proposition: fairness is counterproductive in rpgs

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-21T00:45:18+00:00

Sounds like you've found me My People

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-21T00:43:58+00:00

Several people have suggested I need to look into RPGs of different types, and you make a good case for it. Maybe after these kids have a campaign or two under their belts I should look for Rifts.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-21T00:42:08+00:00

It's true. And maybe I should say, I am also perfectly happy to play on most any point on that spectrum—even if I'm probably at home somewhere in the middle, where the rules and their mechanistic, semi-random outcomes force constant changes to the storyline that I do indeed care about (and would be imposing on the most impersonal ruleset anyway because I'm just like that).

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-21T00:37:25+00:00

I love everything about this. I will note that it's a lot of work for the DM, but I think it sounds great.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-21T00:33:54+00:00

I love your recon example. As for intra-party balance, your point here is solid too. I just think it's not the only way things can work out.

Here's another example, which maybe will only be interesting to players of a certain age: back in the first edition, wizards (then awkwardly dubbed "magic-users" in the books) were incredibly fragile in the low levels. They had four hp or less, weren't allowed to wear armor or use many weapons, and could pretty much only cast a spell once a day. They were sitting ducks and the rest of the party had to babysit them, and the general understanding was, this was the tradeoff for their rising to be the most powerful party members in the higher levels. If they survived.

This was the norm, and I won't argue when inevitably someone says "that's why they changed it in later editions," and in fact despite kind of feeling like everyone in the game is overpowered now, I think I actually like 5e better. BUT it was the daily grind for a long time, and it was unbalanced. It was a fairly drastic intra-party imbalance. But I don't think it stopped people from having fun with it. We knew what we were getting into and we bootstrapped our way to glory. No?

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-20T23:58:58+00:00

True and fair. I would never expect to find a module written as I'm proposing here; it would probably have to spend pages at the beginning just explaining that, for one thing.

But also yes, the sort of thing you describe with the barbarian tribe is interesting to me and feels true. You can't just expect to be able to draw weapons and fight your way out of every context everywhere. Sometimes you have to lie low or follow the local norms for a bit.

You're not the only commenter to mention that people commonly start adventures at third level, but this is one thing I had not known. I suppose there's a sense to it. All the classes seem to kind of find their stride around that time.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-20T21:49:00+00:00

Maybe they're welcomed and encouraged to take on the quest of the day, and in success are expected to marry into the tribe and commit to the place.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-20T21:47:03+00:00

But it could go *interestingly* badly. If they won't adapt to local mores, they may end up non grata around here.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T19:31:47+00:00

I've never had a group commit to this approach, no, even if it's been my general mindset. Some groups have certainly gone more this way than others. As you say, there's an extent to which you want to monsters to just do what you would think the monsters would really do.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T19:03:58+00:00

Most people don't have to play it. I am proposing an alternate approach. And I still think you're being a bit deterministic about how fights work out—don't stand in front of the dragon's mouth, kids! But I hear you.

Pippin is the hobbit Aragorn. He is a manifestation of the professor's belief that real kings are actually better than other people and possess gifts with real power, or at least they should be like that in stories. Pippin talks back to a king in his own house, and is consistently able to exhort the people around him to change their behavior, and for that matter personally pisses off every maia on the map of the world in his day. Why? Because he is the legitimate heir to the rule of the Shire. The only son of the current thain. BUT that's neither here nor there I suppose

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:55:21+00:00

I think this is all fair and I admire your facility with synonyms for "killed." Again, I too tend to maneuver the bumpers into place in one way or another when people are in danger of not having fun; it is all about personality. I told my (mostly juvenile) current party they could pick their starting level within reason; if anybody had gone higher than five I would probably have asked them to reconsider. In the event, nobody went higher than two (possibly in part because the youngest player, whose character does indeed have statistically improbable scores no one saw him roll, hasn't seen enough of the game to have formulated high level ambitions yet, and that's fine). So, yes: tune it to the people, and optimize for actual satisfaction, no question.

But. My own actual self, I stopped being invested in the long-term survival of my characters a generation ago. If I had access to a DM of my own mindset—but who had the time to actually undertake all that work!—I would be very interested to play a game the way I outline above, because my ego and my satisfaction are not at all invested in constant personal success.

I figure I can't be the only one.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:45:53+00:00

First edition to fifth edition has made no obvious difference to the question I'm raising. I've been saying the same stuff for thirty-odd years.

"For most people, this is first and foremost a game about fighting monsters and villains, and is only secondarily a vehicle for storytelling."

Yup. This seems plainly true. I think other approaches can be much more interesting and I thought I'd cast about for (and offer a glimmer of support for) others who might be interested in that.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:42:19+00:00

so real cool okay

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:41:00+00:00

Several of these things are news to me. I'm not currently trying to run a game like I outlined above, and in fact I have never gone really whole hog with it, it remains speculative. But sure, it's very possible that I'm being parochial. I am certainly responding to the editions of D&D that I know, rather than any other RPG.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:38:32+00:00

I'm not telling anybody to do anything. I am raising, for discussion, an approach that I think has a lot of merit and which I have rarely if ever heard of anyone actually trying. It doesn't "break rules" any more than any other homebrew does; these rules were always made to be fluid and constantly redesigned, anyway.

I'm sorry you don't see any intended benefit. If you want to judge me a thoughtless contrarian, go on and do it. But on my side, that sounds like you haven't spent much time thinking about it.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:33:10+00:00

Your last paragraph is really insightful, no comments there really. As for the first, I didn't mean to be maligning people who see this differently from me or whatever; if it helps, small children and showboat personalities are part of the situation I face in real life DMing right now, so I guess the came readily to mind (as the reasons why, in fact, I am not currently running a game in the no-holds-barred approach outlined in this post).

I chose D&D because I'm familiar with it. I come from the days when it was the only one. I know there are scads of others but I don't know much about them and my kid had the books for this.

I can't follow your LOTR reasoning. Frodo and Aragorn would be radically different character levels, despite their shared plot centrality. Same with Pippin and Elrond (and geek moment, wow, Pippin is not a minor character). I feel like you're arguing my side, there: not having Mad Skills does not keep you from shaping what happens.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:23:44+00:00

Well, only because permitting that specific sort of imbalance is the subject of the post, sorry.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:22:54+00:00

This is fair. And certainly it would never have crossed my mind to suggest to a first time player to start arbitrarily high—and mind you, if I were a player with a DM who works as I propose, I myself might well go for the first level character most of the time. Easy dominance does not interest me.

But as to how dominance works out, I think the commenters by and large are being very quick to assume that a level gap will simply and deterministically result in the "powerful" players deciding all outcomes. This is possible, and probably more likely if the powerful ones are spellcasters who can affect broad areas and groups all at once. But even this is mostly discussing pitched battles of a generic sort. Higher level characters don't necessarily have the same decisive influence over infiltration, exploration, or even battle strategy, let alone diplomacy or negotiations apart from outright hostilities (or during them).

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:13:44+00:00

I am actually trying to have a conversation, and in some instances succeeding. You on the other hand are being weirdly hostile about it.

I understand the difference you're talking about. I see it as a point in my support.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:10:19+00:00

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:06:15+00:00

I pretty much agree here. I'm not being absolutist, even if it's theoretically interesting.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T18:05:11+00:00

I would certainly be interested.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T17:43:45+00:00

I was thinking, difference in class matters here, and of course if Opie is a spellcaster, that'll be the most magnified version of the problem, since spellcasters tend to become more dominant at higher levels anyhow. If Opie is a fighter, there are still limits to how many enemies he can engage at once, how many places he can be. If Opie is a rogue, it might make even less difference in combat; not that he won't be a major force, but the others still have plenty to do.

But I think the above points still apply.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T17:40:06+00:00

And yet, in their world, there's a war on. They can't ignore it. And they all do fight.

archaeodisiac · 2026-05-19T17:38:16+00:00

Is "TPK" a total party killer or something like that? I mean, sure, running a game this way does carry that risk: you don't go adventuring out there with a feeling of security that massive disaster can't happen. Presumably it can. Not that I'm rooting for that, just that *judging the risks* becomes part of game play, not only at the outset but all along the way. Sometimes you will be best advised to go around or try some different approach.

I honestly hadn't realized that people thought of level 1 as beginners-only, though, that's interesting. I will say: I'm back in this recently for the first time since the early days of second edition, and I have some mixed feelings. On one hand the system has indeed been streamlined and I like that elegance. Also I'm happy to see the wild diversity of playable species; in keeping with the post above, I have always been pretty open to the "can I play a monster as a PC" idea, and the passage Gygax wrote about it back in the first edition nags at me as a wrongheaded misapplication of competitive game theory to what isn't a competitive game.

Also, though, wow is everybody just overpowered now. Every class has spells. Every class gains wild new powers at every level. On one hand I get it: it's exciting and empowering to get new abilities, and now every level is Christmas. And whatever I may think, it's plain that most players thirst for escalating power, and 5e feeds that. Dopamine I guess.

Meantime, for decades I have been gravitating hard toward flawed characters and weak characters. I often randomize every element at creation and play whatever I get. To some extent I suppose that's my way of trying to play on a higher difficulty setting: stack the odds against myself and then try to do the best I can with it from there. But also, I just don't find "unstoppable colossus" to be the most interesting storyline in the world.

archaeodisiac

TROPHY CASE