What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?

[Neonchameleon]

It seems to me this can aggrieve GMs in a couple of ways. First, it's more work. Period. The GM has to specifically plan and insert spotlight scene frames into the game. Second, even if the GM is okay doing the work, forced spotlight scene framing is antithetical to the simulationist agenda. You don't just insert a scene somewhere because Bob or Judy needs his or her spotlight time for their combat-deficient rogue. This simply isn't done in simulationism, which by nature demands that spotlight time arises organically.

It's also not done by anyone with a seriously gamist agenda because player skill and the thrill of overcoming challenges is seriously undermined by both having to hold back and by the realisation that the GM pandered to them and rigged the challenges. Finally it doesn't really work at all with narrativism because "Story Now" doesn't mean "The GM writes the story and we play through it" which is essentially what the GM specifically spotlighting characters in scene framing does. It means "We all contribute to the story."

Which is of course one of the many weaknesses of GNS. All three creative agendas it identifies are against the forced scene framing, and people are still fine with it.

 

[Aenghus]

The issue of combat balance has only become important since combat has become a major focus of play. D&D as originally designed, was primarily about exploration, and treasure gathering. Combat was a part of the game that was expected, not as a focal point, but as something to be quickly resolved so that the rest of play could resume. This is why the simple AC, and hit point mechanics worked. Combat was fast and abstract. It really didn't matter that some characters were better than others at fighting.

D&D with its abstract combat system, is really not well suited to be a game about combat as a major focus. It is no small wonder then that trying to balance all characters around an activity that the game as whole, isn't particularly geared to shine at, is a monumental waste of time.

If combat is to be the focus of a game then it really should be a more detailed and involved process. Static defenses and bags of hit points just aren't going to cut it. So many issues over so many years simply because D&D for some reason has to be everything. It is, at its heart, still a game about exploration, treasure hunting, and a quest for power with base mechanics that are suited to making combat a peripheral activity. The polls for the 5E playtest proved that the core concepts & mechanics (the sacred cows) that make D&D less suitable as a combat focused game are what the majority of the audience wanted, yet it also seems like the a large portion of the audience wants the game to all about combat anyhow. That way lies madness.

D&D means different things to different people. I never played in a "gp=xp" game and as the gamers here in Ireland learned RPGs from books rather than from existing players, a separate culture evolved to the original. As I learned it, the exploring and money grubbing was primarily a low level activity, but the lucky survivors of the low level grind discovered plots and made enemies and the main game motivation changed to opposing particular enemies and bringing them down, sometimes alongside domain building activities. Few DMs would allow defeating enemies non-violently, especially back in the day, which meant the relative importance of combat tended to increase over time in the campaigns I'm familiar with, even when the frequency of combat stayed the same or lowered, as the players were emotionally invested in certain results that required combat.

I mean, look at the name of the game and many of the illustrations which feature adventurers fighting monsters including dragons. From a "D&D as heist" PoV these are all failure states, but from a heroic quest PoV these are expected adventurer activities, and the stance you pick should shape the rules used and the interpretation of those rules.

There are so many factors that alter individual experience of D&D it's difficult to discuss without going through a checklist of options first. I prefer mid- to high- level D&D and long campaigns both as a player and a DM, but a lot of players and DMs prefer the lower level stuff and one-offs or shorter campaigns.

 

[Li Shenron]

Further, what kinds of things count as "unpredictability"? Is it only "unpredictable" if characters always have a non-negligible chance of death? Is it "unpredictable" if you can be pretty sure (say, 80% sure) that you can win (or, alternatively, know you will lose) any given combat (assuming no unusual issues like a second fight breaking out just after one ended), but never be precisely sure how much it will cost? Is it okay if the DM can always know/be very sure (say 95%+) whether their players can handle a particular fight, but can also choose not to check if they desire?

My comment was in response to the OP question, about why to care about 'balance', with reference to point 6) above.

D&D is always unpredictable enough (in all editions I've seen), in the sense that sometimes it happens that an apparently 'easy' challenge is failed, or a seemingly too hard one is won, and that's thanks to the intrinsic randomness of dice rolls as resolution. Non-combat challenges have been often criticised for being 'too swingy' (less predictable) because they are resolved with few rolls (sometimes one), while combat is more predictable because a lot of dice are rolled to determine the outcome. Anyway, I don't have an issue with D&D being too predictable!

But in addition to this, there is an issue with one tool that is given to the DM to set expectations: CR or monster level. Because of dice rolls (and other complications such as player's mistakes, circumstances etc.) you can never know the outcome of a fight in advance for sure. But still, if the game gives you a tool to gauge difficulty, you expect the tool be usable... With respect to this issue, I do care about balance. What does it mean to be usable? Well, since randomness is involved, it can't tell you how this one fight will end, but the usability/reliability of the tool will be revealed by large numbers (i.e. after a lot of fights). In very broad terms, let's say that if the game is well-balanced (and the tool itself isn't flawed), the predicted most-likely outcome will effectively happen often.

I didn't play WoW very long, but when I did, it gave me the impression of combat to be too predictable, because it seemed a given to always win against a monster of X level (relative to yours), and to always lose against a monster of X+1 level, or two monsters of X level.

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D means different things to different people. I never played in a "gp=xp" game and as the gamers here in Ireland learned RPGs from books rather than from existing players, a separate culture evolved to the original. As I learned it, the exploring and money grubbing was primarily a low level activity, but the lucky survivors of the low level grind discovered plots and made enemies and the main game motivation changed to opposing particular enemies and bringing them down, sometimes alongside domain building activities. Few DMs would allow defeating enemies non-violently, especially back in the day, which meant the relative importance of combat tended to increase over time in the campaigns I'm familiar with, even when the frequency of combat stayed the same or lowered, as the players were emotionally invested in certain results that required combat.

I mean, look at the name of the game and many of the illustrations which feature adventurers fighting monsters including dragons. From a "D&D as heist" PoV these are all failure states, but from a heroic quest PoV these are expected adventurer activities, and the stance you pick should shape the rules used and the interpretation of those rules.

There are so many factors that alter individual experience of D&D it's difficult to discuss without going through a checklist of options first. I prefer mid- to high- level D&D and long campaigns both as a player and a DM, but a lot of players and DMs prefer the lower level stuff and one-offs or shorter campaigns.

I was speaking of D&D from an original design standpoint. There are of course many ways to approach play, but the further one gets from exploration/ treasure hunting the less chance that the mechanics of the game are going to be the best fit for that experience. The heroic band of heroes on a quest model was added to the game about 10 years into its life. Earlier than that there were others who wanted to play differently, and the base D&D mechanics model wasn't working for them so we got Runequest. RQ handles individual combat in much greater detail than the abstract D&D model.

Over the years that basic D&D model has gotten major surgery for many different editions as all kinds of different bells & whistles were tacked on to give a different feel from the default design. All of these changes have one thing in common- the basic bones of the combat system remained unchanged. Here we are 41 years later with a large part of the D&D audience wanting combat to be more of a central activity, yet we STILL have static AC and generic hit points? So my basis for balance being based on combat being a bad idea is simply mechanical.

Having D&D be combat centric would be like making a game based around the PCs being mecha pilots and having mech combat being decided by a simple 2d6+modifier contest to see who won the fight. It isn't good design to make something that you want to be the main focus of play handled by quick abstract resolution mechanics. Trying to add bells & whistles to the core mechanics of D&D in order to make it a combat focused game is like putting lipstick on a pig. Underneath all the fancy dials & levers is still that abstract combat system. This is why I think D&D (mechanically) is ill suited to handle detailed heroic action compared to other systems.

 

[Aenghus]

Having D&D be combat centric would be like making a game based around the PCs being mecha pilots and having mech combat being decided by a simple 2d6+modifier contest to see who won the fight. It isn't good design to make something that you want to be the main focus of play handled by quick abstract resolution mechanics. Trying to add bells & whistles to the core mechanics of D&D in order to make it a combat focused game is like putting lipstick on a pig. Underneath all the fancy dials & levers is still that abstract combat system. This is why I think D&D (mechanically) is ill suited to handle detailed heroic action compared to other systems.

I disagree with you on a number of counts.

Runequest combat is dangerous from it's swinginess,hit locations nasty criticals and tends to push players into going for ambushes, superior numbers and dirty tricks and avoiding a fair fight at all costs, if they want their PCs to survive. Which isn't the sort of "heroic action" I prefer. The rules are more complex than early D&D, but not so much for later editions of the game.

The sort of heroic fantasy that interests me, which includes questing and module play typically requires reasonable PC continuity despite being in regular combat encounters. This either means combat is actually less dangerous, less swingy for the PCs or the DM fudges to achieve the same goal. Abstract D&D hit points , no hit locations, and relatively easy healing with no consequences for wounds make D&D better for regular combat than Runequest.

I suspect it comes down to preferences. I have always played and now run D&D as a game of heroic adventure, and will continue to do so. Arguably the game has evolved through many of the editions to make "heroic adventure" play more viable, though not in a consistent way. I can make D&D work to support the sort of gameplay I'm interested in, but it does mean downplaying some of the classic features of D&D while emphasising others, many that were there from the beginning.

 

[innerdude]

It's also not done by anyone with a seriously gamist agenda because player skill and the thrill of overcoming challenges is seriously undermined by both having to hold back and by the realisation that the GM pandered to them and rigged the challenges. Finally it doesn't really work at all with narrativism because "Story Now" doesn't mean "The GM writes the story and we play through it" which is essentially what the GM specifically spotlighting characters in scene framing does. It means "We all contribute to the story."

Which is of course one of the many weaknesses of GNS. All three creative agendas it identifies are against the forced scene framing, and people are still fine with it.

Don't want to derail the thread from its original point, but I do have to take a minute and respectfully disagree slightly about narrativist play here.

I don't think a player with a narrativist agenda would care if a scene gets framed whole cloth simply to play out a non-combat "spotlight." To me, those were always the best parts of the game! And to that point, I'd most likely be the person in our group who would NEED to have a scene framed for me. I was always playing the combat sub-optimal character in 3.x (I think [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] and I are kindred spirits in this regard; given the choice, 7 times out of 10 I'll play a half-elf rogue).

My whole life I've always been far more interested in engaging with the exploration and roleplaying pillars, with combat taking a distant back seat. But I played D&D, because that's what my friends would play, and I wanted to play with them, and I didn't know any better.

 

[innerdude]

I disagree with you on a number of counts.

Runequest combat is dangerous from it's swinginess,hit locations nasty criticals and tends to push players into going for ambushes, superior numbers and dirty tricks and avoiding a fair fight at all costs, if they want their PCs to survive. Which isn't the sort of "heroic action" I prefer. The rules are more complex than early D&D, but not so much for later editions of the game.

The sort of heroic fantasy that interests me, which includes questing and module play typically requires reasonable PC continuity despite being in regular combat encounters. This either means combat is actually less dangerous, less swingy for the PCs or the DM fudges to achieve the same goal. Abstract D&D hit points , no hit locations, and relatively easy healing with no consequences for wounds make D&D better for regular combat than Runequest.

See this is interesting to me too, because one of my groups is waaaaay into GURPS, but their playstyle is completely at odds with GURPS' strengths. They want "heroic" combat, where they're made to look "badass," but are constantly fighting against GURPS' natural inclination to make combat intense and deadly. GURPS' strength is its free-form skill system. Characters should be broadly competent at a lot of things, which opens a variety of avenues for victory depending on the challenge.

In a world where individual or small group combat is that deadly, wouldn't it make sense to roleplay making alliances? Currying favor with well-positioned NPCs? Covering your backside with local authorities?

But instead of playing up to that inherent strength, the group basically ignores it and still approaches everything as a combat scenario. And when that's the the case, combat in GURPS plays out exactly as you describe here, [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION]. They ruthlessly ensure that victory is preordained, or they simply don't take the risk.

In D&D a "straight up fair fight" typically ends with most of the party at 1/2 to 2/3 hit points, and the cleric has expended the bulk of their healing for the day. In GURPS a "straight up fair fight" means there's a 50/50 chance half the party is dead in three rounds....

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My take on character design the past 20+ years has been to use the system to optimize the PC to be most like you'd expect him to be. If that means he's optimized in the power gamer sense, so be it. If, OTOH, he's a gnomish barbarian who worships badger and porcupine spirits, he's wearing spiked hide armor and fighting with a pair of bladed gauntlets.

IOW, I make the PC building decisions from inside the character's head, not from the meta viewpoint.

 

[pemerton]

The issue of combat balance has only become important since combat has become a major focus of play.

<snip>

D&D with its abstract combat system, is really not well suited to be a game about combat as a major focus.

<snip>

If combat is to be the focus of a game then it really should be a more detailed and involved process. Static defenses and bags of hit points just aren't going to cut it.

<snip>

It is, at its heart, still a game about exploration, treasure hunting, and a quest for power with base mechanics that are suited to making combat a peripheral activity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at its heart". As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has posted upthread, the sort of exploration you describe has not been at the heart of the game for decades. Even the most famous AD&D modules - the GDQ series and the A series - are not primarily focused on exploration, but rather are "save the world" campaigns in which acquiring treasure (and thereby XP) is a secondary concern within the context of the fiction (though not necessarily for the players of those modules!).

Heroic conflict is pretty core to the fantasy genre (either its LotR or its REH versions), and combat is one of the preeminent forms of heroic conflict. If D&D is going to be true to the genre that draws players to it, it has to be able to handle combat in some satisfactory fashion.

4e isn't the only model, of course, but it's one.

So many issues over so many years simply because D&D for some reason has to be everything.

What continues to surprise me is that so many D&D fans keep clamoring to make D&D conform exactly to their vision, rather than branching out to find something that better meets their needs.

<snip>

Anyone who's a purist for realistic combat is going to quickly abandon D&D in favor of Runequest, GURPS, Rolemaster, and the like.

<snip>

I guess the short answer is, for D&D's brand of "heroic" fantasy, we care about plot protection for our "heroes" more than we care about "realistic" combat.

From WotC's point of view, D&D has to be something that will sell in sufficient volume. If those customers want combat, the system (and its adventures) will deliver it.

From my point of view, as a player - and I don't think I'm unique in this thread! - D&D is only one of many RPGs I'm familiar with, and not the only one I am playing currently. I play 4e because it is a good system, and one of its good features is its combat system. For my swords-and-sorcery game, though, which is rather more gritty, I am using Burning Wheel.

EDIT:

Over the years that basic D&D model has gotten major surgery for many different editions as all kinds of different bells & whistles were tacked on to give a different feel from the default design. All of these changes have one thing in common- the basic bones of the combat system remained unchanged. Here we are 41 years later with a large part of the D&D audience wanting combat to be more of a central activity, yet we STILL have static AC and generic hit points?

Which edition are you talking about? What you describe is not true for 4e, which has positioning and condition-infliction (and also various interrupts and the like that render defences non-static) as integral parts of its combat system. It's 4e's departure from hit point ablation as the essence of combat resolution that is one of the things that makes it a system I'm interested in playing.

 

[pemerton]

it doesn't really work at all with narrativism because "Story Now" doesn't mean "The GM writes the story and we play through it" which is essentially what the GM specifically spotlighting characters in scene framing does.

I don't think a player with a narrativist agenda would care if a scene gets framed whole cloth simply to play out a non-combat "spotlight."

Maybe there's some confusion here over what is meant by "framing a PC into a scene".

Narrativist/"Story Now" play (in the Forge sense) is certainly comfortable with the GM framing the PCs, or an individual PC, into situations that foreground that PC's concerns and interests. In non-vanilla narrativist play, there are likely to be system elements intended to help with this (eg MHRP's Distinctions and Milestones; Burning Wheels Beliefs, Instincts, etc). In vanilla narrativist play, the GM is likely to follow informal player cues.

But the GM shouldn't be dictating the resolution of these scenes. Nor should the function of the scene simply be to provide spotlight time. In Story Now play, there is always something at stake. (Otherwise we wouldn't be getting story now. We'd be getting it later, after we've done with the stuff where nothing is at stake.)