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

[Ahnehnois]

And we talk about barriers to entry into the hobby. Well here's one - a new group not only has to learn the system but the DM is also expected to learn adventure design on the fly.

I'm not seeing where the hobby itself is a barrier to entry to the hobby. Adventure design doesn't have to be sophisticated or involved, nor is that aspect of DMing disparate from learning the rules. In my view, learning the game through a published adventure is like teaching a toddler to walk by giving him crutches; if anything it's unnatural and stymies the development of the individual's creativity. I can't see where it's easier.

Canned adventures - good well-written canned adventures - need to be available from day 1 and their use encouraged; at the same time the DMG needs to have a section devoted to adventure design (it'd be a first).

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[pemerton]

It seems very unlikely to me that someone starting from scratch would even understand what a published adventure was

Well, they might learn about them from the example scenario, and discussion of published adventures, in one of the following: AD&D's DMG, Moldvay Basic, Cook Expert, the 4e DMG, the Essential's GM kit (also comes with the Reavers of Harkenwold adventure), the Monster Vault (also comes with the Cairn of the Winter King adventure). Or they might Google and learn about them.

The existence of published adventures is not a secret, and the rationale is not all that mysterious. As soon as I open the book and see advice like "Draw a map", "Think up some NPCs", and "Come up with a situation that will engage your players", it's going to occur to me that someone might already have done some or all of this and be willing to sell me the fruit of their labours!

Published adventures have their place. The new DM, who hasn't quite got the creative juices flowing yet, or who don't have the time to properly prepare before the first session can use them effectively.

This is a bit condescending, and also a generalisation based on (as far as I can tell) no evidence.

My impression, both from posts on these boards and from the popularity of Paizo's APs, is that the use of published adventures is very popular, and not just among inexperienced GMs.

I have been GMing for nearly 30 years and use published adventures for three main things: (i) maps; (ii) ideas for story elements (eg interesting antagonists); (iii) ideas for engaging situations (eg interesting encounters). As Lanefan has talked about upthread, I do a lot of mixing and matching of this material.

From 1st to 16th level, my 4e game involved a mix of story elements and maps from seven modules: Night's Dark Terror (an old B/X module); Thunderspire Labyrinth (a 4e module); Speaker in Dreams (a 3E module); Heathen (a Dungeon adventure for 4e); Sceptre Tower of Spellguard (a 4e module); The Bloodtower (a mini-module from Open Grave); Wonders out of Time (a d20 module by Eden Odyssey). Many story elements were adapted or combined (eg the principal town in the campaign combines Threashold from NDT, Adakmi from Heathen, and Bridonford from Speaker in Dreams; NPCs are combined, developed, etc). I also draw some maps of my own, and come up with my own story elements and backstory.

I've been running campaigns in this way for around 20 years.

I would not want a new player to start with any kind of published adventure product. I would want them to bring their own creativity to the table, which is infinitely greater than anything you'd get out of any published adventure.

I'll just mention one aspect of the game: maps. Exploration-focused play can benefit from interesting maps. 4e combat encounters benefit from interesting maps. I draw some of my own maps, but there are plenty of people in the world who are better mappers than me, and I'm happy to pay some of them for their labours!

In my experience, creativity is not equally distributed among the playing population either. To point to an example that I don't use myself, many RPGers are probably less creative than Greg Stafford (designer of the Glorantha world for RuneQuest and HeroWars/Quest).

To point to an example that I have used, the backstory for the TSR adventure OA7 Test of the Samurai is not something that I would have come up with myself: a dragon and animal lord, exiled from the heavens for an indiscretion, finds himself aging due to his lost immortality; he therefore comes up with a scheme to practice a regimen of training that will permit him to become immortal if he breathes only yun ch'i vapours ("vapours of death"), and sets out to replace the world's t'ien ch'i vapours ("vapours of life" - air) with yun ch'i.

The scenario to AO7, as written, is pretty railroady, but that is easily ignored. It has a number of memorable NPCs who were easily adapted and incorporated: Za-Jikku (the fallen animal lord) himself; the Peachling Girl, who leads a rebellion against an oppressive provincial governor; the peasant who found and mastered the Book of Immortality; a snake cult; etc.

There are other creative D&D modules out there too, like OA3 Ochimo, the Spirit Warrior (also has some nice maps), and The Bastion of Broken Souls (another module with interesting backstory and NPCs, coupled with railroady advice to the GM that is easily ignored, and a tedious dungeon crawl in the second half that is also easily ignored).

Drawing on backstory and story elements conceived of by someone else is no obstacle to creativity in play (from both GM and players).

the DMG needs to have a section devoted to adventure design

There is such a section in both the 3E and 4e DMGs. The 4e one is not all that good; I can't remember the 3E one very well, but don't recall it being excellent either.

There is also a brief but quite good discussion in the Moldvay Basic rulebook.

 

[pemerton]

A great many spells in D&D have huge metagame properties disguised as something else

<snip>

In fact I think there's a strong case - or at least an interesting discussion - to say that all rpg magic systems are powered by metagame mechanics.

<snip>

For me, this metagame imbalance is a hallmark of D&D. Certainly pre-4e. I'd very much like an edition which gives fighters and rogues the same scope for scene-reframing and narrative control which spellcasters get.

<snip>

Many people absolutely disagree. They seem to think being a spellcaster - by definition - should give access to a metagame that being a non-caster should not.

Good post.

Frankly I think any group of superheroes (be it DC, Marvel, or other) offers a great demonstration on how characters with radically different abilities can function well together.

But, in the absence of comicbook mandated spotlight time, how would one achieve this in an RPG? Here is one answer:

"Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component.​

That is, Thor's character sheet has big numbers; Hawkeye's character sheet has lot's of fate points or similar metagame resources.

Random idea: Wizards get to be Wizards. Fighters get FATE points*. Now they both have meta-gaming aspects that are both semi-believable.

Well 4e is a version of this. Fighter encounter and daily powers have an obvious metagame element in many cases. Second wind is typically more useful to fighters than wizards. Etc.

But, as chaochou notes, there seems to be a reasonable degree of hostility to this approach among at least some D&D players.

It's not original to me, so go ahead and use it as much as you want. The originator system is unknown to me, but FATE uses the mechanic heavily.

It's a feature of Burning Wheel, too. I think it's a pretty common mechanic these days.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, in the absence of comicbook mandated spotlight time, how would one achieve this in an RPG?

Probably the same way you achieve it in any other creative medium.

That is, Thor's character sheet has big numbers; Hawkeye's character sheet has lot's of fate points or similar metagame resources.

Not really an invalid answer, but not the way I would do it. I think that codifying the metagame resources to provide some sort of balance is unnecessary; it uses the rules to legislate something that would naturally happen without those rules (for some people, at least).

***

Drawing on backstory and story elements conceived of by someone else is no obstacle to creativity in play (from both GM and players).

I wouldn't say that it's necessarily an obstacle; I just wouldn't say that it's all that helpful either. All D&D games have a DM and players with their own ideas and free will; that's already confusing enough without adding a volume of stuff that's supposed to happen that someone else created.

I'll just mention one aspect of the game: maps. Exploration-focused play can benefit from interesting maps. 4e combat encounters benefit from interesting maps. I draw some of my own maps, but there are plenty of people in the world who are better mappers than me, and I'm happy to pay some of them for their labours!

I'm not great with maps, so I just do without them by and large.

However, I am still using the map I made in my brief foray into Campaign Cartographer probably close to a decade ago. Wonderful experience, despite the fact that I was not and am not great at it. Really helped develop a connection to my world. Given that I am not rich, I could never have had someone else map my own campaign world.

In my experience, creativity is not equally distributed among the playing population either.

Certainly not. The rpg setting is a great place to explore one's creative side and determine exactly what you can or cannot do, but not everyone can do everything. Whatever ability people do have, I think the game ends up being representative of it, which creates a diversity of styles, which is what makes this a great hobby.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
But I'll at least articulate some things you can't have:
*A low-level character being dropped or killed from one hit from a typical enemy.
*A low-level enemy not being dropped or killed in one hit from a typical character.
*Spellcasters run out of spells.
*Wounds that take days to heal.
*Characters without healing.
*Characters without daily use-limited resources (energizer bunnies).
*Save or dies.

That's just an off-the top list of some elements I've used within the last 3 sessions that 4e doesn't do. Those are important elements. My last 3 sessions couldn't have happened without them.
/snip

Are you talking about 4e or 3e? Because, as it stands, everything you just complained about? It doesn't happen in 3e either. Or, rather, every single thing in your list is no different in 3e and 4e. Perhaps you'd like to go back to AD&D? Oh, wait, you talked about not being interested in anything pre-3e. So, I'm really confused. What game are you talking about?

 

[Hussar]

Maybe; but how far back do you have to go to get to that?

Beyond the discussion of what is the case thusfar, there is a discussion about where to go next. On that, I strongly disagree with this approach. I would not want a new player to start with any kind of published adventure product. I would want them to bring their own creativity to the table, which is infinitely greater than anything you'd get out of any published adventure. To get this dying hobby off its feet we need to cultivate diversity, not start everyone off inside the same box, a box that inherently limits that creativity and excludes anyone who isn't interested in what the published adventure has to offer. The published adventure market will always be there for those who want/need it, but I would not recommend anyone towards it, most of all a beginner.

Wow, totally disagree with this.

For one, if someone is a total newbie, why on earth would you expect them to be able to create fun adventures? I know my first forays certainly were nothing to write home about.

Without learning a few basics, you're basically saying we'd all be better piano players if we never learned to sight read music. Just sit down and play until we can make our own music. I'm very sure there are people who can do that, but, for the rest of us, learning from people who have already made lots of mistakes isn't a bad thing.

As far as WOTC modules being crap goes, I'll not disagree too much there. Although, the Caves of Chaos modules they banged out last year were pretty fun for beginner adventures. They CAN make good modules, it's just that they tend to be very hit or miss.

But, at the end of the day, I'm fairly willing to admit that someone like Eric Mona or James Jacobs can write a better adventure than I can.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Published adventures have their place. The new DM, who hasn't quite got the creative juices flowing yet, or who don't have the time to properly prepare before the first session can use them effectively. They're easy to tweak by simply pulling out the monsters that are in them, and replacing them with the equal monsters from the game system you're using. I'm using a published adventure to introduce my 10, 8, and 6 year old boys to D&D. They're loving it. You simply eliminate the fluff, let them go on a hack and slash fest, and they're having fun.

It seems like you consider published adventures for newbies & children. Some are only casual gamers, not willing to spend countless hours in world & adventure creation. Seems like again, some are dictating or criticizing a play style.

 

[Hussar]

Not really an invalid answer, but not the way I would do it. I think that codifying the metagame resources to provide some sort of balance is unnecessary; it uses the rules to legislate something that would naturally happen without those rules (for some people, at least

Now this is an interesting point. Why do you believe that spotlight sharing would happen naturally?

Let's use superheroes as an example and we'll go to ridiculous extremes. You're playing Superman who is effectively a god. More or less. There is pretty much nothing he cannot do, particularly in the hands of a player who is far more pragmatic than any comic book writter. Now, we're going to team him up with Jimmy Olsen. After all, this did actually happen in the comics. Now, Jimmy is just a reporter. He's a mundane muggle with no super powers at all.

How do the players develop some sort of natural spotlight sharing?

See, for me, I've played in games like Pemerton talked about. Sufficiently Advanced has exactly this sort of mechanic built into it. My post-human super being can stand beside your atavistic cave man and we can share the spotlight. And it works well. I can't really see how it would work without giving meta-game power to the cave man.

 

[Lanefan]

For one, if someone is a total newbie, why on earth would you expect them to be able to create fun adventures? I know my first forays certainly were nothing to write home about.

Ditto.

Another point to pile on here: canned modules are what lead to shared experiences across groups. If one of my players tells you "Bone Hill is a great adventure!" there's at least a vague chance you'll know the adventure being referred to as you may well have read/played/run it yourself. But if that same player starts talking about "Verbrugge's Hold" you quite legitimately won't have a clue what she's on about. (it's a homebrew adventure I dreamed up about 15 years ago that no-one outside our group has ever seen)

Without learning a few basics, you're basically saying we'd all be better piano players if we never learned to sight read music. Just sit down and play until we can make our own music.

That is, in fact, exactly my experience: I've been playing (or trying to play) keyboards for coming on 25 years now and can't read a shred of sheet music...

But, at the end of the day, I'm fairly willing to admit that someone like Eric Mona or James Jacobs can write a better adventure than I can.

Even if it's not better, it's work they've done that I now don't have to; and I never mind it when others do the heavy lifting for me.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

All D&D games have a DM and players with their own ideas and free will; that's already confusing enough without adding a volume of stuff that's supposed to happen that someone else created.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stuff that's supposed to happen". I talked about using published adventures for maps, story elements (eg towns, NPCs) and situations. None of that is "stuff that's supposed to happen". It's background, plus ideas on how to frame scene/encounters that draw on that background.

What happens is generally determined via play, isn't it?

Probably the same way you achieve it in any other creative medium.

In the creative medium in question - namely, the comic - there are authors, none of whom is also exercising protagonism in the course of authoring the fiction.

RPGs are, in my view, quite different in this respect. There are players of player characters who, as part of playing the game and adopting the PC's role, have a definite interest in their PCs doing stuff - although what exactly the stuff is can differ markedly from game to game.

And there is a GM, who has a very different role: s/he is not an advocate for any particular character in the adventure, and nor is s/he any sort of protagonist. But s/he is in charge of providing antagonim for the PCs.

Hence their are conflicting interests: if player A pushes hard for his/her PC, s/he might overshadow player B and player B's PC; if the GM pushes hard with antagonism for the PCs, s/he is naturally going to clash with the desires of A and B that their PCs do their stuff, etc.

I look to the a range of techniques and systems to handle these clashes of interest: PC build rules that guide the players in building their PCs; encounter build guidelines that give the GM a good and reliable idea of what it means to push this hard or that hard; action resolution mechanics that mean once the GM starts pushing, and each of the players starts pushing back, the conflicting interests combine to produce a satisfying experience.

For me, that's what makes it a game, rather than a co-authorship.

Not really an invalid answer, but not the way I would do it. I think that codifying the metagame resources to provide some sort of balance is unnecessary; it uses the rules to legislate something that would naturally happen without those rules (for some people, at least).

My own feeling, based on my own experience, is that this tends to require at least one participant, perhaps more than one, holding back in some fashion or other. One or more of the players ceases to play his/her PC hard; the GM ceases to push the antagonism hard; etc.

Or, conversely, the GM not only frames scenes aggressively but exercises force in their resolution, in order to maintain the balance. For example, s/he adjudicates certain action declarations from Hawkeye's player more sympathetically than the same sort of action declared by Thor's player.

For me, neither approach is as satisfying as one in which the various clashes of interest are mediated via the mechanical systems of the game.

Why do you believe that spotlight sharing would happen naturally?

Does my discussion of the ways that that might work - and what I personally see as some of the distinctive features of such play - make any sense to you?