The Gaming Den

I am having much difficulty. On the one hand, I love the optimization that 3e allows for; it's a very fun mathematical exercise for me. On the other hand, I despise the time it takes to create a character--when it comes time to play, I want to adventure, not sit around and fiddle with numbers.

In the end, squeezing out that extra +1 is both a joy and a pain.

What's your ideal level of optimization? I suppose mine allows unoptimized characters to face level-appropriate challenges while letting optimized characters to perform better than unoptimized characters, but it doesn't put optimized characters at an entirely different power level than unoptimized characters.

If you don't play smart, you will die early and often. If you play a weak class, you will die early and often. If you are competent and smart, you will overcome challenges and get rewards etc.

If you do not know how to make your characters competent while preserving theme I will help you. If you refuse this assistance, your failure is your own.

In other words, contrary to what some say, average power. And the slaughter will continue until play improves.

So you like the 3e level of complexity/optimization?

I personally like the 3E beguiler. He gives you a lot of options during play, but not a lot of character optimization choices during creation. So he's fast to create, but interesting to play, and that's what I think people should aim for.

Psychic Robot wrote:So you like the 3e level of complexity/optimization?

Sure. It's definitely better than the alternatives of 3.Fail and 4.Fail.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I personally like the 3E beguiler. He gives you a lot of options during play, but not a lot of character optimization choices during creation. So he's fast to create, but interesting to play, and that's what I think people should aim for.

I think it's telling that the "optimization" discussions for Beguilers on the wizards boards always seemed to evolve into a discussion of tactics, favorite illusions to use, etc.

I think there were some "builds" that used Tome of Battle, but for the most part, people planned on taking 19 or 20 levels of Beguiler.

So yeah, that class gets my vote too.

I like a complex game, but I want it so that it's good complex i.e. a lot of different interesting ways to win.

There was a discussion back when Tome of Battle was out a bit, and we looked the new classes it offered, and we reflected that classes need to give you features and abilities that make you want to stay in that class. Rather than trying to make arbitrary rules that try to punish you when you multiclass.

So really, the system needs to have every feat be competitive with every other feat. If players aren't taking that feat, then maybe you need to boost the power of that feat, or remove that feat. The same with classes/abilities ect.

This is opposed to 3.5's and 4th's tendency of allowing some overblown abilities without compensating other powers.

And once you have a system like this, with several classes each having several different viable builds and each build having several different power and feat selections. You can get a pretty fun and complex game.

I prefer that it be as simple as possible to build exactly the concept I want. Especially true when it comes to NPCs I have to make a zillion of as a DM, and don't want to spend hours and hours of preparation for such things.
I prefer that it things be streamlined in such a way as to avoid time bloat and allow for a reasonable pace of play.
I prefer that tactical options in all minigames are complex and offer a good deal of depth.

Basically, it should be simple to build and run a character that offers depth and tactical complexity in gameplay.

Note that making it simple to build the concept you want actually infers more complexity in character generation in many respects, because it requires more balanced and distinct options to choose between, as opposed to simply picking a package.

I think Players tend to want more complexity and options, while DMs tend to want more simplicity. I can enjoy playing a Wizard or Cleric in 3.5 cause I just have to worry about my character, but correctly playing an enemy Wizard or Cleric just takes a lot out of me as a DM because of the thinking involved for me.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:I think Players tend to want more complexity and options, while DMs tend to want more simplicity. I can enjoy playing a Wizard or Cleric in 3.5 cause I just have to worry about my character, but correctly playing an enemy Wizard or Cleric just takes a lot out of me as a DM because of the thinking involved for me.

The solution here is that most NPCs are not and, IMO, should not be the same, mechanically, as PCs. You can give NPCs "NPC classes" and "normal array attributes" and so forth to make them simpler to build and use. Of course, you can still build those Important NPCs like they were PCs.

Caedrus and Bill, you both make good points. For me, having NPCs and PCs use different advancement schemes takes a dump on verisimilitude (for me), and it leads to the problem where NPCs that use PC rules break the game (I've read a few posts about DMs creating 4e BBEGs that use PC rules, and it's not pretty).

Psychic Robot wrote:Caedrus and Bill, you both make good points. For me, having NPCs and PCs use different advancement schemes takes a dump on verisimilitude (for me)

Having a Warrior or Commoner or Expert or Adept or Magewright class takes a dump on verisimilitude? Having NPCs take the basic array takes a dump on verisimilitude? Could you explain why?

and it leads to the problem where NPCs that use PC rules break the game

HUH? No it doesn't. And the example factors I gave were from 3e, not 4e. 4e fails for reasons completely independent of what I'm talking about.

Psychic Robot wrote:Caedrus and Bill, you both make good points. For me, having NPCs and PCs use different advancement schemes takes a dump on verisimilitude (for me), and it leads to the problem where NPCs that use PC rules break the game (I've read a few posts about DMs creating 4e BBEGs that use PC rules, and it's not pretty).

So you're saying that PC mechanics should be modified to ensure that they're balanced as NPC mechanics?

Caedrus wrote:Having a Warrior or Commoner or Expert or Adept or Magewright class takes a dump on verisimilitude? Having NPCs take the basic array takes a dump on verisimilitude? Could you explain why?

Noooooo, not like that. NPC classes are a good thing. They use the same system as PCs in that they have class levels that follow the basic system. I'm talking about things like, "This monster has an attack bonus of +10 just because."

CatharzGodfoot wrote:So you're saying that PC mechanics should be modified to ensure that they're balanced as NPC mechanics?

Yes, I think so. PCs and NPCs don't have to follow the exact same rules (such as with the NPC class system or using predetermined stat arrays), but you should be able to make classed NPCs that don't shatter game balance.

Psychic Robot wrote:I'm talking about things like, "This monster has an attack bonus of +10 just because."

Which has nothing to do with what you were replying to here:

Psychic Robot wrote:Caedrus and Bill, you both make good points. For me, having NPCs and PCs use different advancement schemes takes a dump on verisimilitude (for me), and it leads to the problem where NPCs that use PC rules break the game (I've read a few posts about DMs creating 4e BBEGs that use PC rules, and it's not pretty).

I should have been more clear--different advancement schemes in that increasing a monster to level 5 gives it a +10 attack bonus and +25 HP because that's what the game says is good, whereas PCs have an attack bonus and hit points that have a system behind them.

I'd argue for simpler as well. Optimization discredits character concepts that should be valid because the mechanics available to concept lead to suck. It's what leads to roll vs. role playing arguments. Were a game to be designed where your character generation choices were going to have a substantially smaller effect on your character's ability to mechanically perform in the game.

Really awesome should be the default power level that you achieve by picking powers randomly and even careful examination of the rules should only wring out a few more drops of awesome.

Psychic Robot wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:So you're saying that PC mechanics should be modified to ensure that they're balanced as NPC mechanics?

Yes, I think so. PCs and NPCs don't have to follow the exact same rules (such as with the NPC class system or using predetermined stat arrays), but you should be able to make classed NPCs that don't shatter game balance.

Given a limitless set of options you can make something that doesn't shatter game balance just by choosing sets that happen to be balanced one to another. The real test is whether you can't make something that shatters game balance. And that's just not a practical life goal when it comes to NPCs.

Imagine for the moment that you have two optional abilities: farming and sailing. They have, for PCs, some kind of opportunity cost relative to each other. And that's fine, because the camera follows the PCs around all the time. So since they will spend some of their time sailing and some of their time farming, relative benefits in one have some sort of calcuable exchange rate with relative benefits in the other. But consider the plight of the NPC: they are only on camera for one scene. And as the game master, you actually know whether it will be a sailing scene or a farming scene. So the NPC gets zero benefit from one and maximum benefit from the other for the entire duration of the spotlight being on them.

So for a PC the exchange rate of Farming to Sailing might be 1:1, but for an NPC the exchange rate is by definition Infinity:1. Making a single system that is balanced for both is by definition impossible.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:So for a PC the exchange rate of Farming to Sailing might be 1:1, but for an NPC the exchange rate is by definition Infinity:1. Making a single system that is balanced for both is by definition impossible.

Here I assume you're measuring the utility of an ability by how much screen time it gives the character. Alice the farmer who has never been on a ship before in her life might get some screen time with the PCs while sailing to Malacca because her farm was next to Sid's Uncle's farm, what a coincidence!

At that point the only value of an NPCs abilities is how, as a conceptual whole, they advance the fun of the players.

But the same can hold true for players! If the only importance of being a farmer is that you have a hook that Alice can latch on to, the value of the ability to you is exactly the same as the value of the ability to her.


When you start talking about areas that are more focal points of the game, NPCs and PCs can still be on the same scale. If the game is combat focused, Alice's combat abilities can be balanced to and come from the same set as the PCs'. So long as she didin't pay for those combat abilities out of another pool (say, combat & farming), it won't even matter to her is she's never in a combat.

Psychic Robot wrote:I should have been more clear--different advancement schemes in that increasing a monster to level 5 gives it a +10 attack bonus and +25 HP because that's what the game says is good, whereas PCs have an attack bonus and hit points that have a system behind them.

The problem is that systems like that are complex. And while they're fine for PCs, they aren't so great with NPCs, because you as the DM just don't have time to stat up NPCs with the same detail as you'd give a PC. Sure, maybe if you've got a recurring cohort or villain, then you could make them a full blown PC... but spellsword goon #2 needs to be someone you stat up fast.

And seriously, unless your system is really simple, it's not going to be possible to have NPCs that both use the same system and can be created fast.

And because slow NPC creation forces railroading, we must favor any kind of mechanic which allows us to create NPCs fast.

The more players, the simplier the system. In my view, complex games work well with 3 or less players, more than that and you get problems.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:So you're saying that PC mechanics should be modified to ensure that they're balanced as NPC mechanics?

Yes, I think so. PCs and NPCs don't have to follow the exact same rules (such as with the NPC class system or using predetermined stat arrays), but you should be able to make classed NPCs that don't shatter game balance.

Given a limitless set of options you can make something that doesn't shatter game balance just by choosing sets that happen to be balanced one to another. The real test is whether you can't make something that shatters game balance. And that's just not a practical life goal when it comes to NPCs.

Imagine for the moment that you have two optional abilities: farming and sailing. They have, for PCs, some kind of opportunity cost relative to each other. And that's fine, because the camera follows the PCs around all the time. So since they will spend some of their time sailing and some of their time farming, relative benefits in one have some sort of calcuable exchange rate with relative benefits in the other. But consider the plight of the NPC: they are only on camera for one scene. And as the game master, you actually know whether it will be a sailing scene or a farming scene. So the NPC gets zero benefit from one and maximum benefit from the other for the entire duration of the spotlight being on them.

So for a PC the exchange rate of Farming to Sailing might be 1:1, but for an NPC the exchange rate is by definition Infinity:1. Making a single system that is balanced for both is by definition impossible.

-Username17

Bingo. Which is why you should reserve playing NPCs up like PCs for only the important people who are potentially deserving of multiple scenes. Like Magneto. For all of the other people who live in Genosha who are just there to get killed in the massive sentinel raid, you use different rules.

I think his point more generally applies that it's impossible to make every option balanced for every class.

Even in optimum balanced scenarios power attack is going to suck for the wizard.

I don't like it when I have to try to squeeze out that extra +1 from abilities here and there. In fact I'd like it if the system were simple and balanced enough that I wouldn't even really have to worry about what abilities have the larger bonuses.

I think simplicity is wonderful. Complexity isn't inherently good, it can be good if it adds to the game though. So make sure that the complexity adds to the game, because it can detract.

Caedrus wrote:Bingo. Which is why you should reserve playing NPCs up like PCs for only the important people who are potentially deserving of multiple scenes. Like Magneto. For all of the other people who live in Genosha who are just there to get killed in the massive sentinel raid, you use different rules.

Yeah, this. When I've got special NPCs that are going to recur, I stat them all out PC-style and give them both farming and sailing, since they're going to be in a variety of scenes. But when I'm making goons, I give them HP, saves, AC, and exactly one thing that they can do, whether it's Fireball infinity/day or a +x/+x/+x full attack (screw +x/+y/+z, it's just not worth it).

FrankTrollman wrote:Imagine for the moment that you have two optional abilities: farming and sailing. They have, for PCs, some kind of opportunity cost relative to each other. And that's fine, because the camera follows the PCs around all the time. So since they will spend some of their time sailing and some of their time farming, relative benefits in one have some sort of calcuable exchange rate with relative benefits in the other. But consider the plight of the NPC: they are only on camera for one scene. And as the game master, you actually know whether it will be a sailing scene or a farming scene. So the NPC gets zero benefit from one and maximum benefit from the other for the entire duration of the spotlight being on them.

So for a PC the exchange rate of Farming to Sailing might be 1:1, but for an NPC the exchange rate is by definition Infinity:1. Making a single system that is balanced for both is by definition impossible.

By that definition PCs will be imbalanced too. Some will pick sailing, some will pick farming, some will pick a mix of the two. Some campaigns will be mostly on land, some mostly on water, some a mix, some will start on the water and then will end before the players ever see land. And the benefits the players get from farming or sailing will be wildly different.

The only difference to your NPC example is one of degree.