D&D 5E Concept of Perfect Imbalance for DndNext Game Design

[the Jester]

If you want D&D to be a good game you have to put everything on the table and be willing to ask yourself "does this make game better?" instead of "is this D&D?" The standardization between mechanical options and presentation in 4e was an excellent step forward that allowed people to examine exactly what effects certain pieces of the game were having in much more detail than before when class abilities where haphazard jumble and almost entirely rule-of-thumb.

I think a good example of how 4e went too far in this direction is something like green slime.

In the old days, green slime couldn't be killed by normal weapons. Straight up, they were inappropriate tools for the job and wouldn't take care of it.

4e discards entirely the notion that some monsters cannot be beaten with certain approaches, excepting a very, very narrow range of "immune to poison and disease" type stuff. But basically, if it's in a 4e monster book, you can hack it to death, electrify it to death, kill it with psychic, force, fire, radiant or whatever. Very few monsters have total immunity to anything or only a single weakness, even when they probably should (again, green slime, I'm looking at you).

Now, it's easy to argue that the green slime being sword-fodder makes D&D "better" in some respect or for some players; the poor rogue and fighter finally get to shine against oozes in 4e! But I think that takes away some of the magic and mystery of green slime, some of what makes green slime such an infamous part of D&D.

Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Stalker0]

But basically, if it's in a 4e monster book, you can hack it to death, electrify it to death, kill it with psychic, force, fire, radiant or whatever. Very few monsters have total immunity to anything or only a single weakness, even when they probably should (again, green slime, I'm looking at you).

I will agree with this statement.

First off, I love Extra Credits but I really don't agree with them on this one. Especially using Starcraft was a terrible example, that game is evolving to this day with new strategies and adaptations.


But I think to put this idea in context of Dnd, its the notion that not all encounters need to be suitable to all classes.

Some encounters will favor casters, some fighters. Others won't favor a class at all, but a party's creativity in beating a scenario. These things promote exciting encounters and maintain longevity in the game. Done well they greatly improve the game imo.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

When it comes to a party against a monster, or group of monsters you can have one of two attitudes:

• The monster(s) should always be a challenge that the party can defeat using their broad range of abilities.
• The monster(s) should sometimes be made more difficult due to the nature of the party, requiring them to step back and think again about how to overcome the challenge.

I really, honestly, miss those encounters where I'm playing a Rogue and realise I'm down to just throwing daggers for terrible damage every round - I throw myself in to take hits from the superior damage Fighter, find some fire, create distractions and so on. I miss playing a Wizard who realises he's prepared all the wrong spells and has to either be creative or keep out of the way. I thoroughly reject the idea that every character should always be able to do something as effectively as they do normally.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, I disagree that Perfect Imbalance does not match up with D&D. Some aspects of it does. Lock at the last 3 things said.

1) Make sure any character can't be great at everything.

This is the CODzilla/BatWizards issue. Because this is a cooperative game, you have to make being great at everything difficult to in the default game. You can make being at least "Average" at everything available but make a clear difficult between "Great" and "Average" to avoid overshadowing.

2) Firm knowledge of interactions of resources available to PCs

AKA don't make spells, feats, items, and features in a vacuum and make a MASSIVE Head ache for DMs. Either balance them or explain to DMs what balance issues they create so the DMs can know what they are getting into early.

3) Give Players a wide enough group of options within their characters.

No one trick one pillar PCs. You don't have to give characters a working option for everything they run into, but they should have more that one option available. If you don't, it puts a strain on the DM to never use this obstacle if the party lacks the option or to insert "convenient" solutions in the area. (Or there happens to be a barrel of acid in the room with the troll *rolls eyes*)

You don't have to give the fighter the triangle peg, but you can give them the square and circle. When the triangle holes appear, hopefully someone has a triangle peg.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think this is highly relevant to D&D design, at least until it became more homogenous.

I talk about scopes of play by class (and level too!) In D&D each class has specific scopes of play in which it is the best. This doesn't mean they can't do stuff within others scopes or even outside of any of them. It simply means niche protection.

Scope does not mean objective. The players set their own objectives, both by character and in groups. But the classes define the broad scope within which to choose class-relevant, XP-rewarding objectives.

The video (and games like Dungeon! boardgame) demonstrate how seemingly unbalanced game design can actually improve enjoyment.

The speaker only focuses on competitive games, but MMOs can be cooperative too. Most gamers know of at least one game where "parties" are formed by the talents of the classes chosen. If you're going on a traditional "shadowrun", then you want transportation (a rigger), protection (guns & magic), and a decker to surf the net.

IMO though, that example doesn't include enough overlap of the classes into each others niche. I wouldn't want a character who simply could never perform the others niche, but neither would I want one that could do everything always.

Having niches helps to define and focus adventure design too. We can get combat, exploration, and conversation elements in each one. We can balance, however, by class with combat, magic, deities, and the covert.

Every proverbial orc and pie (antagonist and treasure) can include equal *opportunities* for fighter combat, magical environmental change, clerical alignment / attitude change, and avoidance. So an orc with arms and armor, in detailed room, with a history and current relationships, and shadows, tricks, and traps.

 

[dkyle]

Well, I disagree that Perfect Imbalance does not match up with D&D. Some aspects of it does. Lock at the last 3 things said.

1) Make sure any character can't be great at everything.

[...]

2) Firm knowledge of interactions of resources available to PCs

[...]

3) Give Players a wide enough group of options within their characters.

[...]

These statements are all about the importance of balance and best practices for attaining it. It's the part of the video that says "perfect imbalance requires just as much careful design as balance". Those are not descriptions of "perfect imbalance", they're just some of the concerns that go into making a "perfectly imbalanced" game, that are also concerns that go into making a well balanced game. And they in no way support the "too much balance is bad" thesis some are posting in this thread. The "perfect imbalance" concept itself does not apply to a tabletop RPG.

 

[Campbell]

The progression meta game of high end raiding in World of Warcraft is pretty much a perfect example of this principle in motion. The buff/nerf cycle and changing of rotational priorities over time along with encounters that favor certain utility abilities heavily favor players who can adapt differing play styles with ease. The best progression groups feature players with multiple raid ready characters that can switch between and play optimally. This allows groups to change up their composition in order to take advantage of classes that are on the upswing of the buff/nerf cycle as well as specific encounter mechanics that favor certain classes over one another.


AD&D has an element of this with spell casters being able to reinvent themselves on a daily basis, but only if adventures are within a certain range of difficulty and the DM does not stack the deck. Still, players do not acquire new spells fast enough or face differentiated enough opposition for such a meta game to be a major component. Counters are also too obvious and differences not subtle enough. Doesn't help that only some of the players even get to participate in the meta game. Fighters and thieves are entirely too locked into a suite of abilities.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, I disagree that Perfect Imbalance does not match up with D&D. Some aspects of it does. Lock at the last 3 things said.

1) Make sure any character can't be great at everything.

This is the CODzilla/BatWizards issue. Because this is a cooperative game, you have to make being great at everything difficult to in the default game. You can make being at least "Average" at everything available but make a clear difficult between "Great" and "Average" to avoid overshadowing.

2) Firm knowledge of interactions of resources available to PCs

AKA don't make spells, feats, items, and features in a vacuum and make a MASSIVE Head ache for DMs. Either balance them or explain to DMs what balance issues they create so the DMs can know what they are getting into early.

3) Give Players a wide enough group of options within their characters.

No one trick one pillar PCs. You don't have to give characters a working option for everything they run into, but they should have more that one option available. If you don't, it puts a strain on the DM to never use this obstacle if the party lacks the option or to insert "convenient" solutions in the area. (Or there happens to be a barrel of acid in the room with the troll *rolls eyes*)

You don't have to give the fighter the triangle peg, but you can give them the square and circle. When the triangle holes appear, hopefully someone has a triangle peg.

While 3e suffers mostly from 1), 4e suffers most from 3)

the numbers of the available tools were reduced in power selection. A 3rd edition fighter or the 3rd edition wizard had many tools to chose from. With the EADU, which had to be chosen at level up, instead of during the game, you only had a few powers, and the designers had to make all monsters susceptible to those powers, else you are standing there with no tool left.

Although 4e is not a game of perfect balance, especially after essentials, classes don´t have enough tools for the game to be really exciting. The only thing you can optimize is damage output raw numbers. Versality is not needed as much. (A little bit overstated)

 

[dkyle]

the numbers of the available tools were reduced in power selection. A 3rd edition fighter or the 3rd edition wizard had many tools to chose from.

The wizard? Yes. The fighter? No.

The 3E fighter is effectively just as locked in by build choices as the 4E fighter. There's not much meaningful difference in terms of versatility between "take a feat to not be utterly hopeless at doing X", and "take a power to do X". Except that the former is obfuscated, confusing, and excessively complicated.

Although 4e is not a game of perfect balance, especially after essentials, classes don´t have enough tools for the game to be really exciting.

4E has a ton of "tools" compared to just about any other RPG besides 3E. And 3E is just too wildly imbalanced to be "really exciting".

The only thing you can optimize is damage output raw numbers. Versality is not needed as much. (A little bit overstated)

Overstated a lot. There are plenty of useful options in 4E to optimize things other than damage output numbers.

 

[herrozerro]

To steal a video game example this is like saying that because every class in Team Fortress 2 has a primary, a secondary, and a melee weapon that they are all "perfectly balanced" and samey. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't really think you understand the difference between having a similar format and number of options and actual mechanical balance (perfect or imperfect).

If you want D&D to be a good game you have to put everything on the table and be willing to ask yourself "does this make game better?" instead of "is this D&D?" The standardization between mechanical options and presentation in 4e was an excellent step forward that allowed people to examine exactly what effects certain pieces of the game were having in much more detail than before when class abilities where haphazard jumble and almost entirely rule-of-thumb.

I wish I could xp you but +1 anyways.