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 LIVE! 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
Do you care how about "PC balance"?
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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8055005" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Wow, really?</p><p></p><p>I've been meeting them since I was like, 12, in 1990. Seriously.</p><p></p><p>But I suspect if you're honestly claiming "never", the issue is that you're framing it too narrowly. I've almost never seen a player say "Your character is overpowered and should be nerfed" (I say almost never, because I have seen it happen). But I often see players who are sad because their PCs suck compared to other people's PCs. Sometimes they express it clearly if it's discussed, sometimes they just assume that's "how it is".</p><p></p><p>Here's a good example for you:</p><p></p><p>For the last nearly-30 years I've played with some of the same people (30+ in some cases). One of them habitually played Thieves/Rogues for most of that. Whole of 2E, he never once complained outright about being crap compared to the other PCs (even though he clearly was). You could see he was a little sad about it sometimes, when like his awesome backstab did less damage than the Fighter did in two swings or whatever, but he never complained.</p><p></p><p>3E, he branched out a bit but mostly stuck to Rogues (indeed, every character he played was at least Rogue multi-class), and he did end up complaining a bit. Mostly because he just didn't feel as effective as he did in 2E (which is fair - the gap in effectiveness in 3.XE was a lot further), and actually felt like his PC was less skilled.</p><p></p><p>It wasn't until 4E, though, that he finally "tasted blood" - 4E Rogues were total badasses who were as good as other PCs, instead of frequently being objectively worse at stuff than other PCs (even their own stuff, sometimes). Suddenly, he learned how to optimize, and really enjoyed it. He totally loved 4E, had a great time, played the character he'd always wanted to play, and finally understood what he was missing.</p><p></p><p>In 5E, he started with a Rogue, but didn't enjoy it much, and has now tried a lot of classes (and is loving Warlock particularly). He's now clearly aware of the difference in effectiveness between characters, and tries to optimize his PCs much more now, because he can see that leads directly to them being more fun to play.</p><p></p><p>It's not like he's sitting around whinging about other people's PCs, but he is actively attempting to make PCs which are closer in balance, and is doing so because he knows it's enjoyable. You can see a similar pattern with a lot of the players. There's been a distinct drop in people willingly/intentionally playing "useless" characters, or even weak ones, as people understand what is going on more, and understand that being mechanically effective is, in most RPGs, more fun than not being that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah it was Rifts that really made our group aware of it. Rifts itself highlighted them a bit, but always insisted PCs of different power levels could play together - and yes, they "could", but only in the sense that it was technically possible, rather than desirable or effective or reliably fun. The power disparities were bad in the corebook and just got completely insane by the time stuff like South America was out.</p><p></p><p>After that there's no way we could "not care" about PC balance at all. There are many games where it barely matters, or basically automatically exists, from CoC to most PtbA stuff, but in ones where it is an issue, it produces a more fun game for everyone if some attention is paid to it.</p><p></p><p>With 5E I intentionally only play support characters with my main group, because I don't want to be a spotlight-stealer, which might easily happen if I optimized a DPR or toughness and DPR-centric character (Warlock, Fighter). Especially as there's a lot of "shallow" optimization in that group (i.e. stuff that sounds good, but isn't that effective - still, you do see stuff like EB+AB, GWM and so on, they're not idiots).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I haven't made an outright-bad character design choice or accidentally made an incompetent character since about 1993. If a PC performs suboptimally for me, it'll either be by design, which means I'm usually into it/enjoying it (for example, a number of SW D6 PCs of mine), or because I totally built the wrong character for the campaign (i.e. they're optimized/functional, but what they're good at is irrelevant - i.e. a Shadowrun Decker but the campaign features almost no Decking). Usually in the latter case it's fine because they're good at enough other stuff that it doesn't matter. But if they're entirely useless, I'd probably ask to re-roll/re-spec - one of my players often goes through 2-3 PCs in a campaign before he finds the one he really enjoys (which does seem to be connected to effectiveness).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8055005, member: 18"] Wow, really? I've been meeting them since I was like, 12, in 1990. Seriously. But I suspect if you're honestly claiming "never", the issue is that you're framing it too narrowly. I've almost never seen a player say "Your character is overpowered and should be nerfed" (I say almost never, because I have seen it happen). But I often see players who are sad because their PCs suck compared to other people's PCs. Sometimes they express it clearly if it's discussed, sometimes they just assume that's "how it is". Here's a good example for you: For the last nearly-30 years I've played with some of the same people (30+ in some cases). One of them habitually played Thieves/Rogues for most of that. Whole of 2E, he never once complained outright about being crap compared to the other PCs (even though he clearly was). You could see he was a little sad about it sometimes, when like his awesome backstab did less damage than the Fighter did in two swings or whatever, but he never complained. 3E, he branched out a bit but mostly stuck to Rogues (indeed, every character he played was at least Rogue multi-class), and he did end up complaining a bit. Mostly because he just didn't feel as effective as he did in 2E (which is fair - the gap in effectiveness in 3.XE was a lot further), and actually felt like his PC was less skilled. It wasn't until 4E, though, that he finally "tasted blood" - 4E Rogues were total badasses who were as good as other PCs, instead of frequently being objectively worse at stuff than other PCs (even their own stuff, sometimes). Suddenly, he learned how to optimize, and really enjoyed it. He totally loved 4E, had a great time, played the character he'd always wanted to play, and finally understood what he was missing. In 5E, he started with a Rogue, but didn't enjoy it much, and has now tried a lot of classes (and is loving Warlock particularly). He's now clearly aware of the difference in effectiveness between characters, and tries to optimize his PCs much more now, because he can see that leads directly to them being more fun to play. It's not like he's sitting around whinging about other people's PCs, but he is actively attempting to make PCs which are closer in balance, and is doing so because he knows it's enjoyable. You can see a similar pattern with a lot of the players. There's been a distinct drop in people willingly/intentionally playing "useless" characters, or even weak ones, as people understand what is going on more, and understand that being mechanically effective is, in most RPGs, more fun than not being that. Yeah it was Rifts that really made our group aware of it. Rifts itself highlighted them a bit, but always insisted PCs of different power levels could play together - and yes, they "could", but only in the sense that it was technically possible, rather than desirable or effective or reliably fun. The power disparities were bad in the corebook and just got completely insane by the time stuff like South America was out. After that there's no way we could "not care" about PC balance at all. There are many games where it barely matters, or basically automatically exists, from CoC to most PtbA stuff, but in ones where it is an issue, it produces a more fun game for everyone if some attention is paid to it. With 5E I intentionally only play support characters with my main group, because I don't want to be a spotlight-stealer, which might easily happen if I optimized a DPR or toughness and DPR-centric character (Warlock, Fighter). Especially as there's a lot of "shallow" optimization in that group (i.e. stuff that sounds good, but isn't that effective - still, you do see stuff like EB+AB, GWM and so on, they're not idiots). I haven't made an outright-bad character design choice or accidentally made an incompetent character since about 1993. If a PC performs suboptimally for me, it'll either be by design, which means I'm usually into it/enjoying it (for example, a number of SW D6 PCs of mine), or because I totally built the wrong character for the campaign (i.e. they're optimized/functional, but what they're good at is irrelevant - i.e. a Shadowrun Decker but the campaign features almost no Decking). Usually in the latter case it's fine because they're good at enough other stuff that it doesn't matter. But if they're entirely useless, I'd probably ask to re-roll/re-spec - one of my players often goes through 2-3 PCs in a campaign before he finds the one he really enjoys (which does seem to be connected to effectiveness). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you care how about "PC balance"?
Top