People still do play BECMI and 1E, so they could currently be leaving the table to play Rock Band. However, back in the day, I saw people leave the table to play Archon, Ultima, and Zyll. How's that for a blast from the past?
I don't disagree with you either. I don't even think that AD&D was exactly horrible at doing this, it kind of depended on the DM to some extent. There is a bit of another aspect to it though, which is what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When the PCs sit down at the table in the back of the bar to make their plans for the big raid on the dragon's lair who's key there? The 9th level fighter, the 9th level rogue, or the 9th level wizard? In the old days the wizard brought like 50 spells to that table. For him it was just a matter of which ones might be fitted together into a plan and memorizing that particular set of spells. The rogue brought some solid skills to the table, so IF there was a need for stealth etc then he had something to put on the table. The fighter didn't come with nothing, but basically his contribution would be "I'll swing my sword at it when things go wrong or if there's some other monster to overcome." He's just got very little plot power. Chances are pretty good at that point the party would be better off with a cleric or another caster at the table instead.
You can barely imagine a scenario where the wizard couldn't cook up something that would meet the need, possibly with a night's rest. Worst case he needs someone to stand in front of him to keep the bad guys off for a round or two for something to work. Nobody is useless by a long shot, but some characters are vastly narrower in the scope of their abilities, and those abilities are fundamentally at best a somewhat better version of what pretty much anyone can do (swing a melee weapon).
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree. At least though the fighter has a substantial inventory of tricks of his own that are considerably beyond just swinging his sword. They are still mostly melee combat stuff, but they are qualitatively different from what other PCs do. He can also pick PPs, EDs, and even themes, that broaden his capabilities. A lot of stuff is put onto skills too, which if the fighter isn't the best at at least he's got things that might work outside a fight or similar situation better than what anyone else can do.
Another thing to consider is that alot of the people arguing against balance may play with houserules that affect balance, but they don't understand how those houserules affect balance. Or they may have a DM that actively balances the game during play and they aren't aware of it. Maybe they've never played a high-powered campaign, who knows. These kinds of details are incredibly important to the argument.
Currently, I am about to start an "E8" campaign - we've tried high level stuff, and the power disparity is so wide between characters that it is just too hard to DM. Even between 2 characters of the same class. I've seen 2 level 10 fighters wade into battle - one can barely get past the monster's DR, the other is dealing 100 points per round. Mind you, I helped one guy optimize his character. The second guy was pissed I even offered to help. He was more pissed when, after the first session, the DM tried to give him some extra goodies to help buff his character into balance with the rest of the party.
This may be our group only, but every campaign that goes beyond level 10 quickly falls apart because of power disparity between party members or the vast amount of planning that DMs have to do to keep magic-users from constantly interrupting the DM with things they can do that disrupt the DMs plans. Often, the DM has had to say "the spell fails." This tends to frustrate players, and they are right to be frustrated - they have worked hard to get their character to that point, but they rarely get to reap the benefits of their new powers, because they would ruin the campaign.
For those that don't like the idea of balance - do you use houserules? Do you play at high levels(over 10)? What is your usual party composition? Do you play core only or do you get access to other materials? Do you ever DM, or just play? Have you ever DMed at high levels? These are very important questions.
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree.
To some degree the 4e solution to this involves making the planning session irrelevant; 4e doesn't have the spell selection options you see in previous editions, and it has very few trick monsters.
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree.
To some degree the 4e solution to this involves making the planning session irrelevant; 4e doesn't have the spell selection options you see in previous editions, and it has very few trick monsters.
Well, no, but it certainly encourages and assists the wizard in particular to be well endowed with a good selection of rituals, which if you actually sit down and start working with them can be pretty amazingly powerful in a story sense. 4e also does have some pretty darn effective potions and other consumables, and alchemical items (much maligned, but a good smoke stick or blast patch at the right moment can be a huge benefit, especially if you use them creatively).
You're right of course though, that's the flip side with 4e. Wizards CAN tune their spell selection, but only to a certain extent (though honestly my tome of readiness wizard with expanded spellbook and improved TOR has a REDUNCULOUS amount of spell selection, as much as most equivalent level AD&D wizards). Spells tend to be less broadly focused in any case, again because you do have rituals for a lot of the more open ended stuff.
I think there's more of a perception amongst players that prep isn't a big deal. In fact though, it is if the DM is one like me that will slap the PCs hard if they don't think. Most of my players have been around the block anyway though, they certainly plan ahead most of the time.
Trick monsters certainly seem to have been looked down on in 4e design. Some of that I can see. Some of it just seems to be a little bit of excessive control freakiness by the original crew of 4e devs. They were a bit restrained. Luckily monsters are so easy to make that this isn't really a big issue. I tend to prefer to put tricks into non-combat situations though.
what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When the PCs sit down at the table in the back of the bar to make their plans for the big raid on the dragon's lair who's key there? The 9th level fighter, the 9th level rogue, or the 9th level wizard?
IMX, it's the most assertive, most engaged player. Last week, for instance, it was a witch and a theif who jumped in and came up with plans (quick, slightly insane plans) and engaged in that out-of-the-box problem solving so beloved of those for whom 4e is not so beloved. It's probably a coincidence that they were both pixies. :|
In the old days the wizard brought like 50 spells to that table. For him it was just a matter of which ones might be fitted together into a plan and memorizing that particular set of spells. The rogue brought some solid skills to the table, so IF there was a need for stealth etc then he had something to put on the table. The fighter didn't come with nothing, he's just got very little plot power. Chances are pretty good at that point the party would be better off with a cleric or another caster at the table instead.
Nod. If the fighter were played by an assertive, engaged player and the wizard not so much, the fighter might come up with a plan. It would almost certainly involve the wizard prepping the right spells....
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree. At least though the fighter has a substantial inventory of tricks of his own that are considerably beyond just swinging his sword. They are still mostly melee combat stuff, but they are qualitatively different from what other PCs do. He can also pick PPs, EDs, and even themes, that broaden his capabilities. A lot of stuff is put onto skills too, which if the fighter isn't the best at at least he's got things that might work outside a fight or similar situation.
As much as 4e got folks up in arms over the 'nerfing' of the wizard and corresponding power-up to the fighter and other martial classes, it really didn't solve the problem. Casters, particularly wizards, still had a lot more plot power out of combat than a fighter could hope to.
If 5e had been allowed to be a continued evolution of the game, like other eds, it might have finally solved that issue, as well, perhaps with a concept like the Pillars, and giving each class adequate resources within each pillar.
Instead, 5e is slated to be a reactionary edition, and go back to the 'spot light' balance prior eds attempted.
Why must a 20th level fighter == 20th level mage == 20th level thief in combat? Why is this so important? And when it's all balanced, does this ensure a rivetting roleplaying experience?
The idea of a roleplaying game, which was incidentally taught to me by D&D in 80s, is to become the hero of your favourite novel or movie and bring that character to life through your actions. The rules back in the day were serving the telling of heoric tales and having a semblence of parity with fantasy literature/movies. It was very common to watch a movie or read a book and deduce what "D&D spell" was cast or how powerful a character was. Whether it was true or not, my friends and I often thought that leading fantasy and mythology works were inspirations to the game designers of that day.
There was a rule system, sure; the most advanced seen yet in AD&D with THAC0, races not being classes, annonce your action in reverse initiative order and lots more besides. It's arguably not as elegant as today's game systems (although it still has it's followers), but most importantly it was still highly functional and my friends and I played as much as we could. It was functional because...
It was Story first. The rules were there, and the DM could change any of them. The DM was encouraged to break whatever rule he saw fit for any reason, but most likely he did so to serve the story.
As the roleplaying hobby grew in popularity and other titles for other genres came onboard, the game systems became more refined, more distinct from one another and conversations increasingly became to be about the rules of a system (more than it's genre or story). What we learned is that the good rules evoke the feeling of the game system or genre. While D&D was a constant, these other systems were enticing because they had wildly different systems.
Each time D&D revised it's rule system, it became more refined, more elegant, more options, better art!, but also more about the rules. It was becoming less and less about creating a fictional character from a novel as it was about playing a game. 4e, imo, is the pinnacle of this trend - creating a game where a vast majority of the rules play out with miniatures on a grid. D&D is not the only rpg to become more boardgame-like, the latest Warhammer Fantasy is a huge box of cards and tokens that need booster packs of more cards and tokens to play with more than 3 (I believe).
It is now about the Rules. The story is there, and the DM is required to come up with that. Be prepared for a long argument if you tell a player he cannot have his AoO. Or that your arch-villain moves 7 squares instead of 6.
The idea of balance; of game balance is an incredible feat of math. I can accept that some semblance of equity between the classes is a good thing, but I fundamentally disagree that they should be equal in combat because a roleplaying game is more than it's combat encounters. Great effort went into creating encounter levels, doing I don't know how much math, so that the DM could quickly see the combat challenge against the PCs and provide a balanced challenge.
Back in the day, the DM brought balance to an imperfectly balanced game. Some of my best memories are a result of totally imbalanced things; the deck of many things, a ring of wishes, an artefact like the Appartus of Kwalish or the god Bane or Bhaal (I think) ripping off the leg of the horse you're riding on and beating you about the head with it. (source: Godswar trilogy: FR Waterdeep).
These days, the game system is beautifully mathematical balanced (for combat), but I think this has caused it to suffer in other respects. I'm not a fan of "everything must balance" and in fact it's an indication of a very structured rule set for a boardgame where all players are equal (incl the DM) and not for a freeform roleplaying game limited only by the imagination of the players at the table.
what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When the PCs sit down at the table in the back of the bar to make their plans for the big raid on the dragon's lair who's key there? The 9th level fighter, the 9th level rogue, or the 9th level wizard?
IMX, it's the most assertive, most engaged player. Last week, for instance, it was a witch and a theif who jumped in and came up with plans (quick, slightly insane plans) and engaged in that out-of-the-box problem solving so beloved of those for whom 4e is not so beloved. It's probably a coincidence that they were both pixies. :|
In the old days the wizard brought like 50 spells to that table. For him it was just a matter of which ones might be fitted together into a plan and memorizing that particular set of spells. The rogue brought some solid skills to the table, so IF there was a need for stealth etc then he had something to put on the table. The fighter didn't come with nothing, he's just got very little plot power. Chances are pretty good at that point the party would be better off with a cleric or another caster at the table instead.
Nod. If the fighter were played by an assertive, engaged player and the wizard not so much, the fighter might come up with a plan. It would almost certainly involve the wizard prepping the right spells....
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree. At least though the fighter has a substantial inventory of tricks of his own that are considerably beyond just swinging his sword. They are still mostly melee combat stuff, but they are qualitatively different from what other PCs do. He can also pick PPs, EDs, and even themes, that broaden his capabilities. A lot of stuff is put onto skills too, which if the fighter isn't the best at at least he's got things that might work outside a fight or similar situation.
As much as 4e got folks up in arms over the 'nerfing' of the wizard and corresponding power-up to the fighter and other martial classes, it really didn't solve the problem. Casters, particularly wizards, still had a lot more plot power out of combat than a fighter could hope to.
If 5e had been allowed to be a continued evolution of the game, like other eds, it might have finally solved that issue, as well, perhaps with a concept like the Pillars, and giving each class adequate resources within each pillar.
Instead, 5e is slated to be a reactionary edition, and go back to the 'spot light' balance prior eds attempted.
Right, the fighter player (or honestly in AD&D at low level it COULD even be the wizard) doesn't have a lot to bring to the table with his PC. That absolutely doesn't preclude the player from being engaged. It just precludes them from being engaged with their CHARACTER at the time the plan goes off. Realistically something will usually come up and the non-casters will DO stuff. They are just not the prime motivators of what the party can do.
I think it is a bit too soon to say what 5e actually is. Will it almost undoubtedly fail to utilize some of the best rules innovations of 4e? Probably. That doesn't mean it will toss the fighter on the bonfire. It almost certainly will mean you'll be able to play an AD&D style "I just hit things hard" type character, but then again 4e has the Slayer too...
I'd RATHER see 5e continue the mechanical evolution of the game directly from the point where 4e is now. Failing to do that (at least to some degree) isn't an auto-fail. There's also the issue of what exactly the 'options' bring to the table on that score. If there's a well-supported "AEDU across the board" sort of option, then it is really not a concern of mine if there's some other option I don't care for so much.
