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

I've been doing some thinking as of late on the question in the thread title. There are lots of possible reasons. Amongst them are:

1) Because of the severe impact of two wargaming facets of D&D combat: Initiative and the action economy.

2) Because D&D's PCs, monsters, and combat resolution mechanics have a lot of complicated intersections that can go wobbly if perturbed.

3) Because of the high stakes nature of D&D combat.

4) Because a high percentage of the conflicts in the adventuring day are expected to be resolved by violence.

5) Because D&D has historically had more robust or intensive rules for combat than it does for noncombat.

6) Because I don't want to have to fudge die rolls in order to keep things interesting or from turning into a TPK because I miscalculated the potency of the challenge I set up.

7) Because I want each character to be able to effectively (meaning with a reasonable level of parity) contribute to such an important (in both frequency and fallout) pillar of play.


What has made me ponder this question as of late is because I've been running Dungeon World (and some Cortex + Heroic Fantasy) almost exclusively over the last bit of time here. DW doesn't have encounter budgeting. However, 1-7 above either outright don't exist at all in Dungeon World (eg 1, 2, and 6), are muted, or the paradigm has shifted somewhat (or entirely). Consequently, I'm not worried about balance and the lack of having and form of encounter budgeting has no impact on play (or my nerves).

Thoughts (and a poll)?

For me, as a DM, 4, 5 & 6 are really the crux of the balance issue. However 4 is a wash because only in particular games is violence the "go to" conflict resolver. Roll initiative is a shorthand for get ready for combat, but with experience the DM can try to avoid that as the single outcome.

7 only comes into play when I'm a player, not DM. 1, 2, & 3 are pretty far off my radar.

Fun is really the most important to me. I want combat to be fun and exciting. Therefore combat should not be lopsided. Combat design guidelines are good to make sure that combat remains exciting. I don't use "worthless or repetitive combats" to advance or pad the narrative because I want combat, when used, to be exciting. I've found that repetitive combats, or combat because it is the 6th roll of the die tend to bore me and consequently my players.

I'd argue that balance is just as important in DW and Cortex+ as it is in D&D. It's just that the nature of those other two systems makes balance easier.

4, 5, and 7 for me, with 7 being most important.

D&D is a cooperative game. It's important for players to have a feeling that they can have roughly comparable contributions across the adventure medium. For good or ill, D&D is heavily based in combat, so combat is the place where balance is most important. For me that's important whether a player or DM.

The wording of your poll makes me an invalid candidate to answer it. Even if it were worded differently, you still don't have the answer I'd choose.

Obviously this has a lot to do with gaming styles. Some people are really into mechanics. Although I like fiddly systems, I'm not one of them. From a non-rules perspective, it also has to do with people having to be told how to be creative. I'm a wizard and my last spell available is a utility spell? How can I do something cool with it to make something similar to what I want to happen happen?

For me, it's about making sure everyone can contribute meaningfully (as opposed to equally which is a false standard). That's the triumph of 4E, in particular. And the rules for combat are important because that's the part of the game where characters die.

3, 4, 6, and 7.

My perspective comes mostly from the DM's side of the table, and from having frustrating experiences with poor game balance making the game unfun, in and out of combat. As a player I'm less concerned with balance because I like playing casters, and because I can tap the knowledge of internet forums to help me assess the power level of my options.

As a DM though, I don't want to have to audit my players' character sheets or hold the hands of new players through the chargen process to 1) prevent some PCs from massively overshadowing other PCs, or 2) avoid frequent cakewalks/TPKs. I like combat, I want combat (and non-combat) to be fun, and I'm terrible at eye-balling relative power levels to begin with. So rules that keep everything on a fairly even keel have become very important to me.

arscott said:

I'd argue that balance is just as important in DW and Cortex+ as it is in D&D. It's just that the nature of those other two systems makes balance easier.

Click to expand...

Mind expanding on this a bit?

Here's an example:
In D&D, the characters and monsters both get turns, so it's possible that a character who isn't at all effective in combat ends up nevertheless bearing the brunt of a monster attack. In DW, the 7-9 results of various moves and the whole system of moves as conversation help to naturally ensure that the potential negative consequences of an action are much more in-line with the potential positive outcomes.

For that matter, DW has fewer numbers overall, and they don't scale in the ways that D&D numbers do. It uses 2d6 instead of 1d20, and in general, the results of any given interaction of combat numbers in DW is far more predictable than the results of any given interaction in D&D.

I'll admit to being more familiar with Cortex Drama than with Cortex heroic, but at least in Drama, Lois Lane's d10 fast-talker is just about as powerful as Superman's d10 heat vision in terms of how they can shape the narrative--the fact that some skills would be inherently more useful in a combat situation isn't very important because the characters have the narrative control necessary to put themselves in situations where whatever their abilities are, those abilities are what's needed.

Manbearcat said:

Consequently, I'm not worried about balance and the lack of having and form of encounter budgeting has no impact on play (or my nerves).

Click to expand...

arscott said:

I'd argue that balance is just as important in DW and Cortex+ as it is in D&D. It's just that the nature of those other two systems makes balance easier.

Click to expand...

I would definitely agree that balance is just as important. What I was trying to convey was that because of system dynamics such as (i) lack of Initiative and an Action Economy, (ii) lack of complicated (numerically or action economy relevant) intersections of PC/monster build features, (iii) simple and extremely effective resolution mechanics (with tight maths) lay bare prospective outcomes and make balance basically inevitable. Further, other aspects of the systems make certain dangerous aspects (such as the Messy keyword) easily telegraphable. Finally, play procedures like the outcome of a melee exchange being abstractly resolved via a discrete player-side move (eg Hack and Slash) or a (constrained, but when resources are deployed to amp it up, the results are easily intuited) Action and Reaction pool.

4e has most of (iii) above (extremely effective resolution mechanics with tight maths). However, they aren't simple. Further, 4e (like all D&D) combat comes with the intensively relevant components of (i) and (ii). Consequently, the issues of sorting out things like Solos and the proliferation of PC resource suites that leverage the action economy or create action denial become very relevant and impactful as the game progresses.

This is one reason why 4e leaves me a bit awe-struck at how good of a system it is. It has enormous complexity in certain areas (PC build, team PC/team monster synergy, the combat chassis in general) while being able to simultaneously have extremely simple play procedures, transparent math, and robustly tuned resolution mechanics (balance). All the while the system has beautiful thematic coherency throughout the tiers of play.

arscott said:

Here's an example:
In D&D, the characters and monsters both get turns, so it's possible that a character who isn't at all effective in combat ends up nevertheless bearing the brunt of a monster attack. In DW, the 7-9 results of various moves and the whole system of moves as conversation help to naturally ensure that the potential negative consequences of an action are much more in-line with the potential positive outcomes.

For that matter, DW has fewer numbers overall, and they don't scale in the ways that D&D numbers do. It uses 2d6 instead of 1d20, and in general, the results of any given interaction of combat numbers in DW is far more predictable than the results of any given interaction in D&D.

I'll admit to being more familiar with Cortex Drama than with Cortex heroic, but at least in Drama, Lois Lane's d10 fast-talker is just about as powerful as Superman's d10 heat vision in terms of how they can shape the narrative--the fact that some skills would be inherently more useful in a combat situation isn't very important because the characters have the narrative control necessary to put themselves in situations where whatever their abilities are, those abilities are what's needed.

Click to expand...

Or this. The distinctions between the Cortex +'s Drama, Action, and Heroic systems are more thematic nuance (what matters and what kinds of conflict emerges as a result) related to subtle play procedures and available player resource deployment (all participants) than they are anything related to balance.

I'll have more commentary later when I have time.