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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5984358" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p>I agree with this. </p><p></p><p>I think your first para is correct. But I feel that your second para perhaps misses a couple of issues: (i) the player of the druid who is two fighters gets double spotlight time; (ii) the weaker PC is, in some sense at least, valuable only because the druid opts not to completely dominate the situation - there's a bit of a "hero and sidekick" flavour to it, I think.</p><p></p><p>I like this way of thinking.</p><p></p><p>And to [MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION], there is nothing special about teleport here. It's about functionality in general - if the fighter or rogue is going to be weaker or less functional in straightforward ability terms (fewer attacks, lesser social skils, whatever) then metagame resources of some form or other are the obvious way to make it up.</p><p></p><p>I don't think anyone talking about skills has mentioned damage until you bring it up in this post.</p><p></p><p>Doing damage is not the only measure of effectiveness, and in fact is largely irrelevant outside the combat "pillar". But my view is that, if an ability is purchased as part of PC building (be it via skill choice, feat choice, background choice etc) then it ought to be comparable in effectiveness/contribution to the other options foregone in making the choice.</p><p></p><p>Otherwise it has been mispriced.</p><p></p><p>I think framing it as an issue of fun vs powergaming is unhelpful. What is the source of fun? If it is the case that the GM will frame scenes around it, for example, then the ability is doing its job and is paying its way. (For this reason, Burning Wheel makes players pay for PC disadvantages - because they increase spotlight time by sucking up energy and attention at the table.)</p><p></p><p>But the rules need to call all this out, both for players and GMs.</p><p></p><p>I don't think anyone is denying that some RPG players value simulation in their games, even ahead of balance. (Look at Classic Runequest or Travelle, for paradigm examples of this.)</p><p></p><p>But if you're saying that an RPG <em>can't</em> generate a shared fiction unless it has simulating mechanics, you're just wrong. HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, and to a somewhat lesser extent 4e, are all counterexamples.</p><p></p><p>If you're wondering how it works, here is an explanation from <a href="http://" target="_blank">Ron Edwards</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Gamist and Narrativist (ie non-simulationist) play often share the following things: </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.</p> </p><p></p><p>Notice the eschewel of simulation at each point. PCs and NPCs are played with reference to metagame priorities ("Author stance") rather than simply by "inhabitation"/immersion. Resolution is often FitM, as a particular instances of a more casual approach to establishing the shared fiction, using the results of the mechanics to set parameters for permissible narration rather than actually specifying the results (in 4e, this is utterly crucial for skill challenges, but is important to a lot of other stuff too, such as narrating forced movement and psychic damage). And "rewards", which in the context of D&D is mostly PC development, is based not on ingame causation (think the skill gain rolls in RuneQuest) but on metagame priorities of the participants.</p><p></p><p>In short: an RPG with a shared fiction among the participants; but no simulation. 4e doesn't go this way completely. HeroWars/Quest, and Maelstrom Storytelling, both do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5984358, member: 42582"] Agreed. I agree with this. I think your first para is correct. But I feel that your second para perhaps misses a couple of issues: (i) the player of the druid who is two fighters gets double spotlight time; (ii) the weaker PC is, in some sense at least, valuable only because the druid opts not to completely dominate the situation - there's a bit of a "hero and sidekick" flavour to it, I think. I like this way of thinking. And to [MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION], there is nothing special about teleport here. It's about functionality in general - if the fighter or rogue is going to be weaker or less functional in straightforward ability terms (fewer attacks, lesser social skils, whatever) then metagame resources of some form or other are the obvious way to make it up. I don't think anyone talking about skills has mentioned damage until you bring it up in this post. Doing damage is not the only measure of effectiveness, and in fact is largely irrelevant outside the combat "pillar". But my view is that, if an ability is purchased as part of PC building (be it via skill choice, feat choice, background choice etc) then it ought to be comparable in effectiveness/contribution to the other options foregone in making the choice. Otherwise it has been mispriced. I think framing it as an issue of fun vs powergaming is unhelpful. What is the source of fun? If it is the case that the GM will frame scenes around it, for example, then the ability is doing its job and is paying its way. (For this reason, Burning Wheel makes players pay for PC disadvantages - because they increase spotlight time by sucking up energy and attention at the table.) But the rules need to call all this out, both for players and GMs. I don't think anyone is denying that some RPG players value simulation in their games, even ahead of balance. (Look at Classic Runequest or Travelle, for paradigm examples of this.) But if you're saying that an RPG [I]can't[/I] generate a shared fiction unless it has simulating mechanics, you're just wrong. HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, and to a somewhat lesser extent 4e, are all counterexamples. If you're wondering how it works, here is an explanation from [url=]Ron Edwards[/url]: [indent]Gamist and Narrativist (ie non-simulationist) play often share the following things: [indent]*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. . . *Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion. *More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se. *Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.[/indent][/indent] Notice the eschewel of simulation at each point. PCs and NPCs are played with reference to metagame priorities ("Author stance") rather than simply by "inhabitation"/immersion. Resolution is often FitM, as a particular instances of a more casual approach to establishing the shared fiction, using the results of the mechanics to set parameters for permissible narration rather than actually specifying the results (in 4e, this is utterly crucial for skill challenges, but is important to a lot of other stuff too, such as narrating forced movement and psychic damage). And "rewards", which in the context of D&D is mostly PC development, is based not on ingame causation (think the skill gain rolls in RuneQuest) but on metagame priorities of the participants. In short: an RPG with a shared fiction among the participants; but no simulation. 4e doesn't go this way completely. HeroWars/Quest, and Maelstrom Storytelling, both do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top