PDA

View Full Version : Metagaming behind the screen



Rixx
2009-09-17, 04:02 PM
Note that I am certainly not accusing anyone (my DM included) of metagaming; I've just been thinking lately that there's a somewhat interesting aspect of tabletop games.

The DM is expected to metagame, especially to create challenges for savvy players. The DM will never throw out a fire elemental to combat someone immune to fire damage, and If you have a disarm-happy PC, you can bet that the market for locked gauntlets is going to surge pretty quickly. And if you're playing Pathfinder as an Undead Sorcerer level 20, unintelligent undead will cease to attack you unprovoked - do you think you're ever going to see a zombie hoard ever again? Or if you're a Ranger with Favored Enemy (Aberration), how much will you be willing to bet that the Illithid BBEG will unexpectedly invest in some non-abberant minions?

On the flipside, giving players challenges that they wouldn't be able to overcome WITHOUT those special abilities can feel a lot like pandering - especially to a single player, if none of the others have similar abilities. For example, a DM who's unwilling to kill his players won't have a chamber fill slowly with water unless the Wizard has Water Breathing prepared. Alternately, in a party consisting mostly of earthbound melee fighters, a flying opponent can turn a group encounter into a one-on-one fight with the only ranged combatant. Using players' abilities this way, a DM can easily play favorites.

Of course, if this gets out of hand on the "denying special abilities" side, players will begin to avoid taking any abilities that are only applicable in very specific situations, but very useful in those situations, thereby taking a lot of options out of the game. However, on the "pandering to players with abilities" side, players may expect the situations that their special abilities apply to to come up more often, developing a sense of entitlement and breaking versimilitude.

How do your groups handle this dillemma? Do you find yourself avoiding taking any special feats or abilities that can be countered or rendered moot by the DM's choice of challenge? Alternately, have you ever been dissatisfied by beating an encounter too easily because of your special abilities, or frustrated as the DM consistently builds encounters around the abilities of one party member?

Whammydill
2009-09-17, 04:05 PM
...by playing and running in a non-adversarial way. You should be playing together with your DM and vice-versa. One shouldn't be trying to beat the other.

Rixx
2009-09-17, 04:08 PM
...by playing and running in a non-adversarial way. You should be playing together with your DM and vice-versa. One shouldn't be trying to beat the other.

I agree, but many groups don't have the same outlook - one of my groups is this way. Neither the DM nor the Players want the outcome of the battle to be guaranteed either way, and as such the DM creates real challenges to overcome and tries not to take it too easy on us (but at the same time doesn't try to defeat us outright). As fun as group storytelling is, victories are somewhat hollow if the outcome was a forgone conclusion.

Sucrose
2009-09-17, 04:10 PM
...by playing and running in a non-adversarial way. You should be playing together with your DM and vice-versa. One shouldn't be trying to beat the other.

He isn't saying that they are; this could come up relatively easily in gameplay. The DM typically knows what he's throwing at his players, so he has to decide whether to let a given player shine, or to make it good for the whole group, or avoid pandering to the players.

I can't speak for all DMs, or even a fair number, but my solution has been a combination of lack of preparedness and a tiny bit of simulation-based logic. I generally just throw whatever I want at the players, and see what happens. If they die, they die. Harsh, but it lets them feel like they're adventuring in a world that operates in ways beyond those centered on them. The main antagonists, on the other hand, will adapt as information becomes available to them. However, the players do the same thing, so it generally comes out as a wash.

Rixx
2009-09-17, 04:14 PM
Another possible solution: Random encounter tables. If not even the DM knows what the party will face, this becomes a bit of a non-issue. Of course, plot-relevant combat is non-random, but as Sucrose says, antagonists can adapt as they gain information, just as the player can.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:17 PM
We don't use a level-scaling world. Encounters are similar from 3 to 20 (outside creatures specifically after the PCs for a reason or another and in a way or another as a reaction to their actions). Mostly it just means you fight very few fights at 3 and look for alternative solutions much of the time, and have the option of beating most random things with flick of your wrist at 20 but don't really run into them thanks to Teleportation anyways.

I understand it's not for everyone, but it has worked for us pretty well. For what it's worth though, we're a bunch of simulationists; world where all encounters are magically "level appropriate" just doesn't make sense to us.

BobVosh
2009-09-17, 04:18 PM
As a DM I refuse to pander either way to players. They are intelligent enough and have abilities to get around almost everything. On the other hand if they can completely own my BBEG undead lich because they are are magebane undeadbane favored enemy vs undead then go them.

Nothing annoys me more then a DM who constantly puts stupid defenses because you can do something. In fact my current one has all his characters starting with spell turning. It is getting to the point that I'm expecting this. Every single fight has had it in the last 4 levels. Even on paladins and other classes/mobs that had no chance to cast it. I'm buying a rod of absorption for this very reason.

IMO all this does is annoy people. And it should be avoided.

TheThan
2009-09-17, 04:20 PM
The trick is to do a little of both.

For example if you have a player that’s immune to fire. Then throw a wizard with a scorching ray prepared at him. The player will fell good that this fire immunity came in handy. Now if the wizard npc gets away, then he may come back with a magic missile prepared instead. That sort of stuff.

Allow them to use their advantages some of the time, and actively work around their advantages some of the time as well.

lsfreak
2009-09-17, 04:26 PM
Part of it is that "metagaming" by the DM is somewhat justified. By level 10 (well, depending on setting), enough people will have heard of the PC's to know their very general tactics. A BBEG with scrying is pretty much guaranteed to know what the PC's are up to and know exactly how to counter them, no metagaming on the DM's part at all.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:29 PM
Part of it is that "metagaming" by the DM is somewhat justified. By level 10 (well, depending on setting), enough people will have heard of the PC's to know their very general tactics. A BBEG with scrying is pretty much guaranteed to know what the PC's are up to and know exactly how to counter them, no metagaming on the DM's part at all.

But that's specifically not metagaming, that's an in-game reason for the adversaries to be prepared; the very definition of metagaming is that the information comes from outside the characters' sphere of experience. That's just playing creatures as actual entities in the world, not just sacs of XP.

Frankly, sides heavily associated with the PCs (either antagonistically or in friendly terms) should be somewhat prepared for their capabilities or it would make no sense, at least if they take the PCs seriously and given the average capabilities of a level 5+ PC, most creatures of the kingdoms should.

Rixx
2009-09-17, 04:32 PM
But that's specifically not metagaming, that's an in-game reason for the adversaries to be prepared; the very definition of metagaming is that the information comes from outside the characters' sphere of experience. That's just playing creatures as actual entities in the world, not just sacs of XP.

Frankly, sides heavily associated with the PCs (either antagonistically or in friendly terms) should be somewhat prepared for their capabilities or it would make no sense, at least if they take the PCs seriously and given the average capabilities of a level 5+ PC, most creatures of the kingdoms should.

That makes sense, but at the same time, if an evil Wizard meets the party for the very first time, and starts flinging Scorching Rays at everyone EXCEPT the one with fire immunity - that's metagaming.

awa
2009-09-17, 04:38 PM
in this sense i meta game heavily i will often craft fight specifically to cater to the players abbilities if the player has dragon fighting feats ill make sure the party fights at least one dragon over the course of the game if he has a specific weakness to undead ill make sure he has to fight undead at least once in the game as well. the trick is to let every one shine more or less equal. the exception is if the campaign by its nature wont incorporate something then i will tell them that at charecter creation. player wants to make a cavalry charecter and i plan on having them adventure on a ship ill mention its not a good idea at creation.

Powerfamiliar
2009-09-17, 04:41 PM
As a DM I sometimes metagame a bit the other way. If a PC is fire immune i make sure to include a few fire based enemies, if hes a radiant servant you better believe there will be some undead. Now this fights are unlikely to be very challenging but not every fight need to be challenging, in fact I think the DMG specifically states some fights should be rather easy.

You need to add fights for the PCs to show off their abilities and powers, specially as PCs level up. If the fighter always hits on a 10, and does X % of damage to the enemy, then encounters become very boring and repetitive, just with re-skinned opponents.

Godskook
2009-09-17, 04:44 PM
The trick is to do a little of both.

For example if you have a player that’s immune to fire. Then throw a wizard with a scorching ray prepared at him. The player will fell good that this fire immunity came in handy. Now if the wizard npc gets away, then he may come back with a magic missile prepared instead. That sort of stuff.

Allow them to use their advantages some of the time, and actively work around their advantages some of the time as well.

My god man, this! This is exactly what should be happening.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:45 PM
That makes sense, but at the same time, if an evil Wizard meets the party for the very first time, and starts flinging Scorching Rays at everyone EXCEPT the one with fire immunity - that's metagaming.

Obviously, unless he's scried on the party or his extensive net of informants has informed him of the important equipment possessed by the party or such. Really, circumstances matter a lot here - why does the evil wizard meet the party at antagonistic terms?

If he's after the party, he's probably accrued sufficient information to be prepared. If the party is after him, he might likewise be prepared to defend himself against them (depending on how loud the party's attempts at locating him have been; knowing the usual idiot PCs, this tends to be much louder than smart), though it's less likely in this case.


And if they happen to be on the same battlefield on different sides, obviously there's no preparation whatsoever beyond his potential Arcane Sight. But yeah, obviously it's metagaming if the Wizard doesn't hit the fire protected guy even if he had no way of knowing about the fire protection and that's wrong and should never happen.

However, gaining IC information on the adversaries part on the PCs and their capabilities is so easy, and so sensible that this should basically never be more than a small hinderance unless the PCs know how to be secretive (a rarity in partie), meaning most opponents should be perfectly aware of what the PCs have got anyways (save for some random animal intellect creatures and overall predators who just happen to consider the PCs their next dinner).

Rixx
2009-09-17, 04:48 PM
I'm pretty sure the phrase "never met before" assumes no prior knowledge. Unless I was being unclear. (In addition, damned Wizards, always being prepared... I should've used a Barbarian or something instead for my example.)

It's possible (nay, easy) to justify metagame thinking on the DM's part - but it doesn't always make sense, and having the players only fight enemies that are prepared for them breaks versimilitude (unless it's the sort of plot where not a lot of fighting goes on except between enemies who know of each other).

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:57 PM
I'm pretty sure the phrase "never met before" assumes no prior knowledge. Unless I was being unclear. (In addition, damned Wizards, always being prepared... I should've used a Barbarian or something instead for my example.)

Well, "never met before" hardly covers every way Wizard (or anyone with ranks in skills) acquires information, hence why I elaborated on that. But yeah, obviously it sometimes makes sense for PCs to run into folks not prepared...just, at least when I'm playing, very few hostile encounters are random.

Generally people don't just bump into you and try to rip your heart out so if you end up in a fight, it's probably because they're specifically after you or you are specifically after then (unless your party is on the chaotic stupid side of the spectrum and ganks random people).


Of course scenarios where "random combat" makes sense exist, just I was pointing out that the scenario you painted didn't really feel like one of them.

But yeah, if PCs run into e.g. Fire Elementals guarding your Generic Ancient Egyptian Laser Cannon, there's obviously no way for them to know that the Wizard actually cast Energy Immunity: Fire this morning and thus their ambush to gank him in order to remove the offense from the party first really backfires.

I completely agree with you here and having the Fire Elementals somehow avoid the warded creatures would be completely unwarranted metagaming (unless one of them is at least a Wizard with Arcane Sight or something).

Akal Saris
2009-09-17, 05:08 PM
Warning: long post coming, since this is a very interesting topic choice Rixx!

I think the better a DM gets at metagaming, the more fun it is for the PCs. A DM who does it poorly, like the aforementioned Spell Turning guy, is just going to ruin the game for some players.

One of my PCs tried playing with another DM, with a character that was an evil cleric who specialized in incorporeal undead (he was a Master of Shrouds, which meant he lost 2 caster levels to use shadows a lot). After the first encounter, every encounter from that point on included a couple of good-aligned clerics with a homebrew PrC that was immune to ability damage and had Greater Turning. Every time. My friend was seriously angry, and he's a pretty laidback guy.

At the same time, I think metagaming each encounter is important for the game's fun, especially if there's a power disparity within the group. If you have a really powerful druid character along with a weak monk and a weak rogue, throwing undead at the party is only going to make the rogue feel worse, while using lots of monsters with high DR/XYZ will make the monk feel even worse than usual. So I think it's important not to punish characters that are already weak within the party, and to create encounters appropriately without pandering to one player or another.

For example, I throw a fire elemental out to fight somebody immune to fire occasionally, just to reinforce that PC's choice in gaining the immunity. (Or more specifically, I typically include such a character within the AOE of a fireball along with others who aren't immune. The same goes for Evasion).

Likewise, if the disarm-happy PC isn't very powerful (and given that disarming sucks, he probably isn't), I would probably avoid locked gauntlets for his opponents in most cases, even for the BBEG. The OP is right about the non-aberrant followers for the illithid bodyguard though - I want the ranger's favored enemy bonus to be a factor in many fights, but not every single combat in the dungeon.

The flipside assumes 'playing favorites' is a bad thing - but if the ranged combatant rarely gets to shine, then it's probably a good thing for the game to have a combat like this every once in a while - and it encourages the melee combatants to diversify and pick up a ranged weapon or some way to fly.

I do think it can get out of hand - I've seen games where Spot checks are demanded every other round, so the classes with Spot as a class skill are suddenly very useful, or dungeons with 500 traps and secret doors, where suddenly trap-finding is the best special ability in the game. But what about the ranger who forgot he had Track, because the last time he used it was 2nd level? Or the barbarian with Uncanny Dodge, but it doesn't matter because the DM never uses rogues or flanking enemies? There's a fine line that a DM needs to learn to walk here.

As a PC, I usually take very general feats unless I know the DM or his campaign world specifically - so Empower Spell instead of Aberration Banemagic in most cases where I don't know the game too well. But I have a ranger in a campaign that is heavily based on human-on-human warfare often employing golems or elementals, so he has Favored Enemy (Human), then Construct, then Elemental, with +6/+2/+2. Still, it backfired on me last game when we went up against a boatload of orc pirates, and suddenly my ranger's damage dropped from the 3rd-highest in the group (it's high level, so spellcasters win anyways) to the lowest in the group.

The only times that I've been annoyed by beating an encounter too easily from a special ability is when a DM doesn't know how to handle the Diplomacy or Bluff skills, or when the DM arbitrarily gives the PCs special abilities or Monty Haul loot that trivializes every encounter. And I guess if a PC were to have an i-win spell that trivialized every encounter without the rest of the team, but I haven't been in such a group yet. So far I haven't been frustrated by having a campaign built specifically against my skills, but part of that is because I recognize when a DM's doing it for that reason, and that it's a sign that I need to tone my character down a bit.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 05:13 PM
At the same time, I think metagaming each encounter is important for the game's fun, especially if there's a power disparity within the group. If you have a really powerful druid character along with a weak monk and a weak rogue, throwing undead at the party is only going to make the rogue feel worse, while using lots of monsters with high DR/XYZ will make the monk feel even worse than usual. So I think it's important not to punish characters that are already weak within the party, and to create encounters appropriately without pandering to one player or another.

There is an alternative to this though: Force the players to make mechanically solid characters. Every concept that can be realized with a mechanically weak class can also be realized with a mechanically strong class so as long as the players pick the mechanically strong classes for their concepts, suddenly there's no need to cater to any of the players enabling the DM complete freedom in making the encounters suit the world rather than the party.

And if some players lack the mechanical savviness, no reason the other players couldn't aid him in planning out his character. The only issue is if someone is adamant on playing some ****ty CLASS for whatever reason, but as long as he's aware of what he's getting himself into, of course one can allow him just that. Then it's his choice and he gets what he's asking for.


But yeah, this is of course only one way. DM pampering is equally functional in terms of creating a decently balanced campaign. I just hate the whole "having to hold back not to outshine others"-crap as a player and "having to use weak monsters not to kill the party"-crap as a DM.

Rixx
2009-09-17, 05:23 PM
There is an alternative to this though: Force the players to make mechanically solid characters. Every concept that can be realized with a mechanically weak class can also be realized with a mechanically strong class so as long as the players pick the mechanically strong classes for their concepts, suddenly there's no need to cater to any of the players enabling the DM complete freedom in making the encounters suit the world rather than the party.

And if some players lack the mechanical savviness, no reason the other players couldn't aid him in planning out his character. The only issue is if someone is adamant on playing some ****ty CLASS for whatever reason, but as long as he's aware of what he's getting himself into, of course one can allow him just that. Then it's his choice and he gets what he's asking for.


But yeah, this is of course only one way. DM pampering is equally functional in terms of creating a decently balanced campaign. I just hate the whole "having to hold back not to outshine others"-crap as a player and "having to use weak monsters not to kill the party"-crap as a DM.

Enforcing only mechanically sound builds is just a pathway to disaster for many, many groups - players will invariably have to sacrifice flavor for functionality, and having entire classes barred by virtue of them being underpowered would be devastating to players intent on those classes' story / flavor / roleplay applications. Not everyone chooses class based on the mechanical role they want in a party, and not everyone plays tabletop games to win.

FMArthur
2009-09-17, 05:27 PM
I just don't take the players into account when preparing obstacles - which is to say, I don't take their specific abilities into account. I do not create problems with any solution in mind, I just expect players to either have powerful/useful abilities, or a creative solution.

If, however, a character is going to go the whole session without using their key abilities that they made the character for (and everyone else has), I throw in specialized challenges in addition to the other stuff. The result is usually that it seems like an intense difficulty spike that this one player's useful abilities have mitigated and evens the playing field significantly.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 05:29 PM
Enforcing only mechanically sound builds is just a pathway to disaster for many, many groups - players will invariably have to sacrifice flavor for functionality, and having entire classes barred by virtue of them being underpowered would be devastating to players intent on those classes' story / flavor / roleplay applications. Not everyone chooses class based on the mechanical role they want in a party, and not everyone plays tabletop games to win.

Unarmed Swordsage is fluff-wise completely equivalent to Monk. It just gets a better set of abilities. Warblade is pretty much equivalent to Fighter. It, again, just gets a better set of abilities. There's no difference in the fluff/roleplay/story of an optimized and unoptimized build, or there doesn't have to be.

There's always an efficient way of building any idea mechanically efficiently that you could build with mechanically inefficient classes. I can understand that some groups don't want to bother optimizing and I can respect that, but I cannot understand how anyone would think how banning poor builds would detract one ounce from roleplaying.


I mean, describe a single character concept/idea that would require using a bad class and just could not be done with a good or a homebrewed class or a combination there-of instead. I don't think that's possible. Everything can be done in a mechanically sound way without giving up anything at all anywhere, except the name of the class in the Class-line on your sheet...which is a piece of metagame information and thus not a part of your in-game character.

Rixx
2009-09-17, 05:31 PM
If you have a whole lot of books, a whole lot of time to learn all these obscure variants, and friends who are just as into powergaming as you are, then yes. Otherwise, no.

ericgrau
2009-09-17, 05:34 PM
This is exactly why I'm in favor of throwing challenges at PCs regardless of their abilities. Maybe you lower the difficulty on all encounters a little to match, so nothing is way overpowering (and some things are easy, but oh well). IMO the PCs are accomplishing something more that way. And if they have any glaring weaknesses, they'll improvise now and adapt later. IMO that makes the game more interesting, rather than: "Oh hey look, this monsters is designed to be weak against my abilities. Okay, I guess I'll use them exactly the way I planned with no variation. <roll> <roll>. Is the monster dead yet?"

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 05:38 PM
If you have a whole lot of books, a whole lot of time to learn all these obscure variants, and friends who are just as into powergaming as you are, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Really, all you need is Tome of Battle and maybe Completes & PHBII. At that point, you can pretty much realize all concepts you could realize with core classes with other classes, especially with abundant application of homebrew.

And it only really takes one mechanically savvy player to be able to tip the other players as for which sources might offer what suits their idea the best. *shrug* But of course, not for everyone.


Still, I like how this approach enables everyone to get exactly the character they imagine to play and ensures everyone being functional at what they want to do without anyone "toning up" or "toning down" their game or DM fudging or some such.

Rixx
2009-09-17, 05:43 PM
That is about five books, in addition to the three core rulebooks. That is still a sizable amount of book! I don't have the time, money, shelf space, or desire to read through that many rules, just so I can have an optimized character in a game I'm not playing to win. Not that I'm decrying the powergamer mindset, but enforcing it on those without it is a bad idea. Would you like it, for example, if you were forced to play an unoptimized character just because it matched your character concept and personality better?

In any case, the only sources we use are the Pathfinder core and the d20 SRD for monsters - as well as whatever the DM homebrews us up to fight against.

And this isn't really what the thread is about, though I do think this is an interesting conversation - if you want to carry on, though, I think that should be in another topic (Being along the lines of "Is it a good idea to enforce optimized builds for PCs?").

ericgrau
2009-09-17, 05:47 PM
IMO power-gaming in a group that has rookies is bad for that reason. It also takes its toll on the DM like you said. But assuming the entire group can handle it (and doesn't mind dealing with it), then it's fine.

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-09-17, 05:53 PM
Unarmed Swordsage is fluff-wise completely equivalent to Monk. It just gets a better set of abilities. Warblade is pretty much equivalent to Fighter. It, again, just gets a better set of abilities. There's no difference in the fluff/roleplay/story of an optimized and unoptimized build, or there doesn't have to be.

There's always an efficient way of building any idea mechanically efficiently that you could build with mechanically inefficient classes. I can understand that some groups don't want to bother optimizing and I can respect that, but I cannot understand how anyone would think how banning poor builds would detract one ounce from roleplaying.


I mean, describe a single character concept/idea that would require using a bad class and just could not be done with a good or a homebrewed class or a combination there-of instead. I don't think that's possible. Everything can be done in a mechanically sound way without giving up anything at all anywhere, except the name of the class in the Class-line on your sheet...which is a piece of metagame information and thus not a part of your in-game character.

Except that the classes ARE thematically different. For instance, consider Miko. I doubt very much that Unarmed Swordsage would adequately represent her background of having grown up in a Monastery. A Monastery, you know, the place where MONKS train and live.

Interestingly, Miko also presents a counter-example of the same. After all, Elan assumed (as part of the joke of the comic) that Miko was of the Samurai class when in fact she was not (nor were any of the Sapphire Guard). So, I suppose it is possible.

That, again, doesn't necessarily mean you should FORCE players to play more- or less-optimized classes. Unless a player demonstrates an express desire to ruin the game (either by breaking it with an overpowered character or ruining everyone's fun by trying to play a Commoner for no reason), the player should be free to play whatever they want.

On topic, I think there is certainly a place for DM-metagaming, but only in so far as making the encounter interesting for the players rather than uninteresting. An encounter that you know for sure will end in round 1 with the Wizard casting some random spell that isn't particularly techy or clever, but just something that they always bring along is probably not going to teach anyone anything or be particularly fun for anyone.

-JM

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 05:55 PM
That is about five books, in addition to the three core rulebooks. That is still a sizable amount of book! I don't have the time, money, shelf space, or desire to read through that many rules, just so I can have an optimized character in a game I'm not playing to win. Not that I'm decrying the powergamer mindset, but enforcing it on those without it is a bad idea. Would you like it, for example, if you were forced to play an unoptimized character just because it matched your character concept and personality better?

In any case, the only source we use is Pathfinder core and the d20 SRD for monsters - as well as whatever the DM homebrews us up to fight against.

And this isn't really what the thread is about, though I do think this is an interesting conversation - if you want to carry on, though, I think that should be in another topic (Being along the lines of "Is it a good idea to enforce optimized builds for PCs?").

True, this is slightly off-topic though it is sorta on-topic also as I brought it up as an alternative to DM scaling encounters which I personally find distasteful. But to avoid further derailing, I'll leave this as my final post on the matter and if it turns out to be of interest, someone can open another thread for discussion on this matter specifically.

I just want to point out that nobody in our group plays to win in D&D, at least not to my knowledge (outside online arena tournaments and such, but those are a different matter). I just don't believe that gives the best play experience for everyone. However, bringing everyone to the same starting point at the start of a campaign does save a lot of work later on, which is my primary thesis; working the builds out together so that everyone can shine at what they're supposed to shine enables complete focus on roleplaying once the game gets started as there's no risk of mechanical imbalances between the characters, and the DM can trust the party to handle certain degree of opposition (unless they do a lot of dumb things).

I feel it gives me more freedom to play my character as I want to not bound by any mechanical barriers since binding a Glabrezu might be "too strong for the party" or some such nonsense. Of course your point is a good one - if you don't have the books, you don't have the option of playing mechanically solid builds either 'cause none simply exist for e.g. Sword & Board Fighter or *shivers* a martial artist. At that point, I suppose the next best thing is just either using a lot of homebrew to fix things up, or trying to mitigate the imbalances in-game somehow.


Except that the classes ARE thematically different. For instance, consider Miko. I doubt very much that Unarmed Swordsage would adequately represent her background of having grown up in a Monastery. A Monastery, you know, the place where MONKS train and live.

Interestingly, Miko also presents a counter-example of the same. After all, Elan assumed (as part of the joke of the comic) that Miko was of the Samurai class when in fact she was not (nor were any of the Sapphire Guard). So, I suppose it is possible.

That, again, doesn't necessarily mean you should FORCE players to play more- or less-optimized classes. Unless a player demonstrates an express desire to ruin the game (either by breaking it with an overpowered character or ruining everyone's fun by trying to play a Commoner for no reason), the player should be free to play whatever they want.

Why couldn't an Unarmed Swordsage have grown in a monastery? Heck, why couldn't a Fighter have grown in a monastery? I don't see any limitation that says "all Monks have to have levels in the Monk-class" and "all people who have meditated in a monastery must take levels in the Monk-class". Considering the ability set of an Unarmed Swordsage, it would suit a a temple where martial arts are trained just as well as the Monk-class; both get Wis to AC, Improved Unarmed Strikes, a bunch of different combat techniques to use with their fists and few other miscellaneous benefits. I don't see where the mechanical difference stopping an Unarmed Swordsage from being a Monk is.

Fluff of each class should be morphed to suit your character, not the other way around. Otherwise you only have what, 9 different character archetypes to work with without multiclassing. And that just sucks.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-17, 09:00 PM
He isn't saying that they are; this could come up relatively easily in gameplay. The DM typically knows what he's throwing at his players, so he has to decide whether to let a given player shine, or to make it good for the whole group, or avoid pandering to the players.

I can't speak for all DMs, or even a fair number, but my solution has been a combination of lack of preparedness and a tiny bit of simulation-based logic. I generally just throw whatever I want at the players, and see what happens. If they die, they die. Harsh, but it lets them feel like they're adventuring in a world that operates in ways beyond those centered on them. The main antagonists, on the other hand, will adapt as information becomes available to them. However, the players do the same thing, so it generally comes out as a wash.

This is what I do. Of course, I also sometimes use a healthy dose of randomization in generating opponents, and occasionally use a precon or two. Even with the inevitable modifications those usually require, the fact that you are getting lots of inputs to the creative process usually ensures diversity. Sure, there'll be the odd encounter where one player shines due to a particularly well suited immunity or ability, but it should roughly even out, if characters are of approximately equal optimization.

Plus, with sufficiently creative players, you don't have to go through the bother of thinking up all the ways out of a given trap. Just set it up, and see what they come up with. =) Im a huge fan of rewarding innovation and on-the-fly tactics.

woodenbandman
2009-09-17, 09:24 PM
True, this is slightly off-topic though it is sorta on-topic also as I brought it up as an alternative to DM scaling encounters which I personally find distasteful. But to avoid further derailing, I'll leave this as my final post on the matter and if it turns out to be of interest, someone can open another thread for discussion on this matter specifically.

I just want to point out that nobody in our group plays to win in D&D, at least not to my knowledge (outside online arena tournaments and such, but those are a different matter). I just don't believe that gives the best play experience for everyone. However, bringing everyone to the same starting point at the start of a campaign does save a lot of work later on, which is my primary thesis; working the builds out together so that everyone can shine at what they're supposed to shine enables complete focus on roleplaying once the game gets started as there's no risk of mechanical imbalances between the characters, and the DM can trust the party to handle certain degree of opposition (unless they do a lot of dumb things).

I feel it gives me more freedom to play my character as I want to not bound by any mechanical barriers since binding a Glabrezu might be "too strong for the party" or some such nonsense. Of course your point is a good one - if you don't have the books, you don't have the option of playing mechanically solid builds either 'cause none simply exist for e.g. Sword & Board Fighter or *shivers* a martial artist. At that point, I suppose the next best thing is just either using a lot of homebrew to fix things up, or trying to mitigate the imbalances in-game somehow.



Why couldn't an Unarmed Swordsage have grown in a monastery? Heck, why couldn't a Fighter have grown in a monastery? I don't see any limitation that says "all Monks have to have levels in the Monk-class" and "all people who have meditated in a monastery must take levels in the Monk-class". Considering the ability set of an Unarmed Swordsage, it would suit a a temple where martial arts are trained just as well as the Monk-class; both get Wis to AC, Improved Unarmed Strikes, a bunch of different combat techniques to use with their fists and few other miscellaneous benefits. I don't see where the mechanical difference stopping an Unarmed Swordsage from being a Monk is.

Fluff of each class should be morphed to suit your character, not the other way around. Otherwise you only have what, 9 different character archetypes to work with without multiclassing. And that just sucks.


I have a Bard that grew up in a Monastary. And I have a cleric of hextor that grew up on the streets. Who's to say that all bards shouldn't come from monastaries?

My thoughts: Place challenges that are overcome by your players' abilities. Don't throw archers at melee groups all the time. Don't throw only monsters with good will saves at an enchanter. At the same time, there is a use for everything in every game. Sometimes the answer isn't more dakka* and sometimes it isn't the same thing you always do.

*Okay, the answer is always more dakka, but it's often far too dakka intensive for the party's limited dakka resources.

Jalor
2009-09-17, 09:32 PM
The trick is to do a little of both.

For example if you have a player that’s immune to fire. Then throw a wizard with a scorching ray prepared at him. The player will fell good that this fire immunity came in handy. Now if the wizard npc gets away, then he may come back with a magic missile prepared instead. That sort of stuff.

Allow them to use their advantages some of the time, and actively work around their advantages some of the time as well.
This is the way to do it. A recurring enemy first fought the PCs while drunk, and repeatedly tried to trip the (four-legged) Bariaur PC. In a later battle, when sober, he stuck to maneuvers and Power Attack.

Also, I enforce a certain level of power in my games. No PC ever drops below Tier 4 or above Tier 2. If, say, someone wants to be a Monk, I point out he Umarmed Swordsage and explain how it works. I work with players so they're neither a waste of space nor a one-trick pony, and I moderate the more powerful classes to ensure they don't break the game.

boomwolf
2009-09-17, 09:55 PM
I found a solution to the problem.

Pretty much every important dungeon/evil guy/trap/whatnot is written down BEFORE I even see the characters, then the not-so-important things get randomized out of a couple of options (usually I have 12 at first, ad then wipe out everything the party has no chance/very low chance of handling based on the skills they show.)

If things prove too easy/hard I keep everything the same, just lower/raise it's power a bit.

And naturally, some challenges will prove too easy. and some are intended to be "run away fool" situations.

The BBEG's lair is different.
I give him a "budget" (cash, minions, etc...) and then set up the deadliest set of stuff that fits the budget. and this is too usually perior to seeing the PC's sheets. sometimes I keep some of the budget open, to cover up the PC's strengthens, if the BBEG has proper intelligence on them before their arrival.

Akal Saris
2009-09-17, 10:29 PM
You're lucky, Jalor - we had two "monk guys" in my group who always played monks, and they were adamant about never using the ToB.

Eldariel:
I've got about 10 PCs spread across various groups, and 2-3 of them are quite firmly set in their intention to never bow down to power-gaming, and they don't appreciate suggestions otherwise - straight fighter 5 is fine by them, thank you very much. It's aggravating, but I'm sure you know the type.

Others in my group don't want to deal with a complex character and always roll the simple melee character. And one of the main reasons we play 3.5 is because about half of us are too lazy or casual to learn another system, let alone read the alternate rules like tome of magic or psionics - or spend the money to purchase them. Finally, there's 1 frequent player who is a lot of fun to play with, but is convinced that fluff is immutable, so you can't play a fighter with a Japanese accent and call yourself a samurai, because then you would be the samurai class.

So basically, I have a group that for the most part would not appreciate character advice, or don't want to deal with the paperwork of a complex character, or are just uninterested in extra books, or would be opposed to twisting flavor to make mechanics work. That leaves me with about 3 PCs who would actually go along with this, or maybe 6 if the character was simple enough - and frankly, the other optimizers and I do tend to steer those players in the right direction already.

Still, working to make every character concept an optimized one would drag out character generation even longer (and as the near-eternal DM, I already sit around while people make characters quite often), and that's even assuming that I want my PCs to be optimized to the max, which I don't really. I'm happy with them being around T4-T5, which is what it generally works out into (Sad, I know). The best optimizer among them is also the biggest team player, so he usually focuses on war weaver and buffing cleric, which is very convenient for me.

In most of my campaigns the party is already balanced around each other pretty well without any effort on my part (decently anyhow - it always varies depending on level and who's attending). So most of the time I can just make an encounter without worrying about any specific PCs not contributing to it. But that doesn't change the fact that in my experience, adjusting encounters to fit the party generally makes it more enjoyable for the PCs, even when all of them are equal in power.

I've played straight modules before without tweaking them, and they were fun enough - but when I started changing stuff around to account for the party, the PCs had a markedly better experience, and almost always without any idea that a specific challenge or terrain feature was placed deliberately with the party in mind.

So yeah - I understand your distaste towards personalized encounters (I used to be of the same opinion, actually), but I don't think your group's solution is really applicable to mine. Besides, even when things are balanced within the party, I still think it's important to design encounters with them in mind.

Keewatin
2009-09-19, 05:19 PM
I am not sure if this is just my DM not paying attention or something else, but everything we fight seems to have near endless hitpoints until someone asks how that generic goblin has just taken 45 damage (over 3 rounds) without dying.

The group doesn't do a lot of damage, we have a cleric who thinks he is a fighter (we are level 5 and he has cast 3 spells since level 1) a rogue, sorcerer (also hasn't cast a single spell). I am a halfling summoner druid though mostly I just watch my rideing dog upstage everyone in melee and use a sling for 1d3 damage.

So far we have faught a vampire with neutral bodyguards because the DM freaked out when the cleric cast circle of protection from evil. After that was a dungeon full of easy traps for the rogue to roll disable device at while we watched (creative solutions like the cleric sundering the spear trap or leaving a weight on a fire trap till it ran out of fuel were ignored).

In combat everytime I summon something to fight all enemies get their hitpoints bumped up or their armor is suddenly higher. Also even if I throw a wolf between the rogue and an enemy they just go around the summon since "they know its going to dissappear in 5 rounds so why kill it"

Tyndmyr
2009-09-19, 10:40 PM
I really, really hate highly variable encounters. You know, the type where everything suddenly, mysteriously gains immunities, hit points aren't tracked, etc. It sounds like you know the type all too well. If rolls are visible, I keep track of mobs. I'll know if their bonuses suddenly start changing, and call the DM on it. Obviously, there is a time and place for everything, but you shouldnt be changing stuff every round as a matter of course.

The summoning issue is easier...if they're just going around, attacks of opportunity are possible. Also, I suggest summoning creatures with attacks other than hp. Poisons are fun...anything that does stat damage can be entertaining.