Quote from: McrowNo, not really in the case of D&D. Go look at ENworld. The vast majority do play it in the "default" form meaning they build the party around the games assuption that a balanced party is needed.

I just must have been playing a different game than everyone else...I swear...

I think the default assumption is that you will fair better if your party is "balanced." But, hell, we played Living F'ing Greyhawk modules without "balanced" parties.

Quote from: McrowNo, not really in the case of D&D. Go look at ENworld. The vast majority do play it in the "default" form meaning they build the party around the games assuption that a balanced party is needed.

I'll take your world for it, with but one condition.

One online person who I had a large number of exchanges with (not on this site, at least not that I know) took a shot at playing *standard* D&D module set and spent some time on that forum as I recall in an attempt to see how it should have been done/handled.

The take away from it was that none of them were using the written rules as they related to one difficult enounter. Most were unaware in fact that they had ignored or alter those rules.

I found that an interesting result that match a number of experiences I've had even with the designers of the game in question let alone players.

Thus, yes they say that. Yes, they may even believe that.

But do they do that?

In any case, that was a nitpick. I concede the point and will assume that this is indeed the default play style unless someone here presents a different view. Modern D&D is not my strong point.

The party is as balanced as the DM. :pundit:

Quote from: gleichmanYou didn't answer by question by the way. Would you not use a game system perfect for your needs if you disagreed with their adventure module design?

I'd play all sorts of games and RPGs.  If I thought an adventure module was bad, I wouldn't run it.  If I thought the game itself was bad, I wouldn't play it.

Quote from: StuartI'd play all sorts of games and RPGs.  If I thought an adventure module was bad, I wouldn't run it.  If I thought the game itself was bad, I wouldn't play it.

Ok given that, why the disdain towards D&D niche protection when it has no impact on you even if you were to play D&D (given that a number here have pointed out that it's quite possible to play non-functional groups)?

Quote from: gleichmanOk given that, why the disdain towards D&D niche protection when it has no impact on you even if you were to play D&D (given that a number here have pointed out that it's quite possible to play non-functional groups)?

Who said I have disdain for it?

I'm just saying it's not the only way to design a game.

D&D, with the niches, is tons of fun.

Games that don't have niches and have all the players running very similar characters (eg. TMNT or Robotech) can also be tons of fun.

Quote from: StuartWho said I have disdain for it?

I'm just saying it's not the only way to design a game.

Ok, did anyone suggest otherwise?

Quote from: gleichmanBut do they do that?
 

Well, to know for sure you'd have to play with them.

Quote from: McrowWell, to know for sure you'd have to play with them.

I withdraw the question

Quote from: gleichmanWould you not use a game system perfect for your needs if you disagreed with their adventure module design?

Here's how I see it. In D&D (1e and the Basic family), the DM and group collectively need to be quite careful about the design of adventures and the approach that a party takes toward them. Either the DM needs to tailor the adventures, or the party needs to be fashioned as somewhat balanced, or a considerable amount of circumspection, warning, and running away is needed.

The example that leaps to mind is undead. They're in the book, they seem cool, and a DM who's only thinking about the coolness factor or the appropriateness of a given monster to a given setting might easily stick them into an adventure just as readily as he might an ogre, troll, giant. Yet some of them require magical weapons to hit, and most of them have attacks that are very powerful (paralysis, level loss), which is only "balanced" by undead being susceptible to turning by a cleric. But that balance only applies if the GM makes sure the party has a cleric before including undead, or the players make sure they always have a cleric, or the GM gives the players ample opportunity to avoid undead encounters--and the players are smart enough to avoid.

I think the default mode of play in any game isn't a highly sophisticated and careful one, and the easiest approach to the above dilemma is to just make sure you've got a balanced party. The second easiest is careful tailoring, but that gets into the stereotyping problem we discussed with tactics. I.e., if the GM only allows undead into the game if there's a cleric in the party, then the players really don't have to think about dealing with challenges or weighing risks. It's all been calculated out for them beforehand.

As a DM, I absolutely HATE niche protection, because it creates huge problems when you have the "wrong" number of players, and it leads to situations where I, as DM, have to say stupid, stupid fucking things like "Okay, but who is going to play the cleric?"

Because if no one plays the cleric, then there isn't sufficient healing magic, and the party dies.  Why?  Because healing is the cleric's fucking niche, so nooooo, there's noooo possible way for a wizard to cast a spell that stitches wounds back together.  Animate the dead?  Sure!  Mend a broken pot with a wave of the hand?  Sure!  Transform a person's physical form into something else?  Sure!  Heal someone?  BADWRONG!

This one of my big problems with the discussion of 4E's guiding principles.  I already hated the niche protection in 3.5, and everything I've read indicates that there will be even more of it in 4E.  If there are exactly four niches, the game won't work with three players, and won't work with five players.  Six players is right the fuck out.

It's just dumb.  What's the point of player choice if players are forced into certain choices because of niche protection?

Quote from: SigmundOn the flip side, I'd say a supers game would almost have to have niches to even be a supers game, as it's a very strong theme in the genre that heroes powers would be wildly different from one another.

Totally.  Supers don't work without niche protection.  You could never have an interesting story where all the characters have the exact same set of powers, abilities and equipment.

I mean, can you imagine how much it would suck if Batman was accompanied by a kid he trained and equipped with the same gear he uses, and was constantly being assisted by a girl who had basically copied his whole schtick, and a former protégé with the same set of abilities.  I mean, that would like totally suck.

Or imagine how awful the Justice League would be if in addition to Superman there was a guy whose powers included being super-strong and flying, only differentiated by the lightning bolt on his chest?  And then another guy who was basically a green Superman but with some telepathic powers?  It would never work!

/sarcasm

Quote from: JackalopeAs a DM, I absolutely HATE niche protection, because it creates huge problems when you have the "wrong" number of players, and it leads to situations where I, as DM, have to say stupid, stupid fucking things like "Okay, but who is going to play the cleric?"

Because if no one plays the cleric, then there isn't sufficient healing magic, and the party dies.  Why?  Because healing is the cleric's fucking niche, so nooooo, there's noooo possible way for a wizard to cast a spell that stitches wounds back together.  Animate the dead?  Sure!  Mend a broken pot with a wave of the hand?  Sure!  Transform a person's physical form into something else?  Sure!  Heal someone?  BADWRONG!

This one of my big problems with the discussion of 4E's guiding principles.  I already hated the niche protection in 3.5, and everything I've read indicates that there will be even more of it in 4E.  If there are exactly four niches, the game won't work with three players, and won't work with five players.  Six players is right the fuck out.

It's just dumb.  What's the point of player choice if players are forced into certain choices because of niche protection?

I can certainly relate on the "who's playing the cleric?" bit, but... really? You can't play with three or five characters? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I just ran a group of five with no real tank this past Friday. And I'm pretty sure I'm going to run a game for that same group again this coming Friday.

...and what makes you think there will be more of it in 4e? I'm pretty sure they were going the opposite direction, going so far as making healing more a function each character does for himself, rather than relying on a cleric.

Moreover... there are other things than cleric that can heal. Paladins, bards, and druids can heal you up. So can archivists (Heroes of Horror), favored souls (Complete Divine), spirit shamans (also Complete Divine), and even dragon shamans (I know... wtf!?). So can... you know... potions. Mmmm... potions. *drools*

Characters in 4E will be able to heal themselves at least once per encounter with surges. The need for a cleric in a party will be reduced by the appearence of the Warlord class, which can trigger additional surges on a per encounter basis.