What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?

[TwoSix]

This whole casters-start-off-really-crappy-but-become-gods-in-the-end-as-a-reward-for-putting-up-with-the-crap-low-levels, not only seems like a massive D&Dism that doesn't really jibe with a lot of other fantasy works but it also reeks of being some kind of bitter nerd power fantasy used to justify the eerie IRL parallel myth of the anti-social, studious, intelligent weakling who suffered immensely in the early part of their life suddenly being entitled to success and a happy ending.

It also informed '90s style World of Darkness games, in that the origin of pretty much every character type was "misunderstood teen suddenly gains phenomenal supernatural power that allows you to destroy your enemies and get laid all the time, but you're still sad."

As I tried to imply in my original post, those are the ones I was picking as well.

Also, I have it on good authority that the idiot that put together the poll meant to allow folks to choose 3. However, it looks like he didn't click the obvious "allow users to pick multiple options" radio button. Unfortunately, he is far too prideful to admit such a stupid mistake, so he would probably try to keep that little tidbit under wraps and revise history with some sort of "prioritize your top 3 and pick the most important one" rubbish. Uttery dickery.

More commentary later!

So true, total dick move by the OP.

I had to agree with pemerton on choice 2. There's an assumption across pretty much every type of game that if the game presents you with a starting choice between multiple asymmetric options, those choices should be roughly comparable in terms of total efficacy across a broad spectrum of play ability and play styles. Look at Street Fighter II, which originated the idea of asymmetric character choices in fighting games. Or Starcraft, which (AFAIK) originated the idea of balanced asymmetry in RTS games.

The evolution of complex game types has continued to prioritize the development of balanced asymmetry, which is why 4e's model felt like a natural outgrowth of trends that had already been percolating in other media for some time.

 

[Manbearcat]

It also informed '90s style World of Darkness games, in that the origin of pretty much every character type was "misunderstood teen suddenly gains phenomenal supernatural power that allows you to destroy your enemies and get laid all the time, but you're still sad."

Amusingly this is pretty much what I thought when I read Zeuel's post as well!

So true, total dick move by the OP.

Hatee hatee hatee ho!

I had to agree with pemerton on choice 2. There's an assumption across pretty much every type of game that if the game presents you with a starting choice between multiple asymmetric options, those choices should be roughly comparable in terms of total efficacy across a broad spectrum of play ability and play styles. Look at Street Fighter II, which originated the idea of asymmetric character choices in fighting games. Or Starcraft, which (AFAIK) originated the idea of balanced asymmetry in RTS games.

The evolution of complex game types has continued to prioritize the development of balanced asymmetry, which is why 4e's model felt like a natural outgrowth of trends that had already been percolating in other media for some time.

I know pretty much nothing about Starcraft (you're in a spaceship fighter and you shoot at things...probably), but the Street Fighter II analogy seems on point and then the extension into 4e (especially in the assymetrical leveraging of the action economy betwixt classes and builds). I'm going to dovetail from that into what got me thinking about this in the present moment (that isn't to say it is something foreign to me, only topical with my present gaming).

So it looks like we're potentially going to transition our (what would be 7th level assuming the PCs survive) Dungeon World game to 4e (PCs built at late paragon; 19th level). In Dungeon World, one of the PCs is an Elf Arcane Duelist with multi into Wizard (attached). Basically that is a 1 page character sheet (the wizard moves and spells in the spellbook makes up the rest). The character, in terms of the play procedures of Dungeon World interfacing with the PC build scheme, is not complex at all. It is a powerful character with dynamic options, no doubt. However, the simple (not simplistic) and 1st order nature of Dungeon World play procedures ensure that balance is brutally transparent (intraparty and PC:monster) and intuitive. There is no initiative nor action economy so we can easily resolve player invoked moves just by consulting the fiction and creating danger, defying danger, resolving melee skirmishers (etc etc) with trivial ease. Consequently, there is never a threat that the system will go off the rails balance-wise (due to complex PC build synergies, novas, or action economy hijinx).

Consider the PC that was built for the transition to 4e:

[sblock]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Otthor, level 19
Wood Elf, Wizard (Bladesinger), Spellstorm Mage
Blade Magic Option: Rapier
Background: Occupation - Military (+2 to Athletics)
Theme: Guardian

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 14, CON 14, DEX 20, INT 22, WIS 14, CHA 10

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 12, CON 12, DEX 14, INT 16, WIS 13, CHA 9


AC: 34 Fort: 31 Ref: 31 Will: 32
HP: 116 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 29

TRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +19, Arcana +20, Athletics +17, Endurance +15, Heal +16, Nature +18

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Bluff +11, Diplomacy +11, Dungeoneering +13, History +17, Insight +15, Intimidate +13, Perception +17, Religion +17, Stealth +19, Streetwise +11, Thievery +15

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Guardian Attack: Guardian's Counter
Elf Racial Power: Elven Accuracy
Wizard Utility: Suggestion
Wizard Utility: Spook
Wizard Utility: Mage Hand
Wizard Utility: Bladesong
Wizard Attack: Unseen Hand
Wizard Attack: Dazzling Sunray
Wizard Attack: Lightning Ring
Wizard Attack 1: Thunderwave
Wizard Attack 1: Glorious Presence
Wizard Attack 1: Charm of Misplaced Wrath
Wizard Attack 1: Magic Missile
Wizard Utility 2: Herbal Healing
Wizard Utility 2: Moonstride
Wizard Attack 3: Color Spray
Wizard Attack 3: Icy Rays
Wizard Utility 6: Fire Shield
Heal Utility (2 as 6): Iron Resurgence
Wizard Attack 7: Fire Sea Travel
Wizard Attack 7: Lightning Bolt
Wizard Utility 10: Arcane Gate
Wizard Utility 10: Mass Resistance
Endurance Utility 10: Enter the Crucible
Spellstorm Mage Attack 11: Storm Cage
Spellstorm Mage Utility 12: Sudden Storm
Wizard Attack 13: Dark Gathering
Wizard Attack 13: Prismatic Burst
Elf Utility 16: Communion
Wizard Attack 17: Wand Coupling
Wizard Attack 17: Dancing Flames

FEATS
Level 1: Brawling Warrior
Level 2: Encouraging Shield
Level 4: War Wizard's Expertise
Level 6: Stout Shield
Level 8: Improved Defenses
Level 10: Jack of All Trades
Level 11: Armor Proficiency: Hide
Level 12: Striking Resurgence
Level 14: Deft Blade
Level 16: Battle Awareness
Level 18: Agile Athlete

ITEMS
Ring of Fury x1
Bracers of Mighty Striking (paragon tier) x1
Acrobat Boots x1
Elven Cloak +4 x1
Feral Feyhide Armor +4 x1
Strikebacks x1
Battlemaster's Rapier +4 x1
Belt of Breaching x1
Pennant Helm x1
Master's Wand of Thunderwave +1 x1
====== End ======[/sblock]

Now he and I have been down this road before as he played an Eladrin Bladesinger in my last 1-30 game (reskinned Monk for Heroic). This build has its share of differences but there are going to be some inevitable similarities. My 4e games feature 2 combats per day (generally). Just perusing this, this character is going to be looking at (non-standard action) action economy stuff like this:

No Actions:

* AW Bladespell triggered on MBA during your turn
* 7 Lightning damage to all enemies within 10 sq on Bloodied
* Spend HS and teleport 5 sq when reducing enemy to 0

Free Actions:

* 1/encounter reroll attack
* 1/encounter + 1 to hit or AC
* 1/day Thunderwave after Wand Coupling Daily
* 1/day make 2 MBAs when Bloodied

Opportunity Actions:

* Basically an endless supply of MBA ripostes while Bladesong is active (which will be nearly every round of the day)

Immediate Actions:

* 1/encounter MBA after attack on ally or enemy shift
* 1/encounter shift adjacent to ally, eat attack intended for them, then MBA triggering enemy
* 1/encounter MBA when adjacent enemy hits you
* 1/encounter shift 2 and EoYNT (instead of Fire Shield) when enemy moves adjacent

Minor Actions:

* 2/per encounter Bladesong for 4 rounds/combat (recharges as minor actions with 2 dailies)
* 3/per day MBA after spell (1.5/encounter)
* 1/encounter ally gets HP = HS and you get a bunch of temp HP
* 1/encounter you make save and use Second Wind which gives a Free Action (hijinx) MBA + spend HS
* 1/day spend HS for resist 10 all rest encounter and no Weakness
* 1/day Fire Shield - 10 cold/fire resist and 2d6 + 6 fire damage 1/turn when attacked (further action economy stuff)
* 1/day Mass Resistance or Arcane Gate
* AW stand up from prone
* 1/day spend an HS, gain no HP but all allies can spend HS


Might have missed something, but I think I got it all. Holy crap (and the 2nd PC is a Ranger!). Now this isn't remotely daunting in terms of mental overhead and table handling time for us (we can move through 4e combats swiftly and, rather than being a problem for pacing, off-turn damage actions amplify that speed). I'm not engaging the conversation on those grounds. I'm just looking at this from (1) and Initiative (nova with AP)/Action Economy and (2) PC build complexity perspective. In light of the above, 4e is an amazing piece of engineering. The encounter budgeting system is robust to all of those complexities, those synergies, and action economy hijinx. Truly marvelous.

But consider just how many vectors must be considered, how many 2nd and 3rd order interactions must be considered in order to keep the thing from going UTTERLY wobbly to the point of flat out unplayability.

The analog to the DW character in Cortex + Fantasy Heroic would be a cinch. It has different play procedures from DW, but the PC build mechanics, the simplified turn (action/reaction), and building of dice pools pretty much all work together to ensure that things stay as far away from "borked territory" as possible.

Ok, I'll stop now. This is what inspired me to write the lead post. D&D's initiative, action economy, and complex PC build mechanics are part of its core appeal. But make no mistake, that core appeal is equal parts devil (balance implications) and angel (fun and player agency).

 

[TwoSix]

Ok, I'll stop now. This is what inspired me to write the lead post. D&D's initiative, action economy, and complex PC build mechanics are part of its core appeal. But make no mistake, that core appeal is equal parts devil (balance implications) and angel (fun and player agency).

Simplicity is fun. Complexity is also fun, but a different kind of fun. The downside to imbalance in a complex game is that it makes it too simple. It's like taking Ryu and Ken in Street Fighter and tripling their damage. You can play other characters against each other for fun, or against Ryu and Ken for a funny challenge, but to actually play to win you have to take Ryu or Ken. (Ryu and Ken are the full casters in this analogy, BTW. )

 

[pemerton]

I had to agree with pemerton

And thus it was foretold . . .

 

[ExploderWizard]

The issue of combat balance has only become important since combat has become a major focus of play. D&D as originally designed, was primarily about exploration, and treasure gathering. Combat was a part of the game that was expected, not as a focal point, but as something to be quickly resolved so that the rest of play could resume. This is why the simple AC, and hit point mechanics worked. Combat was fast and abstract. It really didn't matter that some characters were better than others at fighting.

D&D with its abstract combat system, is really not well suited to be a game about combat as a major focus. It is no small wonder then that trying to balance all characters around an activity that the game as whole, isn't particularly geared to shine at, is a monumental waste of time.

If combat is to be the focus of a game then it really should be a more detailed and involved process. Static defenses and bags of hit points just aren't going to cut it. So many issues over so many years simply because D&D for some reason has to be everything. It is, at its heart, still a game about exploration, treasure hunting, and a quest for power with base mechanics that are suited to making combat a peripheral activity. The polls for the 5E playtest proved that the core concepts & mechanics (the sacred cows) that make D&D less suitable as a combat focused game are what the majority of the audience wanted, yet it also seems like the a large portion of the audience wants the game to all about combat anyhow. That way lies madness.

 

[Li Shenron]

6) Because I don't want to have to fudge die rolls in order to keep things interesting or from turning into a TPK because I miscalculated the potency of the challenge I set up.

This is the only point close to worry me, but only in a broad sense... certainly, since wehave tools like CR/Level when designing adventures, I expect those to reasonably predict the difficulty of the encounter. It would bother me if they get it wrong often.

But then I contest the notion that if you fudge die rolls then you are keeping things interesting... quite the opposite, because you are presumably fudging to prevent the extremes, so you drive the encounters into more predictable outcomes, how is that more interesting?

The point is, if we have the tools, then they should be reliable, but not remove a degree of unpredictability. I want neither a system where no prediction can be made, nor a system where you know for sure how an encounter is going to end (this is one of the reason why WoW bored me to death a long time ago... you saw the monster's difficulty and you already knew what was going to happen 99% of the times).

 

[Neonchameleon]

The issue of combat balance has only become important since combat has become a major focus of play. D&D as originally designed, was primarily about exploration, and treasure gathering. Combat was a part of the game that was expected, not as a focal point, but as something to be quickly resolved so that the rest of play could resume. This is why the simple AC, and hit point mechanics worked. Combat was fast and abstract. It really didn't matter that some characters were better than others at fighting.

Yup. Balance in whatever the game is about is critically important.

However. Combat has been a major focus of play for more than thirty years. The Dragonlance Saga is about thirty years old - and was a railroad with combat being the primary point of system engagement due to its railroady nature. That was thirty years ago. And that both reflected and shaped the D&D of the time. Indeed the death knell of D&D being about exploration was sounded in 1989 with XP for GP being removed from the default rules with 2E - but it was already fringe long before that.

4e was the only D&D system ever that sat down and said "For the past two and a half decades this game has been more about combat than exploration. If we're going to have a combat-centric game we should make it good at that."

But then I contest the notion that if you fudge die rolls then you are keeping things interesting... quite the opposite, because you are presumably fudging to prevent the extremes, so you drive the encounters into more predictable outcomes, how is that more interesting?

The point is, if we have the tools, then they should be reliable, but not remove a degree of unpredictability.

Hear, hear!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The point is, if we have the tools, then they should be reliable, but not remove a degree of unpredictability. I want neither a system where no prediction can be made, nor a system where you know for sure how an encounter is going to end (this is one of the reason why WoW bored me to death a long time ago... you saw the monster's difficulty and you already knew what was going to happen 99% of the times).

Initially I balked at this, but having spent some time reflecting, I think it might be an issue of how the idea is presented and not what the idea is. That is, I think the WoW reference might be throwing off what I'm getting out of your use of the word "predictable." Particularly since that predictability is specifically structured as an end-user perspective, rather than a WoW-designer perspective (which is, more or less, analogous to the DM for a tabletop game). Yet the initial stuff you describe seems purely DM-centric, talking of tools and such, so I'm confused as to which perspective you're coming from.

Further, what kinds of things count as "unpredictability"? Is it only "unpredictable" if characters always have a non-negligible chance of death? Is it "unpredictable" if you can be pretty sure (say, 80% sure) that you can win (or, alternatively, know you will lose) any given combat (assuming no unusual issues like a second fight breaking out just after one ended), but never be precisely sure how much it will cost? Is it okay if the DM can always know/be very sure (say 95%+) whether their players can handle a particular fight, but can also choose not to check if they desire?

 

[innerdude]

The issue of combat balance has only become important since combat has become a major focus of play. D&D as originally designed, was primarily about exploration, and treasure gathering. Combat was a part of the game that was expected, not as a focal point, but as something to be quickly resolved so that the rest of play could resume. This is why the simple AC, and hit point mechanics worked. Combat was fast and abstract. It really didn't matter that some characters were better than others at fighting.

D&D with its abstract combat system, is really not well suited to be a game about combat as a major focus. It is no small wonder then that trying to balance all characters around an activity that the game as whole, isn't particularly geared to shine at, is a monumental waste of time.

If combat is to be the focus of a game then it really should be a more detailed and involved process. Static defenses and bags of hit points just aren't going to cut it. So many issues over so many years simply because D&D for some reason has to be everything. It is, at its heart, still a game about exploration, treasure hunting, and a quest for power with base mechanics that are suited to making combat a peripheral activity. The polls for the 5E playtest proved that the core concepts & mechanics (the sacred cows) that make D&D less suitable as a combat focused game are what the majority of the audience wanted, yet it also seems like the a large portion of the audience wants the game to all about combat anyhow. That way lies madness.

What continues to surprise me is that so many D&D fans keep clamoring to make D&D conform exactly to their vision, rather than branching out to find something that better meets their needs. Asking for a "bigger, better mousetrap" (i.e., D&D) is kind of pointless when what you really need is a fishing pole.

Anyone who's a purist for realistic combat is going to quickly abandon D&D in favor of Runequest, GURPS, Rolemaster, and the like. It's my understanding that Runequest was pretty much a direct response to D&D/AD&D combat being completely dissatisfactory to Steve Perrin and Greg Stafford.

That said, to a point I understand why people don't peek behind the D&D tree to look around at the rest of the RPG forest. Heck, if you'd come to me in 2005, in the height of my eight-year run with 3e and 3.5, and said I'd be much happier with a different RPG system, I'd have told you that you were crazy. Out of the six or seven regulars that were in our group over that period of time, exactly one had played anything other than D&D in his or her lifetime (GURPS). I'd dabbled in Top Secret S.I. as a teenager, but had never actually run or played it with a group.

In a sense I'm actually entirely grateful for 4e, even though I never played it nor had any desire to---it taught me that I didn't just want a better D&D, I didn't want D&D at all. I actually get somewhat miffed when people decry the "Edition Wars" as this universally badwrong thing that had no merit, and should never be allowed to occur ever again. The Edition Wars ultimately became an incredibly valuable thing for me, as a way to be more critical in my analysis of what I wanted from my roleplaying experience, and how a system could enhance or detract from what I was looking for.

On the issue of combat abstraction: The longer I'm in this hobby, the more it becomes brutally obvious to me that Armor Class and Hit Points are conceptual carryovers from wargaming. In a nutshell they're shorthand for, "How much longer will this unit remain effective?" (hit points), and "How hard is it to reduce this unit's effectiveness?" (armor class).

Those are incredibly abstract concepts. On a "10,000 foot" view of a battlefield involving multiple units it kind of / sort of makes sense. On an individual human capacity and health level, it gets a bit trickier. The fact that D&D has survived as long as it has with AC and hit points being two of its defining characteristics must say something important about what those two deeply abstract concepts are modeling.

I guess the short answer is, for D&D's brand of "heroic" fantasy, we care about plot protection for our "heroes" more than we care about "realistic" combat.

 

[innerdude]

To answer the OP:

I think the pressure to provide balanced combat effectiveness is actually a response to two intertwined GM agendas.

For a combat-heavy game, balanced combat effectiveness is the easiest way to ensure even spotlight time without the GM having to make special exceptions. If combat effectiveness is unbalanced, the GM becomes responsible for providing spotlight time in other theaters of resolution (exploration and roleplaying) that satisfy participants.

It seems to me this can aggrieve GMs in a couple of ways. First, it's more work. Period. The GM has to specifically plan and insert spotlight scene frames into the game. Second, even if the GM is okay doing the work, forced spotlight scene framing is antithetical to the simulationist agenda. You don't just insert a scene somewhere because Bob or Judy needs his or her spotlight time for their combat-deficient rogue. This simply isn't done in simulationism, which by nature demands that spotlight time arises organically.

All this is on top of the fact that players in a combat-unbalanced game need to be dutifully aware of the imbalance, its overall implications in play, and ultimately be okay with it.