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: 6013973" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm not sure that it's so hard to make a system without significant imbalance and with player choice: HeroWars/Quest is an example. PCs are built out of freeform descriptors, with a certain number of good and middling bonuses to assign to them, and rules on the GM side to balance broad against narrow descriptors.</p><p></p><p>The scope for player choice isn't in relation to the dimension of mechanical effectiveness, but rather in relation to the fiction that a given PC generates and leverages (via the descriptors chosen).</p><p></p><p>Admittedly this is quite different from D&D, and especially 3E and 4e D&D; and it requires dropping all pretence to simulationism in your PC build rules. But 4e is definitely closer to this than 3E: more of the difference between PCs occurs in the realm of the fiction, as there is a greater degree of mechanical homogeneity (eg the AEDU structure; the fact that bards' harsh words do damage, but it's [psychic] rather than untyped).</p><p></p><p>Because I'm not sure what kinds of games you want to play, it's hard for me to judge the truth of this! My point is more modest - that there <em>can</em> be RPGs with meaningful choice but no mechanical optimisation.</p><p></p><p>A clear example: if I buy my PC the power "Deal handily with undead" and you buy your PC the power "Deal handily with corrupt governmental officials", and if the encounter design rules tell the GM to build encounters that reflect the signals sent by the players in buidling their PCs, then neither of us is more optimal than the other - in play, for example, we can expect to have to deal with a city government corrupted by a death cult. But the choice to build the different PCs is still meaningful - my PC is going to live out the story of Van Helsing, yours the story of Antonio Di Pietro.</p><p></p><p>Well, in the above example, the choices have systemic significance: when we enter the town hall to confront the corrupt mayor, your PC has the advantage - until the mayor reveals that he is really a vampire, at which point my PC has the advantage! But, on the assumption that the GM is following the scenario and encounter-building guidelines, there is no question of one PC being <em>optimal</em> compared to the other.</p><p></p><p>I think that this proposition, as you state it, is a bit abstract. I'm not sure if you're grounding it in play experience of a system that encourages diversified PCs.</p><p></p><p>What I have in mind is this: that once PCs are diversified, and the GM - in response - starts framing a wide range of challenges, which both collectively and invididually invite different ways of responding to them, then the likelihood that any given PC is going to consistently have the "I win" button reduces, I think.</p><p></p><p>Of course, this is only true if there is no PC build that dominates others in all the salient domains of PC activity.</p><p></p><p>The 3E wizard is a case of a build that <em>does</em> dominate other PC builds in most of the salient domains of PC activity - in particular because you can <em>rebuild</em> your PC every game day. A system based on balance via diversification won't work under those parameters, I don't think, unless the options for the rebuilding PC are markedly weaker than those of the fixed PCs.</p><p></p><p>True, especially for [fire] as you note. But it also lets you stack all the feats/items etc that enchance or play off one particular damage type or keyword.</p><p></p><p>I strongly agree with all of this - your comments about retraining, about the forgiving nature of the system, about the PC differentiation that gives PCs equal opportunities to contribute, and about how these compensate for the evident imbalances that the system makes possible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6013973, member: 42582"] I'm not sure that it's so hard to make a system without significant imbalance and with player choice: HeroWars/Quest is an example. PCs are built out of freeform descriptors, with a certain number of good and middling bonuses to assign to them, and rules on the GM side to balance broad against narrow descriptors. The scope for player choice isn't in relation to the dimension of mechanical effectiveness, but rather in relation to the fiction that a given PC generates and leverages (via the descriptors chosen). Admittedly this is quite different from D&D, and especially 3E and 4e D&D; and it requires dropping all pretence to simulationism in your PC build rules. But 4e is definitely closer to this than 3E: more of the difference between PCs occurs in the realm of the fiction, as there is a greater degree of mechanical homogeneity (eg the AEDU structure; the fact that bards' harsh words do damage, but it's [psychic] rather than untyped). Because I'm not sure what kinds of games you want to play, it's hard for me to judge the truth of this! My point is more modest - that there [I]can[/I] be RPGs with meaningful choice but no mechanical optimisation. A clear example: if I buy my PC the power "Deal handily with undead" and you buy your PC the power "Deal handily with corrupt governmental officials", and if the encounter design rules tell the GM to build encounters that reflect the signals sent by the players in buidling their PCs, then neither of us is more optimal than the other - in play, for example, we can expect to have to deal with a city government corrupted by a death cult. But the choice to build the different PCs is still meaningful - my PC is going to live out the story of Van Helsing, yours the story of Antonio Di Pietro. Well, in the above example, the choices have systemic significance: when we enter the town hall to confront the corrupt mayor, your PC has the advantage - until the mayor reveals that he is really a vampire, at which point my PC has the advantage! But, on the assumption that the GM is following the scenario and encounter-building guidelines, there is no question of one PC being [I]optimal[/I] compared to the other. I think that this proposition, as you state it, is a bit abstract. I'm not sure if you're grounding it in play experience of a system that encourages diversified PCs. What I have in mind is this: that once PCs are diversified, and the GM - in response - starts framing a wide range of challenges, which both collectively and invididually invite different ways of responding to them, then the likelihood that any given PC is going to consistently have the "I win" button reduces, I think. Of course, this is only true if there is no PC build that dominates others in all the salient domains of PC activity. The 3E wizard is a case of a build that [I]does[/I] dominate other PC builds in most of the salient domains of PC activity - in particular because you can [I]rebuild[/I] your PC every game day. A system based on balance via diversification won't work under those parameters, I don't think, unless the options for the rebuilding PC are markedly weaker than those of the fixed PCs. True, especially for [fire] as you note. But it also lets you stack all the feats/items etc that enchance or play off one particular damage type or keyword. I strongly agree with all of this - your comments about retraining, about the forgiving nature of the system, about the PC differentiation that gives PCs equal opportunities to contribute, and about how these compensate for the evident imbalances that the system makes possible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top