Class(ic) D&D
Unless you’re a game designer or a math professor, today’s blog might be boring. As I’m only personally acquainted with one of these, I expect that at least Randy will post a comment on this one…
This optimized game experiment has got me thinking. The question of the day is this: how mathematically sound is the D&D rule system? I mean, Magic: The Gathering, as everyone knows, was designed by a Ph.D. in Math. D&D was designed, even in its most recent incarnation, by… game designers. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m just asking the question, “how reliable is the CR system, or the treasure system, or character balance?”
This brings out another point. If the classes in Dungeons and Dragons are balanced, then what does that say about party composition? In other words, if an average cleric is as useful as an average rogue, does a party need one of each? Could a successful campaign (using only standard designed materials and not DM-designed or modified materials) be made up entirely of fighter types? How about monks? If not, then are the classes really balanced? And which classes are indispensible, and which are optional?
The conventional wisdom says you need a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard to make a good party. But if you are missing one, can you still, mathematically, “beat” the game?
Could it be that the classes are, inherently, unequal, and that we actually like it that way? Could it be that they each have their own equal role to play, but that they truly are divergent in terms of a mathematical comparison?
Could it be that game designers, far from being math guys, really belong in the humanities rather than in the sciences?
Optimization and CR
So, my buddy Randy wants to run a game for all of his “power gamers.” His idea is that, using the official D&D canon, we should attempt to “break” our characters as badly as we can. We’re not looking for “loopholes” like Pun-Pun, but rather optimizing characters within the letter and spirit of the rules. He will then run us through a “standard” D&D adventure, built for that level character. He wants to see how the standard fare does with optimized characters.
My theory is that a standard adventure with optimized characters will be a challenge, and will meet the Challenge Rating system metrics (i.e. 20% loss for a CR of the party’s level.) I don’t believe it will be a cake-walk. Here’s the basis for my theory: the whole concept of “Challenge Rating” had to be developed largely through playtesting. There are way too many variables in a PC party to simply plug in the right numbers and compare them, so things that make up CR were, in design, somewhat subjective. Here is the problem, then: playtesters are not average gamers. If you are at the point in your life where you are either working for a game company or you are playtesting a new rule set, chances are pretty good that you fall into the “power gamer” category, or at least that you know how to optimize a character.
Now, using this logic, one would assume that a “normal” D&D group would have a tougher time with things. This is true, but only to a degree. If there are 4 players at the table, there is a good chance that 2 have optimized their characters. The two non-optimized characters aren’t totally ineffective, and so they don’t really bring things down that much. In my experience, I have typically had 5 or 6 players run through a standard adventure and come out right about where the CR system says they should.
There’s another thing to think about here, and it sort of goes to the heart of D&D. At the end of the day, D&D has one of the largest rule sets in the world, yet is one game that admits from the start that “house rules” are OK, and that, ultimately, the GM is the interpreter and arbiter of the rules. This in itself changes the math of the game, whether it is Challenge Rating, Gold Piece Value of magic items, or class balance. And, to tell you the truth, I can’t give you an example of a game I’ve played in (except for maybe at Gencon) that didn’t have house rules.
D&D is fluid, and it has always been fluid. If you want concrete inescapable rules, play D&D miniatures.
The Metagame, again
“The target of a spell or effect is always aware that he’s rolled a saving throw, though the caster of the spell isn’t revealed.” Huh. Who knew?
I’m always amazed whenever I take the time to read the official D&D FAQ. I remember when I played Magic: The Gathering and a new set would be released. The set would have a new mechanic of some sort that the players all had to learn in order to effectively compete. Very often, the new mechanic would rely on some specific component of a core rule of the game, (such as “the stack” for you who’ve played) that you had to know inside out.
D&D has always been a little more flexible. Still, this may be the reason that I’ve missed some pretty basic concepts as time has gone on. For example, knowing what order “the stack” in Magic: The Gathering works in is vital, and you can’t play the game without that basic knowledge. But knowing that a spell’s target is always aware they’ve made a saving throw is something you could play for years and never be aware of.
Now, having said all of that, I’d like to put in my $.02 on this particular ruling. The fact of the matter is that the entire concept of certain types of magic (enchantment, anyone? how about illusion?) is based on the target being unaware of what’s going on. I’m sorry, but for a character to always know the’ve made a save gives away too much. If you’re seeing an illusory baalor because you’ve failed a save, you need to believe (as a player) that you’re seeing a baalor. Anything less makes it more of a “how much can I fool myself” game, which is not fun in my experience.
What to allow, and what not to
The whole psion thing from a while back has me thinking… dangerous, I know…
I never disallowed anything in AD&D. Anything at all. Back then, we just weren’t concerned with game balance. The guys I’d been playing with had known each other for over a decade. Some characters were awesome, some were fair, some were downright crappy. It didn’t really matter. Honestly, no one gave a crap about balance. And I allowed everything.
Now, fast forward. 3E, 3.5, etc. Balance is the word of the day. And yes, I can see where it was a necessary corrective. To be sure, we’ve added a lot of new faces to our gaming table since AD&D. Some of the people we now play with have played with us for less than half a dozen sessions, and we’ve only known for a few months. Balance is, probably, a necessity for this group. I get that. I really do. It’s why I was comfortable outlawing Psions in the name of balance.
To be sure, there’s another force at work here. Whether or not they were fully playtested, all of the AD&D stuff was TSR. With the Open Gaming License, anyone can put out D&D materials. To be sure, some of it is as good, if not better, than the stuff that WotC puts out. But, some of it is just crap. (Then again, technically, some of the WotC stuff is crap too.) To take the “allow it all” approach would be unwise and, plainly, irresponsible.
So, the “allow WotC products, except for Unearthed Arcana, plus no psions” was still gives players a pretty wide berth. We even added an addendum: “We’ll consider anything else you might have in mind, too.” So, we’ve got some stuff that is, decidedly, not WotC: some stuff from Monte Cook, a homemade racial class, alternate template rules. And, as of yet, balance has only been thrown off by two standard W0tC concepts: the Psion, which we’ve shut down, is the first. The second, well, it remains to be seen how broken it is or isn’t. But the fact of the matter is that the Eberron Shifter is really kicking more butt right now than anyone.
I’m intrigued by Randy’s idea. He wants to take 4 “power gamers” (in other words, players that will either read the boards to figure out how to break a character, or either do the math themselves… I’m playing a Monk, I think) and run them through standard D&D adventures, to see how bad it really is. My theory is that the game is well balanced enough that it will be difficult to notice the difference, if there is any, between those 4 players and the 4 average players. In other words, I’m to the point where I believe that even “broken” characters are not so bad as to spoil the overall balance.
Maybe I should rethink the psion thing…. 
Kovalic does it again.
I don’t know if it is because I’ve read so much of his comic, or if it is because I’ve grown more accustomed to Scott Kurtz’s PVP, or maybe because of his left-leaning political views, but John Kovalik’s Dork Tower just hasn’t done it for me in a while. That’s not to say I haven’t had the occasional chuckle; but nothing as of late has left me in the same stitches that I was when I picked up my first issue of Dork Tower.
This particular DORK TOWER from a few weeks back, however, left me in stitches. The idea of “Lake Geneva Conventions,” apart from its multi-layered pun, is just brilliantly funny.
It got me thinking, though: has there ever been a time when its really been the “us” on this side of the screen vs. “them” on the other side? Hasn’t it always been all of us, together, working to make a fun game? I’ve always seen it that way. When I fudge a die roll, for example, it is almost always in favor of the party.
Still, the DM’s role is, by definition, arbitrary. When I make a plotline decision, for example, that a player doesn’t like, am I being unfair? After all, I’m not forcing characters into certain actions. I’m not telling players what they have to do. I don’t even mess with their background stories without permission. But I wonder sometimes if, because the DM’s role is arbitrary, if there’s not sometimes undue resentment from players…
Anyways, just a few random thoughts. At the end of the day, I think my players are probably better off without the Lake Geneva Conventions.
Back in Black
Aw yeah.
The DM has returned.
New review posted this afternoon, look for the blog to start back up tomorrow or later today!
-
Updates
