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.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
You need balance because not all good story-tellers are good at adjudicating.
As you said, it's all about the story. All these beautiful mathematical models are here for one thing: spend less time designing encounters and more time thinking about the story. Having rules also limits the number of silly arguments you can have with your players. My worst RPG memories are about arguing for hours with friends. My most frustrating RPG memory is my DM telling me I can't climb up a rope because I'm not a thief.
As a side note, the edition with the most rules is 3rd edition.
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other BarryShow
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic , giving you time to set up your silly combo . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster...
Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil.
And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right?
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players.
And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it.
He/It got me with Light of Sanction , which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad , things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed .
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
I don't necessarily care if the numbers balance. So long as the fun balances.
I don't expect my greatsword wileding fighter to be able to kill as many people in a single swing as the wizard can with a fireball. Just as the wizard shouldn't expect to be able to stand up to the beating said fighter would recieve while taking on those foes in melee.
The classes should be good at what they do - that doesn't necessarily mean same damage numbers. The options to use to be good at what you should be good at, that's what's important. Wizrds provide utility and big apocalyptic spells. Fighter's provide unparalleled tactical flexibility. Barbarians can soak up so much damage and dish out as much, rogues are full of tricks to expose and exploit weaknesses etc.
That's the key for me - so long as the character's are good at what they should be, and fun to play - i don't give a damn if numbers don't match. But the experience has to match, every player should walk away from the table smiling.
Because "The wizard kills 3d6 enemies a turn while the fighter plays with this red ball" makes for a boring story?
RPJesus, you say many things that I enjoy. Please keep it up.
But, just imagine this scenario. The party confronts a Big Bad Evil Guy. The party Fighter steps out, tells the Bandit King that he is here to deliver vengeance to him for killing his sister. The Bandit King sneers, and orders his minions to attack. The Fighter steps up to hack through these minions (maybe he kills one).....and the Wizard casts Phantasmal Killer, or Baleful Polymorph, or any other number of "I Win!" spells and neutralizes the Bandit King.
Wow. What a climax.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling
Defenders: We ARE the wall!
I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.
Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!
Everyone doesn't have to be balanced in combat. Or Exploration. Or Interaction.
But everyone must be balanced in story time.
If a character doesn't meantingful contribute for a long time, the player will get boring and unhappy. At tha point it is up to the player to make his own fun (make stuff up) and for the DM to adjudicate (make a judgement of made up stuff).
If you rely on adjudication rather than playtested rules to perform balance, you have to heavily rely of the DM's ability to adjudicate and the player's abilty to make things up (that don't break the game). And if either person are not really good at their job, it can be a complete disaster or a lot of extra work.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
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?
What is the point of levels if they don't mean anything?
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.
OK, so it wasn't the best possible system, but it worked. What's wrong with having a better system that also works?
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.
Sorry you've got such annoying players.
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.
No set of game rules can add imagination to your game. If you're looking to a book to do that you won't find it in any RPG anywhere. It was there in my OD&D games in 1975 and it is there in my 4e games in 2012. If you're all worried about balance and won't toss the PCs an artifact for some fun it isn't the rules that are the issue. Cool awesome stuff happens in my game every week (well hopefully).
The game should be balanced in regards to the roles and expectations for the characters, world, creatures, and objects, so everyone has a chance to shine, whether it is in combat or out. Careful attention should be paid to make the rules transparent and easy to understand. However, like anything other RPG balance is a goal to reach, but can never be obtained.
The most difficult thing to balance is magic versus the mundane. I would be happy if there were tradeoffs for each type of character that is chosen, and there are multiple paths to reach the same objective, but magic does not trump everything else so the party has to sit around and wait for a spell caster to recover, whether it is healing, or something else.
Many of your examples cite combat where an imbalance would be unwelcome. So parity in a combat role is a must for you guys. You can be a halfing thief, a gnomish illusionist, a half-orc warrior, an elven cleric and a human bard (for good measure ) and while in combat they're equatable.
I can agree it being a problem if they weren't balanced, if the focus of the game was on combat. To me 4e is all about the combat and the grid. Every player can do something of "merit" every combat turn and feel like they are contributing to the combat. What an awesome way to make the fighter (and other martial classes) more interesting. For editions we've just had to walk up to an enemy and hit it with a weapon. Now we got powers with varying effects. And everyone's got them.
But with everything being equal, isn't some of the "magic" of difference lost?
For most I'm sure, the spotlight that goes around the table to pay respect to a player's character usually happens both outside and inside of combat. The halfling thief spotted the silent alarm on the door and disabled it, the gnomish illusionist distracted the guards with some illusion, the half-orc warrior lifted the heavy portcullis, the elven cleric recognised the correct manuscript and the bard wrote a song about it all.
The example of the big bad chief who gets insta-killed by a one-shot spell by a high level character has actually never happened to me in 27 years of roleplaying. I'm not saying it cannot happen, but I think there are lots of ways out of that example that can create great drama. "He clutches a pendant around his neck and your spell frazzles his 3 lieutenants." - "He dissolves into goo, dripping like lumpy wax from the balcony. His troops terrified immediately surrender and offer you Wizard complete fealty." I'm just saying that it doesn't have to ever be boring. You got to roll with it. Cheat. Whatever, to keep it interesting. Maybe they're twins. Shrug.
I'm obviously not a fan of 4e, but don't prejudge the intent of this thread by that preference. I'm very interested to know what you all think with regards "balance": be it character, with each other or with monsters. In combat, out of combat. Cos despite all the lambasting the prior editions receive because of their lack of balance, I still had a ton of fun.
It doesn't all have to be about combat, does it?
The wizard toasting 3d6 enemies didn't happen every turn and when fighting evil, there are always nd6 enemies.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
No set of game rules can add imagination to your game. If you're looking to a book to do that you won't find it in any RPG anywhere. It was there in my OD&D games in 1975 and it is there in my 4e games in 2012. If you're all worried about balance and won't toss the PCs an artifact for some fun it isn't the rules that are the issue. Cool awesome stuff happens in my game every week (well hopefully).
Sure, I can completely agree.
Two things I'd like to add: 1) The rule system provides flavour (West End Games D6 Star Wars truly feels heroic, derring-do adventure; D&D wouldn't be D&D if it went to percentile die rolls only, etc) 2) Rules support the imagination and the imagination makes visuals from the math.
If you don't like large swathes of the rules, it's harder to get that same level of "cinema" in your games.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
you loads
) and while in combat they're equatable. 