D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

Ahnehnois · Aug 7, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
Why should a character be forced to? Why can't my character have waeknesses and strengths? Why can't I make a non-combat character without breaking the system? (and don't bring me the "I can't think of a reason a character like that would adventure", there can be plenty of reasons) Why can't I have more than 1 score of 8 or less? Why should I fight a rigid system to make the character on my head work?

Exactly. You're supposed to be fighting monsters, not the game system.

Dannyalcatraz said:
One of my more recent PCs was a Ftr/Th. He was S:15, D:15, I:13, C:10, W:8, Ch:6- we rolled stats- and he was an utter blast.

You had fun with mediocre stats? Impossible!

Lanefan · Aug 7, 2012

SKyOdin said:
Determining whether a game is balanced is rather simple actually: just let loose a horde of min-maxers on the system and watch to see how badly they break the game.

That is step 1.

Step 2 is to thank said horde for their participation and boot 'em out the door.

Step 3 is to go back and simplify the design; as without fail the more complex a design gets the more fun a min-maxer is going to have with it.

n00bdragon said:
Are you saying you purposely want to play a weak character simply for the "roleplay value"? What about the other people at the table? Assuming that's what you mean that's really unfair to them. They shouldn't be forced to carry you around because you're oh so useless and thus great at roleplaying.

Unfair? Forced to carry you around?

Personally, I'd far rather play with and-or DM players with an approach to the game like [MENTION=6689464]KaiiLurker[/MENTION] than an approach like you posted here.

It's all about playing to the spirit of the game.

Lanefan

innerdude · Aug 7, 2012

SKyOdin said:
Why should any PC be better than any other PC of the same level?

Better at what?

Fighting? Diplomacy? Stealth? Ancient Lore? Spell casting? Riding? Climbing?

From what I can tell, your definition (and many if not most 4e-enthusiasts' definition) of balance is, "Total balance between characters in combat damage output and battlefield effectiveness."

That's a perfectly fine, valid approach. But don't presume that this definition of "balance" by any stretch of the imagination meets the needs of all gamers, everywhere, and that somehow those of us who don't bow down to this tenet of "balance" are delusional fools "who just don't get it," and are somehow missing out on the absolute panacea of gaming that we've all been wishing for, if only we would embrace the GREAT TRUTH that is "balanced combat effectiveness."

Let's put it another way---who's REALLY at fault for a min / maxer "overshadowing" other players in a D&D game? Is it the rules? Or the DM, the offending player, and the other participants ALLOWING the min / maxer to knowingly upset the agreed upon social contract that the group's fun AS A WHOLE is more important than any one player?

If the min / maxing player simply can't "have his or her fun" any other way besides willfully stretching the limits of the system's rules-as-written, then the problem is with the player, not the rules.

Does this excuse massive ignorance on the part of game designers regarding balance? Not in any way, but frankly, I'd much rather a game designer focus on the vision they're trying to deliver for a product than worrying about Jackass Player Bob---who wouldn't even be a problem if the hypothetical group(s) in question would grow a pair and lay down some socially acceptable rules about what constitutes fair play.

Dannyalcatraz · Aug 7, 2012

Not only that, how is playing my PC unfair to others if it's "sub-optimal?" This idea of "sub-optimal", as well...it doesn't exist until the preference for point-bought state shows up, since the PCs might well have terrible stats.

Make your PC, play it as you see fit, and let me design & play mine as I see fit.

innerdude · Aug 7, 2012

Dannyalcatraz said:
Not only that, how is playing my PC unfair to others if it's "sub-optimal?" This idea of "sub-optimal", as well...it doesn't exist until the preference for point-bought state shows up, since the PCs might well have terrible stats.

Make your PC, play it as you see fit, and let me design & play mine as I see fit.

Oh, but Danny, don't you see? We can't POSSIBLY expect DMs to use any discretion on creating "balanced combat encounters." That's just too hard, man. I mean, heaven forbid a PC not be "fully optimized," and run the risk of a "balanced encounter" ending in a TPK because that one total loser player couldn't be bothered to pore over 2500 feats and powers to find the EXACT perfect build that would eke out that extra +2 with their longbow. I mean, the NERVE of some players these days, actually wanting to play a character concept, and not a compilation of battleground stats! Everyone knows you can't win D&D when you do that!

Dannyalcatraz · Aug 7, 2012

I am SUCH a heretic.

pemerton · Aug 7, 2012

Pickles JG said:
Similarly noone wants all characters to be exactly the same regardless of class

Ahnehnois said:
Some people in this thread have pretty explicitly advocated your (reasonable) descriptions of what "no one" wants. It's best that someone contest that.

<snip>

Perhaps you should reread some of the posts I quoted. I think anyone is.

I don't think anyone is saying they want all characters to be exactly the same regardless of class. I think some are saying that they want all PCs to be comparable in their mechanical effectiveness. The second only entails the first if "mechanical effectiveness" is very narrowly defined. But the only person so far to offer a narrow definition (in terms of damage), that I can recall, is [MENTION=10638]Emirikol[/MENTION] - who is in the "fun over balance" camp rather than the "balance underpins fun" camp.

As to the other point, I think that [MENTION=32536]TwinBahamut[/MENTION] and others are saying that they don't care for games that prioritise simulation over balance, and are articulating their reasons for that. (Ie they think it is not just an arbitrary preference.) But no one has denied that others have different preferences, I don't think. Maybe I'm misreading (or reading too charitably)? But I mean, who would deny that there is a market for Traveller, or Runequest, or Rolemaster?

Ahnehnois said:
D&D has (with, as you say, the possible exception of 4e) taken a stance that simulation is important. While it is broad, D&D is a subset of what an rpg can be, and I think it's fair to say that most people who play it expect at least a modest amount of simulation.

If, by "most people", you mean "D&D players exlcuding at least some subset of 4e players" than sure. But in a unity edition, the size of these two sets shouldn't be taken for granted, I don't think. You won't unify those who enjoy the metagame aspects of 4e if you just disregard their preferences, or treat them as peripheral to the activity of RPGing.

pemerton · Aug 7, 2012

Ratskinner said:
(kinda funny...read your list again. It makes it sound like plot isn't emergent, but predetermined and managed by the players.

Not predetermined - quests may go unfullfilled (eg if the players have two goals for their PCs, or even conflicting goals, and go one way rather than another), and player choices about action resolution happen in the course of play, not before play - and are the single biggest shaper of plot.

Otherwise, thanks for the reply, you'll get some more XP when the tap is turned back on!

SKyOdin said:
Balance shouldn't require a lot of sacrifice and work on the part of the end-user to come into existence.

Agreed. I find it strange that it's sometimes presented as a holy grail to which we can only aspire after much questing, but never actually reach.

Li Shenron said:
if I learn that e.g. some spells or feats are better than others, I may purposefully choose not to pick them for my character during the design phase, should I have the feeling of wanting more challenge.

<snip>

Character design choices can be much more easily be justified in-characters

I think this is a good point, but one which the game could be more upfront about.

In AD&D, the rulebooks just came right out and send "If you choose to play a magic-user, it will be hard at first but you'll end up dominating the game." (Mearls had a good post on this in the early L&L days.)

Modern D&D rulebooks seem much shyer about saying "Take this if you want to be broken, but take this other thing if you want to be challenged". It would be good to go back to the more old-fashioned transparency.

Li Shenron said:
Now maybe you might feel that fighting the Ogre (or whoever is the "top" opponent each time) is a more "shiny" spotlight than fighting a minion... Again I think there's some competition assumption there. But still I think this is indeed fair, that a Fighter is supposed in fact to be best at fighting, and the one the groups look at when a battle starts, just like the Rogue is the one the groups look at when there's a trapped area to bypass and so on.

<snip>

I agree that "hero and sidekick" is something most group wouldn't like, but that's again because of the competition mentality (and because Combat has become by far the most important part of the game for most gamers, but not for me). Everybody wants to be equally good to the others all the time. I'm not saying this is wrong, but just that I have no problem with a game where you're good at different times.

Is there more than a semantic difference between "comparison" and "competition" in this context? I'm not sure, but if I had to choose one of those two words I'd choose "comparison" - the two PCs aren't in competition, but in comparison between the two the one fighting the orc seems like a sidekick to the one fighting the ogre.

I think one reason for that is that, in an RPG, fiction matters: althoug mechanically and mathematically the tougher PC vs ogre may be no different from the lesser PC vs orc, in the fiction one battle is more significant than the other, because against a more serious threat.

I think the same comes up in the "good at different time" issue. I've got nothing against that - although in a game in which combat is significant, I want to parse "different times" as "from round to round" rather than "outside combat". But different systems, which don't give combat such priority, can take a broader view of what "different times" means. Anyway, however exactly "different times" is cashed out, I want it to be the case that, overall, when a comparison is made, no PC obviously dominated the contributions made to the game.

If I've read you right, I don't think we're very far apart on the principles here, though we may have different preferences about the details and techniques of implementation.

tlantl · Aug 7, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
Why should a character be forced to? Why can't my character have waeknesses and strengths? Why can't I make a non-combat character without breaking the system? (and don't bring me the "I can't think of a reason a character like that would adventure", there can be plenty of reasons) Why can't I have more than 1 score of 8 or less? Why should I fight a rigid system to make the character on my head work?

I like systems where min-maxing is possible, not because I want to min-max, but rather because the oppsosite is also true. If the difference between sub-optimal and optimized is minimal in name of balance, then there is no room for weaker characters on the mix, and that is a giant lose on my book

I am reminded of the time when the Dragonlance Chronicles were released and everyone wanted to play the kender or a Raistlin clone. I even had a gully dwarf running around for a while.

Less optimum characters are way more fun to play at times. If the game makes it impossible or really difficult to play these kinds of characters then there is a serious problem with it as a role playing game.

Min maxing only really works in a combat centered game. The more the game stays away from the need for the best attacks and the most damage and the biggest bang then the issue isn't such a problem.

I like having characters at the table that really suck at certain things. I don't mind that one character is the ultimate warrior or has the best spells, since they won't be overshadowing the other players. Being the absolute best at combat isn't much if you only fight stuff once in a while, or combats only last a few minutes.

I really dislike straight jackets. I don't like everyone being the same although they may appear to be different. I have no problem with casters being strong in some situations and cowering in a corner the next.

As a rule it's really not a good idea to nova in one of my games and then whine about being out of spells, the rest of the players at the table will laugh at you and leave you behind.

Li Shenron · Aug 7, 2012

pemerton said:
Is there more than a semantic difference between "comparison" and "competition" in this context? I'm not sure, but if I had to choose one of those two words I'd choose "comparison" - the two PCs aren't in competition, but in comparison between the two the one fighting the orc seems like a sidekick to the one fighting the ogre.

Yes, the PCs are not competing. The players are

Of course this an exaggeration of mine, I'm just saying that there are players (how many, I'll let you judge by yourself but IMHO quite a lot) who approach the game with a competitive spirit, that they want to prove themselves to be better than others - although not necessarily the other sitting at the same table, it can be a more psychological need of proving yourself "smarter" than the gamers base because you've figured out how to min-max to the best.

pemerton said:
I think one reason for that is that, in an RPG, fiction matters: althoug mechanically and mathematically the tougher PC vs ogre may be no different from the lesser PC vs orc, in the fiction one battle is more significant than the other, because against a more serious threat.

That's a very good point.

It brings me back again to the simple question: "Should the Fighter really be the best at fighting?"

Because when talking about it most gamers would say "yes! obviously", but then the truth IMHO is that they want to play a Cleric or a Wizard or a Rogue and so on, and do not want to be a bit less good than the Fighter at fighting. They want to be equal.

Then the game moves to another phase, let's say exploration, and there is another character which traditionally gets more spotlight: the Rogue. That used to be normal, just like the Fighter is supposed to be the best at fighting, the Rogue was the best at exploring. But now that you made everybody equal in combat, it feels unfair that someone is the best in another phase so you have to make everyone equal in exploration too.

What's next then... healing? Should the Cleric be the best at healing? Of course everybody says, and yet the game has unquestionably shifted more and more towards giving everyone the ability to heal (himself at least) without really the need for a cleric. Gamers still want the Cleric to be somehow better at healing, and the Fighter better at fighting, and the Rogue better at exploring, but only slightly, because many of them fundamentally hate (a) to depend on someone else and (b) to feel even minimally inferior.

I think I was too that kind of player a long time ago, and in fact I was much much more concerned about balance 10 years ago, but somehow I feel I have moved on.