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

shadowmane said:

This whole idea of balance complicates the game way too much. If you really want balance in a game that has 5-6 encounters in a 6-8 hour game, then you design each encounter to bring one or more of the characters to the forefront.

Click to expand...

I read a statement like this and my eyes cross. I design the monsters plans to reflect the gameworld, or to reflect the PCs desired approach after they've told me what it is. Twisting the world to fit the characters first is something I consider to be a railroad in a bad way - I'd far rather run something sandboxier (and play something sandboxier) and second turns the creativity of players into an attempt to get into my head rather than an attempt to solve the situation on the ground. I emphatically never fix one way out of a situation or throw it to just one PC - and I find doing so cheapnens the game. (Which isn't to say some situations are better for some PCs than others. But not that I start plotting like that except for special occasions).

And I emphatically disagree with your most recent comment. It should not be the job of the DM to fix a broken game. It absolutely is the job of the rules to provide a decent resolution system and to make things easier for DM and players to all get onto the same page and match the desired fiction. In fact I would say that the rules have quite literally no other purpose than improving visualisation and assisting with conflict resolution, and balance is an essential part of satisfactory conflict resolution.

You adapt the game world. Its not railroading. This is, after all, their story. Yes, you provide the sandbox for them to play in, but the story is ultimately theirs. As a DM, it is your responsibility to provide a way for all of them to make it to the front. For all of them to show off their character. So the game world bends ever so slightly so that you can accomplish that. Otherwise, you simply are playing a game, and the players need to be TOLD "well, you have to have a MU, two fighters, a cleric for healing, and a druid, because we're going to be mostly in the woods, and he can provide some neat protection for you.

If you design the setting around the characters, then you find out what they are playing, then you tailor the setting to that. You tweak the dungeon. You tweak the encounters. By the end of the night, everyone has been able to bask in the awesomeness of their character because the DM has provided something unique to them. He's made the game world theirs.

If you simply adapt the players to the game world, then all you're going to come out with is "well, we have to have balance so everyone gets to do something". Well, if you're going after a bunch of Orcs who just raided a villiage, who's going to get to do something? The MU and the Fighter mostly. Maybe the cleric if he has any offensive spells. Everyone else is just SOL unless they have some good fighting skills.

"Balance" promotes laziness.

shadowmane said:

You adapt the game world. Its not railroading. This is, after all, their story. Yes, you provide the sandbox for them to play in, but the story is ultimately theirs. As a DM, it is your responsibility to provide a way for all of them to make it to the front. For all of them to show off their character. So the game world bends ever so slightly so that you can accomplish that. Otherwise, you simply are playing a game, and the players need to be TOLD "well, you have to have a MU, two fighters, a cleric for healing, and a druid, because we're going to be mostly in the woods, and he can provide some neat protection for you.

If you design the setting around the characters, then you find out what they are playing, then you tailor the setting to that. You tweak the dungeon. You tweak the encounters. By the end of the night, everyone has been able to bask in the awesomeness of their character because the DM has provided something unique to them. He's made the game world theirs.

If you simply adapt the players to the game world, then all you're going to come out with is "well, we have to have balance so everyone gets to do something". Well, if you're going after a bunch of Orcs who just raided a villiage, who's going to get to do something? The MU and the Fighter mostly. Maybe the cleric if he has any offensive spells. Everyone else is just SOL unless they have some good fighting skills.

"Balance" promotes laziness.

Click to expand...

Wrong on just about every count. If you're going after a bunch of orcs who just raided a villiage, who's going to do something in a balanced party?

Everyone!

First there are the trackers - this is class independent (although rangers and druids have an advantage).

Second thing you do is you blind the enemy. All warfare is based on deception. This is the rogue's job. Or the ranger's.

Third you beat them to hell and back. This is everyone's job, but especially the fighter's and the wizard's.

Fourth you make sure nothing goes badly wrong. Your cleric has the job of making sure that no one bites off more than they can chew and you leave no one dead on the field.

It is only in a game where the designers have failed that you end up with people being SOL in such a situation. And this promotes laziness as the players know the DM is going to give them freebies. And this means no one gets to bask in the awesomeness that is their character; they get to bask in the awesomeness that is their character being specifically tossed a softball by the DM.

And for the record, the players don't need to be told that they should turn up with a party of a given configuration at all. One of my recent parties picked up the nickname "Team Ninja" - it consisted of one Shade Vampire (dex based striker), one Kobold Thief (dex based striker), one Shifter Scout (dex based two weapon ranger striker), and one elf (?) hunter (dex based archer ranger). All were trained in stealth. So what did they do? They took the fight to the enemy and ran them ragged. And it was awesome. I didn't do a single thing to twist the gameworld to accomodate them - they did that. They made the gameworld theirs by stamping their mark on it, not by me twisting it in their direction.

I don't adapt the gameworld to the players an inch. But because my system of choice is relatively balanced I don't have to. They have all the tools they need to adapt to a wide range of situations. It is only an unbalanced game where I need to lob people softballs to allow them to shine.

Good for you. I, on the other hand, adapt my game world to the characters. Why? Because they are the heroes of the game world. For me, having everyone balanced out is not the point of the game. The Wizard is going to be more powerful. But he won't be able to defend himself if something rushes up to him before he casts his spell. That's what the fighter is for. So what if the fighter levels up before him, or is more powerful than he is at lower levels. He'll make up for it. Likewise, at higher levels, its still the fighters that are going to keep the mooks off of him so that he can cast that awesome spell that knocks out half an army.

Again, the characters in your game are supposed to be the heroes of the game. Not just a bunch of schmucks running around in the game world oblivious to what's going on around them. That's why you adapt the game world to the characters. What they do. What they don't do. Who they are. Where they come from.

The only alternative is to simply turn it into Chainmail, remove the roleplaying aspect, and play a board game. That's what "balance" makes of this game.

shadowmane said:

Good for you. I, on the other hand, adapt my game world to the characters. Why? Because they are the heroes of the game world. For me, having everyone balanced out is not the point of the game. The Wizard is going to be more powerful. But he won't be able to defend himself if something rushes up to him before he casts his spell. That's what the fighter is for. So what if the fighter levels up before him, or is more powerful than he is at lower levels. He'll make up for it. Likewise, at higher levels, its still the fighters that are going to keep the mooks off of him so that he can cast that awesome spell that knocks out half an army.

Again, the characters in your game are supposed to be the heroes of the game. Not just a bunch of schmucks running around in the game world oblivious to what's going on around them. That's why you adapt the game world to the characters. What they do. What they don't do. Who they are. Where they come from.

The only alternative is to simply turn it into Chainmail, remove the roleplaying aspect, and play a board game. That's what "balance" makes of this game.

Click to expand...

My characters normally earn being heroes of the game. I don't give it to them on a silver platter. And they are the heroes at least in part because they are the people willing and able to step up. Because I have a balanced system, all the PCs have sufficient tools to be able to become the heroes of the setting. They aren't schmucks and they are competent even if the enemies outmatch them. Which is why I don't need to throw softballs at them. They have the tools and the ability to make their mark on the setting. The rest is up to them.

Also, out of curiosity, which edition do you play? Second? (That's the way it reads to me).

shadowmane said:

See my post above.

It is the job of the DM to bring balance by knowing the characters who are in his game. Its not the job of the rules to bring that balance.

Click to expand...

I disagree with pretty much everything you said in your post above. That's not the DM's job, it is the system's job to assume and provide basic game balance.

As a DM, I don't want to have to compensate for an unbalanced system on top of all the other work I already put into designing a game. That's one of many reasons I never DM'd a 3rd edition game despite playing the system for some time.

Now take that with a grain of salt, because I understand that perfect balance is unachievable, and sometimes the DM does have to make some adjustment. All I'm saying is that I don't want it to be on the level of 3rd edition, because that was totally unreasonable in my book.

shadowmane said:

That's why you adapt the game world to the characters. What they do. What they don't do. Who they are. Where they come from.

The only alternative is to simply turn it into Chainmail, remove the roleplaying aspect, and play a board game. That's what "balance" makes of this game.

Click to expand...

Talk about a false dichotomy!

What about a sandbox precludes role-playing? Just because I didn't design Jareth the ex-sailor blacksmith with one of my character's backgrounds in mind doesn't mean that they can't have interesting interactions with him. As my PCs adventure, the world responds to their actions. The players must then make yet more choices in response, hopefully learning a thing or two about how the world works in the process. Character and environment gradually interweave to produce a campaign.

You can do all of that without ever deciding, during encounter or adventure design, to throw a situation at the party which "highlights" one character's contriubution. As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] says, if the system/adventure is balanced well then the players will naturally get their own moments to shine due to great ideas, lucky rolls, and doing the unexpected to accomplish the amazing.

I suppose what you are really arguing is that certain variants of D&D took the search for balance too far, and sacrificed something that you value in the process. But saying that balance in a system must lead to "removing the roleplaying aspect" and that you might as well "play a board game" is a bit melodramatic.

I cut my teeth on Star Wars D6. As far as D&D, I learned on 1st. I've never played 2nd. I've played Pathfinder, though. So I guess you could call me one of the Grognards. Which is why I see things the way I do. If you look at Lord of the Rings, they start out as unknowns. They end up the heroes. That's how I envision the characters in my game. To that end, I design the story around them. Yeah, some of them will loose their lives. But for the most part, there will be a core set of characters that I will design the adventures around, based on who they are, where they are from, and what their individual goals are. There's also the group goal.

Presently, I'm teaching my sons. I'm using Basic Fantasy Roleplaying Game. I'm contemplating using the Playtest rules with them, but I probably won't. I've not played 4E, but I've heard a great deal about it. Pathfinder/3.5 seemed too gritty for me. A rule for just about everything. I like my games simple. The DM does the heavy lifting, not the rules. This is why I like the direction Next is going in. Back to simplicity. For crunch, you'll buy additional rules, but the basic game is just that... basic.

Neonchameleon said:

Also, out of curiosity, which edition do you play? Second? (That's the way it reads to me).

Click to expand...

And therefore...?

Neonchameleon said:

My characters normally earn being heroes of the game. I don't give it to them on a silver platter. And they are the heroes at least in part because they are the people willing and able to step up. Because I have a balanced system, all the PCs have sufficient tools to be able to become the heroes of the setting. They aren't schmucks and they are competent even if the enemies outmatch them.

Click to expand...

I take it back one step further: they start out as relative schmucks and have to earn the tools to become heroes; then - assuming "hero" is among their career goals (it often isn't) - use those tools to become such.

Lanefan