Skill at Role-Playing

[Neonchameleon]

While I agree with this basic sentiment, different games are designed with different levels of craft and insight, I don't think abusing existing rules to unbalance the game is a positive when measuring player skill. When faced with a game that does not fill his needs, a skilled player either adjusts to the game as it is or, if the entire group finds this a problem, goes looking for another game (which can be a modified version of the current game).

It all depends on what you're looking for. If this is a problem for you, I'd say you value the in-game challenges highly. A perfectly valid choice.

This is pretty similar to the point of the original discussion which triggered this thread, except that asking me (who do not perceive caster imbalance as a problem) to fix it was sort of pointless.

No. It goes beyond that.

There are cases where people are clearly abusing the game to break it. Anyone who uses the linked 50 point advantage in GURPS is clearly trying it on. No one ever expects to be able to play Pun-Pun or other such builds. Those are clearly abusive - and the game with them isn't to use them in play, it's to come up with them.

The problem comes in when people aren't deliberately abusing the rules. When a 3.5 bear-themed druid becomes an aggressively hegmonizing bear swarm just because they like bears so they wild shape into a bear, have a bear companion, and summon bears - barely leaving anything for the fighter to do. When a 3.5 wizard wants to stay alive so they buy a ring binder's worth of scrolls because that's what a smart character would do. When they like shutting down enemies so they can't hit back, and start pulling out Save or Suck spells based on the monster's defences while using conjurations because they know that "magic immune" creatures aren't immune to falling anvils.

The problem is when if you make sensible in-character choices you get accused of abusing rules. When because the game designers half-assed the job players get blamed for playing characters that are acceping the rules of the universe, behaving within them, and trying to stay alive - and this ruins peoples' fun.

 

[Dandu]

When they like shutting down enemies so they can't hit back, and start pulling out Save or Suck spells based on the monster's defences while using conjurations because they know that "magic immune" creatures aren't immune to falling anvils.

Which they know because they get knowledge skills.

 

[Umbran]

When because the game designers half-assed the job players get blamed for playing characters that are acceping the rules of the universe, behaving within them, and trying to stay alive - and this ruins peoples' fun.

Any finite set of usable rules is going to have exploits available. It isn't half-assed to have such gaps, it is nature. Go, build a system yourself, and have 10,000 people beat on it, and you'll see what happens.

And there is a fine line between, "this is just a smart choice by the character" and "this is actually abuse of rules" because the character doesn't do it until the player realizes, "Hey, wait, if I do X, then Y, then Z, I'm a freakin' god!"

The scroll example you give is a great one - in effect, the complaint here is that the developers of the game did not build in a low enough explicit cap in the number of scrolls a locale would have available. Is that half-assed, or is it just expecting the GM to exercise a bit of judgement and say, "No" on occasion? Do the *rules* have to patch *every* potential issue, or can we expect the GM to do it some or most of the time? Would we really want to work with a set of rules that actually had *everything* under explicit control?

If *everything* is under explicit control, then the system becomes fragile to changes and house rules. If the game has too little under control, it is easily abused. Doesn't it strike you as best to lie somewhere inbetween, such that the GM can adjust to suit local needs?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Any finite set of usable rules is going to have exploits available. It isn't half-assed to have such gaps, it is nature. Go, build a system yourself, and have 10,000 people beat on it, and you'll see what happens.

And there is a fine line between, "this is just a smart choice by the character" and "this is actually abuse of rules" because the character doesn't do it until the player realizes, "Hey, wait, if I do X, then Y, then Z, I'm a freakin' god!"

The scroll example you give is a great one - in effect, the complaint here is that the developers of the game did not build in a low enough explicit cap in the number of scrolls a locale would have available. Is that half-assed, or is it just expecting the GM to exercise a bit of judgement and say, "No" on occasion? Do the *rules* have to patch *every* potential issue, or can we expect the GM to do it some or most of the time? Would we really want to work with a set of rules that actually had *everything* under explicit control?

If *everything* is under explicit control, then the system becomes fragile to changes and house rules. If the game has too little under control, it is easily abused. Doesn't it strike you as best to lie somewhere inbetween, such that the GM can adjust to suit local needs?

Your post might have merit if it wasn't for the fact that the premises were false. No version prior to 3.0 had the loose-leaf binder full of scrolls because no version of D&D either (a) gave explicit methods for the PCs to make magic items or (b) base values and transaction limits for towns.

Both 3.5 and Pathfinder cleaned things up a bit. But if we look at the PRD we find that a hamlet has a 75% chance that any given first level spell is available on a scroll in any given thorp, and a 75% chance that any given second level spell is available on a scroll in any given village.

And given how small a thorp is (<20 people), this means that scrolls are everywhere. When in the real world a junk shop doesn't have what you are looking for you try the next one. Which in 3.X is the next thorp over.

Even more importantly there's the implication that the work has already been done. The loose-leaf ring binder full of scrolls isn't about having 30 copies of a scroll (that's what wands are for). It's about having one or two copies of a vast array of scrolls.

Does it strike me that things are better played looser than the rules of D&D 3.0 play them? Normally yes. But what does that have to do with anything? When the rules are presented a certain way and people aren't blatantly taking the mick (see Pun-Pun or that GURPS advantage I linked) they should work. I've already mentioned Pun-Pun and that GURPS illustration, which makes your question about the rules patching every possible issue at best irrelevant, at worst a strawman. It's arguing against a position no one holds.

When the rules are tight, as they are in 3.0 economics, there is the basic assumption that unless you go out of your way to break them they should work? No. And a wizard and scholar wanting a collection of scrolls is not going out of their way to break the game. When things are under the explicit control of the rules (as 3.X item crafting and scroll purchasing are) they should work.

 

[Greenfield]

His problem is the players' willingness to break the system, rather than play within it.

So don'y blame Pathfinder. A good DM can make any game system work. A bad DM can't make any game system work. What we need are systems designed for all the DMs between those two extremes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

His problem is the players' willingness to break the system, rather than play within it.

What I'm complaining about is the fact that the system limits are not clearly marked - and in specific the markings put out by the rule system imply that things are within them that aren't. The things I'm talking about as bad design are doing things that the system implies are within them but still break it. Like 3.X having clearly defined item crafting rules and feats to make them player abilities - and actually using those rules being a good way of snapping game balance.

When there has obviously been detail and attention lavished on something and there is the implication of balance (as the level system and CR system provide) then playing with such things is playing inside where the game indicates the system is.

So don'y blame Pathfinder. A good DM can make any game system work. A bad DM can't make any game system work. What we need are systems designed for all the DMs between those two extremes.

I'll believe that a good DM can make any game system work when I hear of a good group playing FATAL.

 

[Greenfield]

Each DM sets the limits for their game. Some allow for more generous interpretations of the rules than others.

I'm far more a D&D player than Pathfinder though, so my comments are more generic than specific. My observation of Pathfinder is that they "fixed" D&D by adding power to most classes.

Where D&D had power-gaming potential by mixing Prestige classes to the point of broken-ness, Pathfinder cut out the middle man by inventing broken core classes.

In another discussion thread I mentioned a player in my game who wanted to bring in a character based on the rulings of a different DM in a different game group. The DM had allowed players to use the "Rebuilding a character" rules to convert "monster levels" into character class levels. Applying this principle to a race called a Marrowlurk (I think), he had a character whose lowest ability score was an 18 and whose high was a 26. After the rebuild, he was effectively an ECL 1 racial package, with a number of built in Assassin abilities.

That DM either didn't see the potential for abuse, or didn't care. Or maybe he saw the potential and allowed the conversion selectively, so as prevent it being abused.

In any case, what he allowed wouldn't fly at almost any game I know of.

To help with your specific challenge, making a viable Fighter type in an over-the-top magic dominated game: We implemented a house rule to help adjust the relative power curves of spell casters v brawlers. We changed the way iterative attacks work.

Normally a character gets an extra attack for every 5 BAB they gain, at a cumulative -5. So someone with a BAB of 6 gets to attack at +6, and then again at +1.

We changed that so they happen every 4 BAB, with a cumulative -4 penalty. So a fighter gets his extra attack a little sooner, and pays a smaller penalty for the secondary and tertiary. For example, a Fighter with a BAB of 5 can attack at +5, and again at +1. When their BAB reaches 9, they attack at +9, +5, and +1.

The rule applies to everyone, but the brawler types benefit the most. It's a subtle change, so as not to unbalance or conflict with other rules, but it tips the power curve of the brawler a bit steeper, and lets them keep up.

Now this is a system change, rather than an uber-build for a Fighter, so I know it doesn't actually answer the original question from that other board.

The real solution is a DM who is willing to say No to broken builds and convoluted rules interpretations.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Each DM sets the limits for their game. Some allow for more generous interpretations of the rules than others.

I'm far more a D&D player than Pathfinder though, so my comments are more generic than specific. My observation of Pathfinder is that they "fixed" D&D by adding power to most classes.

Where D&D had power-gaming potential by mixing Prestige classes to the point of broken-ness, Pathfinder cut out the middle man by inventing broken core classes.

3.0 broke the core classes. Notably the three (or four) classes that cast ninth level spells. It screwed up the saving throws and removed the restrictions on the total number of spells. (@S'mon is using a house rule in a campaign I'm currently playing it to add half hit dice to all saves - it helps a lot. Although my summoner still has other broken stuff).

In another discussion thread I mentioned a player in my game who wanted to bring in a character based on the rulings of a different DM in a different game group. The DM had allowed players to use the "Rebuilding a character" rules to convert "monster levels" into character class levels. Applying this principle to a race called a Marrowlurk (I think), he had a character whose lowest ability score was an 18 and whose high was a 26. After the rebuild, he was effectively an ECL 1 racial package, with a number of built in Assassin abilities.

That DM either didn't see the potential for abuse, or didn't care. Or maybe he saw the potential and allowed the conversion selectively, so as prevent it being abused.

In any case, what he allowed wouldn't fly at almost any game I know of.

Nor me. But in a 13th level game with all primary casters it might still be the least broken character at the table when the rest are all RAW compliant.

To help with your specific challenge, making a viable Fighter type in an over-the-top magic dominated game: We implemented a house rule to help adjust the relative power curves of spell casters v brawlers. We changed the way iterative attacks work.

Normally a character gets an extra attack for every 5 BAB they gain, at a cumulative -5. So someone with a BAB of 6 gets to attack at +6, and then again at +1.

We changed that so they happen every 4 BAB, with a cumulative -4 penalty. So a fighter gets his extra attack a little sooner, and pays a smaller penalty for the secondary and tertiary. For example, a Fighter with a BAB of 5 can attack at +5, and again at +1. When their BAB reaches 9, they attack at +9, +5, and +1.

The rule applies to everyone, but the brawler types benefit the most. It's a subtle change, so as not to unbalance or conflict with other rules, but it tips the power curve of the brawler a bit steeper, and lets them keep up.

I'd question that unless the casters were really reigned in. The basic problem with the fighter is twofold.

Firstly that fundamentally at first level the fighter is someone who is good at sticking a sharpened piece of metal into someone ten feet or less away from them. At twentieth level the fighter is someone who is very good at sticking a sharpened piece of metal into someone ten feet or less away from them. Meanwhile the wizard has graduated from someone who can sometimes put people to sleep to someone who controls time and space.

And second in the 3.X family, the low saving throws don't keep up. So not only is the wizard doing more debilitating things, the fighter saves less frequently.

The real solution is a DM who is willing to say No to broken builds and convoluted rules interpretations.

Or a well designed game with errata where necessary and clear rules that can be put on a couple of sides of A4.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Which they know because they get knowledge skills.

That's a great point, and a false point (read on please). We all live on the honor system somewhat as players of this game, specifically as extremely experienced and advanced players of the various versions of our game. Even the best of us can't seem to help but allow a little player knowledge slip into that new character, even though there's no conceivable chance on Greayhawk that our first level Ranger from a remote farm in the middle on nowhere could have any knowledge whatsoever on just what an Illithid is... It seems to be an innate part of the game when we start that new adventure, say with a player who's trying to DM that first time. They may be brand new characters, but we swoop into that group of skeletons, swapping out of swords for clubs or sticks like veterans. Alot of the learning curve is ignored.

 

[Umbran]

Your post might have merit if it wasn't for the fact that the premises were false. No version prior to 3.0 had the loose-leaf binder full of scrolls because no version of D&D either (a) gave explicit methods for the PCs to make magic items or (b) base values and transaction limits for towns.

I think this makes it a perfect example - no part of the premise was that the hole existed in *all* editions. They made a new system, and guess what? There were bugs. This is surprising exactly how?

When the rules are tight, as they are in 3.0 economics, there is the basic assumption that unless you go out of your way to break them they should work? No. And a wizard and scholar wanting a collection of scrolls is not going out of their way to break the game. When things are under the explicit control of the rules (as 3.X item crafting and scroll purchasing are) they should work.

Perfect the enemy of good?

You go make up a ruleset from scratch, and make it *perfect*, such that there are no such holes - behaviors that seem reasonable, but end up broken. I double-dog dare you!

(I feel it is a safe dare. If you try and fail, my point is made. If you try and succeed, well, then we get an awesome new game!)