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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
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="Diamondeye" data-source="post: 6660591" data-attributes="member: 60019"><p>What exactly is stopping either the DM or the group in these games from using rule 0? I have news for you, in the unlikely even I were to DM for 4e, rule 0 exists in my game. Period. It doesn't matter if they system claims to ahve it or not - it is ALWAYS present, in ANY game. Rule 0 is present even computer games as patches and mods, and in real sports in different rules for different ages or genders or even in terms of changes between seasons.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is an abstract concern with a particular use of rule 0, and completely ignores the player's own agency as people to say to the DM "look, we don't like it when you make arbitrary changes for no reason mid-campaign. Stop doing that" and either negotiate with him in some way (revert the changes and stop making them without good reason, someone else DMs for a while, or in the extreme playing without him).</p><p></p><p>It doesn't matter, however, how much concern there is with Rule 0 - and more importantly, these have nothing to do with using rule 0 to cover up imaginary "broken" game systems. If changes to address issues are implemented in a fair and consistent manner where they players buy into them, there's no problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We're talking about games here. Why should anyone refer to anything BUT what he or she likes?</p><p></p><p>Also, I don't refer to non-4E systems as not good; it's 4E that was not good - in fact it was a total train wreck. If people like that system, that's fine, it's good to them, but it should have been published as a new system not as a replacement to 3.X. It robbed those of us that liked the 3.X and preceding systems of continuing manufacturer support in favor of a totally new system, and in the process damaged at least one game setting beyond repair.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, the premises of 4E - that equal balance and utility among all classes - turned out not to work very well in practice. The inter-edition gap dropped to 6 years, but more importantly the 4E overall approach was scrapped. 4E mechanically does not look anything like its predecessors or successors, and (as far as we know from what' available of Hasbro's internal policies)didn't achieve the commercial success it promised the company. Excessive focus on balance and ease of integrating new players turned out to be bad goals in terms of commercial success, regardless of how much some people might enjoy it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Casters being dominant is wildly overestimated in most forum discussions. This is not to say they are not more powerful or versatile overall (they generally are) but almost never actually render anyone else irrelevant in practice. If they do, the DM is mot likely simply not putting enough, or the right kind of pressure on the group.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is not true. Being "not as dominant" is itself a highly imprecise condition, and might range from "totally irrelevant" to "mildly less powerful." People, in general, however have a tendency to represent any perceived lesser power as the most extreme situation of "I can't do anything at all because the Wizard cast a spell yesterday that didn't let me roll my die!".</p><p></p><p>There may or may not be a design flaw depending on the particular group and how much work is needed to correct the perceived flaw. For example, many people consider 3.X diplomacy to be flawed as it can seemingly magically (without using game magic) result in abrupt and massive attitude changes by NPCs. It's a simple matter for the DM to say "no, one step limit" or something like that with minimal effort if this effect is undesirable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would seriously question if the game was designed for that or it simply was a common thing back in the 1E and early days, but either way a "complication" is exactly that - complexity. It might involve some effort to manage.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that it isn't "broken" by departing from that goal, as that was never an exclusive goal, just a single use. There was never anything broken about 1E, 2E, or 3E that couldn't be resolved by DM management. The only question was the amount of work the DM needed to remedy that for a particular group. When it exceeded that DMs or that groups threshold for "too much work", it was broken <em>for that group</em> - but the systems were never "broken" and using the term "obviously broken" is just imposing your personal limits on everyone else. The proper answer was to go play another system, but for some reason people think D&D needs to always be the go-to system that meets their needs instead of representing a stereotypical generic fantasy system where magic is almost always a dominant world force.</p><p></p><p>The problem is that you think "Caster dominance" is both far more prevalent than it really is, and that you think it's a problem. It isn't. Magic is supposed to be powerful and versatile in D&D. That isn't the system being broken - it's people trying to impose some sort of cross-class egalitarianism on the system that it doesn't need.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Diamondeye, post: 6660591, member: 60019"] What exactly is stopping either the DM or the group in these games from using rule 0? I have news for you, in the unlikely even I were to DM for 4e, rule 0 exists in my game. Period. It doesn't matter if they system claims to ahve it or not - it is ALWAYS present, in ANY game. Rule 0 is present even computer games as patches and mods, and in real sports in different rules for different ages or genders or even in terms of changes between seasons. This is an abstract concern with a particular use of rule 0, and completely ignores the player's own agency as people to say to the DM "look, we don't like it when you make arbitrary changes for no reason mid-campaign. Stop doing that" and either negotiate with him in some way (revert the changes and stop making them without good reason, someone else DMs for a while, or in the extreme playing without him). It doesn't matter, however, how much concern there is with Rule 0 - and more importantly, these have nothing to do with using rule 0 to cover up imaginary "broken" game systems. If changes to address issues are implemented in a fair and consistent manner where they players buy into them, there's no problem. We're talking about games here. Why should anyone refer to anything BUT what he or she likes? Also, I don't refer to non-4E systems as not good; it's 4E that was not good - in fact it was a total train wreck. If people like that system, that's fine, it's good to them, but it should have been published as a new system not as a replacement to 3.X. It robbed those of us that liked the 3.X and preceding systems of continuing manufacturer support in favor of a totally new system, and in the process damaged at least one game setting beyond repair. Furthermore, the premises of 4E - that equal balance and utility among all classes - turned out not to work very well in practice. The inter-edition gap dropped to 6 years, but more importantly the 4E overall approach was scrapped. 4E mechanically does not look anything like its predecessors or successors, and (as far as we know from what' available of Hasbro's internal policies)didn't achieve the commercial success it promised the company. Excessive focus on balance and ease of integrating new players turned out to be bad goals in terms of commercial success, regardless of how much some people might enjoy it. Casters being dominant is wildly overestimated in most forum discussions. This is not to say they are not more powerful or versatile overall (they generally are) but almost never actually render anyone else irrelevant in practice. If they do, the DM is mot likely simply not putting enough, or the right kind of pressure on the group. This is not true. Being "not as dominant" is itself a highly imprecise condition, and might range from "totally irrelevant" to "mildly less powerful." People, in general, however have a tendency to represent any perceived lesser power as the most extreme situation of "I can't do anything at all because the Wizard cast a spell yesterday that didn't let me roll my die!". There may or may not be a design flaw depending on the particular group and how much work is needed to correct the perceived flaw. For example, many people consider 3.X diplomacy to be flawed as it can seemingly magically (without using game magic) result in abrupt and massive attitude changes by NPCs. It's a simple matter for the DM to say "no, one step limit" or something like that with minimal effort if this effect is undesirable. I would seriously question if the game was designed for that or it simply was a common thing back in the 1E and early days, but either way a "complication" is exactly that - complexity. It might involve some effort to manage. Except that it isn't "broken" by departing from that goal, as that was never an exclusive goal, just a single use. There was never anything broken about 1E, 2E, or 3E that couldn't be resolved by DM management. The only question was the amount of work the DM needed to remedy that for a particular group. When it exceeded that DMs or that groups threshold for "too much work", it was broken [I]for that group[/I] - but the systems were never "broken" and using the term "obviously broken" is just imposing your personal limits on everyone else. The proper answer was to go play another system, but for some reason people think D&D needs to always be the go-to system that meets their needs instead of representing a stereotypical generic fantasy system where magic is almost always a dominant world force. The problem is that you think "Caster dominance" is both far more prevalent than it really is, and that you think it's a problem. It isn't. Magic is supposed to be powerful and versatile in D&D. That isn't the system being broken - it's people trying to impose some sort of cross-class egalitarianism on the system that it doesn't need. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
Top