Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[NichG]

AD&D supports some pretty extreme power disparities even at very low levels, if you know where to look for them. Proper use of hirelings and understanding and exploiting the pummel chart (which basically lets you access a high damage, multiple-attacks-per-round thing that is independent of your character class or level, and gets better the less armor you wear) are both very strong. More than a factor of 4 difference in effective survivability and power, I'd say. Poisons are also a huge deal if you can access and afford them. And certain magic items are total make-or-break checkpoints for certain classes (Boots of Elvenkind for an Assassin for example).

That's not even talking about the very nonlinear return on high Strength scores (nothing up to... 15 I think? And accelerating if you luck into the 18/xx range). And if you pass that pure chance roll at chargen to see if your character is psionic, well...

[zinycor]

AD&D and 5E are fairly well designed class based systems, so its not surprising you aren't seeing any big discrepancies there, but Werewolf is can be pretty messy mechanically, its odd you haven't run across anything there. Heck, something as simple as making a character who uses guns instead of fighting in close combat can be a huge trap in that game.
.

Well WoD is a piece of **** of a game when it comes to rules. But never found any balancing problems while playing it.

In my experience bad characters come in a few types:

The overspecialized guy who is feels bored and useless when his specialization isn't relevant.
The overgeneralized guy who doesn't actually do anything better than the rest of the party and this feels bored and irrelevant as the specialists handle everything.
The glass cannon who puts all his point into offense but spends most of the fight hiding or unconscious because he can't actually take a hit.
The brick wall who puts all of his points into defense but has so little offense that he just gets ignored.
(...)
And of course there are people who, by accident or intentionally, find a broken ability or combination of abilities to exploit a flaw in the game.

None of those is a bad character at all, In fact quite the opposite, those are great characters that can't solve every problem or situation at a game but can be very important at others. I would argue that these are great characters that promote playing as a team.

The guy whose stats don't match up with their skills, for example a D&D mage who puts his highest score into strength or a fighter whose highest score is intelligence.

This is the only example of a bad character, since it comes from a misunderstanding of the rules of the game.

And yeah, you can just cover it up with RP, but most groups go into the game with a problem solving mindset, and most people are, in my experiance although I guess not yours, atleast a little bit comepetitive or envious of spotlight time, and this causes problems. I know, for example, that I have tried in several 5E groups to play a pure an academic abjurer with no direct damage spells, and I am fine with playing a character who spends a lot of time in the background, but it seems to really annoy both the other players and the DM that I spend most rounds in combat assisting another or going full defensive because I don't have any blasting cantrips.

I have played that sort of character to a great effect. I believe that, as it always is, the problem wasn't on the build of the character, but a player problem.

[Talakeal]

None of those is a bad character at all, In fact quite the opposite, those are great characters that can't solve every problem or situation at a game but can be very important at others. I would argue that these are great characters that promote playing as a team.

How do you define playing as a team then? Because in my view they do the exact opposite.

For example, in combat I would say good team work would be something like the fighter draws the monster's attention, the rogue stabs it in the back, the wizard debuffs it, the cleric heals the fighter, and the bard gives everyone a bonus to their dice rolls.

But if you have an overspecialized character in the group they will either take out the monster solo or sit in the back doing nothing, which in my mind is the opposite of teamwork.

Likewise in an infiltration mission you might have one guy bluff the guards, one guy keep watch, and one guy open the locks. If you have an overgenerilzed guy in this situation, if he volunteers for any of these tasks he is just going to be told "No, let someone with a higher score in the relevant area do it," and thus he will either sit back and do nothing or he will attempt to participate and actively lower the group's chance of success; again not great for teamwork imo.

[zinycor]

First: if a single character is able to take down an encounter by himself either:
-It was an encounter that was fit for his particular skill set (like a group of monsters being killed by a well placed fireball). In such case is perfectly ok.
- The GM needs to provide different kinds of challenges, that are less fit for this character, or simply up the difficulty.
- The game is utterly flawed and you should either change it or leave it.
- the character is only good at combat and other kind of challenges would allow the other characters to shine.

Second: regarding the infiltration, the party would be underestimating the abilities of a Jack of all trades.

One thing that is important to remember in regards to the spotlight is that the spotlight needs to be shared across the campaign as a whole, is perfectly normal for some characters to shine more in combat,others to shine at infiltration, others at solving supernatural problems, etc. The important is that across the campaign everyone got a chance to shine.

[Talakeal]

First: if a single character is able to take down an encounter by himself either:
-It was an encounter that was fit for his particular skill set (like a group of monsters being killed by a well placed fireball). In such case is perfectly ok.
- The GM needs to provide different kinds of challenges, that are less fit for this character, or simply up the difficulty.
- The game is utterly flawed and you should either change it or leave it.
- the character is only good at combat and other kind of challenges would allow the other characters to shine.

Second: regarding the infiltration, the party would be underestimating the abilities of a Jack of all trades.

One thing that is important to remember in regards to the spotlight is that the spotlight needs to be shared across the campaign as a whole, is perfectly normal for some characters to shine more in combat,others to shine at infiltration, others at solving supernatural problems, etc. The important is that across the campaign everyone got a chance to shine.

Maybe so, but I don't see how that backs up your claim that overspecialized or overgeneralized characters are great because they promote teammwork.


I also don't see how they are underestimating the Jack of all trades, if he has no (or almost no) abilities that are unique or numbers that are higher than his teammates, why would they ever let him do anything? His only time to shine is when you need a backup because one of his teammates is incapacitated.


Also, I am getting kind of a disconnect between how you view shstems and how you view GMs. You say that any system that allows wildly divergent characters is flawed, but at the same time any DM who tries and restrict players for party cohesion is also flawed. In my mind p the opposite should probably be true.
Say, for example, you were making a Marvel comics RPG. I would think the System would be flawed if it couldnt create characters as imbalanced as, say Thor and Daredevil, but at the same time I would think there would be every expectation that GM would place different limitations on characters in a Defenders game than they would an Avengers game or an X-men game.

[zinycor]

Maybe so, but I don't see how that backs up your claim that overspecialized or overgeneralized characters are great because they promote teammwork.
I also don't see how they are underestimating the Jack of all trades, if he has no (or almost no) abilities that are unique or numbers that are higher than his teammates, why would they ever let him do anything? His only time to shine is when you need a backup because one of his teammates is incapacitated.

Overspecialized are great for teamwork since you can depend on them to do what they are specialized at while other characters can shine at whatever the Overspecialized character lacks.
Overgeneralized characters can be great whenever you have few PCs and that character allows the other players to build characters as specialized as they want. And more importantly, he can participate at all kinds of quests.

Also, I am getting kind of a disconnect between how you view shstems and how you view GMs. You say that any system that allows wildly divergent characters is flawed, but at the same time any DM who tries and restrict players for party cohesion is also flawed. In my mind p the opposite should probably be true.

Designers and GMs have different responsibilities.

Say, for example, you were making a Marvel comics RPG. I would think the System would be flawed if it couldnt create characters as imbalanced as, say Thor and Daredevil, but at the same time I would think there would be every expectation that GM would place different limitations on characters in a Defenders game than they would an Avengers game or an X-men game.

The game should place those limitations if needed.

[Talakeal]

Overspecialized are great for teamwork since you can depend on them to do what they are specialized at while other characters can shine at whatever the Overspecialized character lacks.
Overgeneralized characters can be great whenever you have few PCs and that character allows the other players to build characters as specialized as they want. And more importantly, he can participate at all kinds of quests.

The key word here is "over". Those are indeed benefits of specialized and generalized characters, but like most things in life, they are only good in moderation, and once you go overboard the group's performance will drastically suffer as a result.

Designers and GMs have different responsibilities.

True, and in my experience deciding what sort of characters are appropriate for the campaign is one of those responsibilities. I am pretty sure most editions of D&D explicitly say as much as the beginning of every book, such as 3.5s infamous and often misquoted "rule zero".

The game should place those limitations if needed.

How would the game go about placing those limitations though? Say the game had different rules for making characters for the Avengers, X-men, and Defenders, someone is still going to have to make the decision about which set of rules to use, and in most groups that is going to be the DM; likewise if someone wants to play out of their league and say, do a crossover where Cyclops teams up with the Avengers, the GM is going to be the one making the call over whether or not that is going to be allowed.

[zinycor]

The key word here is "over". Those are indeed benefits of specialized and generalized characters, but like most things in life, they are only good in moderation, and once you go overboard the group's performance will drastically suffer as a result.

Then I guess we agree to disagree.

True, and in my experience deciding what sort of characters are appropriate for the campaign is one of those responsibilities. I am pretty sure most editions of D&D explicitly say as much as the beginning of every book, such as 3.5s infamous and often misquoted "rule zero"..

As far as setting goes, of course. But the build of those characters is the player responsibility, not the GM's.

How would the game go about placing those limitations though? Say the game had different rules for making characters for the Avengers, X-men, and Defenders, someone is still going to have to make the decision about which set of rules to use, and in most groups that is going to be the DM; likewise if someone wants to play out of their league and say, do a crossover where Cyclops teams up with the Avengers, the GM is going to be the one making the call over whether or not that is going to be allowed.

Then either crossovers wouldn't be allowed or balance be damned and you allow them.

If a character like Thor is mechanically superior to a character like the punisher, then the rules of the game would state that difference and set rules against having both of them in the same party.

[Talakeal]

Then I guess we agree to disagree.

Not really, no, as I believe the idea that some characters are more effective than others or that there is an optimal level of specialization to be objective and demonstrable facts rather than merely opinions to be agreed upon.

Now, there is a lot of subjectivity there, such as where the sweet spot lies, how much it varies from group to group, whether or not a mechanically weaker / stronger character is actually a bad thing, and what constitutes a deeply flawed rule-set, and for any those I am happy to agree to disagree.

But, if you were simply using "agree to disagree" as shorthand for "I am tired of discussing this, can we please drop it?" as many people do, then sure, I think the conversation has pretty much run its course.

Then either crossovers wouldn't be allowed or balance be damned and you allow them.

If a character like Thor is mechanically superior to a character like the punisher, then the rules of the game would state that difference and set rules against having both of them in the same party.

Yeah, you could do that, but imo you are missing out on a lot of fun scenarios merely due to an apparentl dislike / distrust of GMs.

AD&D supports some pretty extreme power disparities even at very low levels, if you know where to look for them. Proper use of hirelings and understanding and exploiting the pummel chart (which basically lets you access a high damage, multiple-attacks-per-round thing that is independent of your character class or level, and gets better the less armor you wear) are both very strong. More than a factor of 4 difference in effective survivability and power, I'd say. Poisons are also a huge deal if you can access and afford them. And certain magic items are total make-or-break checkpoints for certain classes (Boots of Elvenkind for an Assassin for example).

That's not even talking about the very nonlinear return on high Strength scores (nothing up to... 15 I think? And accelerating if you luck into the 18/xx range). And if you pass that pure chance roll at chargen to see if your character is psionic, well...

Sure, I agree with all of this, except maybe the wacky unarmed rules which never really made sense to me and I lack an opinion on one way or the other.

But when compared to a point buy game or an abomination like 3.X where a T1 character is literally better off soloing the game once he gets past mid levels it is pretty tight, and even perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power.

[zinycor]

Not really, no, as I believe the idea that some characters are more effective than others or that there is an optimal level of specialization to be objective and demonstrable facts rather than merely opinions to be agreed upon.

... What? I don't follow

EDIT: So... Are you saying that in your game the characters that you made are at the objective pinnacle of optimization and that any modification the player would do to it would result in a substandard character that would diminish the effectiveness of the group?

[Talakeal]

... What? I don't follow

EDIT: So... Are you saying that in your game the characters that you made are at the objective pinnacle of optimization and that any modification the player would do to it would result in a substandard character that would diminish the effectiveness of the group?

Not at all, no.

I am saying that there is an objective standard for effectiveness which characters can deviate from, and that imbalances in character power are harmful to most definitions of teamwork.


Also, what do you mean by "you made"? I haven't made a character for anything other than a couple of short D&D games and one shots in years, and have never made a character with the goal of making the most optimal party possible.

[zinycor]

Not at all, no.

I am saying that there is an objective standard for effectiveness which characters can deviate from, and that imbalances in character power are harmful to most definitions of teamwork.

Well I disagree with that

Also, what do you mean by "you made"? I haven't made a character for anything other than a couple of short D&D games and one shots in years, and have never made a character with the goal of making the most optimal party possible.

Didn't you make the characters for the game where one of the players was complaining on the way you made their character?

[Talakeal]

Well I disagree with that.

And I am saying that is a claim of objective truth, not of subjective opinion, so it is impossible for us to "agree to disagree".

But I do agree that further discussion on the topic is not going to be productive and we might as well drop it.

Didn't you make the characters for the game where one of the players was complaining on the way you made their character?

No. I made the decision to use a point buy system which prohibits extremely high and low stats, which is, iirc, the 5E default.

I did physically fill out the player's character sheets, but I didn't make any of the decisions about the characters.*


*: Well, a couple of the players had a few skill points that I did end up distributing myself, but that was very minor and nobody objected.to be completely transparent,

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is there a point at which specialization detracts from party success?

Sure: consider a hypothetical character. He can deal infinity+1 damage to anything, as long as they're exactly 20 feet away over open terrain, are wearing a blue shirt and white pants, and have no more than 6 fingers but fewer than 10. On the 2nd Tuesday of Neverember, in years that end in 0. As long as it's not raining or cold and the moon must be at one particular point in the sky. If any of these conditions are not met, he can only do the things a Commoner 1 can do. He has 1 HP and 1 AC, and fails all saves.

This is an absurd situation, to be sure, but it proves the point. Crippling overspecialization is a thing. That character would not promote teamwork, because either he kills it in one shot or he's a burden on the party.

In more realistic scenarios, I've seen characters who put all their eggs in one basket. One who was a great controller, but had effectively zero damage output. Against anything that was immune to his control, he was a waste of space. One who could deal tons of melee damage against a single target...once a day, but sucked at anything else. One whose player insisted on not using 90% of his kit, preferring to try crazy stunts instead.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot less of the "jack of all trades" failure states. Mainly because I play 5e, where you don't need to be the best to contribute meaningfully.

IMO, teamwork is enhanced when
DMs create challenges that require multiple people to solve. Preferably N = number of players in the group. And not just bodies, but different approaches. The strong guy AND the fast guy. The magic guy and the buff dude. The talker and the sneak. Etc.
Players lean into the team. Instead of worrying about how to maximize their own strengths and "do everything", they actively try to work well together. This means tactics, it means knowing what the others can do and being able to rely on them to do their part. It means cross-qualification[1].
Systems don't require massive specialization[2] to contribute. This means lowering the escalation of numbers in some ways and making more than one approach have a chance of success.

[1] There's a reason that special forces teams (which are the best analog I've found for an adventuring party) are all cross-trained in a bunch of things. If the medic goes down, someone else can pick up the slack. They can all contribute to everything, even if each has their own specialty. Instead of being a 10/10 in one area and a 2/10 in others, they're an 8/10 in one area and a 6/10 in the others.
[2] I've been told that some editions of Shadowrun were particularly bad about this siloing process. If you weren't a Decker, you couldn't contribute in cyberspace. If you weren't a Mage, you couldn't contribute against magical threats. And if you weren't a specialized Samurai, you'd get blown out of the proverbial water by someone who was. So everyone stayed in their own lane and spent 1/N of the time actively participating and the rest just sitting around. At best.

[zinycor]

And I am saying that is a claim of objective truth, not of subjective opinion, so it is impossible for us to "agree to disagree".

But I do agree that further discussion on the topic is not going to be productive and we might as well drop it.

Then, you are wrong in that claim.


BTW: You can't claim an objective truth like that unless you have made an experiment, shared the method and results, and then the community has accepted your conclusions as truth.

[Talakeal]

On the other hand, I've seen a lot less of the "jack of all trades" failure states. Mainly because I play 5e, where you don't need to be the best to contribute meaningfully.

I have seen it a fair bit, normally when someone tries to make a D&D style cleric in a point buy game.

I had a long running campaign where one of the players tried to be a crafter, a priest, a technomancer, and a sharpshooter all at the time time, and he was really good at all of those things. The problem was, he didn't put any points into defenses, and he spent most of the session lying on the floor bleeding out. It wasn't fun for him as he wasn't participating, didn't like the thought of his character as a punching bag, and ended up contributing less to the parties success as he wasn't able to act a lot of the time.

A more recent example was someone who wanted to be a wind mage, a priest, a magical healer, a mundane healer, a martial artist, and the party face all at the same time, and he basically failed roll after roll after roll, to the point where the rest of the party simply discounted him in their plans as his rolls were too low to actually make a difference.

Then, you are wrong in that claim.

I asked you for evidence to back up your claim several posts ago.

I can provide tons of evidence if you would like, although at this point that might not be very productive. Phoenixphyre provided a very good explanation of the situation in the post directly above yours if you would like to dispute it, that way its not just you and me going back and forth.

[zinycor]

I asked you for evidence to back up your claim several posts ago.

I can provide tons of evidence if you would like, although at this point that might not be very productive.

The one claiming to have an objective truth is you, the burden of proof falls on you.

Phoenixphyre provided a very good explanation of the situation in the post directly above yours if you would like to dispute it, that way its not just you and me going back and forth.

Phoenixpyre even admited that to be his opinion, not a claim of objective truth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have seen it a fair bit, normally when someone tries to make a D&D style cleric in a point buy game.

I had a long running campaign where one of the players tried to be a crafter, a priest, a technomancer, and a sharpshooter all at the time time, and he was really good at all of those things. The problem was, he didn't put any points into defenses, and he spent most of the session lying on the floor bleeding out. It wasn't fun for him as he wasn't participating, didn't like the thought of his character as a punching bag, and ended up contributing less to the parties success as he wasn't able to act a lot of the time.

A more recent example was someone who wanted to be a wind mage, a priest, a magical healer, a mundane healer, a martial artist, and the party face all at the same time, and he basically failed roll after roll after roll, to the point where the rest of the party simply discounted him in their plans as his rolls were too low to actually make a difference.

Yeah. I can see that, especially with open point-buy systems. My experience is more with class-based games, which have the side-effect of making that particular problem less common. And 5e D&D, my preferred game, makes it really hard to have a character incapable of contributing.

[Talakeal]

The one claiming to have an objective truth is you, the burden of proof falls on you.

I can try, the problem is, from my perspective, your statement is so obviously false its like trying to prove that 1 doesn't equal 2. Furthermore, its really hard to actually provide evidence someone will accept online.

I have been running playtests for decades, and I have plenty of data, but without actually being able to invite you to witness / participate those playtests, you are likely to dismiss it as anecdotes.

I can show you mathematical proofs, like that if you want a werewolf with 5s in all his physical stats you will require more XP to do so if you start at 3/3/4 than if you start at 5/4/1, or that an AD&D party where a mage invests in strength based non-weapon proficiences and a fighter who invests in intelligence based proficiencies is mathematically less likely to be able to succeed at a random assortment of tests, but you can just dismiss that as someone "playing the game wrong".

I can show you people who have proved that a 3.5 cleric or druid can do everything a fighter can and more, or the "same game test" where they tried to mathematically quantify the powers of various characters, but you will likely (and rightly) dismiss that as a flawed system.

I can show you scientific studies on cross-training in the work place that lay out the dangers of over-specialization and over-generalization, but you can just say that those principles don't apply to RPGs.

So, before I can down to digging, can you please tell me exactly what claim I am trying to prove and what sort of evidence you will accept?

Phoenixpyre even admited that to be his opinion, not a claim of objective truth.

I am not seeing where he states that it is only his opinion, but even so that doesn't change the quality of his evidence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Phoenixpyre even admited that to be his opinion, not a claim of objective truth.

The hypothetical is enough to show that there must be such a point. That's not opinion, that's fact. And your standards for "objective truth" seem a little...skewed. Especially since everyone is the judge of their own convictions--you can't force someone else to accept evidence you provide. So there's no conceivable evidence that can do the job.

[zinycor]

Is there a point at which specialization detracts from party success?

Sure: consider a hypothetical character. He can deal infinity+1 damage to anything, as long as they're exactly 20 feet away over open terrain, are wearing a blue shirt and white pants, and have no more than 6 fingers but fewer than 10. On the 2nd Tuesday of Neverember, in years that end in 0. As long as it's not raining or cold and the moon must be at one particular point in the sky. If any of these conditions are not met, he can only do the things a Commoner 1 can do. He has 1 HP and 1 AC, and fails all saves.

This is an absurd situation, to be sure, but it proves the point. Crippling overspecialization is a thing. That character would not promote teamwork, because either he kills it in one shot or he's a burden on the party.

In more realistic scenarios, I've seen characters who put all their eggs in one basket. One who was a great controller, but had effectively zero damage output. Against anything that was immune to his control, he was a waste of space. One who could deal tons of melee damage against a single target...once a day, but sucked at anything else. One whose player insisted on not using 90% of his kit, preferring to try crazy stunts instead.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot less of the "jack of all trades" failure states. Mainly because I play 5e, where you don't need to be the best to contribute meaningfully.

IMO, teamwork is enhanced when
DMs create challenges that require multiple people to solve. Preferably N = number of players in the group. And not just bodies, but different approaches. The strong guy AND the fast guy. The magic guy and the buff dude. The talker and the sneak. Etc.
Players lean into the team. Instead of worrying about how to maximize their own strengths and "do everything", they actively try to work well together. This means tactics, it means knowing what the others can do and being able to rely on them to do their part. It means cross-qualification[1].
Systems don't require massive specialization[2] to contribute. This means lowering the escalation of numbers in some ways and making more than one approach have a chance of success.

[1] There's a reason that special forces teams (which are the best analog I've found for an adventuring party) are all cross-trained in a bunch of things. If the medic goes down, someone else can pick up the slack. They can all contribute to everything, even if each has their own specialty. Instead of being a 10/10 in one area and a 2/10 in others, they're an 8/10 in one area and a 6/10 in the others.
[2] I've been told that some editions of Shadowrun were particularly bad about this siloing process. If you weren't a Decker, you couldn't contribute in cyberspace. If you weren't a Mage, you couldn't contribute against magical threats. And if you weren't a specialized Samurai, you'd get blown out of the proverbial water by someone who was. So everyone stayed in their own lane and spent 1/N of the time actively participating and the rest just sitting around. At best.

Underline mine

The hypothetical is enough to show that there must be such a point. That's not opinion, that's fact. And your standards for "objective truth" seem a little...skewed. Especially since everyone is the judge of their own convictions--you can't force someone else to accept evidence you provide. So there's no conceivable evidence that can do the job.

Oh, you can have whatever convictions you want, that's perfectly ok, if you claim those to be objective truths then you need to prove it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Underline mine

Oh, you can have whatever convictions you want, that's perfectly ok, if you claim those to be objective truths then you need to prove it.

That only applies to the parts under it. The discussion above is not opinion, it's observations.

Here's the thing. You can't prove anything. Period. Yes, that includes scientifically. All you can do is increase the weight of evidence in favor of one hypothesis or another.

That's also a horrible attitude to take toward any discussion on the internet. You're basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and nothing you say matters." Which is...rather hostile.

[zinycor]

I can try, the problem is, from my perspective, your statement is so obviously false its like trying to prove that 1 doesn't equal 2. Furthermore, its really hard to actually provide evidence someone will accept online.

I have been running playtests for decades, and I have plenty of data, but without actually being able to invite you to witness / participate those playtests, you are likely to dismiss it as anecdotes.

I can show you mathematical proofs, like that if you want a werewolf with 5s in all his physical stats you will require more XP to do so if you start at 3/3/4 than if you start at 5/4/1, or that an AD&D party where a mage invests in strength based non-weapon proficiences and a fighter who invests in intelligence based proficiencies is mathematically less likely to be able to succeed at a random assortment of tests, but you can just dismiss that as someone "playing the game wrong".

I can show you people who have proved that a 3.5 cleric or druid can do everything a fighter can and more, or the "same game test" where they tried to mathematically quantify the powers of various characters, but you will likely (and rightly) dismiss that as a flawed system.

I can show you scientific studies on cross-training in the work place that lay out the dangers of over-specialization and over-generalization, but you can just say that those principles don't apply to RPGs.

So, before I can down to digging, can you please tell me exactly what claim I am trying to prove and what sort of evidence you will accept?



I am not seeing where he states that it is only his opinion, but even so that doesn't change the quality of his evidence.

Not up to me to decide how you prove that your statement is an objective truth, that falls on you.

[zinycor]

That only applies to the parts under it. The discussion above is not opinion, it's observations.

Here's the thing. You can't prove anything. Period. Yes, that includes scientifically. All you can do is increase the weight of evidence in favor of one hypothesis or another.

That's also a horrible attitude to take toward any discussion on the internet. You're basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and nothing you say matters." Which is...rather hostile.

Hey! Am not the one stating my beliefs as a matter of objective truth here. If you are going to claim things as a matter of fact in a discussion then you need to prove it.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so you are asserting that asserting someone is wrong without evidence is the same thing is asserting that there is an objective truth without evidence?

Like, if you said "2+2=5" and I said "There is only one correct answer to 2+2" both of those require equal evidence?


Edit: Because, here's the thing; fundamentally, effectiveness in a dice game like D&D comes down to statistics, which makes it a math problem. And to me, saying that the result of a math problem will always be the same regardless of variables is as objectively false as saying that 2+2=5.

[zinycor]

Ok, so you are asserting that asserting someone is wrong without evidence is the same thing is asserting that there is an objective truth without evidence?

Like, if you said "2+2=5" and I said "There is only one correct answer to 2+2" both of those require equal evidence?

I am not claiming that you are necessarily wrong (I did have a different opinion, back when we were discussing opinions), am claiming that you haven't proven your statement to be an objective truth.

You either need to prove that your statement is a truth, or that it is considred to be an universal truth and it falls on me to disprove it.

[Talakeal]

I am not claiming that you are necessarily wrong (I did have a different opinion, back when we were discussing opinions), am claiming that you haven't proven your statement to be an objective truth.

You either need to prove that your statement is a truth, or that it is considred to be an universal truth and it falls on me to disprove it.

A "universal truth" no, but a mathematical truth, yes. It is a fact that games which are resolved by dice rolls are governed by statistics, and it is a mathematical fact that statistics problems with different inputs do not always have the same outcome. Thus it logically follows that different character builds will not always have equal effectiveness. This is a factually sound statement with no opinion involved.

But at this point we really should "agree to disagree", as at this point I am thoroughly convinced that you know that you made an unsupported statement and are just playing sophistic games trying to avoid admitting it.

[zinycor]

A "universal truth" no, but a mathematical truth, yes. It is a fact that games which are resolved by dice rolls are governed by statistics, and it is a mathematical fact that statistics problems with different inputs do not always have the same outcome. Thus it logically follows that different character builds will not always have equal effectiveness. This is a factually sound statement with no opinion involved.

But at this point we really should "agree to disagree", as at this point I am thoroughly convinced that you know that you made an unsupported statement and are just playing sophistic games trying to avoid admitting it.

As you wish

[NichG]

Sure, I agree with all of this, except maybe the wacky unarmed rules which never really made sense to me and I lack an opinion on one way or the other.

But when compared to a point buy game or an abomination like 3.X where a T1 character is literally better off soloing the game once he gets past mid levels it is pretty tight, and even perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power.

This is more a point about optimization-blindness, which affects everyone in the hobby including the designers. People develop a mental model of 'what playing X game is like' which includes the options that made sense to them, or which fit their sense of the fiction, or which feel fun, etc, and they tend to not include the esoteric stuff that is in the system but which didn't really make itself a part of their experience.

Then a new player enters the group who has a different mental model, different expectations, etc, and suddenly you've got a 'broken character' to deal with.

Zinycor was saying 'AD&D characters are balanced just fine, and no character is particularly more powerful than another'. But that doesn't have to be because AD&D doesn't support massive imbalances between characters, it can just be because Zinycor's experiences didn't include e.g. a Lv1 wizard exploiting the pummel chart rules to trivially win a 1-on-1 melee brawl with the party fighter (actual event from a campaign I was in).

Similarly, you say 'perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power', but lets look at a Lv3 Fighter for example. They've got, what, THAC0 17 from levels, and something like 1d8 or 1d10 damage from their weapon? ACs around 5 are a good ballpark of what you might be trying to hit, so they hit for 5 damage about half of the time (9/20ths really). They probably have no bonuses from Strength since those don't start until 16 (checked). So that's about 2.25 damage a round that they can personally deliver, roughly. Now take that fighter with 18/00 strength. They have -3 THAC0 and +6 damage. That means now they hit 12/20ths of the time, for 11 damage on a hit. That's 6.6 damage a round, or about triple effectiveness from having one optimal attribute. Optimal constitution, dexterity, and gearing choices may mean they don't drop during that first round and so on, but its harder to figure.

I think the reality is a bit harder to see, which is that: despite playing in systems that allow for factors of 4 or factors of 10 or factors of 100 differences in power and ability, that doesn't actually make the games stop being fun. We might say to ourselves 'balance is important, I had fun, therefore it must have been balanced, right?' and be blind to the crazy stuff that the system actually allows in principle.

That campaign where the wizard pummelled the fighter (and later resulted in the party shedding their armor and weapons and punching out a copper hatchling dragon once the group figured out the cheese) was fun, despite the fact that the game was wildly and crazily unbalanced.

[zinycor]

This is more a point about optimization-blindness, which affects everyone in the hobby including the designers. People develop a mental model of 'what playing X game is like' which includes the options that made sense to them, or which fit their sense of the fiction, or which feel fun, etc, and they tend to not include the esoteric stuff that is in the system but which didn't really make itself a part of their experience.

Then a new player enters the group who has a different mental model, different expectations, etc, and suddenly you've got a 'broken character' to deal with.

Zinycor was saying 'AD&D characters are balanced just fine, and no character is particularly more powerful than another'. But that doesn't have to be because AD&D doesn't support massive imbalances between characters, it can just be because Zinycor's experiences didn't include e.g. a Lv1 wizard exploiting the pummel chart rules to trivially win a 1-on-1 melee brawl with the party fighter (actual event from a campaign I was in).

Similarly, you say 'perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power', but lets look at a Lv3 Fighter for example. They've got, what, THAC0 17 from levels, and something like 1d8 or 1d10 damage from their weapon? ACs around 5 are a good ballpark of what you might be trying to hit, so they hit for 5 damage about half of the time (9/20ths really). They probably have no bonuses from Strength since those don't start until 16 (checked). So that's about 2.25 damage a round that they can personally deliver, roughly. Now take that fighter with 18/00 strength. They have -3 THAC0 and +6 damage. That means now they hit 12/20ths of the time, for 11 damage on a hit. That's 6.6 damage a round, or about triple effectiveness from having one optimal attribute. Optimal constitution, dexterity, and gearing choices may mean they don't drop during that first round and so on, but its harder to figure.

I think the reality is a bit harder to see, which is that: despite playing in systems that allow for factors of 4 or factors of 10 or factors of 100 differences in power and ability, that doesn't actually make the games stop being fun. We might say to ourselves 'balance is important, I had fun, therefore it must have been balanced, right?' and be blind to the crazy stuff that the system actually allows in principle.

That campaign where the wizard pummelled the fighter (and later resulted in the party shedding their armor and weapons and punching out a copper hatchling dragon once the group figured out the cheese) was fun, despite the fact that the game was wildly and crazily unbalanced.

That's a very good point