D&D 5E Balance, the final finalist word. Finally

Blue · Jun 16, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
And what is the final final final word? Attaining balance in a game like D&D is impossible because in the context of a game like D&D, balance is subjective.

What I mean by that, is that what is considered good balance varies from person to person, and playstyle to playstyle. Some people want every PC to be mechanically balanced every round of combat. Some want every encounter to be balanced. All the way up to people who actually want large variations from encounter to encounter (niche protection), where if balance happens over the course of a campaign, then it's a balanced game. Think of like in AD&D where magic users were weak until higher levels, then became the more powerful. Over the course of the campaign, it balanced out. Therefore, it's possible to have two preferences that conflict with each other. If you have PCs balanced every round or encounter, it's impossible to also achieve niche protection.

Can we agree on this?

Therefore, it is my final final final ruling that any thread that laments or tries to fix balance in D&D as an objective truth is inherently incorrect. Every one of those threads are only applicable to the person's personal tastes, and thus the game is not necessarily inherently imbalanced by default. The designer's considerations of what the scope was and what the game wanted to achieve should always be taken into account. And as we all know, my opinion matters more than anyone else's

To me, this feels like arguments against climate change. "Well, some scientists say yes, and some scientists say no, so there is no truth."

When really, well over 95% of climate scientists have some strong level of agreement that it's happening and the gross symptoms and causes, even if they may vary in what particulars they have studied.

Same for balance. It's pretty easy to get a consensus on gross violations of game balance. "Hey, let's let sorcerers have an unlimited number of spell slots of any spell level" can be seen to be unbalanced against the other classes, and except for that one guy (because there's always that one guy) who argues that it's fine, everyone can agree.

So yes, perfect balance is entirely table dependent and there isn't a universal truth, but that doesn't invalidate that as you move farther from that fluzzy point, you can get more and more consensus and have a working metric of balance pretty easily.

In other words, I agree with your point that there is no "objective point of balance" that fits everyone, but that trying to apply that to all discussions of relative balance is reductio ad absurdum. The majority of cases there can be a clear consensus if something is more or less balanced against other points.

ad_hoc · Jun 16, 2018

"There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D...4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it."

It is an objectively improved game and yet people didn't like it. Okay then.

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Jester David · Jun 16, 2018

I keep hearing about balance. And even if it were possible (it’s not) I’m not sure it would be desirable.

Imagining if choices like shield, two weapons, or great weapon were all perfectly balanced. They were all even in terms of game impact.
What would the difference be between those options and cosmetic options? Descriptions of gear in a game like Fate. Or something like the 4e Gamma World where you just described you weapon but they all did the same damage.

If there’s no mechanical difference, that means you can’t optimize. Imbalance drives optimization and power gaming. A game where you can’t optimize simply isn’t as much fun for that segment of the audience.

Umbran · Jun 16, 2018

Folks,

Two people just got private moderation notes because they are getting rather heated. Whatever else is going on, remember that your are talking about pretending to be elves. People can certainly have opinions about how to pretend to be elves, but the activity is an entertainment, and not worth treating your fellow human beings badly over. We have enough problems in the real world that we really don't need to create acrimony over hobby fiction.

If you cannot speak respectfully, I suggest you walk away until you've cooled down a bit.

Thank you all for your attention.

LordEntrails · Jun 16, 2018

Amen!

BookBarbarian · Jun 16, 2018

Sunseeker said:
So he's an old man shaking his fist at the clouds?

May we all aspire to one day be so.

5ekyu · Jun 16, 2018

Jester David said:
I keep hearing about balance. And even if it were possible (it’s not) I’m not sure it would be desirable.

Imagining if choices like shield, two weapons, or great weapon were all perfectly balanced. They were all even in terms of game impact.
What would the difference be between those options and cosmetic options? Descriptions of gear in a game like Fate. Or something like the 4e Gamma World where you just described you weapon but they all did the same damage.

If there’s no mechanical difference, that means you can’t optimize. Imbalance drives optimization and power gaming. A game where you can’t optimize simply isn’t as much fun for that segment of the audience.

A key thing to keep in mind is balance and equality are two different things.

There is nothing in balanced that requires two options to have the same effects.

Specifically "same in game impact" and "no mechanical differences" are very very different things. But it is common for them to be mashed together by one side or the other to support a balance position.

The key to game impact is how the overall package applies and is relevant to outcomes.

Thats where things like SS/GMW do more dpr under (assumptions) than Sword and shield or TWF fail to be convincing (to some) when other difference can be highlited - concealability, defense, thrown, etc. They tend to short shrift the opportunity costs.

It also tends to fail for some because higher dpr does not necessarily shift the bar for successful outcomes as much as the math is being portrayed.

In my own experience, its like area under bell curve.

At the lowest levels, it help you towards victory very litte - your mediocre dmg is not going to matter. By midle norm to above average outputs it helps a lot. But that last bit from above average to top, doesnt shift the success bar as much as it serms because the opportunity costs add up plus having some much channeled down one path to victory.

Like tic tac toe, if only one type of challenge is presented, its likely solvable. But rpgs are more complex than that.

Zardnaar · Jun 16, 2018

BookBarbarian said:
I balance it with Whisky and Ginger Ale.

A fine balance it is.

I do this and add a splash of lime juice. Very nicely balanced.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 16, 2018

Jester David said:
I keep hearing about balance. And even if it were possible (it’s not) I’m not sure it would be desirable.

Imagining if choices like shield, two weapons, or great weapon were all perfectly balanced. They were all even in terms of game impact.
What would the difference be between those options and cosmetic options? Descriptions of gear in a game like Fate. Or something like the 4e Gamma World where you just described you weapon but they all did the same damage.

If there’s no mechanical difference, that means you can’t optimize. Imbalance drives optimization and power gaming. A game where you can’t optimize simply isn’t as much fun for that segment of the audience.

I hate Gamma World as much as anyone else in the world does, probably moreso, but even I recognize that a choice between a generic one-handed weapon (1d8 damage, and you can use a shield) and a generic two-handed weapon (1d12 damage) is still a meaningful choice. Even if it's balanced so that neither option is truly better over-all, one or the other will be better for any given character, based on build choices and situational context and party composition, etc.

We don't need half of the weapons on the chart to be obviously always sub-optimal, just to placate those players who enjoy showing off their system mastery. Even if they can only squeeze +1 effective damage out of their weapon choice, by accounting for all of the other variables, they'll still be plenty happy to do so.

Jester David · Jun 16, 2018

Umbran said:
Folks,

Two people just got private moderation notes because they are getting rather heated. Whatever else is going on, remember that your are talking about pretending to be elves. People can certainly have opinions about how to pretend to be elves, but the activity is an entertainment, and not worth treating your fellow human beings badly over. We have enough problems in the real world that we really don't need to create acrimony over hobby fiction.

If you cannot speak respectfully, I suggest you walk away until you've cooled down a bit.

Thank you all for your attention.

Not arguing with the moderation itself. Wasn't one of the people who received private moderation.
But could the warning be said in a way that doesn't patronising us becoming emotionally invested in the game?
I kinda feel insulted.

Yeah, we are just talking about a game where we pretend to be elves. And football is just a game where you kick around a ball of animal hide back and forth across a lawn. But people will beat the ever living crud out of each other over that game.
All hobbies and occupations can be made to sound silly if you reduce them to their simplest description. But pointing that out just makes people feel ashamed or gets them defensive.