Balancing 3.x

[Kaelik]

True, but that's because CRs suck, not because a particular character or party sucks. I'm taking it for granted that a DM is better at balancing encounters than the MM is, because really that's not very hard.

But you are wrong. 90% of DMs suck ass at balancing. The CR system is overall pretty damn good, as far as just throwing monsters at players and not doing non-associated levels tricks. It's just only good when you play characters of reasonably high power levels, like Cleric Archers without DMM and Wizards, and not shit like monkey fuck fighters.

Sucking is not relative to the party, it is relative to the party and the fucking opponents, and since the opponents are about 70% on the same balance scale, that means shit not on that scale is bad, and shit on that scale is good.

[PhoneLobster]

Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia...

Wait, we ARE allowed to talk about those suddenly are we?

Like five minutes ago bringing up Paranoia was a "Strawman" we weren't allowed to discuss.

Look those scenarios are...

A) Not the game we are talking about.

B) Games based on paradigms other than kicking ass

C) Not actually scenarios of relative suck between the players

Assuming of course we are suddenly really allowed to talk about those scenarios without someone flying off the handle about putting words into peoples mouths.

[RandomCasualty2]

Like five minutes ago bringing up Paranoia was a "Strawman" we weren't allowed to discuss.

Yes, because the context is different, and it's actually relevant here. You were talking about it to refute the fact that "Opinions are subjective", in a place where Caedrus didn't even mention it, and wasn't even talking about RPGs.

I'm talking about it to refute your statements that nobody wants to suck in an RPG. In this case, it's totally not a strawman cause you said.

You can sit here all day claiming you are the one man in a million who WANTS to suck and that you have the one group in a billion that all also want to suck with you.

But thats just you telling really stupid fucking lies. It's insulting and it offends me. You AREN'T the one group of super masochist retards in a billion and I say that with the absolute confidence of utterly unimaginable odds in my favor.

Seriously. That's what you said. I'm not putting words in your mouth like you did with Caedrus, I'm directly quoting you. You're saying it's some one in a billion person who wants to play a sucky character.

I presented counterexamples of successful RPGs which in fact prove your statement wrong. Not the statement I think you said or some strawman I made up, but the actual thing that you said.

And as far as people sucking in D&D specifically, it's funny, but most online D&D games I see starting are level 1 and most of those will never get past level 5. People definitely seem to stay more in the weaker end of the power spectrum for the majority of games I've seen.

I've also had a PC in one game who had a sucky character and I offered to buff him up with some house rules and he refused. He actually wanted to keep his character sucky.

[Roy]

Stop trying to justify your gimpitude by shifting the blame to the DM.

You're missing the point entirely. I'm not trying to justify the guy who wants to play a Fighter in the party of CoDzillas -- he's a jackass bringing the team down. But at the same time, the guy playing a CoDzilla in a party of Fighters and Monks and Bards isn't justified either -- he's a jackass who wants to be better than everyone else. When JE says "I don't like playing characters that suck", he's talking like there's some objective standard of sucking. There's not. It's all relative to the other people in your party, because the strength of your party is what determines the challenges you face. A DM is going to send stronger enemies at a party of CoDzillas than a party of Fighters, even if they're both the same level.

Fail. Here is why you Fail.

With a party of fighters, the DM can easily accidentally wipe the party by pulling monsters out of the Monster Manual labelled for them and just using tactics like the monsters are supposed to.

The guy playing CoDzilla in a group of Fighters will outclass them. That goes without saying. But seeing as he's the only one that might save them from routine encounters, he is in effect allowing them to suck by taking their burden onto himself. And it's still the Fighter's fault for not being able to keep up with routine encounters.

Short version: your group needs to be on the same page regarding what power level they're playing at. If JE wants to play CoDzillas, that's fine, as long as his group is alright with playing the CoDzilla rocket tag version of D&D.

Yes, they need to be on the same page. They also need to be in the damn book, which Fighters are not.

Also, there is no such thing as D&D that isn't rocket tag, unless you're trying to pass off 4th edition as D&D. There's rocket tag where you have a rocket launcher, and rocket tag where you are not properly armed (Fighters). I don't know about you, but if fuckers are going to be shooting incendiaries at my face, I want to return fire in kind, not use Craft: Painting to attach a target to my back.

A Fighter playing in a group with other Fighters doesn't suck. A Fighter doesn't suck until he starts getting mixed in with CoDzillas. You can play a Fighter and not suck -- but only if you're playing with other Fighters. If one guy in the group is powergaming while the rest are happy playing as Fighters and Monks, that's when you run into problems.

Fail. Again, see quote.

[RandomCasualty2]

The guy playing CoDzilla in a group of Fighters will outclass them. That goes without saying. But seeing as he's the only one that might save them from routine encounters, he is in effect allowing them to suck by taking their burden onto himself. And it's still the Fighter's fault for not being able to keep up with routine encounters.

But Jovian is right about DMing altering difficulty based on their PCs. If you play a powergamed party, expect encounters well about what you'd get in a party of all fighters. The DM can tweak game balance that way.

The main problem when one PC outclasses the rest, mainly because there's no way for the DM to adapt, since an an encounter that challenges the weak guys is a cakewalk for uberPC and an encounter that challenges uberPC will eradicate the small fry. And that's a lose/lose situation that has to be prevented at all costs.

People can all play fighters and monks and the game will be fine. Introducing a CoDzilla into a party like that however is going to produce a total trainwreck.

[Roy]

The guy playing CoDzilla in a group of Fighters will outclass them. That goes without saying. But seeing as he's the only one that might save them from routine encounters, he is in effect allowing them to suck by taking their burden onto himself. And it's still the Fighter's fault for not being able to keep up with routine encounters.

But Jovian is right about DMing altering difficulty based on their PCs. If you play a powergamed party, expect encounters well about what you'd get in a party of all fighters. The DM can tweak game balance that way.

The main problem when one PC outclasses the rest, mainly because there's no way for the DM to adapt, since an an encounter that challenges the weak guys is a cakewalk for uberPC and an encounter that challenges uberPC will eradicate the small fry. And that's a lose/lose situation that has to be prevented at all costs.

People can all play fighters and monks and the game will be fine. Introducing a CoDzilla into a party like that however is going to produce a total trainwreck.

As I said, he's still forgetting there is a minimum line of competence below which he cannot be saved. Fighters? Yup, below it. Good luck throwing anything at all at them in their level range that won't annihilate them. Even weaksauce like Fireballs will destroy them in very short order.

Now if the CoDzilla was in a group of Warblades, he'd be a jerk. But in a group of Fighters, they'll fail regardless, but maybe he can do enough so they won't die.

Remember, you must be this tall to play.

[RandomCasualty2]

As I said, he's still forgetting there is a minimum line of competence below which he cannot be saved. Fighters? Yup, below it. Good luck throwing anything at all at them in their level range that won't annihilate them. Even weaksauce like Fireballs will destroy them in very short order.

Well I mean basically you solve that by treating them as if they were 2-3 levels lower for encounter design. The same as you'd treat powergamed characters 2-3 levels higher. I mean you throw Tome Fighters at stuff of even CR and they'll basically chew it up. So you beef up the opposition.

It's the same principle, only this time you're downgrading the opposition. If the DM wants to be fair, he'll still give them full XP for something of their CR, so their leveling doesn't slow to a crawl.

Remember, you must be this tall to play.

Not unless you're doing modules.

The encounter building guidelines are just that. Guidelines. You really don't have to use them. I mean there's nothing saying that fighters of level 8 have to be fighting a ton of CR 8 foes. They can fight CR 5s just fine. All that stuff is just relative.

[Roy]

So in other words you have to give them a free ride by having them treat level 5 junk as if it were 8? I am reminded of when someone was trying to teach 6 year old me how to play chess. And it was quite obvious, even then they were letting me win. However that sort of thing was understandable because I was six at the time, and that's what you do with young children.

Slight problem. Most D&D players are adults or at least teenagers. And they will seriously get offended by an insult like that. Even more so than if you used the Mind Flayer BBEG, and the level 5 Fighters all died/killed each other/became a meal. Hint: One of the reasons 4th edition doesn't sell well is it starts off by condescending the fuck out of you, and never quite stops. So what makes you think applying the same thing to your home games will make them any better?

[RandomCasualty2]

So in other words you have to give them a free ride by having them treat level 5 junk as if it were 8?

Yup, just like if they were powergamed I'd treat CR 11 stuff like it was CR 8. I try to keep the difficulty relatively fixed at whatever power level the PCs happen to be at. It's the whole point of a level system in fact.

When you become more powerful you stop fighting orcs and you fight ogres. When you get more powerful, you fight giants.

Setting some arbitrary line in the sand that says "If you're under this line, as a DM I'm just going to rape you with unwinnable battles" is just plain being a dick.

I am reminded of when someone was trying to teach 6 year old me how to play chess. And it was quite obvious, even then they were letting me win. However that sort of thing was understandable because I was six at the time, and that's what you do with young children.

D&D isn't adversarial. It's a cooperative game. If you're playing DM versus PCs, then that's bad.

Obviously if your PCs are making terrible characters, it's because they're newbies. It's not good practice to attract newbies by beating the fuck out of them with unfair scenarios. At best, they'll think you were a terrible DM (which you were) and at worst, they'll think the game sucks and not play it again.

Your plan is horrible for your gaming group and worse for the growth of the hobby overall.

The goal of the DM is to make the game fun for his PCs. Being raped by unwinnable battles is not fun.

[Psychic Robot]

Heck, Anguirus could have said, "In my opinion, forcing the wizard characters to run a cheese grater along their legs every time they cast a spell would make the game more fun," and he wouldn't be wrong.

So.

IF we say "OK you can have that"

In what way can we now ever EVER have a useful discussion of RPG design?

No really?

It's the end of fucking objective reality. No one can give criticism or advice because EVERYTHING FUCKING GOES.

We could say, "Well, I don't think that's going to be fun for most players," or "That sounds incredibly painful; I certainly don't want to play" or, "Gee, that's kind of fucked up."

We can also say something like, "I don't really like system designs that encourage players to go play Smash Bros. while everyone else is at the table. Making the wizard useless after two encounters is going to do that, and I don't think that's very fun. If you want to design a game like that, fine, but I think that the majority of people would prefer for everyone to be engaged in the game at all times."

JE: How in the world were you outdamaging that warforged? That build does a lot of damage even without Shock Trooper/Combat Brute cheese.

[Psychic Robot]

Heck, Anguirus could have said, "In my opinion, forcing the wizard characters to run a cheese grater along their legs every time they cast a spell would make the game more fun," and he wouldn't be wrong.

So.

IF we say "OK you can have that"

In what way can we now ever EVER have a useful discussion of RPG design?

No really?

It's the end of fucking objective reality. No one can give criticism or advice because EVERYTHING FUCKING GOES.

We could say, "Well, I don't think that's going to be fun for most players," or "That sounds incredibly painful; I certainly don't want to play" or, "Gee, that's kind of fucked up."

We can also say something like, "I don't really like system designs that encourage players to go play Smash Bros. while everyone else is at the table. Making the wizard useless after two encounters is going to do that, and I don't think that's very fun. If you want to design a game like that, fine, but I think that the majority of people would prefer for everyone to be engaged in the game at all times."

JE: How in the world were you outdamaging that warforged? That build does a lot of damage even without Shock Trooper/Combat Brute cheese.

[PhoneLobster]

Yes, because the context is different,

No. It was exactly mother fucking the same.

I said "no one wants to do that" dumb ass says "someone might!", I said "What like Paranoia players? They don't fricking count and you know it." and he said "How dare you fucking bring up paranoia players, STRAWMAN STRAWWWWWWMMAAAAANN"

Now YOU demand the right to bring up Paranoia players in your favor to directly counter my claims when I have already damn well addressed Paranoia players and been insulted for daring to do so.

Paranoia players do not count because "suck" has a very different meaning in Paranoia because it is a very very dramatically different game. It is in fact a game where sucking or not as a character is about potential comedic value. And in that regard Paranoia characters most certainly don't suck.

The Paranoia equivalent of the "Fighters suck for half the game then wizards suck for half the game" plan is for Paranoia characters to lose their secret societies, mutant powers, zany gadgets and comedic incompetencies for half the game.

So really RC what the fuck do you think you are talking about here?

[RandomCasualty2]

Now YOU demand the right to bring up Paranoia players in your favor to directly counter my claims when I have already damn well addressed Paranoia players and been insulted for daring to do so.

It wasn't the fact that you brought up paranoia before, it was because you brought it up to refute something Caedrus never said. You were in fact arguing against a strawman, because prior to me actually bringing up Paranoia, you were the only one who mentioned it. Caedrus wasn't even talking about RPG design in general, nor did he even bring that stuff up. He just said that fun is subjective.

Paranoia players do not count because "suck" has a very different meaning in Paranoia because it is a very very dramatically different game. It is in fact a game where sucking or not as a character is about potential comedic value. And in that regard Paranoia characters most certainly don't suck.

Well you're going to have to define "suck" then, because now you're using a different definition than we've been using. Before I was assuming you meant "Have the ability to alter the game world in meaningful ways and be mechanically competent."

Now you seem to be saying that to not suck is about achieving some kind of metagame goals like comedy, or (I don't' really know what the D&D equivalent is). So before we can really argue further, I'm going to need a definition.

[PhoneLobster]

you brought it up to refute something Caedrus never said.

It's called "anticipating an argument" the very one you just brought up now. It's considered good debating practice.

Because it means I've already addressed your dumb ass point before you make it, thus making you look dumb now that you are rattling on that about it and calling no fairsies on me having pointedly dismissed it already.

Caedrus preferred to use the debating counter of "Uh Uh, I was never going to say that, you put words in my mouth NO FAIR, Strawman, WAAAAAH!" And that seems to be your line too and it's juvenile and disgraceful.

If you want to deny you were going to say that, go ahead and clarify your position. You do NOT get to just cry about strawmen all day and dismiss a perfectly reasonable point without giving ANY damn counter argument.

But since your clarified position now is exactly the argument I anticipated the fact that you STILL call it a strawman and try and cry until you win the argument just goes to show how damn stupid you are being.

you were the only one who mentioned it.

Even aside from anticipating your arguments I am allowed to make my own damn points.

Making a point, like pointing out that the only "characters suck" audience out there is basically a particular and eccentric one is totally fucking fair. And you STILL whining about it is utterly disgusting debate practice on your behalf.

Some guy said "someone maybe likes it" I said "like who paranoia players? They don't count" and that is ACCEPTABLE. Your counter that it was a strawman is just plain incorrect.

Well you're going to have to define "suck" then, because now you're using a different definition than we've been using.

No. It's the same definition anyone sane has been using since the start of the thread.

The definition of suck is a character lacking the ability to play the game the player sat down to play.

If the game is killing things that means lacking in that department. If the game is shooting yourself in the back with a laser pistol then it means lacking in that department. If the game is going insane and being eaten slowly to death by a shogoth then that means being unable to effectively do that.

It's pretty simple, if you can't grasp that then ... well, how stupid can you be?

[Psychic Robot]

I think people might be forgetting that D&D is a game. The number one priority is everyone having fun. And if that means throwing CR 5 stuff at a level 11 party to challenge, then yes, by all means, do so. Is going "easy" on them? Absolutely. It's also fulfilling the main goal of D&D: being enjoyable.

[RandomCasualty2]

Caedrus preferred to use the debating counter of "Uh Uh, I was never going to say that, you put words in my mouth NO FAIR, Strawman, WAAAAAH!" And that seems to be your line too and it's juvenile and disgraceful.

Juvenile and disgraceful to not call you out on putting words in someone's mouth because you think that they *might* say them?

Making a point, like pointing out that the only "characters suck" audience out there is basically a particular and eccentric one is totally fucking fair. And you STILL whining about it is utterly disgusting debate practice on your behalf.

Are they a minority? Sure... are there enough that they're a meaningful minority. Definitely. Games and campaigns with sucky characters are played all the time. Your claim that these players are "one in a billion" is flat out false.

The definition of suck is a character lacking the ability to play the game the player sat down to play.

If the game is killing things that means lacking in that department. If the game is shooting yourself in the back with a laser pistol then it means lacking in that department. If the game is going insane and being eaten slowly to death by a shogoth then that means being unable to effectively do that.

This is very vague. In an RPG the only goal is to tell a story, and that story is not supposed to have a predefined outcome (this is why we have dice).

So the story could be about your band of adventurers killing the orc king and it may be about your band of adventurers dying or getting captured while trying to kill the orc king. The rules in fact allow for both. While the expectation in D&D is generally that you'll win, if you die, you're still playing D&D.

Similarly CoC isn't based around the investigators dying every time. You may die, or you may live... And either way it's still CoC.

[Starmaker]

Quality of the derivative product (the adventure you run) does not excuse shittiness of the initial product (4e). There are people who run awesome campaigns in Forgotten Realms. There are people who write awesome songs about a book series which is Twilight meets Eragon meets dude-on-dude anime. There are people on this very forum who write awesome posts in response to ones that are made of fail and stupid. The question is not whether you can run a good game using shitty rules, but how many hoops you'll have to jump through.

[PhoneLobster]

Sorry RC you've been useful to talk to over the years but this is unacceptable bullshit from you.

You are using utterly two faced lying bullshit to deny me any right to make ANY point in ANY argument.

You are on ignore.

[Caedrus]

Oh snap RC, you'd better PM him an apology.

[Psychic Robot]

If anything, RC2 is probably the most honest (and most sane) poster here. Claiming that he's being dishonest and then putting him on ignore is pretty much an admission that one is in the wrong and probably not on the level.

Declaring that you're putting someone on ignore is cruise control for cool.

[Roy]

If anything, RC2 is probably the most honest (and most sane) poster here. Claiming that he's being dishonest and then putting him on ignore is pretty much an admission that one is in the wrong and probably not on the level.

If there's one thing PR is consistent about, it's that he always takes the side of whoever is most wrong, even if that means blatantly contradicting points he made not too long ago or claims to regularly advocate. Why? Because there's more trolling for the lulz inherent to that. And if you look at PR himself, you'll see he's talking a lot like a Paizil would. Yeah, Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Weren't you supposed to be on an attention seeking hiatus?

Now to Smite Imbecile.

So in other words you have to give them a free ride by having them treat level 5 junk as if it were 8?

Yup, just like if they were powergamed I'd treat CR 11 stuff like it was CR 8. I try to keep the difficulty relatively fixed at whatever power level the PCs happen to be at. It's the whole point of a level system in fact.

So in other words, because your players are competent they get rewarded less. Fuck you, fuck your game, and fuck your lies. What are you, the mother fucking communist of D&D? Guess what? Better people are better.

Setting some arbitrary line in the sand that says "If you're under this line, as a DM I'm just going to rape you with unwinnable battles" is just plain being a dick.

Straw man, and if the battles are unwinnable it's because the group failed, not because the DM did anything wrong. It's exactly what they are supposed to fight, and further they walked right into it. Even if it were an actually unwinnable fight, the fact they willingly walked into it disqualifies any complaints about it. But see it wasn't, because they didn't ignore the keep the fuck out sign in front of Great Wyrm OwnYourFacearicus's home. They went and fought a mind flayer at level 5, who was in charge of the plot of the week.

Stop trying to justify your own incompetence via blame shifting.

D&D isn't adversarial. It's a cooperative game. If you're playing DM versus PCs, then that's bad.

Fail. There is nothing adversarial about expecting PCs to do the things they are supposed to be able to do. There is however quite a bit adversarial in players too lazy to make a competent character, because in addition to everything else they expect the DM to do all the work to keep their useless characters from being the next victims of Darwin's Chainsaw.

Obviously if your PCs are making terrible characters, it's because they're newbies. It's not good practice to attract newbies by beating the fuck out of them with unfair scenarios. At best, they'll think you were a terrible DM (which you were) and at worst, they'll think the game sucks and not play it again.

Fail again. If they were just newbies, they'd have listened when I or someone else explained their characters were not good enough and why and told them how they could make a character that can actually do what they want it to do. And there is no sane person in the world that when they want a character to do something does not want them to actually do it, so they will quickly get the fuck away from Swashbuckler and be a Rogue. Or whatever.

If they're doing it anyways, it's because they were being willfully ignorant. Which means it's time to get hands off and wait, as being as obvious as it is, the truth will become self evident very quickly without doing anything different or to single out the gimp. And if they still don't get it, they can just deal with being the team Red Shirt, as it is entirely their fault they are dragging down the group, and without saying or doing a thing it's quite likely the group will apply some peer pressure to get them to stop failing.

Stop trying to justify your own incompetence.

[MGuy]

Because I'm feeling that this is looking like a difference in opinion I'm going to try and understand where everyone is coming from. NJ and RC adjust their games based on who is at the table/in the game. PL and Roy don't like it. Great. No need to get into the if x is happening group y has failed at life sort of shit. Some people play the game one way other people play it in others. great whatever. Getting more to the point, balancing things for a specific game or a specific group shouldn't need to be done at all or the need for it should be kept at a minimum. The game should be balanced well enough that any group can play in it and do well within given parameters maximized groups of course doing better. Can we get back to going in that direction?

[PhoneLobster]

NJ and RC adjust their games based on who is at the table/in the game. PL and Roy don't like it.

No.

There was an argument on this thread about whether you should create mechanics to enforce characters sucking for large portions of adventures.

Competency balancing was some weird side irrelevancy and I have no idea why it is being discussed at all.

[Anguirus]

NJ and RC adjust their games based on who is at the table/in the game. PL and Roy don't like it.

No.

There was an argument on this thread about whether you should create mechanics to enforce characters sucking for large portions of adventures.

Then someone got all preachy and up their own asshole about how they know what it is that other people -not some other people or the majority of people but fucking everybody on the planet- enjoys doing and then a shit storm happened when the almost universal response was "What? That's stupid. You can't tell people what they like."

Tell me that my taste in games is so marginal that I would never be able to find a group again. I don't know if I understood you the first few times.

Besides which sucking and being awesome are mutually relative. You can't have a mechanic that forces you to suck for large portions of the game that doesn't force you to be awesome for other portions of the game and I quite like the dynamic.

--------

Would giving martial characters a power source that fills as they do things that naturally happen during combat (perhaps a number of points each time they receive damage, successfully hit an enemy, are targeted by a level appropriate enemy etcetera) which powered abilities beyond the scope of their spamable regular attacks encourage them to be the star of the show in later encounters or do you think it would encourage them to spend their points as soon as they got them?

How would you encourage wizards to nova if you were allowed to design them from the ground up?

If you disagree with the design goal just treat it as an academic question.

Thank you.

[Murtak]

Would giving martial characters a power source that fills as they do things that naturally happen during combat (perhaps a number of points each time they receive damage, successfully hit an enemy, are targeted by a level appropriate enemy etcetera) which powered abilities beyond the scope of their spamable regular attacks encourage them to be the star of the show in later encounters or do you think it would encourage them to spend their points as soon as they got them?

Use it or lose it. Unless you are certain to deal with the current encounter (or even turn) just fine without your points you would be nuts not to use it right away.

How would you encourage wizards to nova if you were allowed to design them from the ground up?

Why would you need to encourage novaing? If you can nova it is generally a smart plan. Overkill is of course bad, but killing the enemy before he gets another action is good.