wrong.
Thats pretty much what I do; thievs are capable at their thief sills, and the roll is for 'doing it better' if that makes sense.
Quote from: Bill;684544Thats pretty much what I do; thievs are capable at their thief sills, and the roll is for 'doing it better' if that makes sense.
Now that I think about it, it might even have been you I stole it from!
Quote from: soviet;684546Now that I think about it, it might even have been you I stole it from!
Steal away!
I see great tips here all the time.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;684521I do think that if the 'DM is going to have sole discretion' on how magical items are discovered, it really makes sense to think about how magical items enter the game world. If magical items cannot be created, they should be rare, and you probably shouldn't give every orc captain a +2 longsword (heck, you probably shouldn't have any generic items). If magical items can be created by SOMEBODY, then it doesn't make sense that they're only found in treasure hoards. Why would someone make them if they couldn't benefit (either by selling them or giving them away to people that support their goals).
They're created by obsessive, weird mages who devote years of their lives to experimenting with mystic energies in their laboratories. These are not the same chaps who traipse around caves and ruined castles blasting monsters and demons. By deciding to become an adventurer, you're forsaking the life of a lab monkey.
As for who the items are created for, well, many will be created for the wizard himself. Some will be for close colleagues or sponsors. Champions of the realm in times of need. Sinister minions. The idea that magic wands and swords are workaday commodities crafted and sold like shoes and gourds is one of the lamest things that happened to D&D.
Quote from: Haffrung;684561They're created by obsessive, weird mages who devote years of their lives to experimenting with mystic energies in their laboratories. These are not the same chaps who traipse around caves and ruined castles blasting monsters and demons. By deciding to become an adventurer, you're forsaking the life of a lab monkey.
Not to obtuse, but if this is how you have magical items being created in your game, why can't the PCs go meet these people? Or can they? Have they ever tried? How do they make magical items? Do they have to be high-level wizards? How did they get to be high-level wizards if they didn't go adventuring? If they aren't high level adventurers, how did they get access to the magic required?
Magical items are not shoes or gourds in 3.x, but the 3.x model at least makes more sense than most approaches to the game. If items cannot be created but are very common, there is an incongruity which damages versimilitude.
I'm not saying that 3.x got magic items right - but I am saying that their approach is at least internally consistent.
I'm all for better approaches, but they need to at leat address the issue of how items are created. Depending on the answer to that question, there will be ramifications for the game world. Failure to take that into accout is likely to result in a world that appears 'fake'.
Its been my experience that any player of Magic-Users who relies on single "save or die" spells tends to get fucked up very badly as soon as he runs into people who save; whereas magic-users who rely on buffing themselves up with a series of defenses and clever attacks (and especially, using magic that doesn't allow for saving throws) tend to be the ones who do well.
RPGPundit
Add more booze and bongs to your LAN party. A little buzz goes a long way to STFU the whiners.
I knew a 3e GM whose house rule required you to do a vodka shot before opening the book to look up anything. Best damn 3e GM I knew.