Should dwarves get +1 with axes?
Monte Cook asked that question today in the D&D Next blog. I was surprised by the poll result, which (at the time I checked it) showed a strong majority in favor of rules backing up flavor -- 386 voters wanted rules to enforce flavor, 253 wanted flavor to be independent of rules. I probably shouldn't have been surprised by that, but I was.
This touches on a host of issues, but at least half of them boil down to the illusion of math. Everyone is familiar with this illusion, whether or not they've given it a name. It works like this:
The illusion takes a second form that's more germane to Monte's question. It works like this:
It's easy to dismiss this sort of escalation as the admission price for a game that relies on levels to measure character advancement, but it doesn't need to be. D&D would be a more satisfying game if it blew the smoke away from this particular mirror. Characters could fight orcs all the way through heroic tier and feel challenged. And I'm talking about standard level 1 orcs, not orcs that are powered up every level to keep pace with the heroes. Ever-evolving orcs are another relic of illusionary math -- one of the most blatant and annoying, in fact, because they are so symptomatic of design-for-effect rather than design-for-cause.
Each edition of D&D has escalated the payoff for leveling up over what the previous edition offered. In early editions, some characters got nothing besides a few hit points when they popped up a level. Characters who could use spells or pick locks fared a little better. The curve got smoothed a bit in 2nd edition, at the cost of slight class power inflation. The curve was smoothed a lot in 3rd edition, but it also got a lot steeper. And 4th edition offered a beautifully modulated power curve, but it's steeper even than 3rd's.*
If that curve was brought down to a gentle slope, then 8th-level characters tangling with 1st-level orcs could still feel the thrill of danger. There are any number of ways to accomplish that without robbing players of the feeling that they're progressing when they gain a level, or by tricking them into believing that they're gaining something when they really aren't, which is what D&D has been doing for ... well, for pretty much it's entire history to one degree or another.
Jacking up the level rewards has always carried the taint of bribery, in my mind. If people need to be bribed to play D&D, then something's wrong with the game. Level rewards are good, but keeping them to the absolute, bare minimum would lead to a healthier and more vivid game at all levels.
Steve
* This assumption turns out to be not as true as I believed it was when I wrote this blog. I don't think the difference alters my thesis greatly, but it needs to be pointed out.
Monte Cook asked that question today in the D&D Next blog. I was surprised by the poll result, which (at the time I checked it) showed a strong majority in favor of rules backing up flavor -- 386 voters wanted rules to enforce flavor, 253 wanted flavor to be independent of rules. I probably shouldn't have been surprised by that, but I was.
This touches on a host of issues, but at least half of them boil down to the illusion of math. Everyone is familiar with this illusion, whether or not they've given it a name. It works like this:
- At 1st level, you have no bonus to hit, and most of the monsters you fight have AC 11-13.
- At 5th level, you have a +2 to hit, and most of the monsters you fight have AC 13-15.
- At 9th level, you have a +4 to hit, and most of the monsters you fight have AC 15-17.
The illusion takes a second form that's more germane to Monte's question. It works like this:
- Dwarves get +1 to hit with axes.
- Some people who like dwarves want to play against type and use spears, but they feel they're being punished for not using axes (as, in fact, they are). So ...
- The rules inject a slight tweak that lets dwarves get +1 with spears if they never braid their beards.
It's easy to dismiss this sort of escalation as the admission price for a game that relies on levels to measure character advancement, but it doesn't need to be. D&D would be a more satisfying game if it blew the smoke away from this particular mirror. Characters could fight orcs all the way through heroic tier and feel challenged. And I'm talking about standard level 1 orcs, not orcs that are powered up every level to keep pace with the heroes. Ever-evolving orcs are another relic of illusionary math -- one of the most blatant and annoying, in fact, because they are so symptomatic of design-for-effect rather than design-for-cause.
Each edition of D&D has escalated the payoff for leveling up over what the previous edition offered. In early editions, some characters got nothing besides a few hit points when they popped up a level. Characters who could use spells or pick locks fared a little better. The curve got smoothed a bit in 2nd edition, at the cost of slight class power inflation. The curve was smoothed a lot in 3rd edition, but it also got a lot steeper. And 4th edition offered a beautifully modulated power curve, but it's steeper even than 3rd's.*
If that curve was brought down to a gentle slope, then 8th-level characters tangling with 1st-level orcs could still feel the thrill of danger. There are any number of ways to accomplish that without robbing players of the feeling that they're progressing when they gain a level, or by tricking them into believing that they're gaining something when they really aren't, which is what D&D has been doing for ... well, for pretty much it's entire history to one degree or another.
Jacking up the level rewards has always carried the taint of bribery, in my mind. If people need to be bribed to play D&D, then something's wrong with the game. Level rewards are good, but keeping them to the absolute, bare minimum would lead to a healthier and more vivid game at all levels.
Steve
* This assumption turns out to be not as true as I believed it was when I wrote this blog. I don't think the difference alters my thesis greatly, but it needs to be pointed out.
Don't evolve the orcs, just move beyond them after a few levels.
ReplyDeleteThis is the traditional solution, obviously. The downside is that it imposes a highly artificial ecosystem on your game world. It works if your campaign is set in a dungeon, because the dungeon itself is a highly artificial ecosystem. Outside the dungeon, that artificiality places a heavy strain on immersion.
DeleteExactly this. That all drow everywhere are born elite soldiers and unassailable until some game-mechanic level is attained can tweak the suspenders of disbelief. Especially when there are PCs of that race running around at lower levels.
DeleteI think level rewards are separate from fluff vs mechanics though I agree with you on the math illusion. I'd rather have mechanics back up fluff to help explain world dynamics. Dwarves are noted for hammers because they are better with them than others.
ReplyDeleteBonuses to hit though should not be given all over though, preferably damage. To hit should be finely tuned since more than anything else this will make a stand out weak vs. Strong character... and no one should be missing because they didn't take x feat or y race.
it's always been a thorny issue for D&D--how to make the PC details have some mechanical meaning without inflating everything all the time.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI'd actually like to see a *difference* in fights as you level up. Scale different parts of the game differently; maybe, at higher levels, monsters are easier to hit but do more damage.
This, too, is a traditional solution. At high levels, monster attacks connect less often because the heroes' ACs can scale madly. To compensate, monsters do crazy damage. Scaling damage rather than attack bonuses is a better solution IMO, but either way, the scaling should be very gentle.
DeleteDo PC details have to equate to mathematical bonuses?
ReplyDeleteThat's the question, innit? I'll have more to say on it later, but the short answer (from my perspective) is no.
DeleteI'd agree, and look forward to reading your thoughts on it!
DeleteIt depends on the kind of mechanic, too. Why don't dwarves get an Pride bonus from using hammers? Or an extra option, instead of just 'like hitting, only better'?
ReplyDeleteThe illusory math presents a sticky problem. It is such an inherent part of the game that when you remove it, you risk alienating a portion of your user base. This is one of those things that make people say "it does not feel like D&D". That said, I am willing to move beyond the illusory math scaling.
ReplyDeleteIn my own games I tend to use monsters whenever I want. I just adjust the stats as needed. My players have learned that you can't assume a creature is weak based on what it is. They rarely ever say "Oh that is just a kobold". They know that if they see a kobold, even if the PCs are level 10, the kobold may be a real threat. Or it might not. This helps keep them on their toes and maintains the threat and pacing on the game.
Once again you bring up another interesting topic. I am enjoying the blog so far. Keep up the good work.
I am with you on the number inflation, which IMO, makes the game boring over time because nothing changes but bigger numbers. When I started playing OD&D again, I totally embraced the fact that all weapons do d6 damage because it gave a baseline that was against the inflation. In Monte's poll, I voted yes, however that is way too simplistic of an answer. I think there are other ways to enforce the archetypes to be different and special without the number crunch arms race. I am just not sure how. ;-) I know this might pain some people but I am starting to see the merit of the AD&D weapon non-proficiency penalty tied to class, as well as weapons vs. armor modifiers.
ReplyDeleteI like illusion of math personally, because it does have a direct effect on the tone of the game. The fantasy genre is all about epic quests and epic battles. In order to feel epic, you have to have that illusion of math because no one wants a campaign where they fight the same old orcs from start to finish in the same numbers. We want to go on a quest to destroy the evil dragon or the crazy archmage or the tyrannical despot.
ReplyDeleteI also like using game mechanics to reflect the game world, as it adds immersion. Giving dwarves a bonus with axes reinforces the idea of what dwarves are, and makes dwarves who "play against type" that much more interesting when you see them. When the Drizzt novels came out, they were far more interesting because there had never been a "good" drow in the game at that point. Now that they're a PC race with nothing really defining their evil nature and culture, all that (figurative) magic is gone.
The important thing about that loss of commonality between the various races is that it makes humans less special in the world. The entire idea of humans in most D&D worlds is that they're the most adaptable race. They can be any class, any alignment, use any weapon. They have no restrictions because humans don't have the sort of strict culture that the other races do.
As much as I love D&D I have always hated levels they just feel phony and create a barrier for new players to established games. I loved Runequest when it came out because it got rid of levels, but even then the math got weird. The problems is that we want the story to progress for our characters. We want them to feel tougher and tougher and they go on ala Conan.
ReplyDeleteThe author protects Conan from arrows and harm, but in our RPGs we have to rely on math or a kind hearted DM. I like the Action/Fate point systems some games us but even there it is math vs story. I have been playing RPGs for 36 years and still haven't found the perfect system, but it doesn't stop me from tinkering or trying.
Power creep sucks. Between editions and if too steep between levels of the same system.
ReplyDeleteBonuses are the gateway drug to power creep. (Also pain to track, add up, and they focus too much attention on combat (which is fine for a tactical mini game, but not a RPG))
Use different mechanics, not "bonuses", for class/race differentiation.
Provide new options on leveling. Rather than just boosting same options they always had. For spell casters it's easy, new spells! Others, not as easy.
@Norman Harman. I think thats what the beautiful thing about 4e was. It provided exploits that the fighters could gain as they leveled up. They just then added power creep in as well.
ReplyDeletemaybe it's me but I'm not sure only giving Dwarves a bonus to using axes really punishes anyone who plays against type. Punishing someone who plays against type to me would be a penalty to their attack stat or an arbitrary level restriction. I think encouraging people to play to type with small mechanical bonuses is fine, just please don't bring back penalties.
ReplyDeleteThis. Illusionary math is one of the weaknesses of D&D. Scaling everything is a headache and makes leveling less fun (Brutalitops the Archdevil of Pain and Misery might be a frightening villain and a level kajillion dragon-balor, but the players know when they finally cut through his hordes of demons they will be the right level to fight him. Thus ruining the effect). You also run into the problem Elder Scrolls has of max level archmages who can kill with a single touch getting killed by a mudcrab.
ReplyDeleteThere of course has to be some scaling- a level 1 PC should not be able to hit Lloth. A much gentler rise in attacks and defenses gives more flavor to the world, allows for better immersion, and makes +X weapons actually matter.
I don't want to be challenged by orcs at 8th level. By 8th level I want to wade through orcs leaving a sea of blood behind me.
ReplyDeleteIf I advance through the levels and get increased bonuses to hit that are equal to increased AC of my opponents (leaving my percentage chance to hit the same) I am still getting a sense of progress.
Excellent article and well said. I realized this recently in 4E and have been talking about it here and there. Was the illusory math there in AD&D? I recall more HP on monsters but their ACs didn't get better as regularly because armor felt much more static.
ReplyDelete@mmaranda: The progression of math was there (built into the Character To Hit tables and then broken by magic weapons), but the monsters didn't scale with level. So you'd never come across a 6HD Orc, for example.
ReplyDeleteTo me the advantage of the scaling attack bonuses is that they reflect the relative power level of characters at different levels. So it's easiler for a level 5 character to hit a level 1 monster (by 20%) than it is for a level 1 character to hit a level 1 monster.
From a GMing point of view, it really helps me to be able to know which monsters are going to be a challenge for my players, and which are going to be easier to tackle. A predictable attack bonus progression gives me the tools I need to be able to quickly craft encounters that are easy, hard, or impossible.
the only thing i'd add is that specialization for Fighter's in early editions (Unearthed Arcana for 1E / 2E PHB) did give them and incentive that equated with the thief/magic-user class advancement. getting extra attacks per round is a huge mathematical increase. 2 attacks per round by level 7 is a big Damage Per Round increase - as long as you hit (but 2 chances each round compared to one is a big gain).
ReplyDeletei agree in general that the over-convolution of bonuses in the later editions is lame. when they become a constraint on your imagination or how you think your character all in the name of tactics - its defeated the game (it also becomes a convoluted process of creating a character so all bonuses are accounted for, etc... hence DDI). i felt that way too often in 4th edition. trying something different in a round outside of a max-modified "Power" turned into an MMO-like syndrome: if you dont eliminate/annihilate the oppositions numbers in the quickest amount of time you're basically an idiot. wheres the fun/RP'ing in that?
I think 3.x got this weapon thing right by giving different races proficiencies instead of bonuses (although dorfs got +1 against orcs and goblins).
ReplyDeleteI agree we should slow down the bonuses. Actual play for people I've encountered artificially truncated the span of levels much lower than the published rules. You can read the rest of my thoughts here: http://5eworld.blogspot.com/2012/01/our-levels-go-to-eleven.html
ReplyDelete