Holiday Meta-Meta-Gaming

My apologies for not updating last week. Now that the trials of family holiday celebrations are at an end, I'm back at the grindstone, working away!

As a DM, I often recoil a bit from the term "meta-gaming." As a player, I find it less offensive despite my DM attempting to use operant conditioning to train us not to partake. But the prefix "meta-"is derived from Latin, and actually means "after, beyond, with, adjacent, self." When we have a discussion with another player about an over-powered feat, item, or combination, that is meta-gaming. When the DM puts his foot down and invokes Rule #1, that is meta-gaming. Ultimately, meta-gaming is unavoidable; and due to the nature of the game it is not even desirable to cut it out completely. But as with many things, each group must find the balance which works best for them.

There are several ways that meta-gaming can become troublesome. When one of these occurs, it can make a DM's life more difficult. The Dungeon Master's Guide already talks about how to tackle these problems as a DM, but ultimately the game relies on the participation of all for best results. Today, let's discuss when meta-gaming goes bad, and how to tackle it as a player at the table.

The first case where meta-gaming becomes problematic is when players damage the verisimilitude of the system in order to achieve optimal results. When a player rolls a Perception check to look for traps and gets a 1, the temptation is to say "Hey, meat-shield, come over here and step on this tile/open this door/open this chest!" This shatters the shared construct of imagination that the other players and DM have been creating up to that point in the game.

The second is when a player uses broad, system knowledge to motivate their actions: "Oops, that green lumpy monster is a troll, obviously, alright everyone, use fire attacks!" This use of meta-gaming also damages the verisimilitude, and additionally, makes balancing fights harder for the DM. If the DM balances the fight predicated on difficulty with a new, unknown (to the characters) monster, a player using their own extensive knowledge of the system can vastly skew that balance, and what was intended to be a significant, tense, challenging encounter can become a tedious, underpowered distraction.

The third is when a player uses system knowledge to attempt to strong-arm the DM. The rules are in place to keep the game fair, and certainly should only be broken on the rarest of occasions. However when a DM modifies the rules, or flat-out breaks them, for dramatic effect or to keep things interesting, it can be detrimental to have a player calling out what rules were violated and why the events or actions described by the DM couldn't have happened.

While it is often the DM's job to adjudicate disputes and rule on grey areas of the game, when the DM is one of the disputant parties, it can often seem like bullying or "cheating" when they try to resolve such a dispute. In addition to struggling with impartiality, the DM might overlook how the situation appears from the perspective of the players. For these reasons, it is important for players to have a few tricks up their sleeves to help out in these critical moments.

When a player is gaming the system, as in our first example, it can help not to play along. The "meat-shield" should refuse to set off the trap. Especially if they are not the person who usually opens a chest or door, or who walks down the hallway in the front position. If you aren't the player who can directly refuse, suggest that the player who is swerving into meta-game territory describe an in-game reason for the request. While it can damage the verisimilitude to simply call out for someone else to open the chest on a 1, it can reinforce it if the player who was searching changes the process to exclaiming, in-character, "I've got a bad feeling about this chest here, no trap? Not sure I buy it. Jarvis, try popping this open with that sword of yours; I'd rather not have my face right in it if I missed something!" Everyone at the table can then enjoy an additional moment of role-playing, the verisimilitude of the game remains intact, and the rogue with only two surges left does have to eat the symbol of pain trap he missed on the chest.

When a player is using their knowledge of the system to gain an advantage for their character, as in the example with the troll, a DM can often remedy this by swiftly swapping out abilities. Perhaps, with quick thinking, the troll becomes fire-resistant and only vulnerable to acid, or even cold. However, it is also possible for players to help in this situation. When a player declares "These must be trolls, hey guys, use fire and acid attacks!" you might help in two ways. If you are the "knowledge skill-monkey" in the party, ask the DM what type of skill check is required and then gently remind the player who "stole" your thunder that you would like to have the chance to use your skills when they are relevant. If you aren't the "knowledge skill-monkey" you might say something like "Garris has no way of knowing that, having never seen a troll before. He raises his ax and charges forward, shouting his battle cry!" Often, setting an example of how you would like to play is more effective than chastising another player, which can set up disagreements and tensions that will hurt the group and the game.

Finally, when a DM is called out for fudging or breaking the rules, it can be helpful for a player to perform two functions for the group. The first is to act as the "voice of reason." If the rule amendment or breakage seems to be onerous or unfair, rather than challenging it by declaring it "against the rules," try to explain why you think it would be harmful to the game. The DM probably thinks that the change is necessary, but may have overlooked some repercussions that you could bring to light. This type of meta-gaming can be quite helpful, and can often prevent hurt feelings and antagonism between the people at the table. The second role for the player in this critical situation is, if the changes seem reasonable, to remind the "rule-lawyer" that the DM has the prerogative to adjust the rules slightly if need be. Sometimes, simply voicing support of the changes can bring the opposition around. Other times, you might need to explain why you think the rule change would be good for you, the players, not just the DM. Suggest that you record the change in some form as a "house rule" for perpetuity. This can also ease the concerns of a gamer who feels strongly about the sanctity of the rules.

In these ways, players can help ease some of the tensions at the table caused by misplaced meta-gaming. Many times, meta-gaming is also the answer to the problem. When players rely solely upon the DM to keep the game running smoothly, they are bound to be disappointed. RPGs are a team game, and it takes the whole team to keep things moving on the right track. A little balance, the right people at the table, and everyone chipping in can make all the difference!

Happy Holidays, and may the New Year bring many 20s!

Paladin: In Defense of the Archetype

Last week we examined classes in 4th Edition that seem to have drawn the short stick. The last unfinished thread of that post was what to do with the Paladin. With two primary ability scores to choose between, and compromise leading to decreased effectiveness is several areas, the class felt like it needed some attention. With the options presented in Divine Power, I felt that both a Strength-based Paladin and a Charisma-based Paladin had been given sufficient power options to be fully viable. Ultimately, however, this comforted me only a little. While melee Rangers stiffing their Dexterity in favor of Strength and Wisdom struck me as a bit uncomfortable, it wasn't completely unheard of in previous editions. Yet, as I pondered the Charismatic Paladin with access to the Melee Training: Charisma feat using Strength as a "dump stat," I felt my ire rising.

I should probably admit that I've always been a bit of a sucker for Paladins. All the way back in AD&D (1st Edition), I remember sitting around rolling set after set of ability scores (3d6, assigned in order) until I managed to meet the 17 Charisma requirement so I could play a Paladin. In retrospect, my DM being "kind" enough to allow me to roll so many attribute sets was probably merely a sadistic amusement in watching the young player scrapping set after set of decent ability scores in pursuit of the most arbitrary of classes in the game. (For those who don't remember, if your DM determined that an action you took was chaotic, or evil, you lost all your paladin powers and had to find a higher level cleric of at least 7th level, confess the sins, then fulfill any penance assigned by said cleric.) Let's just say that Galin the Paladin had a brutally short, highly unsatisfying career....

And while reminiscing about those days has reminded me that since the earliest days of D&D, the paladin has valued Charisma highest, I still struggle with the notion of a valiant, charismatic warrior, clad in full plate, sword, and shield, who cannot carry s pound more, because Strength just wasn't important. So for six days I've been struggling with an alternative. Trying as I might, I just wasn't comfortable with an alternative similar to those I applied to the Warlock and Cleric (see last week's post). But what I have finally come up with may be too radical, too complicated, and ultimately too ridiculous. I suppose only play-testing and time will tell.

Here's the proposal: For Paladin attack powers, use the higher bonus between Strength and Charisma. And, if the lower ability is no more than three points lower than the higher ability, add 1 to the ability modifier. For demonstration purposes, let's say Bob the Human Paladin has chosen the array which starts him with two abilities at 16 before racial modifiers. He puts one in Strength and one in Charisma. He then applies his human ability modifier to Charisma. Now Bob has a Strength of 16 and a Charisma of 18. His modifiers are +3 and +4 respectively. So Bob would use a +4 ability modifier on his powers, instead of using +3 for Strength-related powers, and +4 for Charisma related powers. But, because Bob's Strength and Charisma are within 3 points (18-16=2) he can add 1 to that, giving him a +5 modifier. This makes Bob's ability modifier for attacks retain parity with Robbie the Rogue's, since Robbie was able to simply put an 18 in Dexterity and bump it to 20 with racial modifiers. It also retains the flavor of paladins from previous editions, where higher ability scores across several attributes were not just a good idea, but actually vital.

So perhaps not the cleanest, or even the most balanced solution, since, it starts to break down the sanctity of the ability score array system (which I'm actually a fan of, having always been one of the worst ability score rollers of all time...). In fact, when I get the chance to play-test this, I might find that it is completely unworkable and makes the Paladin completely unbalanced. And I can certainly see why such a solution was not implemented by Wizards from the start (people were rioting enough about all the changes in the new edition. This sort of thing might have caused heads to explode). But I think this just might work, and it will keep Paladins as the archetype of the strong, charismatic warrior, and out of the dichotomous position of either muscle-head or fast-talking wimp.

Two Ability Scores Better Than One?

*WARNING* This post is way too dang long!

We are closing in on 20 months from the release of 4th Edition. It's been almost two years, many source books and additions to the rules. Today, we're going to talk about a design concept that popped up in the very first book, the Player's Handbook, and which subsequently disappeared, never to return again. That design concept is something I'm going to dub the "dual-stat class." Specifically, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks were given two ability scores to choose between as "primary" abilities. A player creating a character with one of these classes could select one of these ability scores to make as high as possible, reaping high attack bonuses, high damage modifiers, and at least one fairly high defense, but at the cost of being unlikely to choose some of their classes powers due to the low score in the other "primary" ability score for the class. Alternatively, a player creating one of these characters could try to split their character's focus, often making each of the primary ability scores slightly lower but allowing them to choose from all possible powers, but typically suffering in the "secondary" ability score which would often determine the effectiveness of secondary effects of powers selected. Paladins and Star Pact Warlocks were least fortunate in this regard, because prior to the release of their respective Power books, these classes (or builds, respectively) were nearly forced to split their focus, or risk choosing powers that did not fit their concept of character.

To be sure, Arcane Power, Divine Power, and Martial Power mitigated some of these problems by adding more powers from which to choose. However, they were undermined by releases of new classes in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, Eberron Player's Guide, and Player's Handbook 2. No other release contains a single class that has divided ability score loyalties as these four original classes did. So why did the design team go this route with these four classes?

1. Perhaps the idea was to allow these classes to have two markedly different play styles and feels. The cleric could either be a ranged character focused on powerful heals and low-damage ranged attacks and debuffs, or a melee combatant with slightly lower-powered heals, but with the added benefits of a melee combatant (higher hit chance with proficiency bonuses from weapons, higher damage depending upon weapon selection, ability to provide and benefit from flanking).
2. Perhaps the point was to make these classes play to strengths, so as to keep their power level in balance with other classes. A Ranger who could deal substantial damage with a bow and quickly change to melee with no decrease in damage potential would be a much bigger threat on the field than a Rogue who relies heavily on combat advantage to deal substantial damage, and who can rarely gain that damage with ranged attacks.
3. Perhaps it was motivated by the original intent of limiting melee effectiveness to melee classes. Fighters, Warlords, Strength-based Rangers, and Strength-based Clerics were originally the only characters who had decent chances to hit with an opportunity attack or basic melee attack granted by another class' powers or abilities.

While I can articulate these ideas, I have a hard time feeling that any of these arguments hold a lot of water. Ultimately, this smacks of a bit of an oversight, or a drastic change in design philosophy after the release of the Player's Handbook. For ease of discussion, I'll number my refutations parallel to the arguments above.

1. Wizards who focus on illusion over evocation-style attacks (to borrow some 3.5 Edition terminology) don't have to choose between maximizing Intelligence or Charisma. They max Intelligence and are done with it, and can choose nearly any powers available for their class. In short, even in the original book, there were other classes with significant flavor variations that were either reliant on the choice of "secondary ability score" or simply by the powers chosen.
2. Sure a Ranger being able to swap between melee and ranged would be rather potent in terms of sustained damage output. But a Rogue can now take the Distant Advantagefeat from Player's Handbook 2, and instead of being limited to attacking the nearest target to them which they have designated their quarry (Ranger's striker damage class feature) they can deal their hefty damage at range with the only restriction being who is granting combat advantage that round. Sure that limitation exists, but it will fluctuate so much round to round that it is unlikely that there will be no eligible targets in a given round, and the rogue can always close to melee if necessary (since their attack powers use Dexterity regardless of melee or ranged, and at the very least, their at-will powers that can be used at range are generally also usable with melee weapons). And no one would argue that warlocks are "totally over-powered!" In short, this argument seems to fall apart when parallels start being drawn under the current rules available for the game.
3. The reason this argument makes no sense anymore is the introduction of the Melee Training feat in Player's Handbook 2 which allows a character, at the cost of a feat to swap his best ability score for strength when determining the attack and damage bonus for basic melee attacks, including those granted during an opportunity attack. Granted, the Strength-based classes can skip this feat, and get something else to increase their melee effectiveness in other ways. But ultimately, the introduction of this feat ends up feeling like an admission of guilt: "Whoops, we wanted to introduce some strikers who didn't use Strength as a primary ability score and still want them to be able to make opportunity attacks or benefit from their Warlord companion granting them a basic melee attack!"

I've been wrestling with a possible solution to this issue, in the form of a house rule for my own games, to address this disparity as I see it. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as just picking one of the two ability scores and just substituting it for the attack powers that don't use it. Actually, I think that would work fine for the Cleric and Warlock. I'll probably let clerics who want to play a melee character in future games use Wisdom instead of Strength for their attack powers. It'll still cost them a feat for the Melee Training, so I figure it's not free upgrades. For warlocks, I've never been totally keen on the "Constitution as a primary ability score" idea anyway, so I'll likely make all their powers use Charisma. Infernal Pact warlocks will still want a high Constitution since some of their utility powers still would rely upon it. And Star Pact Warlocks won't be as disadvantaged as they were.

For Paladins and Rangers, the fix isn't as simple. Making Paladin's Strength-based would make them feel too much like the fighter in a lot of ways. However, making them Charisma-based would make starting with plate armor proficiency a much greater boon. It would also mean the end of strong, sword and shield paladins, shattering the existing archetype. I've always been partial to the Paladin, and I don't want to damage the prevalent conception that badly.

For Rangers, they have many powers that work for either melee or ranged weapons, and use the appropriate ability score for that build. They have the power choices to support both builds, and while the Archer Ranger is at a disadvantage in melee, a Melee Ranger can still use heavy thrown weapons to achieve a ranged capability. I feel that an Archer Ranger taking Melee Training: Dexterity almost resolves this class' issues. I will probably leave Rangers alone, and might even hold them up as an example of what a "dual-stat class" should be.

Having finally started to experience Paragon Tier, attack bonuses being as high as possible seems even more important than ever. Any design element that punishes a player for building a character that fits their concept just doesn't work for me. If you want to make a Star Pact Warlock, I don't want you to spend more time doing nothing in combat but cursing targets because you can't hit the monsters I'm using because everyone else hits them easily. If you want to play a melee cleric, but don't want to lose your healing potential, I'm okay with that too. Ultimately, I'd rather my players were *slightly* over-effective, rather than frustrated to tears because being the best healer they can be means that when they are out of healing word and healing utility powers, they might as well go watch TV.

So, final review: I feel like Clerics and Warlocks got hosed. I'm going to fix them with the house rules above. Rangers, while in the same category, seem to have gotten decent treatment and will be left alone. And I'm still not sure what to do with Paladins. If anyone has an idea, let me know, I'd love to play-test it and see if we can present a workable solution.

Excuses

So Wednesday has come and mostly gone, and as I whisk myself off to the "day-job" I feel I should make a few excuses. I could say that the changes I am contemplating are so big, so earthshaking, so complicated that I just need more time to play-test and hone these house rules. I could say that, as with the Ranger tweak, I had bitten off more than I could chew. But the truth is that between those factors and Thanksgiving, I just didn't take the time.

Sorry ya'll, but next week: multi-ability classes shall have their day!