Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4

[Ffordesoon]

D&D is great in some ways, and terrible in others. What it tends to be terrible at is what computer games are great at, which is the problem.

 

I started doing PnP with 4E and immediately didn't care for it. It's fine, but there's not enough mechanical defferentiation, and it plays as a board game unless you have a great DM. I switched to Pathfinder pretty quickly, and found it vastly more rewarding.

 

However, if I had to choose between those rulesets for a computer game, I'd pick 4E, because it's already ninety percent of the way there. It would be an incredible video game, because everything that's problematic about it in PnP play is a strength in a video game.

 

(Granted, if actually offered the choice in real life, I would take Pathfinder and use it as a starting point, but that's because I find Paizo's lore much more interesting than 4E-era D&D's, and also because Paizo just seems like a much cooler company to work with.)

[Suburban-Fox]

It's not so much about "my paladin is better than your rogue" as it is about the rogue not being able to do anything when undead show up, or the paladin not being able to do anything when there's a trap. The issue isn't optimality, but usefulness. Obviously some characters should be better in some situations, and that's okay. In fact that's the way it should be. But every character needs to be at least useful in every common situation, and you need at least some degree of balance to accomplish that.

 

 

What do you mean, "can't do anything"? The only thing that rogues don't get when undead show up is their sneak attack bonus, meaning they have to fight like everbody else. They don't become useless, they just lose a huge advantage. This was never a problem in Baldur's Gate.

 

Also, bear in mind that the adventure is designed for a party, not a solo character. There should be situations which certain party members can't deal with, and have to rely on other party members. I can see why people consider this a problem in multiplayer (though I myself don't get bored if the spotlight isn't on me 100% of the time ), but in a single player game where you're playing all of the characters, why is it a problem if one of the characters you control can't deal with something?

 

 

Also, as much as it isn't supposed to be a competition, it's really frustrating to be obviously second-string. As is always the case for non-spellcasters in 3E after about 5th level, and for thieves in earlier editions. Fourth eliminates this problem, at the cost of differentiation, as noted before.

 

That's true, this was a problem in 3rd edition. Casters became too powerful too soon, and with 3rd edition's multiclassing system, it became very easy for someone who knew what they were doing to create a build that could, literally, stomp over just about anything with almost no risk to themselves. In fact, I never liked how one could multi-class to wizard, and suddenly have the ability to do what supposedly took the wizard a lifetime of study, because he was "looking over his shoulder" for the past few weeks, and would be in favour of some requirements to multiclass.

 

But if the alternative is "everyone can do everything equally well (they just have a different word before the thing that they do) and no party member is required for any reason", I'll take the earlier version any day of the week. I like to consider the classes as people who have all kinds of varying backgrounds, histories and skills, not just weapons platforms, and D&D4e made it very difficult to do this.

 

 

(Granted, if actually offered the choice in real life, I would take Pathfinder and use it as a starting point, but that's because I find Paizo's lore much more interesting than 4E-era D&D's, and also because Paizo just seems like a much cooler company to work with.)

 

Somebody needs to do this!! :D

[Frenzy-kun]

 

 

I've always thought that D&D should be viewed as an example of what not to emulate in a game system, really. If it lacks balance then it's of no value so long as you follow the Tao.

 

That really depends on what you're trying to do, though. It worked for Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, but PVP was never the purpose of those games. Or D&D, for that matter. So 'balance' was never really on the agenda. The idea of D&D was never "my level 3 pally can totally pwn your level 4 rogue!", but more "okay, your pally can beat my rogue in a straight up fight, but just try getting through all of those traps without my help.".

 

 

It's not so much about "my paladin is better than your rogue" as it is about the rogue not being able to do anything when undead show up, or the paladin not being able to do anything when there's a trap. The issue isn't optimality, but usefulness. Obviously some characters should be better in some situations, and that's okay. In fact that's the way it should be. But every character needs to be at least useful in every common situation, and you need at least some degree of balance to accomplish that.

 

Also, as much as it isn't supposed to be a competition, it's really frustrating to be obviously second-string. As is always the case for non-spellcasters in 3E after about 5th level, and for thieves in earlier editions. Fourth eliminates this problem, at the cost of differentiation, as noted before.

 

I think you mistake being useful in every task with being competent on every task. It doesn't matter the situation, even a plain fighter is useful in any situation. Even a thief can take his bow and deal some damage to those undead. In DnD2.5 there was no character useless. They had each role. Unless as I say, you mistake being useful with outstanding in their tasks. Even in exploration, a ranger had their nature knowledge and the paladins had their religion knowledge. It's not all about disarming traps, unless the DM is short on ideas.

 

What's not good is that every character should excel in every role. That's greedy. If, as someone said before, you want a mage that can weild swords, make a multiclass character, gaining benefits from two roles and of course, the drawback of not being able to master them all. It's not good for anything that implies customization to be able to be competent on every possible area. Multiclass for instance is useless in D&D4 except for some cheesy combos. The sinergy between classes is totally broken. The concept of party is diluted and it becomes a matter of quantity more than synchrony. It promotes individualism. And all that because the greed of wanting to be competent on every field.

 

To have a real life example, you cannot expect the mechanic to fix your computer, and if he does he won't be able to probably deal with the hardest situations or his measures will imply drawbacks.

 

A game after all is all about rules and constrains to achieve a goal. If there are no constrains, there is no game. Walking in the street is no game. Walking trying to avoid to step in the lines of the paving stones is a game. Pretending to be whatever you want with no conditions or limits goes against a game phylosophy. And in any case you always have the tools to make a character that suits your game style, between them, selecting the class that does that job. Wanting a  paladin that casts spells and backstabs because "paladins looks cooler" is bad for a game. Good for selfsatisfaction, but bad for a cooperative game.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Frenzy-kun

[Jarrakul]

I explicitly stated that my argument wasn't about everyone being great at things, but rather being basically competent, and yet people seem to be assuming that I mean that thieves should always be as good in combat as fighters, etc. I am not asking that every class always be in the spotlight in every situation. Different people excel in different situations, and that's fine. What is not okay is when one character is either doing nothing, or might as well be for all the difference it makes, for a substantial portion of the gameplay.

 

In my head, I have this concept of "threshold of usefulness." This is not the point at which you're really good at something. It's the point at which you're good enough that your contribution will matter more often than not. When a thief in pre-4E attacks something without sneak attack/backstab (always against undead), he's below the threshold of usefulness, because his entire round of attacks doesn't add up to one of the fighter's (this is especially true at high levels; low-level characters have a much easier time meeting the threshold in any situation). The thief might spend the entire encounter fighting an enemy that the fighter can kill in one round. And if the thief hadn't done that, the fighter would've just killed it himself with no difficulty. The thief, while technically able to attack, is not having a noticeable impact on most encounters, and thus is below the threshold of usefulness in combat. I am not arguing that everyone needs to be as good in combat as the fighter, but being unable to contribute is boring and, from a game-design standpoint, stupid. The thief needs to be above the threshold of usefulness, although it's fine if the fighter is further above (as long as the thief is more competent at something else that comes up fairly often).

 

When the party needs to infiltrate something, the fighter is similarly useless. He can't sneak, he can't open locks, he can't bluff the guards, he can't create a distraction without revealing his presence, which might well blow the whole job. If he's lucky, he gets to boost the thief over a wall. His contribution isn't noticed, so he spends the whole time being bored. Again, he's below the threshold of usefulness, and that's a problem.

 

Now, I'm just going to say this, because this is getting kind of ridiculous. From now on, if anyone accuses me of wanting all classes to be equally good at everything, as though that's the only possible definition of balance, I am going to ignore their entire post. Sorry, but I've spent two posts now explaining how that isn't my position, and I don't really see how a third is going to convince you. I'm just not that interested in combating strawman arguments.

[Kjaamor]

Now, I'm just going to say this, because this is getting kind of ridiculous. From now on, if anyone accuses me of wanting all classes to be equally good at everything, as though that's the only possible definition of balance, I am going to ignore their entire post. Sorry, but I've spent two posts now explaining how that isn't my position, and I don't really see how a third is going to convince you. I'm just not that interested in combating strawman arguments.

 

I think the issue is in examples you're using. The idea of the "threshold of usefulness" (something you may wish to run ahead and get a copywrite on before I do) is a very fair point and makes a lot of sense, but then you go on to talk about the dps of fighters and rogues which isn't an example people are getting on board with because they don't see things in the same way. Perhaps because they view the threshold as being party-specific rather than member specific, or simply because people aren't opposed to the existence of contingency classes and jack-of-all-trades.

[Ffordesoon]

@Jarrakul:

 

I would say that you're using the wrong example, because most people, myself (and yourself, seemingly) included, would argue that Thieves should be weaker than Fighters as straight-ahead combatants. Yes, they may not be as useful as a Fighter in that specific situation, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above the threshold of usefulness (I am so stealing that, BTW) in enough common combat and non-combat situations so as not to be considered useless. The problem in 2E specifically, one that is worsened in computer games, is that Thieves are either unnecessary dead weight for the party for long stretches of time, or the DM has to spend ages constructing contrived scenarios that just happen to always have a Thief-ish solution - which, unless the DM is a golden god of DMing with unlimited time and willpower and understanding, probably just ain't gonna happen. There's actually much less separating a Thief and a Fighter in 2E than separates a Rogue and a Fighter in PoE, as far as I can tell.

 

In 2E, you get to be a crap Fighter with a few flavor skills that make you a bit less crap outside of combat. In PoE (assuming the design works as intended), you have a totally different combat role from a Fighter, and you get bonuses in certain skills that a fighter doesn't. Which is very similar to how Rogues are in Pathfinder, but with 4E's tighter focus on tactical action and hard-coded class skills (those being bad for PnP and perfect for a videogame). I don't see what's so heretical about that; it makes a lot of sense to me.

[Jarrakul]

@Jarrakul:

 

I would say that you're using the wrong example, because most people, myself (and yourself, seemingly) included, would argue that Thieves should be weaker than Fighters as straight-ahead combatants. Yes, they may not be as useful as a Fighter in that specific situation, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above the threshold of usefulness (I am so stealing that, BTW) in enough common combat and non-combat situations so as not to be considered useless. The problem in 2E specifically, one that is worsened in computer games, is that Thieves are either unnecessary dead weight for the party for long stretches of time, or the DM has to spend ages constructing contrived scenarios that just happen to always have a Thief-ish solution - which, unless the DM is a golden god of DMing with unlimited time and willpower and understanding, probably just ain't gonna happen. There's actually much less separating a Thief and a Fighter in 2E than separates a Rogue and a Fighter in PoE, as far as I can tell.

 

In 2E, you get to be a crap Fighter with a few flavor skills that make you a bit less crap outside of combat. In PoE (assuming the design works as intended), you have a totally different combat role from a Fighter, and you get bonuses in certain skills that a fighter doesn't. Which is very similar to how Rogues are in Pathfinder, but with 4E's tighter focus on tactical action and hard-coded class skills (those being bad for PnP and perfect for a videogame). I don't see what's so heretical about that; it makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Hm. I seem to have lost track of exactly what we're arguing about, which I suspect is not helping things. Let me see if I can clarify my stance and then we can see if we actually have an argument.

 

I think balance is important. I don't necessarily think balance has to mean that everyone is equally good in combat, although I do think I'd argue that combat balance is more important in a combat-heavy video game than in the average PnP game, just due to the amount of playtime invested. What I really think is important is that each character be able to contribute to nearly every situation, although I do not think their contributions necessarily need to be equal. I do think total contributions need to be roughly equal (hence combat balance being more important in combat-heavy games). I think individual character balance is important because I'd hate to see players punished for running the party they want to run (outside of obvious option-limiters like a party of all one class). That means I should be able to run a party of holy warrior-types (paladins, priests, maybe some mage support and a chanter) and a party of underhanded mercenaries (fighters, rangers, rogues, maybe a druid) and they should both be overall about as good. Exactly as good would be ideal, but is hard to achieve and probably not worth the effort. It's also hard to define, because both groups really should be good at different things.

 

Now, I will acknowledge that in a single-player party-based game, balance is not as important as it is in many other sorts of games. If one character is totally useless, there's no player sitting there being bored. But even so, I think the threshold of usefulness is useful to consider, because it'll help keep parties from hitting a brick wall if they find something that no one's specialized for (like running into Durlag's Tower without a thief in BG1).

 

I'm also not sure I agree that 2E thieves were closer to their respective fighters than PoE rogues are. It sounds like PoE rogues can really fight, for one thing. 2E thieves... well, at level 1 there were barely passable. It really only got worse from there. And for that matter, PoE fighters can do skill stuff like sneak if they put points into it, which 2E fighters never could. But honestly, I think that's neither here nor there.

 

I also have no problem with 4E-style classes in a video game. I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm railing against them. Don't get me wrong, even in video game form I think 4E has some problems (mainly the samey feel of the various classes), but I think it works a lot better in this medium than any other edition of D&D. As far as I'm concerned, the devs are smart to draw ideas from it.

 

Anyway, sorry for rambling. As I said, I'm not entirely sure what exactly we're arguing about.

[Lephys]

*shrug*

 

I understood what Jarrakul meant the first time.

 

While I see how his example could support a different point, he gave plenty of context to indicate what point it was supposed to be supporting.

 

I think people, understandably, lead busy lives today, and just don't really like to take in a whole not-super-short post from beginning to end and process that before responding. An example's a lot more intuitive to process quickly than a random person's raw point declaration, and yet, the same example could support any number of different points, depending on the context.

 

Really, the easiest thing is to simply ask if you're not sure. If you're 90% sure, even, just say "It really seems like you just want the Rogue to be as potent as the Fighter, in combat. Is that what you're saying?" Then, if you find out it is, you can go into detail about the folly of that. And if it isn't, the poster in question doesn't have to sift through your elaborate response to try and point out the core misunderstanding that holds the whole thing up. You're both on the same page, and he can just say "'nah," and explain it again, emphasizing the specifics of his point.

 

But that's just me... -___-

 

(None of this is meant in a hostile fashion. Purely a matter-of-fact one).

 

 

Also, for what it's worth, I think a good example for this whole Threshold of Usefulness idea is that, if you're a Rogue, and, say, a Skeleton shows up, the things that specifically make you a Rogue should come into play in some minimal fashion in your usefulness in handling the skeleton. Something like a single enemy shouldn't be reduced to a classless-husk level of usefulness (even if their level of usefulness is still above 0).

 

It's all about overlapping. If a Rogue can't backstab a skeleton, then he needs to be able to do SOMEthing else specifically useful (even if it's less useful), as a direct result of his being a Rogue. Hell... maybe his backstab/sneak-attack effect just does something different. Instead of additional damage (because they aren't fleshy), he strikes key bones/joints and slows them down. That way, he's less effective, but he's still Roguin' it up, instead of just being a warm body who can hit things with a stick (which even a Wizard can do).

Edited March 25, 2014 by Lephys

[illathid]

 

Now, I'm just going to say this, because this is getting kind of ridiculous. From now on, if anyone accuses me of wanting all classes to be equally good at everything, as though that's the only possible definition of balance, I am going to ignore their entire post. Sorry, but I've spent two posts now explaining how that isn't my position, and I don't really see how a third is going to convince you. I'm just not that interested in combating strawman arguments.

 

I think the issue is in examples you're using. The idea of the "threshold of usefulness" (something you may wish to run ahead and get a copywrite on before I do) is a very fair point and makes a lot of sense, but then you go on to talk about the dps of fighters and rogues which isn't an example people are getting on board with because they don't see things in the same way. Perhaps because they view the threshold as being party-specific rather than member specific, or simply because people aren't opposed to the existence of contingency classes and jack-of-all-trades.

 

 

 

See part of the problem is that many of us have an eye for optimization and don't even realize it. So because we play RPGs and want to be effective we will jump through all sorts of hoops make a rogue that doesn't fall below the "threshold of usefulness" when fighting undead, for example. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with rogues. If the only way to meet that "threshold of usefulness" is to do a variation of one specific build, it makes rogues as whole a less interesting class to play. Err... I hope that made sense.

 

Basically, what I am trying to say is I agree with Jarrakul. 

[Jarrakul]

Yeah, that is a part that I'm deliberately leaving out but should probably disclose for completeness sake. I'm kind of a recovered powergamer, and that's kind of like being a recovered alcoholic. Once a powergamer, always a powergamer, whatever else you are. So while I can tolerate being less than optimal, being genuinely weak at something I'm not supposed to be weak at hurts me. While that's not the best reason in the world to fight for balance, it is part of the reason why I care so much.

[Ffordesoon]

@Jarrakul:

 

No, I failed to make it clear that I was not arguing with you. My bad.

 

My point was that while I agreed with your argument, your example wasn't ideal for the point you were trying to convey. The "I don't see what's so heretical about that..." line was meant as an aside directed at people who do find Sawyer's proposed changes heretical, not as a direct challenge to you.

[Jarrakul]

Fair enough. Well, if my examples weren't ideal, I apologize. They're crystal clear to me, of course, but that hardly says much for their merit in communicating ideas. Have you all basically figured out what I meant to convey, or should I think up some more?

[Suburban-Fox]

I see what you're saying, but personally, I think the fact that there are some situations that certain classes simply can't deal with (while other classes are amazing at it) helps to make the classes more unique and interesting. As long as they're not overdone, that is. Obviously you don't want an entire game full of things that the rogue can't do anything against, but the odd level where suddenly a rogue's sneak attack ability (assuming he has one) is useless would throw the player a bit, and make him adapt his tactics.

 

We could get to a situation where there are some skellies, and the rogue's all "Oh my god, I hate fighting the dead!", then the cleric's all "Why? It's easy! Watch..." and wipes them out with a Turn Undead spell, but then we get to some traps, and the rogue's all "Woah! Everyone stop! There's a trap! Just give me a moment, I'll deal with it.". To me, that creates an interesting party dynamic which you wouldn't get if you could always deal with just about any situation the same way.

 

Having encounters where your usual tactics don't work, and suddenly you have to change tactics, can make things more interesting. If every fight is just a matter of choosing which abilities to perform, and the only variation is "this Sneak Attack ability doesn't work here, so I'll use the Very Good at Killing Undead ability instead! But this next fight is completely different...I have to use the Very Good at Killing Constructs ability!", there's very little variation. During my short time playing WoW (I hated it btw - I played as a rogue and got bored with the lack of roguish elements in the game), every enemy I faced might as well have been the same, for all the things they could do, and the same tactic was employed in every single fight: wait while the tank runs in, then get into flanking position and keep hitting the "do lots of damage" button.

 

So I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if a character's "threshold of usefulness" drops to 0 for a short period in the game, as long as it isn't overdone, and the character can still spend a significant portion of the game being useful. Even so, he could find other ways to be useful that the developers haven't hard-coded into the game. You never know.

[Kjaamor]

See part of the problem is that many of us have an eye for optimization and don't even realize it. So because we play RPGs and want to be effective we will jump through all sorts of hoops make a rogue that doesn't fall below the "threshold of usefulness" when fighting undead, for example. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with rogues. If the only way to meet that "threshold of usefulness" is to do a variation of one specific build, it makes rogues as whole a less interesting class to play. Err... I hope that made sense.

 

Basically, what I am trying to say is I agree with Jarrakul.

 

General thresholds of usefulness are very important in multiplayer, single-character crpgs not only to ensure that no one feels or becomes disposable but also to practically ensure that the classes that make up the gameplay balance (e.g. healers) are adequately represented to ensured to game can be played as intended. The case is similar in PnP, although obviously the DM can enhance specific-player utility actively.

 

From a personal standpoint, and this is not necessarily a counterpoint to anything Jarrakul suggested so far, I think that the whole purpose of classes and builds in crpgs should be about shaping their utility. I think a lot of people feel a very similar way, which is why any suggestion that could be perceived as promoting class equality in a specific sphere (almost inevitably dps) tends to receive a rather impassioned negative response.

 

Even in the original BG, there are numerous ways to build your rogue, and the threshold of usefulness is something that you shape. To borrow Jarrakul's example of the useless rogue against the undead, this would not - and did not - transpire in my playthrough because through weapons, skills and multiclassing my rogue was able to attain a greater threshold of usefulness in those battles. Conversely, I should imagine that another player building a backstabbing/scouting rogue would make for a superb magekiller which would have made other battles far easier. If my party had swapped out my rogue for another two-handed fighter (whose threshold of usefulness is damned near constant) my party would have been weaker. Interestingly, my party would also have been weaker for having the backstabbing/scouting rogue because the rest of my party was not optimised for it. We've been there before, but choices like that are the essence of tactics.

 

I sympathise with Jarrakul (and, for what it's worth, "liked" his point even when I don't necessarily agree), because there are few worse things on forums than someone misconstruing your point, reconstructing one that you didn't make, and then attacking something you never said. However, given that thresholds of usefulness are seldom binary things and by opening up examples that both others might not necessarily relate to and that could be used to support the counterpoint, the misunderstandings that followed were always going to be more likely than if, for instance, he had pointed out the combat manouvering, stealth attacks and enemy targeting is gameplay while creeping around a dungeon searching for traps and reloading every time your arbitrary "hide in the shadows" roll fails is not.

 

 

*shrug*

 

I understood what Jarrakul meant the first time.

 

While I see how his example could support a different point, he gave plenty of context to indicate what point it was supposed to be supporting.

 

I think people, understandably, lead busy lives today, and just don't really like to take in a whole not-super-short post from beginning to end and process that before responding. An example's a lot more intuitive to process quickly than a random person's raw point declaration, and yet, the same example could support any number of different points, depending on the context.

 

Really, the easiest thing is to simply ask if you're not sure. If you're 90% sure, even, just say "It really seems like you just want the Rogue to be as potent as the Fighter, in combat. Is that what you're saying?" Then, if you find out it is, you can go into detail about the folly of that. And if it isn't, the poster in question doesn't have to sift through your elaborate response to try and point out the core misunderstanding that holds the whole thing up. You're both on the same page, and he can just say "'nah," and explain it again, emphasizing the specifics of his point.

 

But that's just me... -___-

 

(None of this is meant in a hostile fashion. Purely a matter-of-fact one).

 

Print that off, frame it, and hang it directly above your monitor, Lephys.

[Ffordesoon]

Fair enough. Well, if my examples weren't ideal, I apologize. They're crystal clear to me, of course, but that hardly says much for their merit in communicating ideas. Have you all basically figured out what I meant to convey, or should I think up some more?

I absolutely understood what you meant. The only problem with your example is as Kjaamor said: it's damage-based, which makes it sound to those who skim as if you're saying that Thieves aren't "useful" unless they can do as much damage as Fighters. Which is not your point, obviously, but Timothy Grognardskimmer has already been possessed by the spirit of Gygax at that point, you know?

 

Then again, ol' Tim doesn't seem to have shown up yet, so maybe your example did work as well as it could've. I was just trying to protect you against folks who would deliberately misunderstand your point.

[Lephys]

Having encounters where your usual tactics don't work, and suddenly you have to change tactics, can make things more interesting. If every fight is just a matter of choosing which abilities to perform, and the only variation is "this Sneak Attack ability doesn't work here, so I'll use the Very Good at Killing Undead ability instead! But this next fight is completely different...I have to use the Very Good at Killing Constructs ability!", there's very little variation.

 

So I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if a character's "threshold of usefulness" drops to 0 for a short period in the game, as long as it isn't overdone, and the character can still spend a significant portion of the game being useful. Even so, he could find other ways to be useful that the developers haven't hard-coded into the game. You never know.

Having to change your tactics IS good. Having to change your tactics to "cheer on the sideline" isn't so much. There's plenty of room in-between "I can't do anything" and "I'm always super-useful because I have an ability for every situation! 8D!"

 

A good example of the problem with a given class dropping below the threshold of usefulness is the situation in which both your PC AND a companion in your party share a class. If you come upon undead and neither character can really do anything, then you've suddenly come upon a situation in which you're effectively fighting with a 4-man party instead of a 6-man party.

 

On the opposite side of the coin, you don't want the "bonus effectiveness" of a class in a specific situation to result in "Undead? I've got TWO Priests, so this otherwise-45-second-fight is over in TWO SECONDS! 8D!"

 

It's the same principle, just applied in either direction.

 

All things in moderation. . It becomes a bit difficult to balance encounters, in general, if it's easily possible for 2 or more (if you go with the Adventurer's Hall) of your party members to either be uber effective or all-but-useless, depending on the encounter. It's just plain prudent to regulate that to a decent range between a minimum "I can still help tackle these guys in some fashion, as a direct result of the things that my class does, even though I'm less effective than I'd be in other situations with other factors" and a maximum "I'm actually really useful in this particular situation, but this fight is still a challenge."

[Randomthom]

There's another way to view this little conundrum.

 

I am a big cRPG and PnP RPG fan. I share DM duties with another guy in a semi-regular D&D group.

 

One of the difficulties I encounter is with the different people in our group, one guy is a pure power-gamer, loves combat and no matter what game system or setting we play, he always wants to play a 6ft redheaded amazon women with 2 swords and big boobs. Another guy is pretty much purely interested in playing evil rogues and pissing on the DM's best laid plans. Another guy is all about "does it look cool" and the others are somewhere in between all these.

 

Between them they really stretch my ability as a GM, I have to make things challenging enough for the power-gamer but not too challenging for the more balanced characters. I have to carefully consider PC motivation and give genuine incentive or the evil rogue will derail the evening's gaming by picking the holes in my plans. I have to consider how things look, feel, sound or the other guy will become disinterested.

 

God I hate that lot!

 

Aaaaanyway, this was my very long-winded way of pointing our that different people see RPGs in very different ways.

The power-gamer cares passionately about balance, well, imbalance too if he can exploit it for his own ends.*

The evil-rogue-playing-guy likes to play meta-gaming devil's advocate and likes to challenge my on-the-spot creativity. He doesn't care about balance.**

The other guy wants to feel the world his character is experiencing but also actually does care if he can't effect it.***

 

*He's in his 50s, lives with his mother and typifies every negative D&D player stereotype you can think of.

**In his 20s, intelligent and fun guy, loves to wind me up... git

***You should have seen his face light up when I told him that Magic Missile could look more-or-less like whatever he wanted.

 

I'm really barely making a point here aren't I? Oh well!

[Lephys]

The evil-rogue-playing-guy likes to play meta-gaming devil's advocate and likes to challenge my on-the-spot creativity. He doesn't care about balance.**

Next session, every time he tries to do something, just tell him "Nope, this whole encounter is immune to Rogues." I bet you'll find him caring about balance.

 

Sounds like a tough group, though, heh. Props for running that show.

[Jarrakul]

Oooh, DMing. How I love DMing. :3

 

It sounds like you have a pretty challenging group. In many ways, each of those three players exemplifies what I would consider a cardinal rule of DMing, and therefore of game design in general. The powergamer exemplifies the need for balance, because he's so good at exploiting imbalance that he makes it difficult to properly challenge the group as a whole without letting the powergamer hog the entire spotlight (some would argue that this is irrelevant to single-player crpgs, because there's no such thing as hogging the spotlight; I would argue that single-player games are like DMing thousands of players at once, because you have to balance for all of them). The rogue exemplifies the need to provide a flexible framework and reasonable incentives for a variety of players (this is hard in crpgs, because it's hard to adapt without interacting with the players directly). Finally, the other guy exemplifies the need for things to be fundamentally fun and cool (crpgs actually tend to be pretty good at this, what with their fast gameplay and fancy graphics).

 

So, basically, if you're managing that group well, I'd trust you to design and run good games.