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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at 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="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5984304" data-attributes="member: 17106"><p>Competition is not the only situation where quality is relevant.</p><p></p><p>For D&D to be a truly competitive game, there would have to be a defined goal outcome, and someone would have to achieve or fail at it. This is not the case; not one "wins" or "loses" D&D.</p><p></p><p>However, while the game does not define goal outcomes, individual participants might. Creating a character that fulfills whatever goal you set gives people the "gamist" satisfaction in playing rpgs.</p><p></p><p>I hope that everyone tries to be the best they can in real life without habitually competing against others.</p><p></p><p>To be clear, this isn't directed as a person. It's a phlilosophical statement that a game in which all meaningful choices are functionally equivalent does not require skill. Since D&D does require a significant amount of system mastery, a game that truly "accomplished" the above would lose this element (which is a significant part of the game). Relative to a game that had any sort of mechanical dynamics, simulation, or narrative utility, this "balanced" game would effectively reward suboptimal choices and punish players with vision, experience, and intelligence.</p><p></p><p>Ability scores are abstract, yes. Just like the rest of D&D.</p><p></p><p>A game that's about creating a reality doesn't need to simulate anything? Hard to take any of your posts seriously if you don't acknowledge the value of simulation (and implicitly put balance ahead of it).</p><p></p><p>It helps beginners because they understand what ability scores are. They can articulate that they want a strong but unwise character who jumps into things headfirst, even if they cannot understand classes/levels/etc. </p><p></p><p>Nothing artificial about it. You've also mischaracterized the issue. It's not that smart and suave fighters are limited, it's that weak and clumsy ones are. The game doesn't always do enough to reward good ability scores, but what really matters is whether you have low values in your important ones. But there's nothing artificial about saying that a half-orc with 6 Int is too stupid to learn wizardry.</p><p></p><p>In a zero-sum point buy system, playing off-type is discouraged because of this; that simply makes the case for classic random ability score generation.</p><p></p><p>You I have a hard time seeing how such a fundamental mechanic is "anathema". The six ability scores and their basic functions are really inherent to D&D. </p><p></p><p>So a commoner and a cleric should be equal in power? Or you weren't referring to NPC classes or don't think that's relevant?</p><p></p><p>Even amongst PC classes, are you saying that a sorcerer and a ranger should be verifiably equal, despite the fact that they are completely disparate concepts? Hard to see that as being an achievable goal.</p><p></p><p>So the existing versions of D&D are very, very wrong?</p><p></p><p>I think it's more accurate to characterize the role of game designers as preventing imbalance than creating balance. Balance is the default state. If you eschew rules and simply do some free-form rping, everything is balanced. Introducing defined rules inherently creates imbalance, which the designers should try to compensate for, enough to get to the point where everyone can be involved and enjoy themselves. If that isn't happening, changes need to be made.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5984304, member: 17106"] Competition is not the only situation where quality is relevant. For D&D to be a truly competitive game, there would have to be a defined goal outcome, and someone would have to achieve or fail at it. This is not the case; not one "wins" or "loses" D&D. However, while the game does not define goal outcomes, individual participants might. Creating a character that fulfills whatever goal you set gives people the "gamist" satisfaction in playing rpgs. I hope that everyone tries to be the best they can in real life without habitually competing against others. To be clear, this isn't directed as a person. It's a phlilosophical statement that a game in which all meaningful choices are functionally equivalent does not require skill. Since D&D does require a significant amount of system mastery, a game that truly "accomplished" the above would lose this element (which is a significant part of the game). Relative to a game that had any sort of mechanical dynamics, simulation, or narrative utility, this "balanced" game would effectively reward suboptimal choices and punish players with vision, experience, and intelligence. Ability scores are abstract, yes. Just like the rest of D&D. A game that's about creating a reality doesn't need to simulate anything? Hard to take any of your posts seriously if you don't acknowledge the value of simulation (and implicitly put balance ahead of it). It helps beginners because they understand what ability scores are. They can articulate that they want a strong but unwise character who jumps into things headfirst, even if they cannot understand classes/levels/etc. Nothing artificial about it. You've also mischaracterized the issue. It's not that smart and suave fighters are limited, it's that weak and clumsy ones are. The game doesn't always do enough to reward good ability scores, but what really matters is whether you have low values in your important ones. But there's nothing artificial about saying that a half-orc with 6 Int is too stupid to learn wizardry. In a zero-sum point buy system, playing off-type is discouraged because of this; that simply makes the case for classic random ability score generation. You I have a hard time seeing how such a fundamental mechanic is "anathema". The six ability scores and their basic functions are really inherent to D&D. So a commoner and a cleric should be equal in power? Or you weren't referring to NPC classes or don't think that's relevant? Even amongst PC classes, are you saying that a sorcerer and a ranger should be verifiably equal, despite the fact that they are completely disparate concepts? Hard to see that as being an achievable goal. So the existing versions of D&D are very, very wrong? I think it's more accurate to characterize the role of game designers as preventing imbalance than creating balance. Balance is the default state. If you eschew rules and simply do some free-form rping, everything is balanced. Introducing defined rules inherently creates imbalance, which the designers should try to compensate for, enough to get to the point where everyone can be involved and enjoy themselves. If that isn't happening, changes need to be made. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top