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

[Ahnehnois]

I can't imagine a DM doing very well entirely on his own.

You can imagine a world with wizards and dragons but you can't imagine an amateur artist and entertainer being self-taught?

Examples are good.

Sure. I think most people use all kinds of non-rpg examples to form their conception of what a game should be (books, movies, etc.). I don't think game-specific examples are necessary.

I have kiddingly said that they should make a campaign setting book called "Homebrew". This book should be totally full of stuff to make your own campaign world. I still consider the original Wilderness Survival guide as one of the best books ever for DMs. Some of that stuff in there would be good too.

I wouldn't give it that title, but I would support the concept. The setting and the game itself are different though. I think far more people use (or ostensibly use) published settings as a backdrop for their campaigns than use complete prepared adventures.

 

[Bluenose]

I think one necessary psychological addition to this is: Playing it like it's a game with rules to exploit for maximum advantage rather than playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story with a framework of rules to support that. I'll admit that there have always been people playing like the former, but it is the point where virtually all RPGs face challenges.

Let's leave aside the question of whether 3e does in fact play much like AD&D. How do you about "playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story"? And what is a fantasy action story anyway? I certainly don't remember guidance about what spells it's proper to select in the books.

 

[Magil]

I think one necessary psychological addition to this is: Playing it like it's a game with rules to exploit for maximum advantage rather than playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story with a framework of rules to support that. I'll admit that there have always been people playing like the former, but it is the point where virtually all RPGs face challenges.

I, for one, feel like the system should be designed support that style of play. It's a style of play that many people enjoy, which is to say, looking through the books and rules to find a powerful combination of powers and abilities (or whatever you want to call them in the system) to make up a potent character. And then you see the character perform very well, and feel good about it!

If the system breaks down too early at that approach, then I feel it is flawed. To try and sum it up, Pun-Pun is okay. Really, it is, because you're never going to be able to justify that kind of build or playing it at a table. You can't plan to prevent things like Pun-Pun, but that's okay because it's totally unreasonable to actually play. Batman wizard is not okay, because it's so easy to do, even unintentionally. The "Batman" wizard just makes sure he always has the right spells for the right situation, which is what wizards should be trying to do anyway. But the game breaks down if the Batman wizard is played well! That's where I have the problem.

Furthermore, I don't think that kind of play is a "wrong" way to play. I know no one has said it as such, but sometimes it does feel like it's implied: that if you're concerned about making a mechanically superior character, then you're playing the game wrong. Take the Keynote speech for Mike Mearls, when he started saying why people come to play DnD, or why people like DnD: he didn't list the main things that drew me to the game, so I felt like he was saying I was playing it wrong. That is one of the reasons I'm so apprehensive about DnD Next, I don't feel like I'm in the target audience, despite all the claims that they are trying to appeal to "everyone!"

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think one necessary psychological addition to this is: Playing it like it's a game with rules to exploit for maximum advantage rather than playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story with a framework of rules to support that. I'll admit that there have always been people playing like the former, but it is the point where virtually all RPGs face challenges.

But that isn't where 3.X breaks down. And isn't what oD&D was about.

oD&D was about ruthless adventurers trying to walk off with anything that wasn't nailed down (and seeing if you could sell the nails). Combat was something you were meant to avoid if you could - and to rig as hard as possible if you couldn't. And rigging it as hard as possible meant exploting the world. If D&D can't handle this approach then it objectively can't handle the approach Gygax wrote it for.

The fantasy action stuff was added later.

Also mysteriously, 4e has few problems with people trying to bend it. Mostly because 4e has been errata'd whenever someone found an exploit. So by saying where "virtually all RPGs face challenges" you're running into problems given that there are two editions of D&D (oD&D, 1e) that expect people to do this becuase they are not about fantasy action stories, and one that allows for people to push it hard.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
I think one necessary psychological addition to this is: Playing it like it's a game with rules to exploit for maximum advantage rather than playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story with a framework of rules to support that. I'll admit that there have always been people playing like the former, but it is the point where virtually all RPGs face challenges.

Choosing Grease over Magic Missile is exploiting the rules? Choosing Color Spray over Burning Hands is exploiting the rules? Really?

Choosing to actually USE the feats that your wizard starts with and crafting scrolls to carry all your utility spells is exploiting the rules? Never mind using the bonus feats that come bundled with your class.

How? How is using basic game elements, where there is absolutely no advice given as to which is a more "appropriate" choice possibly exploiting the rules?

We're not talking about Pun Pun here. That's obviously not a real problem. Nor are we talking about Bag of Rats either. These are taking rules and beating them with the lawyer stick. No. This is looking at the choices that are freely available and having the werewithal to realize that there is a serious, serious power gap between them.

Unless you advocate fighters using sporks, your argument falls apart. Is a fighter in full plate using a two handed sword and power attack exploiting the rules? He's jacked up his damage. He's more effective. And he's even more effective because the cleric has dropped a few buffs his way. Is he exploiting the rules? Of course not.

So, how is taking Rope Trick to give the party a safe place to rest exploiting the rules?

 

[pemerton]

Playing it like it's a game with rules to exploit for maximum advantage rather than playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story with a framework of rules to support that. I'll admit that there have always been people playing like the former, but it is the point where virtually all RPGs face challenges.

oD&D was about ruthless adventurers trying to walk off with anything that wasn't nailed down (and seeing if you could sell the nails). Combat was something you were meant to avoid if you could - and to rig as hard as possible if you couldn't. And rigging it as hard as possible meant exploting the world. If D&D can't handle this approach then it objectively can't handle the approach Gygax wrote it for.

The fantasy action stuff was added later.

Also mysteriously, 4e has few problems with people trying to bend it. Mostly because 4e has been errata'd whenever someone found an exploit. So by saying where "virtually all RPGs face challenges" you're running into problems given that there are two editions of D&D (oD&D, 1e) that expect people to do this becuase they are not about fantasy action stories, and one that allows for people to push it hard.

I agree with Neonchameleon on this issue. The idea that RPG rules break down when the player push them hard seems fairly common, but I think it is true only of a certain sort of simulationinst ruleset - namely, one which opens up points of decision-making, in action resolution and PC building, that are open to metagame exploitation by those players wanting to do something other than "develop an fantasy action story".

Runequest is not terribly vulnerable in this respect, because it has so few metagameable decision points.

4e is not particularly vulnerable in this respect, because it is not simuationinst.

Classic D&D is no more than moderately vulnerable, I think, because - played at low to mid levels, at least - the only class with real metagame power (the MU) is not all that strong, and there is a strong emphasis on adjudication outside the scope of the formal action resolution rules.

3E seems uniquely vulnerable, though, because it has at least a degree of simulationism in its rules, it is widely played in a simulationisnt fashion, but in both action resolution and even moreso PC building it is chock full of points of possible exploitation by players.

Putting in a mechanically intricate PC build system, and then telling people not to optimise it, is a recipe for your game breaking down in the hands of very many groups!

EDIT: The rival to 3E's uniqueness would be points-build games, which have the same tension between build systems and play goals. But points build games often have a player culture built up around them to handle the issues that result. And also tend to be a bit more self-conscious about the tensions they give rise to, I think.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Putting in a mechanically intricate PC build system, and then telling people not to optimise it, is a recipe for your game breaking down in the hands of very many groups!

I don't think anyone's being told not to optimize it. It's just that optimizing results in a very different style of game than not doing so.

 

[Lanefan]

I, for one, feel like the system should be designed support that style of play. It's a style of play that many people enjoy, which is to say, looking through the books and rules to find a powerful combination of powers and abilities (or whatever you want to call them in the system) to make up a potent character.

Where I, for one, would like to see the system designed to punish that style of play harshly enough that it would mostly just go away; as it inevitably wrecks the game for the rest of us. In any edition.

Furthermore, I don't think that kind of play is a "wrong" way to play. I know no one has said it as such, but sometimes it does feel like it's implied: that if you're concerned about making a mechanically superior character, then you're playing the game wrong. Take the Keynote speech for Mike Mearls, when he started saying why people come to play DnD, or why people like DnD: he didn't list the main things that drew me to the game, so I felt like he was saying I was playing it wrong. That is one of the reasons I'm so apprehensive about DnD Next, I don't feel like I'm in the target audience, despite all the claims that they are trying to appeal to "everyone!"

My guess is they're trying to appeal to those whose end goal is to play the game rather than break it.

Lanefan

 

[Grydan]

Where I, for one, would like to see the system designed to punish that style of play harshly enough that it would mostly just go away; as it inevitably wrecks the game for the rest of us. In any edition.
My guess is they're trying to appeal to those whose end goal is to play the game rather than break it.

Lanefan

I don't think it's possible to punish optimization. It's pretty much a contradiction in terms. If something gets you negative results, then it's clearly not optimal and something else is, and that will be chosen instead.

D&D, even at its simplest, had optimization. Rolling your stats in order and rolling a high Strength and low Intelligence, and choosing to play those stats as a Fighting Man rather than a Magic User? Optimization.

Spell choice, when ever it is a choice, is clearly about choosing what spell or spells you think will be best.

If your game system allows any choices at all, at any phase of the game from character generation through actual play, optimization will be present.

What you can do is put constraints on optimization. Trying, as best you can, to make it such that choosing Option A instead of Option B isn't always the best choice. Making it so that choosing the "best" options still leaves you playing in the same ballpark as someone who doesn't, rather than putting you into a situation where you're not even playing the same game.

Another name for these constraints? Balance.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think it's possible to punish optimization.

Sure it is. You just make it laborious enough to do that it's a waste of time.