The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[5ekyu]

You've never heard that white has an advantage in chess, I guess. Black has the advantage in Go.

Just because i am tired of seeing this but...

Is it your proposition, or the proposition of the umpteen before you on this thread, that **the reason chess is interesting** to those who like it and not dull or boring is the imbalance caused by the first move then?

Because thats what the post you are challenging with this "first move imbalnce" epiphany was challenging - that an equal challenge game would be dull or boring.

If chess gave black a offsetting "extra move on move 12" to even out the tempo advantage white had. And that resulted in relative 50/50 results between equal players at top tier - would that mean chess was boring? Would moves 1-11 be fun then the game shift into dull unplayable land?

In go, they use komi to equalize the outcomes to a degree - to offset the tempo edge - but hinestly having played games with komi and without i did not see any major "boring" chants from the fans during komi games.and chants of "this is awesome" during the non-komi ones.

For the vast majority of player who play chess and go (and monopoly and risk and settlers of catan and Frag and Munchkin Fantasy i suppose) the skill levels of both players are not so perfect as to make the biggest determinant of win-liss-draw or fun-boring lay at the feet of that first move.

The premise that a game that is nalanced is boring is so far an unsupported one, but, since it is in fact little more than a statement of preference or likes - its not provable.

What would imo be boring or dull would be a game where choices did not matter - where no matter the combo of choices between foes - the sum total result was the same - which is one form of static, dead equality that i suggest wad the nominal imagining behind the "dull" position.

Man, i should not post right after waking.

 

[smbakeresq]

The “balance” issue is there, but good DMing can change that. What I do is this:

First change critical hit rule to max damage dice and then whatever you rolled. So that d8+5 critical hit is 8+d8 +5. Players like it since you can’t crap out on the rare critical hit.

Second, this helps you as DM because monsters have generally more attacks then players but less actions. The monsters will get more crits in so the game is more “swingy” and thus exciting. The Frost Giant critical hit becomes 36+3d12+7, players notice. This rule closes a lot of DPM problems between monsters and players, but played still get better action economy.

Third, play monsters according to their cunning. Orcs will try to horde you, but they are experienced enough at combat for 1/2 of them to use the help action to give the other half advantage. They will try to prone you.

Trolls know they regenerate normal damage so will ignore the fighter hitting them with a non-flaming sword, take the opportunity attack, and grapple the robe wearing magic user hurting them with fire bolts.

Dragons have immense knowledge and longevity and allies, they simply won’t be surprised by PCs when in their lair at all unless it’s something like invisible, silenced and ethereal entrance. Of course to get to them there will be minions, and the green dragon will understand it’s poison breath will not hurt the party as they will have some poison mitigation, so it will have other damage types prepared for the party.

Kobolds know they are small and most adventurers are not so it’s warrens will be filled with various small tunnels for them to escape to.

As a DM use any tactic that doesn’t railroad the party. The only time to railroad the party is to have them captured alive and then they wake up in a cell or pit and have to fight their way out. See old module A4.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

Is it your proposition, or the proposition of the umpteen before you on this thread, that **the reason chess is interesting** to those who like it and not dull or boring is the imbalance caused by the first move then?

Because thats what the post you are challenging with this "first move imbalnce" epiphany was challenging - that an equal challenge game would be dull or boring.

My point, in making my comment, was actually, "There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced game," not, "the imbalances are what make it interesting." Although... you could make an argument for that in the sense of the closer a game with a finite set of moves or play space gets to being perfectly balanced, the easier it is to turn it into a solved game. But even solved games can be interesting when the metagame becomes about reading your opponent rather than playing than playing the perfect game. That is... the "game" is actually the metagame, not the board and pieces.

I don't think D&D can be a solved game because it doesn't have a finite set of moves nor a finite board to work with.

So my attempt to bring up the first move epiphany (and I know your comment was not aimed at me, but since I brought it up also, recently), wasn't challenging that a perfectly balanced game would be dull or boring. It was challenging that such a game even exists in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Although... you could make an argument for that in the sense of the closer a game with a finite set of moves or play space gets to being perfectly balanced, the easier it is to turn it into a solved game.

What sort of balance /removes/ possibilities?

When you have an imbalance in a game of the sort we're always whingeing about around here - that is, when the game presents choices and one of those choices is a terrible 'trap' choice or one of them is strictly better than all the others - it /removes/ possibilities, because everyone who sees the imbalance takes the best choice, every time. That does push the game closer to being 'solved.' Really, 'solved' and 'completely imbalanced' would be nigh-synonymous.

I don't think D&D can be a solved game because it doesn't have a finite set of moves nor a finite board to work with.

Optimization is analogous to solving a sub-set of the game, most often the character-generation metagame. There's a finite set of choices in building a character. Pretty large, in some eds, but finite.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Third, play monsters according to their cunning. Orcs will try to horde you, but they are experienced enough at combat for 1/2 of them to use the help action to give the other half advantage.

If orcs were experienced at combat, then they would know to never use the Help action, unless they couldn't otherwise make their own attack. It's always preferable for them to make two attacks, rather than making one attack at advantage.

In a mixed group of orcs and ogres, though, the orcs might know well enough that they should Help their ogre allies.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

Just because i am tired of seeing this but...

Is it your proposition, or the proposition of the umpteen before you on this thread, that **the reason chess is interesting** to those who like it and not dull or boring is the imbalance caused by the first move then?

Because thats what the post you are challenging with this "first move imbalnce" epiphany was challenging - that an equal challenge game would be dull or boring.

If chess gave black a offsetting "extra move on move 12" to even out the tempo advantage white had. And that resulted in relative 50/50 results between equal players at top tier - would that mean chess was boring? Would moves 1-11 be fun then the game shift into dull unplayable land?

In go, they use komi to equalize the outcomes to a degree - to offset the tempo edge - but hinestly having played games with komi and without i did not see any major "boring" chants from the fans during komi games.and chants of "this is awesome" during the non-komi ones.

For the vast majority of player who play chess and go (and monopoly and risk and settlers of catan and Frag and Munchkin Fantasy i suppose) the skill levels of both players are not so perfect as to make the biggest determinant of win-liss-draw or fun-boring lay at the feet of that first move.

The premise that a game that is nalanced is boring is so far an unsupported one, but, since it is in fact little more than a statement of preference or likes - its not provable.

What would imo be boring or dull would be a game where choices did not matter - where no matter the combo of choices between foes - the sum total result was the same - which is one form of static, dead equality that i suggest wad the nominal imagining behind the "dull" position.

Man, i should not post right after waking.

Do you believe chess is a perfectly balanced game? Y/N
Do you believe go is a perfectly balanced game? Y/N

 

[5ekyu]

Do you believe chess is a perfectly balanced game? Y/N
Do you believe go is a perfectly balanced game? Y/N

What does that have to do with any relevant topic?

Define perfectly balanced.

 

[DonT]

(fnord)

There's something about this post that makes me feel uneasy, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Infiniteness does not preclude a solution. We add infinite sums to finite numbers all the time.

 

[Umbran]

My point, in making my comment, was actually, "There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced game,"

Um, note that this is not factually correct.

Rock-Paper-Scissors is a perfectly balanced game. It does happen to be exceedingly dull, such that we don't play it as a game, but use it as a randomization method, but the point is still made.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a playable game, and perfectly balanced. It is also a solved game, such that no matter who starts, the game can *always* be forced into a draw.

The card game of poker is perfectly balanced - the odds are the same for everyone.


Now, two of these games are exceedingly simple - but that is what allows us to *know* they are perfectly balanced. When a game reaches sufficient complexity, it becomes difficult or impossible to know whether it is perfectly balanced. Chess is an example here - nobody has proven, in a mathematical sense, that there's a first-move advantage. It is only seen empirically, and the effect is not large. My competition-chess friends note to me that there's some argument as to whether the advantage is technical, or merely psychological. We can't *know* for sure, because the game has too many possible plays to analyze fully.

This is not to say that any edition of D&D has ever been secretly perfectly balanced, and we didn't know it because ti si too complicated. I just don't think this discussion has a need for false absolutes.

It may help for me to pitch the idea that there may be an RPG that *is* perfectly balanced, in terms of all PCs being of equivalent power - FATE Accelerated.

If we do not consider it perfectly balanced, I think it reveals the ways in which no RPG really can be.