Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Encounter balance is optional, and the game can often be a lot more fun and more interesting if you broadly ignore it.

Within the party though, I think it is somewhat of a valid concern for people to want to be able to meaningfully contribute. I mean if someone plays a Fighter or something, they might expect to be able to contribute to the mechanical side of the game for ages, and not just be Xander to the Caster's Buffy. (Willow would have worked better there but then I need to clarify "late seasons Willow.")

I've played games with in built imbalances, but they are made explicitly clear to the players at character creation, allowing people to CHOOSE to play a weaker or more limited character if that is what they want. Some of these games also compensate the weaker archetypes with other non mechanical benefits. In In Nomine for example, the default assumption is that players are either Angels or Demons who are in a struggle for the souls of humankind. They are extremely powerful compared to all other options, but their mindset and outlook is pretty fixed and limited and they are punished if they act outside of it.
Other options include:
"Tripped" angels and renegade Demons - similar power levels but very limited "support structure" and still bound by the mindset.
Human Soldiers - better than an average human, but not nearly as powerful as an angel or a demon, but benefits from being part of the world rather than an outsider and having absolute free will (big deal in the setting)
Undead - Tougher humans that retain the free will aspect at the cost of picking up some kicker (need to drink blood is a classic but it could be anything) and don't fit into society properly any more.
Ethereal Spirits - total wildcards. Can be more powerful than demons or angels in certain situations, but massively weaker in others.

In Nomine is one of my favourite role playing games, and it does this imbalanced group thing extremely well, and it really is useful for getting people to think differently about characters in these sorts of games. But the rules explicitly tell you that Angel or Demon is the most mechanically powerful choice, and that these others will be weaker. There is no attempt to balance, and this is made explicitly clear. I think it is good design if a game is going to have imbalanced classes to point it out, because otherwise people have unrealistic expectations going in.

In all sincerity, I understand the difficulty of imagining a game not intended to be played "by its rules." This is because it was so difficuly for me when I first started to think about Basic and similar games. The best way I have been able to explain it is by suggesting a distinction in perspective:

(a) determinative -- this is what we are used to; follow the rules to play the game

(b) interpretive -- this is what we are no longer used to; the key here is a game is played with rulings rather than rules

Balance is not, honestly cannot be, a goal of the interpretive perspective simply because there is no quantifiable "power" in the mechanics to balance. Unlike in a game conceived of from the determinative perspective, where "power" in the game is a creature of the mechanics, any "power" in an interpretive game comes exclusively from beyond the mechanics. And the mechanics themselves are just suggestions that (and this is crucial) require further interpretation by the players.

Early D&D was more of a toolkit than a flowchart. It showed how to resolve encounters, but the encounters are just parts of the story.

Yes to the tool kit comment. I would say a bit more: it was also a mind set. Newer versions also entail a mind set. The trouble is, the two are radically different and so deeply ingrained as to be generally assumed by most people. That is why so many people (including myself at one point) look at Basic -- especially compared to the hundreds of pages and "core mechanics" in newer editions -- and think, well, this is just an incomplete game.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes to the tool kit comment. I would say a bit more: it was also a mind set. Newer versions also entail a mind set. The trouble is, the two are radically different and so deeply ingrained as to be generally assumed by most people. That is why so many people (including myself at one point) look at Basic -- especially compared to the hundreds of pages and "core mechanics" in newer editions -- and think, well, this is just an incomplete game.

I learned to play out of the old red box basic books. Two 30 page booklets, one for players, one for DMs. It was everything you needed to get through 3rd level, and included a solo adventure and a party adventure. games do not need to be complicated to allow for role playing.

I guess it depends on how you define roleplaying. There are folks very heavily invested into the determinitive viewpoint who would say you need plenty of "options" in order to have a meaningful character. They're not wrong, from their own perspective. I just try to explain that D&D has not always been a function of that perspective.

Okay, gotcha.

I don't disagree with that. But I also think more options doesn't negate the way you want to play (which is also broadly my prefered method these days. All those mechanics to "allow" me to play my concept? Nah, I'm good. )

 Manchu wrote:
In all sincerity, I understand the difficulty of imagining a game not intended to be played "by its rules." This is because it was so difficuly for me when I first started to think about Basic and similar games. The best way I have been able to explain it is by suggesting a distinction in perspective:

(a) determinative -- this is what we are used to; follow the rules to play the game

(b) interpretive -- this is what we are no longer used to; the key here is a game is played with rulings rather than rules

Balance is not, honestly cannot be, a goal of the interpretive perspective simply because there is no quantifiable "power" in the mechanics to balance. Unlike in a game conceived of from the determinative perspective, where "power" in the game is a creature of the mechanics, any "power" in an interpretive game comes exclusively from beyond the mechanics. And the mechanics themselves are just suggestions that (and this is crucial) require further interpretation by the players.

It's fine to play loose more and freeform, with whatever system you're using.

If something boils down to "Freeform with some guidence" that's plenty of fun too and is basically how this post is reading to me. I'm just not sure it's particularly meaningful to chalk up the results of the Freeform part of the equation up too much to the parts that are offering the guidance. The merits of what you can do in the absence of tight rules definitions aren't a virtue of what rules do exist in that lighter framework.

I've very played engaging games where each player has little more than a broad character concept a single d10 and the GMs whims to determine what happens. I'm not sure there is much value in trying to assign too much of what happened in that play experience to the d10.


EDIT: In contrast, there is probably a fair amount of value in looking at how much of a particularly good or bad play experience is derived from the rules when using a stricter and more granularly defined ruleset.

 Da Boss wrote:
I also think more options doesn't negate the way you want to play

To be clear, I like all editions of D&D. I have been reading a lot of 4E lately and conniving schemes to get my group to play at least one session. I don't want one or the other when it comes to D&D; give me all of them!

 Chongara wrote:
The merits of what you can do in the absence of tight rules definitions aren't a virtue of what rules do exist in that lighter framework.

This is exactly the same argument I once made on the topic. I also asked, how can you praise absence? How can you say the rules that aren't there are so good? Trouble is, these questions are posed from the rules-inured deterministic mindset. Basic is not a great game because of all the rules it doesn't have; it's a great game because it is designed to be ruled on by the players.

We were getting 3.5/PF guys to play 2E, and even though we explained some of the fundamental differences in approach it didn't seem to change the approach taken to monsters in the world. We ran across a dragon scouring a cavern looking for something. Instead of sneaking by and continuing on the 3.5 guys assumed we could take it, because why else would it be there right? I didn't engage and ran for a hiding spot, yet still barely survived as the dragon chased me after killing everyone else. Good times.


Edit: Forgot to note we were level 2, on average.

 Manchu wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I also think more options doesn't negate the way you want to play

To be clear, I like all editions of D&D. I have been reading a lot of 4E lately and conniving schemes to get my group to play at least one session. I don't want one or the other when it comes to D&D; give me all of them!

 Chongara wrote:
The merits of what you can do in the absence of tight rules definitions aren't a virtue of what rules do exist in that lighter framework.

This is exactly the same argument I once made on the topic. I also asked, how can you praise absence? How can you say the rules that aren't there are so good? Trouble is, these questions are posed from the rules-inured deterministic mindset. Basic is not a great game because of all the rules it doesn't have; it's a great game because it is designed to be ruled on by the players.

To me, your statement is reading basically as "I enjoyed the greater freedom more easily afforded by rules light systems". Would you characterize this interpretation as correct? It feels like you're inventing a lot of terminology here to describe simple differences in game types.

 Ahtman wrote:
Instead of sneaking by and continuing on the 3.5 guys assumed we could take it, because why else would it be there right? I didn't engage and ran for a hiding spot, yet still barely survived as the dragon chased me after killing everyone else. Good times.
Edit: Forgot to note we were level 2, on average.

That's a difference in campaign style. I'm assuming their previous DMs and such never put a 'run away' encounter in front of them and only used appropriate leveled encounters.

Funny as hell though.

My 'completely unprepared for things story' was a TPK when the players had zero silver items in a 3.0 campaign. One were-rat = bad news if you don't have silver. With 3.0 DRs, you pretty much had to have a silver, cold-iron, etc dagger in the party, just in case.

 Ahtman wrote:
Instead of sneaking by and continuing on the 3.5 guys assumed we could take it, because why else would it be there right?

Yes, exactly, it's moments like that where it becomes clear that these perspectives are hugely different.

 pretre wrote:
only used appropriate leveled encounters

TBF, someone DMing 3.5 or 4E would not be wrong to do so. That's what the game seems to encourage. If anything, I think it is only fair that players of those editions expect as much.

Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

No.

But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.

 Chongara wrote:
To me, your statement is reading basically as "I enjoyed the greater freedom more easily afforded by rules light systems". Would you characterize this interpretation as correct? It feels like you're inventing a lot of terminology here to describe simple differences in game types.

It feels to me that you are too committed to preconceived notions to imagine there is a reality beyond them. I'm balancing the frustration of my inability to open your mind against sympathy for your position, having stood there myself. Perhaps this is the best way to start again: would you agree that there is a difference between a rule and a ruling?

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

Yes. There are dragons "balanced" to be slain by low-level parties. Starter Set adventures often end this way, usually some poor Young/Juvenile White Dragon is the victim.

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

Depends how interested the dragon is in them. In addition to being giant killer lizard monsters non-juveni, 3.5-era adult sized++ dragons are powerful arcane spell casters. The only way you're going to survive is by being beneath the critters notice. Which to be fair you're probably still going to be, even in the case you go running at it with your 2nd level asses screaming, sword raised.

Those players have had some very literal minded GMs, or are not very imaginative.

To be honest, I take a very real delight in popping those sorts of misconceptions in players.

 pretre wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

No.

But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.

Ah, I gotcha now!

Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!

There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?

 Alpharius wrote:
There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?

Thankfully, no. That went out of style as well. We'll see if it comes back with 5E.

 Alpharius wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

No.

But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.

Ah, I gotcha now!

Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!

There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?

3.5 is filled to the brim with these. Hell, a lot of stuff basically qualifies as "No save, just die - or lose, at any rate".

 Alpharius wrote:
Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!

First, yes, low-level characters can handle dragons in 3E and 4E. Second, the idea that you only come across stuff you can handle is at least implicitly basic tenant of those same editions. Monsters have "challenge ratings." Fights have "encounter levels." While the DMGs advise that you can dial up or down the danger, they advise against making things too easy or impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?

Save or Die gets a bad rap. It originated as an act of mercy: something has happened to you so heinous that you would just die BUT you get a chance not to. People stuck in the "modern perspective" can only imagine Save Or Die is a way DM's "cheat," some extension of DM "fiat," another bogeyman of earlier editions.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!

First, yes, low-level characters can handle dragons in 3E and 4E.

I think Alpharius meant 'real dragons'. He even said not young ones. The ones that low levels can handle in 3E/4E are young below level 10 or so.

White Dragons (lowest CR types) for example in 3E

As I mentioned above:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

Yes. There are dragons "balanced" to be slain by low-level parties. Starter Set adventures often end this way, usually some poor Young/Juvenile White Dragon is the victim.

I believe the "CR" is even lower in 4E.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?

Save or Die gets a bad rap. It originated as an act of mercy: something has happened to you so heinous that you would just die BUT you get a chance not to. People stuck in the "modern perspective" can only imagine Save Or Die is a way DM's "cheat," some extension of DM "fiat," another bogeyman of earlier editions.

I think the underlined part is a bit over the top. You can dislike SoD for reasons beyond those. There are ways for heinous things to happen without putting it all on one dice roll. SoD basically makes high-level D&D a game of 'don't roll a 1'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
As I mentioned above:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

Yes. There are dragons "balanced" to be slain by low-level parties. Starter Set adventures often end this way, usually some poor Young/Juvenile White Dragon is the victim.

I believe the "CR" is even lower in 4E.

So again... Level 10 or so before you get to 'real' dragons.

Save or Die gets a bad rap. It originated as an act of mercy: something has happened to you so heinous that you would just die BUT you get a chance not to. People stuck in the "modern perspective" can only imagine Save Or Die is a way DM's "cheat," some extension of DM "fiat," another bogeyman of earlier editions.

Having spent a lot, and I mean a lot of time in discussion groups around the 3.5/Pathfinder-ish style D&D I've literally never heard Save-or-Dies described in this terms. Like out of the 100s of hours I've spent talking about the game, and probably at least a few dozen talking about save-or-dies specifically this is the first time I've ever seen them described as even anything even vaguely like a "DM Cheat".


EDIT: "DM Cheat" is also kind of a silly term. I mean I've heard that kind of terminology kind of haphazardly thrown around by people who don't like house rules and the sort, but never against basic underlying mechanics.

EDIT: (Again) It's also odd to see a response to "GM Fiat" being framed as a "boogeyman" rather than a a basic tool. I've never really run into any but a handful of the most extreme bearded-of-necks approach it like that.

 pretre wrote:
SoD basically makes high-level D&D a game of 'don't roll a 1'.

It can be poorly implemented or abused, which just makes it like anything else.

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-six-things-you-dont-know-about-save.html

Honestly, a lot(but not all) of the problem with quadratic wizard, linear fighter can be solved with a strict enforcement of the rules for spell casting.

"So sorry, we don't even know where you can FIND pixies, much less buy pixie dust. You might try roaming the forest..."

"Nope, we don't have any black diamonds worth over 1,000 gold. I hear there might be one in the bottom of that twelve layer dungeon outside the castle. Good luck, friend."

"Twigs and berries?! What does this look like, a shrubbery?!"

"Uh oh, you only go seven hours and fifty-nine minutes of sleep? Guess you'll have to work with what you had left over from yesterday."

There isn't much that a fighter needs to swing a swing other than to have arms and be standing.

 pretre wrote:
So again... Level 10 or so before you get to 'real' dragons.

Great example of how in 3.5/4E you only fight what you can handle. So higher-level characters fight higher-level dragons. Lower-level characters fight lower-level dragons.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Honestly, a lot(but not all) of the problem with quadratic wizard, linear fighter can be solved with a strict enforcement of the rules for spell casting.

"So sorry, we don't even know where you can FIND pixies, much less buy pixie dust. You might try roaming the forest..."

"Nope, we don't have any black diamonds worth over 1,000 gold. I hear there might be one in the bottom of that twelve layer dungeon outside the castle. Good luck, friend."

"Twigs and berries?! What does this look like, a shrubbery?!"

"Uh oh, you only go seven hours and fifty-nine minutes of sleep? Guess you'll have to work with what you had left over from yesterday."

That's pretty much the heavily implied approach in 2nd edition, which still at least pretended to treat magic as something difficult and esoteric.

The problem is that it really requires a DM to do a lot of bookkeeping and straight up overriiding.

OTOH, it's a lot of fun to carry out side quests for rare spell components and the like.