Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balance, the final finalist word. Finally
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7445069" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>"But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than <em>opinion</em> and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. "</p><p></p><p>I have not seen anyone make such a claim. its at the heart of your rather odd exclamation but its not an issue in doubt, as far as i know.</p><p></p><p>this gets kind of around to the notion and misconception about what right to an opinion means... - if i believe everyone has the right to an opinion (which i do) that in no way implies every opinion is equally valid.</p><p></p><p>The closest to something like what you claim was this part of the OP</p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>But it does not get to the "all equally valid."</p><p></p><p>Now, as for my vieww on the rest of your points about how achievable balanced D&D is...</p><p></p><p>let me counter with the idea that "balanced D&D" or "can we balance this" or "can we fix D&D" etc... each of those is a statement of two things... "balance" (or "fix") and "D&D". </p><p></p><p>it is possible to start with D&D, do a bunch of changes for the sake of "balance" and wind up with something balanced **that is no longer D&D.** Even if we leave that label on the cover, if its lost enough of the elements that "make it D&D" we did not actually "fix D&D" we just created something else that seems more "fixed" (by whatever definitions that was given.)</p><p></p><p>To me, the following are some key components of D&D as a tabletop RPG... these cannot be lost in order for it to still be D&D... these are not necessarily limited to D&D or sufficient to set D&D apart...</p><p></p><p>1 - The GM (may be a multi-person position) chooses (even if he chooses from a pre-built module) the "environment" and the challenges - and so no two sessions or campaigns or groups may see the exact same challenges and settings from day to day or over their course of play. This is not a video game with pre-determined boss fights with pre-determined timing triggers but a game where "wherw we are and what we are doing and what this is about" are all creative choices made by those there.</p><p></p><p>2 - Players can chose their own characters and make meaningful decisions as to what they are, who they are and what they can do. As such, no two games or groups or tables will have, are guaranteed to have or should be expected to have the exact same capabilities as any other (with a small nod to the smaller subset of formalized league competitive play where everyone agrees to such limitations.) this includes *both* straight up mechanical capabilities and the "role playing" elements of "would my character do that?"</p><p></p><p></p><p>So this means from one table to the next, from one campaign to the next, from one group to the next the challenges presented (the needs), the actual "tools we have at our disposal" and the willingness of the "characters" in their "roles" to use those tools in various ways *all vary.* </p><p></p><p>That means it is not possible to "balance D&D" **objectively** because there is no **objective** measuring stick unless you remove that very inherent variability that is the core of D&D as a tabletop RPG.</p><p></p><p>A very simple example is: Darkvision.</p><p></p><p>How many encounters which matter in my campaign or Joe's campaign or ted's campaign will take place in circumstances where having darkvision matters a lot, matters a little or matter snot at all? </p><p></p><p>Without knowing that, without locking that down (by throwing out that whole Gm decides this and players decide that and those choices matter) it is impossible to balance out whether a racial package with darkvision is "balanced" with another racial package without darkvision that have other differences "that are supposed to balance them out." </p><p></p><p>Do you balance that by throwing out darkvision, giving everyone darkvision or making it an irrelevant decision? Do you do it by dictating how many dim light, bright light and darkness encounters a Gm is allowed to create for his world (and that the player scan choose to engage in?)</p><p></p><p>So, what i submit for consideration is where i have come to after seeing game upon game go thru the "if we can just define it down a little bit more we can get perfect math"...</p><p></p><p>The smaller the granularity, the more precisely down to the littlest bit you focus, the less you see the whole game and the almost perfect forest for the trees gets into play.</p><p></p><p>A game does not need or benefit from more and more devotion to "balance" especially "balance" in a form of "at the mechanics level" with a sort of "generic" approach. "balance on paper" has little value compared to "balance in play".</p><p></p><p>A game benefits from being "balanceable" not "balanced." </p><p>A game benefits from being a case where the Gm has at his disposal and players have at their disposal choices that can show in play "this character" and "that character" each are fun to play, useful to play and worthwhile - with individuality.</p><p></p><p>its the difference between a system where in a variety of campaigns a variety of GMs can create a state of equilibrium between his player's characters based off what they all want and a more static "video game" pre-fab where a DPS challenge event is a known defined measurable and solvable thing.</p><p></p><p>5E IMO is not a perfect game by any means but it meets the "balancable" across variety condition as i see it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7445069, member: 6919838"] "But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than [I]opinion[/I] and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. " I have not seen anyone make such a claim. its at the heart of your rather odd exclamation but its not an issue in doubt, as far as i know. this gets kind of around to the notion and misconception about what right to an opinion means... - if i believe everyone has the right to an opinion (which i do) that in no way implies every opinion is equally valid. The closest to something like what you claim was this part of the OP "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." But it does not get to the "all equally valid." Now, as for my vieww on the rest of your points about how achievable balanced D&D is... let me counter with the idea that "balanced D&D" or "can we balance this" or "can we fix D&D" etc... each of those is a statement of two things... "balance" (or "fix") and "D&D". it is possible to start with D&D, do a bunch of changes for the sake of "balance" and wind up with something balanced **that is no longer D&D.** Even if we leave that label on the cover, if its lost enough of the elements that "make it D&D" we did not actually "fix D&D" we just created something else that seems more "fixed" (by whatever definitions that was given.) To me, the following are some key components of D&D as a tabletop RPG... these cannot be lost in order for it to still be D&D... these are not necessarily limited to D&D or sufficient to set D&D apart... 1 - The GM (may be a multi-person position) chooses (even if he chooses from a pre-built module) the "environment" and the challenges - and so no two sessions or campaigns or groups may see the exact same challenges and settings from day to day or over their course of play. This is not a video game with pre-determined boss fights with pre-determined timing triggers but a game where "wherw we are and what we are doing and what this is about" are all creative choices made by those there. 2 - Players can chose their own characters and make meaningful decisions as to what they are, who they are and what they can do. As such, no two games or groups or tables will have, are guaranteed to have or should be expected to have the exact same capabilities as any other (with a small nod to the smaller subset of formalized league competitive play where everyone agrees to such limitations.) this includes *both* straight up mechanical capabilities and the "role playing" elements of "would my character do that?" So this means from one table to the next, from one campaign to the next, from one group to the next the challenges presented (the needs), the actual "tools we have at our disposal" and the willingness of the "characters" in their "roles" to use those tools in various ways *all vary.* That means it is not possible to "balance D&D" **objectively** because there is no **objective** measuring stick unless you remove that very inherent variability that is the core of D&D as a tabletop RPG. A very simple example is: Darkvision. How many encounters which matter in my campaign or Joe's campaign or ted's campaign will take place in circumstances where having darkvision matters a lot, matters a little or matter snot at all? Without knowing that, without locking that down (by throwing out that whole Gm decides this and players decide that and those choices matter) it is impossible to balance out whether a racial package with darkvision is "balanced" with another racial package without darkvision that have other differences "that are supposed to balance them out." Do you balance that by throwing out darkvision, giving everyone darkvision or making it an irrelevant decision? Do you do it by dictating how many dim light, bright light and darkness encounters a Gm is allowed to create for his world (and that the player scan choose to engage in?) So, what i submit for consideration is where i have come to after seeing game upon game go thru the "if we can just define it down a little bit more we can get perfect math"... The smaller the granularity, the more precisely down to the littlest bit you focus, the less you see the whole game and the almost perfect forest for the trees gets into play. A game does not need or benefit from more and more devotion to "balance" especially "balance" in a form of "at the mechanics level" with a sort of "generic" approach. "balance on paper" has little value compared to "balance in play". A game benefits from being "balanceable" not "balanced." A game benefits from being a case where the Gm has at his disposal and players have at their disposal choices that can show in play "this character" and "that character" each are fun to play, useful to play and worthwhile - with individuality. its the difference between a system where in a variety of campaigns a variety of GMs can create a state of equilibrium between his player's characters based off what they all want and a more static "video game" pre-fab where a DPS challenge event is a known defined measurable and solvable thing. 5E IMO is not a perfect game by any means but it meets the "balancable" across variety condition as i see it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balance, the final finalist word. Finally
Top