The single most important factor in a combat isn't the AC of the opponents, the damage per round, or any of that stuff - it's the context. Who gets the jump on who and where. An encounter where the PCs would be slaughtered if they stand toe-to-toe with the monsters and trade blows may very well be trivially easy if they ambush the monsters. And vice-versa. And that context cannot be quantified. Which is probably one of the reasons why the math and balance crowd love the prescribed encounter approach to D&D, where the context of X monsters starting in Y position against the party starting at Z is hard-coded into the game. Of course, that approach largely negates player tactical skill in favour of chargen skill.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759751When someone fully believes that the rules ARE the game then you might as well be addressing a brick wall.

Quote me, you fucker. Quote where I said that, because I am sick of this strawman horseshit.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759755Sure you can. You may identify a potential problem in the game based on the numbers, then you do a survey on how that problem is adressed at the table and discover 90% of tables do something that makes it a non-problem for them (or that to your surprise 90% of them actually like it).

I'm so glad Wizards is shifting to this model for dealing with errata rather than high-handedly assuming that what is a bug for them can't be a feature for anyone else.

Quote from: Haffrung;759760The single most important factor in a combat isn't the AC of the opponents, the damage per second, or any of that stuff - it's the context. Who gets the jump on who and where. An encounter where the PCs would be slaughtered if they stand toe-to-toe with the monsters and trade blows may very well be trivially easy if they ambush the monsters. And vice-versa. And that context cannot be quantified. Which is probably one of the reasons why the math and balance crowd love the prescribed encounter approach to D&D, where the context of X monsters starting in Y position against the party starting at Z is hard-coded into the game. Of course, that approach largely negates player tactical skill in favour of chargen skill.

Personal anecdote: started running a B/X/AD&D mashup game after playing in a long 3.X campaign. First encounter, the characters walked right into a kobold ambush and got slaughtered, resounding TPK. Really set the tone for the game and let the players know there's no way to quantify encounter level, or whatever the fuck that even means. Later in the same game, the party (now mostly level 2) annihilated some mummies...they learned quickly.

Quote from: Brad;759766Later in the same game, the party (now mostly level 2) annihilated some mummies...they learned quickly.

Yep. A party that could be wiped out by a band of kobolds could in turn wipe out a bunch of mummies. I played in a campaign where we took down the Dark Tower starting as level 1 characters. It all depends on context. Which renders mathematical comparisons and encounter levels pretty useless.

Quote from: Fiasco;759670I fail to see how you can say Jibba Jabba is engaging in a white box exercise. He is citing examples from actual play. Also hand waving 13th level play as political is pure bullshit. True for some but not for others. At higher levels the wizard almost always trumps the fighter (in just about every every edition except 4th which isn't really D&D anyway). I don't see the point of denying it. That is not the same as saying the game is broken or no good. Nor is it saying that a good DM can't change that default state of affairs. I'm excited about 5E but geez some are laying it on a bit thick around here.

First of Jibba just threw out some unrelated nonsense about my 13th level wizard in a tower will kick your butt concerning a scenerio that had nothing to do with domain management. He's the one asking what do you mean about who actually plays high level games? I answer truthfully a tiny percentage for a variety of actual reasons.

My point is the whole thing is pointless because who cares about some 13th wizard not related to the previous conversation?

Quote from: Haffrung;759760The single most important factor in a combat isn't the AC of the opponents, the damage per round, or any of that stuff - it's the context. Who gets the jump on who and where. An encounter where the PCs would be slaughtered if they stand toe-to-toe with the monsters and trade blows may very well be trivially easy if they ambush the monsters. And vice-versa. And that context cannot be quantified. Which is probably one of the reasons why the math and balance crowd love the prescribed encounter approach to D&D, where the context of X monsters starting in Y position against the party starting at Z is hard-coded into the game. Of course, that approach largely negates player tactical skill in favour of chargen skill.

One of the reasons white room analysis bothers me.  I mean, it's valuable for a good general starting point, but people should never, ever rely on it as the end all-be all factor when determine good or bad game design.  Varying context and player decision making ability is what makes the game the game.  Otherwise just let a computer program run every combat scenario and go do something else if all you do is look at the game through a white room lens.

Quote from: Brad;759766Personal anecdote: started running a B/X/AD&D mashup game after playing in a long 3.X campaign. First encounter, the characters walked right into a kobold ambush and got slaughtered, resounding TPK. Really set the tone for the game and let the players know there's no way to quantify encounter level, or whatever the fuck that even means. Later in the same game, the party (now mostly level 2) annihilated some mummies...they learned quickly.

It is also my experience that most "new school" players catch up to the deadlier tone of old school gaming fairly quickly. Those who clearly prefer a more "empowered" playstyle (i.e. don't show up for the post-massacre session) are a minority in my experience.

Context is the "devil in the details" that can defeat the most rigorous and accurate mathematical analysis.

The problem with "white-rooming" is that is always assumes facts not in evidence to make it's case, no matter what that is.  Example:  I'm not really calling Haffrung out here, but just pointing out something that really we all kinda do.

He says any Wizard worth their salt has Invisibility, Fly, etc, all the mobility and non-Fighter stuff, so he should never be going toe-to-toe.  Ok, yeah, I agree, in theory.  But then in the same post, he also mentions G1-3, D1-2, Q1.  Contextually, there are dozens of times in those modules where you're not under the open sky, with room to stick and move and use mobility spells to always be at perfect distance.  I mean people remember how limited you were to move around in the actual Demonweb of Q1, right?

Another thing that bugs me is, yes a spell exists, that does not mean that
1. A Magic-User has it to begin with.
2. It's even memorized.
3. It hasn't already been cast.
4. The Magic-User isn't saving it for a more critical situation. (remember in 1e you don't Nova then force the party to rest for 8 hours after every 15 minutes of casting.

Context isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759779Context is the "devil in the details" that can defeat the most rigorous and accurate mathematical analysis.

The problem with "white-rooming" is that is always assumes facts not in evidence to make it's case, no matter what that is.  Example:  I'm not really calling Haffrung out here, but just pointing out something that really we all kinda do.

He says any Wizard worth their salt has Invisibility, Fly, etc, all the mobility and non-Fighter stuff, so he should never be going toe-to-toe.  Ok, yeah, I agree, in theory.  But then in the same post, he also mentions G1-3, D1-2, Q1.  Contextually, there are dozens of times in those modules where you're not under the open sky, with room to stick and move and use mobility spells to always be at perfect distance.  I mean people remember how limited you were to move around in the actual Demonweb of Q1, right?

Another thing that bugs me is, yes a spell exists, that does not mean that
1. A Magic-User has it to begin with.
2. It's even memorized.
3. It hasn't already been cast.
4. The Magic-User isn't saving it for a more critical situation. (remember in 1e you don't Nova then force the party to rest for 8 hours after every 15 minutes of casting.

Context isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Agreed. Though in general, I'd still rather have an extra level 10 magic-user in the party than an extra level 10 fighter. That wouldn't be the case at level 8. But level 5 spells (even when you only have a couple random ones in your spell book) are game-changers.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759764Quote me, you fucker. Quote where I said that, because I am sick of this strawman horseshit.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759747No. No that is not fucking why you have a GM.

As a GM, I have better things to do with my time than come up with fucking "rulings." I have a world to run, NPCs to play, and things to do in the background to make the world resemble an actual place as can reasonably be accomplished.

The rules are the physics of the world. That is how I interpret them, that is how I interact with them, and that is the proposition that serves as the foundation for the rest of my approach to gaming. Away from the table, discussing the extreme limits of a system is important because it can reveal things like "non-casters are essentially non-persons," as is revealed in 3.5 with sufficient scrutiny. The system encourages certain approaches and discourages others, through what mechanics are present: essentially, system fucking matters.

At the table, I want mechanics to support all the various things that characters may do, from combat to social encounters to exploration to crafting and dealing with economics, because I don't want to sit at the head of the table trying to make shit up on the fly, because that's how you get bad rules and an inconsistent system, and inconsistency is to be avoided at pretty much any cost (again, personal preference, but is a key tenet in my approach to gaming).

Non casters are non persons because the by the rules, they cannot crank out the damage per round of a caster?

Are you even listening to the drivel spewing out of your mouth?

For the record equating the worth of a character to their strict mechanical output via the rules is basically saying the rules are the game.

Quote from: The Butcher;759775It is also my experience that most "new school" players catch up to the deadlier tone of old school gaming fairly quickly. Those who clearly prefer a more "empowered" playstyle (i.e. don't show up for the post-massacre session) are a minority in my experience.

This has been my experience as well, I've even had players who blow up and walk out, come back later because the way they used to play wasn't "exciting" anymore.  I remember seeing Twilight Zone or one of those other shows where a mobster dies and goes to heaven, he wins at every gambling game, women fall all over him, but then he gets bored because he never loses, the chicks never say no.  He finds out he's not in heaven, he's in hell.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759782This has been my experience as well, I've even had players who blow up and walk out, come back later because the way they used to play wasn't "exciting" anymore.  I remember seeing Twilight Zone or one of those other shows where a mobster dies and goes to heaven, he wins at every gambling game, women fall all over him, but then he gets bored because he never loses, the chicks never say no.  He finds out he's not in heaven, he's in hell.

I pity players who have never experienced the visceral dread and tension of a game run by a capable DM where PC death is very much on the table. That's not to say it's the only, or even the best way to play D&D. But it's a very rewarding experience that I'd guess a lot of players have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

Quote from: Haffrung;759785I pity players who have never experienced the visceral dread and tension of a game run by a capable DM where PC death is very much on the table. That's not to say it's the only, or even the best way to play D&D. But it's a very rewarding experience that I'd guess a lot of players have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

I think my sig is appropriate at this time to express how I feel about PC death

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759781Non casters are non persons because the by the rules, they cannot crank out the damage per round of a caster?

...oh my god, that's what you think this is about? Get the bananas out of your ears, and read what I'm writing this time.

Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

A high-level D&D wizard is basically a walking industrial revolution in a can.

On top of all that, the combat disparity is distressing because of what it does to the dynamic at the table. You don't even need optimizers to wind up with casters accidentally stealing the show from everybody else. The purpose of game balance is to make as many character choices feasible as possible, to make them valued at the table, not to make sure that "everybody is doing the same damn DPR all the time," or what the fuck ever you think I was trying to get across. It's to stop things like wizards whipping out a wand of why are you even here, rogue.

I mean, seriously, if I had the approach you think I do, don't you think I would be singing 4e's praises? Jesus. I care about balance away from the table so I don't have to fucking worry about it at the table, so we can get on with the game. So I don't have to deal with fucking optimizers and what-not, so I don't have to worry about whether or not one guy is going to steal the spotlight, whether on purpose or on accident. The rules should just fucking work, so we can do the thing we're actually there to do, which is the story and simulation end of shit, and the rules should actually support the kind of world I want to present to the players, not some half-assed bullshit that the way characters work makes obsolete two levels in. This is why I insist the GM isn't there to do fucking rulings, because after having run 3.5 for 10+ years, I'm pretty goddamn sick of trying to make a game actually function "properly" (for my personal value of properly) on the fly; I just want it to work, without problems of crazy balance or stupid shit going on, and I want the mechanics to actually support the way I envision the world working, not resulting in crazy shit like wizards single-handedly fueling the world economy and manufacturing.

I only brought up the SGT because people were talking about white room testing, which isn't a useful measure of combat effectiveness. Just because I approve of the SGT doesn't mean I consider it the be-all end-all of game balance; it's a tool, and like most tools, it has its uses. But it's not the only tool in the box.