Just as there are some systems/editions better suited for certain types of individuals, maybe the same can be said of game forums? Just a wild theory...Yes indeed. It's just unfortunate that its this painful to get into any discussion about balance as it pertains to anything in 5e. Its totally unlike any other game forums I have been in, usually such discussions are welcome and immediately lead into meaty exchanges. Oh well
D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?
Hussar
Legend
Immoral? Seriously? That's where you're going with this one? Wow.
Who said anything about metagame contrivance? I simply create adventures that contain EVERY pillar. When you have adventures that aren't simply endless streams of combat, then characters that laser beam focus on combat get their butts handed to them outside of combat. Like I said, variable terrain in the adventure - pits, things to climb, EVERY dungeon I make now has water hazards, so on and so forth.
It's funny how you can pretty easily achieve balance in the group by simply reducing the focus on DPR and broadening your adventure design to include skill checks that matter. Oh, you dump statted your social skills - cool, that means that you fail to convince the NPC's of the danger they are in and you get to watch their village burn while you run away in the night. So on and so forth.
While I am a big believer in mechanical balance in the game, I also realize that adventure design plays a HUGE part in maintaining that balance.
But, hey, I'm just immoral, so, what do I know.
You did. By saying you focus on PC weaknesses you're choosing to metagame deliberately to punish players for character choices. I consider that an abuse of DM power and responsibility. Now, if you're turning around and restating your position by saying you don't do it deliberately and simply include all aspects of the game as an organic construct then that's a different story and the responsibility falls back to the player to manage the consequences of their choices.
But I stand by my assertion that deliberately punishing players for mechanical weaknesses in their PC's in order to "balance" a game is immoral.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I've still got a DDI account, so let me know when you run a game on Roll20. I'm in!
Hussar
Legend
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
But, in any case, umm, why wouldn't you challenge your players this way? If the players choose to hyper focus on X which results in weakness Y, why would you not exploit that in order to make the game more challenging? Isn't this pretty much basic DMing 101?
What's the alternative? We only design adventures that fall squarely in the player's wheelhouse? Every encounter can only be designed in such a way that it plays to the PC's strengths and never their weaknesses? Now, obviously there are all sorts of shades of grey in between here. Some encounters should play to the PC's strengths - let them be the Big Damn Heroes is pretty cool. By the same token though, some encounters should play to their weaknesses as well.
If you have a player who creates a one trick pony character, do you automatically design scenarios that play to that character's strengths? How is that not just as meta-gaming? Encounters should be complex enough that strengths and weaknesses are targetted, shouldn't they? So, you have a PC that goes the Great Weapon Master Raging Barbarian route, does that mean I can never use ranged combatants? What about the caster that hyper focuses on, say, a single element like fire spells. Does that mean I can never use monsters that are immune to fire?
Are you seriously suggesting that it's actually immoral to use fire immune creatures in this case?
Tony Vargas
Legend
I feel 5e deserves some slack on the issue of balance, since a major goal was to evoke the classic game and support styles of that era.
I take it these are broader-appeal games, rather than TTRPG?Its totally unlike any other game forums I have been in, usually such discussions are welcome and immediately lead into meaty exchanges. Oh well
While, IMHO, balance is even more critical to RPGs than other games, the breadth and diversity of the fan base also has something to do with it. We're an aging hobby, we value familiarity (and the longest-running, most familiar eds werenweren't that balanced) and system mastery ( for which certain sorts of intentional imbalances are features, not bugs)
It sounds like merely a use of the broad powers 5e leaves with the DM, and if it imposes balance in the context of the campaign, it meets a DM responsibility, as well.
Last edited:
"I know right? But then again, maybe all forums (like all systems/editions) should be accommodating of diversity? Just a wild theory of mine......."
Last edited:
Hippie!
?!?!? Buuuuuuut I don't even own any granola ! And I like to leave my big fat carbon boot print everywhere I go !!!
Fine! Whatever !!!!!!.... (Steve storms off to sulk, using his best impression of his 13 yr old daughter)
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
AFAIK, this forum is accommodating to diversity. And not to interrupt your circle pity party you guys had going on there (that now have had some of the posts deleted), but accommodating of diversity doesn't mean you get to insult people and try to force your preferences as the One True Way. Of the two "sides" going on here, it's been your side that has said things like the following (insulting peopel not agreeing with you, implying they aren't as intelligent for just not getting it like you guys do, they live in lala land, accusing other playstyles of being immoral, etc), so can stop trying to paint yourself as some sort of victim who has been treated unfairly. No one else has treated "your side" like you guys have been treating others
Apparently "satisfactory answer" means someone agreeing with you, so no. You're not entitled that to that and it doesn't mean these forums aren't accommodating to diverse beliefs. You've also been quick to make up strawmen, like the few times you keep saying that "our side" has said D&D is only an RPG. No one has ever said that. What we have said, many times, is that D&D is designed to be a certain way, and if you play in a style that is deviant from how the game is designed, that means you need to use the tools given to you to tweak the game how you want. You are quite literally wanting the game to be different than how it is designed, then have made complaints in this thread about how it's an incomplete game. You've insulted people who don't agree with you, said your way is the only right way and others' just don't get it while accusing others of One True Wayism, and then try to play the victim by saying you're being attacked and treated as unwelcome.
Cognitive dissonance. Look it up.
