D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[Neonchameleon]

Perhaps you are overstating your case or we're talking past each other or you don't understand the analogy of taking out the garbage. I'm asking that when there's an area not covered by the rule, then don't be a dick. I don't want 5E to be a game designed specifically for dicks.

And I'm saying that "Don't be a dick" in the context of a game is an almost meaningless request without indicating what counts as dick moves in the game.

I'm a boardgamer and a tabletop wargamer as well as a roleplayer (or I was - I don't do much boardgaming or wargaming these days). And in both those hobbies, the biggest means of being a dick is to not be playing the game. Sitting down in the middle of a game of Diplomacy and singing Kum-by-yah is far far more of a dick move than the most intricate betrayals you can possibly pull off no matter how hard you screw your oppnents. On the other hand if you were to attempt Diplomacy-style screws in Settlers of Catan, that would be dick behaviour. Warmachine/Hordes on the tabletop front has the "Play like you've got a pair" philosophy front and center. Not trying as hard as you can over the tabletop and turtling are both ways of being a dick there.

What is the spirit of D&D? It's a hacked tabletop wargame with a long history of tournament play. This isn't quite the balls-to-the-wall "Look after number 1 and climb over the bodies of the rest" of Diplomacy. But using the tools you have available to get ahead of the game is very much part of the step-on-up gamist play that to me characterises D&D as against e.g. Spirit of the Century, Fiasco, or Wushu. The object of D&D is to slay the dragon, not to ensure that the rogue gets to personally feel cool doing it. On the other hand the game itself should give plenty of opportunities for the rogue to be the person providing the party with an advantage against the world.

And telling me that playing in anything like the manner Gygax intended is "Being a dick" is simply telling me that D&D is not fit for purpose. It's telling me that you think that D&D can support neither any sort of Step On Up play nor any sort of world simulation (a lot of people are dicks and this shouldn't break the gameworld). And with neither step on up nor simulation available that more or less just leaves high concept sim.

Have you read the dissociative mechanics article through?

Many times. It was one of the opening salvos in the anti-4e edition war. And it's straining at gnats while swallowing camels - literally nothing in 4e is as dissasociated as hit points - and 4e hit points are less disassociated than in any previous edition.

And as for the once/day spells being an in world concept, the big question is whether spell levels are known and categorised as such. If they are, that really restricts the worldbuilding and means you can play nothing other than a D&D world using D&D rules.

 

[FireLance]

But, as D&D players know, those ability scores are not necessarily equal in value, so those characters are "unbalanced".

Anyway, lets say you have four characters:

1. Strong Guy: Smashes things
2. Agile Guy: Stealthy and skilled
3. Smart Guy: Reshapes the world
4: Wise Guy: Heals people

So, either:

A: None of them are special. They all have distinguishing characteristics.

B: They are all special. One is a good fighter, the second is a good rogue, the third is a good wizard and the fourth is a good cleric.

If you were to say B again, we could conclude that the classic D&D archetypes are all special (and thus, "balanced"), despite the fact that their abilities are, even in such abstract terms, not equal. A contentious point to some.

Strictly speaking, "everyone is special" does not necessarily mean "everyone is balanced".

To put it another way, I think that the statement "when everyone is special, no-one is" is not only silly, but false.

I also happen to think that the statement, "when everyone is special, everyone is balanced" is incorrect*, but it wasn't the statement that I wanted to refute in my earlier post.

* EDIT: If you don't believe me, go read Seanbaby's Superfriends page.

 

[Underman]

And I'm saying that "Don't be a dick" in the context of a game is an almost meaningless request without indicating what counts as dick moves in the game.

Hmm, we're really not on the same page, are we? A gaming group with a social contract will tell you when you're being a dick, trust me. They might do it implicitly or explicitly via in-game roleplaying or player-to-player or DM houserule. Just like your wife would tell you not to be a dick should you find anal-retentive ways to follow the letter of the request. It's just called social graces, and there are no explicit rules for socializing well with people.

What is the spirit of D&D? It's a hacked tabletop wargame with a long history of tournament play. This isn't quite the balls-to-the-wall "Look after number 1 and climb over the bodies of the rest" of Diplomacy. But using the tools you have available to get ahead of the game is very much part of the step-on-up gamist play that to me characterises D&D

OK, so you like gamist/set-on-up play. And you're claiming that this playstyle is the current universal spirit of D&D on behalf of everyone else because of its origins 40 yrs ago? Therefore, 5E rules should prioritize step-on-up gamist play over the social contract?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmm, we're really not on the same page, are we? A gaming group with a social contract will tell you when you're being a dick, trust me. They might do it implicitly or explicitly via in-game roleplaying or player-to-player or DM houserule. Just like your wife would tell you not to be a dick should you find anal-retentive ways to follow the letter of the request. It's just called social graces, and there are no explicit rules for socializing well with people.

They'd find ways to do that if you did it strongly. And my group has with one other player. On the other hand in order to make sure I'm not being a jerk I can't play a major character class I want to play in 3.X (the Wizard)and the character class I find most interesting (the Artificer). If I did beyond about level 2 I'd take over (hell, I've retired a level 4 4e wizard for being too much for the DM to handle).

Also there may be no explicit rules for socialising well with people. But you bet there are ways to do it badly. And a broken game encourages such things. It puts the goals of the PCs in direct conflict with the goal of socialisation.

OK, so you like gamist/set-on-up play. And you're claiming that this playstyle is the current universal spirit of D&D on behalf of everyone else because of its origins 40 yrs ago? Therefore, 5E rules should prioritize step-on-up gamist play over the social contract?

You seem to be completely misreading me.

1: I'm saying that a high level of Step On Up play is the major playstyle difference between D&D and most other RPGs I can think of is that D&D is based much more on Step On Up play. 5E rules therefore need to be able to accomodate this.

2: Being able to cope with Step On Up play is one way to actually support rather than detract from individual social contracts. If you're using the social contract to patch holes in a set of rules that are not fit for purpose then you are putting unnecessary stress on the social contract at a given table.

3: You are still talking about "The Social Contract". No such thing. There are only social contracts - and most of them different. Some more fragile than others.

Why is it important to you that D&D next isn't able to cope with Step On Up play?

 

[Herschel]

Have you read the dissociative mechanics article through? It is very very clear the differences between them. It is not realism related at all. There is a very clear reason why fireball once per day is not dissociative and 'come and get it' is dissociative.

I have, and it's a pile of horse crap used as a pseudo-intellectual salvo in Edition Wars. Using that as an example isn't rational. It's like citing a talk radio host as a reliable source for honest, unbiased views.

The daily limit on fireball is an IN WORLD concept. The wizards of Greyhawk City sitting in their libraries know all about daily limitations on spells. The character knows when they cast a spell they cannot cast it again. The player and the character are in sync.

Again, pure bunk. Vancian spellcasting itself is a metagame concept. "Fire & Forget" makes no logical sense. If these truly are the greatest minds in the land, they'd have figured out a way to cast their spells more than once a day, and they'd have figured out how to do minor castings at-will. The "Wizards of Greyhawk City knowing about those daily limitations" is just a fluff insert to support the metagame. It's absolutely no different than the Fighter using his signature move.

Arneson and Gygax put (Vancian) limits in because Wizards just casting Lightning Bolts all day would make the game completely unplayable.

When a fighter pulls off a daily manuever (especially a highly damaging one), the character is hoping he can pull it off again next turn. Or at least again before the day is out. The reason he CANNOT do it again is purely a game rule. There is NO in world reason he cannot do it again.

Except he needs the proper opening to pull it off, which includes the enemy either not knowing it's coming or in a position to not counter. See my example on football again. It's no different than your spellcasting bit except there's some actual, real-world analog.

In fact if you were on the training ground doing manuevers you'd show the manuever to others repeatedly without complaint from anyone. The player though decides at this particular moment in the story, the fighter is going to get an opening that lets him pull of the attack and once he's got that opening and exploited it he won't do it again that day. That's purely a player decision.

As is spellcasting, there's no difference.

Thousands of independent people see this clearly even if you don't and they came up with the idea independently. If they all took a test on what was and wasn't dissociative they would judge the powers uniformly or at least such a high degree of parallelism to remove the possibility of random chance. So yes there is something that ties all these peoples views on the matter together. You should try to understand what that is instead of denying it exists.

I don't deny it exists, I point out that it's irrational. Millions of people like Twinkies, Justin Bieber and gas station Chuckwagon sandwiches, but they're a disgusting chemical cesspool and musical chum. Liking them is fine (I like Chuckwagons myself from time-to-time), but pretending they're somehow excellent foods or musical genius is irrational.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Have you read the dissociative mechanics article through? It is very very clear the differences between them. It is not realism related at all. There is a very clear reason why fireball once per day is not dissociative and 'come and get it' is dissociative.

The daily limit on fireball is an IN WORLD concept. The wizards of Greyhawk City sitting in their libraries know all about daily limitations on spells. The character knows when they cast a spell they cannot cast it again. The player and the character are in sync.

When a fighter pulls off a daily manuever (especially a highly damaging one), the character is hoping he can pull it off again next turn. Or at least again before the day is out. The reason he CANNOT do it again is purely a game rule. There is NO in world reason he cannot do it again. In fact if you were on the training ground doing manuevers you'd show the manuever to others repeatedly without complaint from anyone. The player though decides at this particular moment in the story, the fighter is going to get an opening that lets him pull of the attack and once he's got that opening and exploited it he won't do it again that day. That's purely a player decision.

Thousands of independent people see this clearly even if you don't and they came up with the idea independently. If they all took a test on what was and wasn't dissociative they would judge the powers uniformly or at least such a high degree of parallelism to remove the possibility of random chance. So yes there is something that ties all these peoples views on the matter together. You should try to understand what that is instead of denying it exists.

FWIW, even though you'll take some flak from the edition warriors, you're 100% right.

 

[Underman]

On the other hand in order to make sure I'm not being a jerk I can't play a major character class I want to play in 3.X (the Wizard)and the character class I find most interesting (the Artificer). If I did beyond about level 2 I'd take over (hell, I've retired a level 4 4e wizard for being too much for the DM to handle).

Hmm, if you really like to play wizards, why didn't you find a character concept that allowed you to be play a wizard without breaking it? Just relinquish the rules a little bit and do what is possible for that character instead of what the rules say are theoretically possible. That way, you get your fun wizard. In a game of imagination, it's not that hard to imagine ways to make this happen. After all, according to the "rules", we're all potential presidents or CEOs or whatnot, but most of us aren't. There are many heroic fantasy concepts that don't require uber-powerful wizards. In fact, with step-on-up play, you're not even required to have system mastery of a wizard PC -- just like if you were playing a slightly unbalanced war board game, and you agree to a common houserule that evens the odds even though it disavantages you in terms of winning.

Also there may be no explicit rules for socialising well with people. But you bet there are ways to do it badly. And a broken game encourages such things. It puts the goals of the PCs in direct conflict with the goal of socialisation.

That can be OK, as it happens all the time anyway. Just to take one minor example, I remember times where a PC wasn't given a great reason to start an adventure or join the party, but you find ways to make it happen for the goal of socialization.

3: You are still talking about "The Social Contract". No such thing. There are only social contracts - and most of them different. Some more fragile than others.

I see. Ya, no, I never said there was a "The Social Contract". I said the social contract, ie the one at the table. In fact, I think I borrowed the term from somebody else entirely.

Why is it important to you that D&D next isn't able to cope with Step On Up play?

I think 5E should cope up with Step On Up play to a certain point probably short of what you would like ideally. I seems to me that 5E is going there anyway, with the 15MAD being addressed by "the social contract" and not hardwired to the rules, at least not in the core rules. (add it to a Step On Up module, I don't mind).

 

[Alzrius]

Many times. It was one of the opening salvos in the anti-4e edition war. And it's straining at gnats while swallowing camels - literally nothing in 4e is as dissasociated as hit points - and 4e hit points are less disassociated than in any previous edition.

I disagree with this, as I found 4E's conception of hit points (e.g. "will to keep fighting") more dissociated than those of previous editions (e.g. "wounds").

I'm aware that people have a case to make that there's text in previous editions of the game likening hit points to "will to fighting," but the way my friends and I read the books they always sounded very forthright in saying that hit point damage was physical wounding.

For what it's worth, the article is (or at least, I thought it was) very forthright in saying that dissociated mechanics have a place in RPGs - the game is an abstraction, so their presence is virtually impossible to eliminate.

What I think the problem is for many players is the difference between dissociated mechanics regarding things that affect the characters versus dissociated mechanics in the things that the characters can do. For measuring things about the characters some dissociation seems to be understood as a necessity, whereas dissociation regarding rules for character abilities just seemed like too much for a lot of people.

Of course, the degree of tolerance for that varies by individual, and there were plenty for whom it wasn't a big deal at all. Which is perfectly fine since, after all, de gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[Herschel]

FWIW, even though you'll take some flak from the edition warriors, you're 100% right.

Actually, you're both 100% wrong, demonstrably so. Under the stated guideline, ANY time you interact with a game rule it's a "Disassociated Mechanic" because the character and player aren't "naturally conforming" to anything but a metagame construct, period. You choose which metagame constructs you want to accept or reject, but they're ALL metagame constructs.

 

[Herschel]

I disagree with this, as I found 4E's conception of hit points (e.g. "will to keep fighting") more dissociated than those of previous editions (e.g. "wounds").

I'm aware that people have a case to make that there's text in previous editions of the game likening hit points to "will to fighting," but the way my friends and I read the books they always sounded very forthright in saying that hit point damage was physical wounding.

Then you're reading is the issue, not the rule because as it's been shown over and over, HP have NEVER represented simple wounds.

That said, if you want them to represent wounds, that's cool, but the game itself has NEVER put them forth that way. The closest it ever came was if you only read the index entry in 2E.