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

[Emerikol]

A ready-made rationalization is a thing of beauty. And, like I've said twice to no avail, there's an underlying real mechanical distinction that's being talked around. The whole 'dissociative' pitch, is just a very snarkily-intellectual way of saying you don't like that difference, though. Another variation on "it's not really an RPG." Or your own Monopoly reference, where you basically say anyone who prefers 4e isn't a real gamer, with just the commitment to D&D that a kid playing Monopoly has. On the other side, there's the conclusion that anyone wanting Vancian is just on a power-trip with their god-wizard, or that Pathfinder is exactly 3.5, or whatever.

Ad Hominems and Straw Men all around, that's the edition war. Nothing for the winners nor the losers to be too proud of.

You have so wrongly interpreted my motives that it's off the chart. I use the term dissociative mechanics because that was the title of the guys blog where he introduced the idea. I've used plot coupon and metagame dissonance before as well. All those labels are descriptive of the effect on people who are affected. We lose immersion and don't buy it and thus the game grows boring/stale.

And I caveated my one reference on here to board games inside out. I did not say 4e was a board game. I said the people approached the playing of the game in the same manner where they are moving pieces instead of being a character.

The whole point was the author/actor disconnect but the 4e gang is too uptight about it to even read the point they see board game and just flip out. I wasn't here during the "war" when 4e came out. I was playing 4e for the first year but I wasn't on these boards. Or on WOTC boards raging against the game. I learned that 4e wasn't for me by experience and nothing else. When 5e was announced I was excited that maybe D&D would be a game I could play again. So I came on the boards to find everyone still fighting the war.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And I caveated my one reference on here to board games inside out. I did not say 4e was a board game. I said the people approached the playing of the game in the same manner where they are moving pieces instead of being a character.

I noticed that you made it clear you weren't repeating the baseless '4e is a boardgame' things. As the several replies you got to that particular bit should have made obvious, though, that's not what anyone was upset about. You launched a general attack against a whole swath of gamers, there. Maybe you didn't mean to, exactly and you were just trying to illustrate a difference in style, but it ended up coming across as belittling or setting up a straw man of the alternate style.

And I do think that our edition-war-shell-shock makes that kind of mistake very easy to make. I'm sure I've done it to you a few times in this exchange, as well.

Anyway, while trying to avoid that, one more time: I understand the whole 'dissociative mechanics' stance. But, it simply doesn't hold up. It takes something that, in 4e, is present really only to the degree that the player emphasizes it, and presents it as an insurmountable obstacle to real roleplaying. In a game like Hero, the objection would almost make sense, because there's no way around the effects-based nature of the system. Almost. It would still fall apart because it requires willfully setting up straw-men to create examples.

Ultimately, the situation could be no different if 5e did succeed in it's lofty something-for-everybody modular goal. If someone decided to hate 5e, they could craft an analogous argument by picking out a set of modules that doesn't work for their style, and decrying it as making the game impossible for them to play. Take an option, choose something you find nonsensical, and complain that it doesn't make sense to you.

The same goes for the occasional GNS-based rationalizations for hating 4e. GNS is a not-particularly-compelling theory about /how/ people play games more than it is a theory about the games themselves. All three approaches could work in virtually any published game. A 'gamist' for instance, could still have that attitude in a game that offers mechanical rewards for 'good RP,' (faking?) 'good RP,' just becomes part of the game. A narrativist could still make decisions for his character based on how he perceives his character's role in the unfolding story rather than based on the how the mechanics model the situation the character is in. A simulationist could immerse himself in a role regardless of 'fiction in the middle' or any other rule quibbles, if he's so inclined. Honestly, GNS takes three aspects of RPGs - story, gaming, and role-assumption, and paints them as incompatible extremes when they are more all to be found at the same table, being embraced in varying proportions by the various players. One player says "I" when describing character actions, another uses his character's name, they could also both be intent on wringing the most mechanical effectiveness out of every design and in-play decisions as well, or not. Games may try to emphasize one or the other, or other conscious styles, be it with mechanical carrots & sticks or with advice to GMs and players, but they can never get completely away from any of it.

 

[Underman]

Ultimately, the situation could be no different if 5e did succeed in it's lofty something-for-everybody modular goal. If someone decided to hate 5e, they could craft an analogous argument by picking out a set of modules that doesn't work for their style, and decrying it as making the game impossible for them to play. Take an option, choose something you find nonsensical, and complain that it doesn't make sense to you.

That's not even the same thing. No one is forcing a gaming group to "[pick] out a set of modules that doesn't work for their style". 4E is not modular. The nature of its mechanics are pervasive throughout the system, you play it or you go home. Furthermore, 5E seems to be go through the pains of associating the mechanics to the fiction (for example, the Combat Superiority blog keeps saying how mechanic X is represented by fiction Y). So no, you can't compare the quantity and quality of people complaingin about 'dissociation' in 4E vs 5E.

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that x amount of people will complain about dissociation in 5E, which is equivalent to the x number of people who complain about dissociation in 4E, therefore, the consequences of feeling 'dissociation' are irrelevant. But your assumption is unsupportable, and the feeling of dissociation (whether you agree with its validity or not) is still a force to be reckoned with for the game designers, again whether you like it or not.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's not even the same thing. No one is forcing a gaming group to "[pick] out a set of modules that doesn't work for their style".

Not what I said. I what I said was, if you're determined to hate 5e, even if it succeeds in it's modular goal, you could rationalize your dislike by choosing modules that wouldn't work for your style, then claiming it's 'impossible' to run 5e under that style. It'd be a wildly invalid complaint, of course.

4E is not modular.

No, it's not. But it is a bit effects-based in that flavor is mutable. So, if you choose flavor that 'doesn't make sense,' then complain that 4e doesn't make sense to you, well, you're engaging in the same sort of logic as intentionally 'building' a module selection that doesn't do what you want.

The logic is the same, the attributes of the system (in one case, hypothetically) being mis-characterized are different.

 

[Underman]

Not what I said. I what I said was, if you're determined to hate 5e, even if it succeeds in it's modular goal, you could rationalize your dislike by choosing modules that wouldn't work for your style, then claiming it's 'impossible' to run 5e under that style. It'd be a wildly invalid complaint, of course.

That's irrelevant. You haven't even come close to showing that a feeling of dissociation is primarily the result of the majority of people determined to hate 4e, and nobody else seems to be talking about you're speculating about (ie., equating that assumption to 5e).

But it is a bit effects-based in that flavor is mutable. So, if you choose flavor that 'doesn't make sense,' then complain that 4e doesn't make sense to you, well, you're engaging in the same sort of logic as intentionally 'building' a module selection that doesn't do what you want.

That is not the solution to unifying fan opinion around 4e. That solution didn't work, and never will work. It's the solution posed by the people who don't understand and don't accept why not the system isn't embraced universally. Changing the flavor text in 4E is not equivalent to changing optional modules in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You haven't even come close to showing that a feeling of dissociation is primarily the result of the majority of people determined to hate 4e,

I'm not making any claims about numbers of people or what might constitute a majority. I'm just looking at the form of the reasoning being employed in a certain blog, and, here, by Emerikol. That's only two examples being examined.

Changing the flavor text in 4E is not equivalent to changing optional modules in 5e.

Obviously, modules are a much more dramatic change than flavor, and affect the whole campaign, not just one character. But, while not equivalent in scope, each /is/ still a choice being exercised.

The 5e example is just an analogy, purely hypothetical, at this point, because we have yet to see the final shape of 5e, not to mention the fan's reaction to it. I'm sorry if it wasn't a helpful one.

 

[The Choice]

I wanted to answer to this little bit here, but it got lost in the shuffle.

I want to focus on the part in bold.

I can tell you from my personal experience that players don't want to always share the same basic expectations when it comes to usefulness. Usefulness in the game means a lot of different things to many groups out there. I know people who don't want to give up their character's concept because their character is supposed to achieve a certain level of usefulness that is in accordance with the system.

"Usefulness" comes in all shapes and sizes and the system shouldn't decide where your level of usefulness needs to be.

You are perfectly right in saying that players rarely share the exact same expectations when they sit down to game, but I do believe they share one, at least: they want to play the same game. And in D&D, that has rarely been the case. I'll take combat as an exemple of this, but it could be applied to any of the so-called "three pillars":

How is combat won in D&D? By looking at the monster stats and their own sheets, players deduce that you win a fight when a creature's hit points are reduced to 0 (or they flee/surrender, which is all under the purview of DMs/the adventure's writer). But who plays by those rules, really? Spellcasters, by and large, don't have to play that way, and, it could be argued, are better off not playing that way. A fighter or rogue has to risk life and limb for a couple of rounds to go toe to toe with a challenging adversary, while all the caster has to do is wave his hands around once, and the fight is done or as good as done.

You will argue that the monster gets a save, and that may be true, but if a caster targets the right defence (ie targets Will, in 3.X, PF), then his chances of success increase dramatically. This wasn't always the case though: even if most (if not all) monsters used the fighter's save tables in 1/2E, they still had a decent chance of saving. Not so much in 3.X where only 2-3 types of creatures get good Will saves, and where monsters with Wisdom scores above 20 are fairly rare.

So basically, while non-casters play the hit points game (and the Armour Class game), casters get to play the "target other, weaker defences game" and the apply condition that ends combat game.

The solution to this problem can come in a variety of ways: reinstate the various saving throws of past editions, divorcing them from ability score mods as much as possible (a possible crowd-pleaser among the OSR fans), force casters to play almost exclusively the HP game or allow non-casters to lay on conditions/attack other defences with their attacks. As long as any of those steps are not taken, you'll have people around the same table playing two very different games.

And I personally think that playing the same game is one expectation shared by all.

 

[Ratskinner]

You are perfectly right in saying that players rarely share the exact same expectations when they sit down to game, but I believe they done have one in common: they want to play the same game. And in D&D, that has rarely been the case. I'll take combat as an exemple of this, but it could be applied to any of the so-called "three pillars":

How is combat won in D&D? By looking at the monster stats and their own sheets, players deduce that you win a fight when a creature's hit points are reduced to 0 (or they flee/surrender, which is all under the purview of DMs/the adventure's writer). But who plays by those rules, really? Spellcasters, by and large, don't have to play that way, and, it could be argued, are better off not playing that way. A fighter or rogue has to risk life and limb for a couple of rounds to go toe to toe with a challenging adversary, while all the caster has to do is wave his hands around once, and the fight is done or as good as done.

You will argue that the monster gets a save, and that may be true, but if a caster targets the right defence (ie targets Will, in 3.X, PF), then his chances of success increase dramatically. This wasn't always the case though: even if most (if not all) monsters used the fighter's save tables in 1/2E, they still had a decent chance of saving. Not so much in 3.X where only 2-3 types of creatures get good Will saves, and where monsters with Wisdom scores above 20 are fairly rare.

So basically, while non-casters play the hit points game (and the Armour Class game), casters get to play the "target other, weaker defences game" and the apply condition that ends combat game.

The solution to this problem can come in a variety of ways: reinstate the various saving throws of past editions, divorcing them from ability score mods as much as possible (a possible crowd-pleaser among the OSR fans), force casters to play almost exclusively the HP game or allow non-casters to lay on conditions/attack other defences with their attacks. As long as any of those steps are not taken, you'll have people around the same table playing two very different games.

And I personally think that playing the same game is one expectation shared by all.

Y'know. This kind of thing is making me think more and more about "Save or Suffer" and the mechanics that underlie it. I'm starting to think that if dodging, resisting, avoiding, covering, blocking, etc. are all rolled into HP, then any attack, spell or not, should do HP damage. Actual wounds would only be "triggered" on the last hp. It'd be a big change, and maybe not a good one. Especially since it would indicate that "damage" would explicitly not be wounding (except for that last hp.)

 

[Lokiare]

Y'know. This kind of thing is making me think more and more about "Save or Suffer" and the mechanics that underlie it. I'm starting to think that if dodging, resisting, avoiding, covering, blocking, etc. are all rolled into HP, then any attack, spell or not, should do HP damage. Actual wounds would only be "triggered" on the last hp. It'd be a big change, and maybe not a good one. Especially since it would indicate that "damage" would explicitly not be wounding (except for that last hp.)

Um... you do know that's what it's been in D&D from 1E on right?

 

[Ratskinner]

Um... you do know that's what it's been in D&D from 1E on right?

a) There are plenty of people around here that would argue that every single hit ever contains some element of physical damage. I don't share this view, but openly stating the opposite would cause some to abandon any such game as "not D&D". (I would presume, given comments that I've read here and elsewhere.)

b) I don't think you (quite) got what I was saying. I'm suggesting that maybe Sleep should do 3d6 Drowsiness damage, with the caveat that it can only drop targets unconscious. Charm Person should do 1d6/level charm damage, and if that drops the target, it switches to your side, otherwise it just saps its will to fight you. Weapon attacks and spells that do "normal" damage, would function similarly to each other, perhaps causing more substantial wounds if they "drop" you. If HP are really only "plot-token" staying power, then use them as such.

To be clear, I'm only musing on the idea. For all the reasons the Choice mentioned and a few more.