D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Ahnehnois]

So the sales of 4e might be an indication of it's failure to please people, but in no way shows a failure in balance. 4e could (and in my opinion, is) balanced and yet fail to please a lot of people tastes (as in my opiniion, happens to be). Both things aren't mutually exclusive.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and indeed the game could conceivably have been quite balanced and still be outsold by a less balanced game.

That doesn't fit what I see though. If I understand correctly, the choice of applying an ability score to various modifiers has made it even easier than previous editions to have dump stats, and I would argue that balance between the six ability scores is fundamental to the game and far more important than balance between classes and races.

Balance between monsters and PCs has been substantially reduced by 4e's encounter based design approach; the monsters might be balanced over the course of an average encounter with an average party, but are far, far less balanced overall.

And, if the 4e forum is any indication, munchkinism isn't exactly dead either.

 

[triqui]

That doesn't fit what I see though. If I understand correctly, the choice of applying an ability score to various modifiers has made it even easier than previous editions to have dump stats, and I would argue that balance between the six ability scores is fundamental to the game and far more important than balance between classes and races.

The game has more balanced ability scores. Now, every ability score is worthy to have to some class, because all of them work to attack. There's nothing in the new edition that make having dumpstats more interesting from a optimization point of view than it was in 3e. Nothing. The difference is now, as a Wizard, I can opt to dump Wisdom instead of Charisma, if I want so, because Charisma works for Will defense too. That does not make "dump stats" more interesting, or better. It just made all abilities equally important and equally easy to dump (ie: balanced)

And classes got secondary stats for riders, which make people having something extra to think about when buying their stats. A fighter, for example, benefit not only from STR and CON, as in 3rd edition, but also from Dexterity (if he is going to use swords, flails or spears), or Wisdom (for OA).

Balance between monsters and PCs has been substantially reduced by 4e's encounter based design approach; the monsters might be balanced over the course of an average encounter with an average party, but are far, far less balanced overall.

This makes me scratch my head. If the monsters are more balanced over the course of an average encounter, and the monsters do not survive an encounter, per definition, how are they less balanced overall?

I think you might want to try other word there. Maybe they aren't organical. Or even fun. But if they are more balanced in a encounter, then they are more balanced overall. Because overall, the point of monsters is to provide an encounter.

They also work to fill the world with plots, and to make immersion possible. And maybe 4e monsters do not work (for you) in those matters. But if they are balanced, they are balanced.

And, if the 4e forum is any indication, munchkinism isn't exactly dead either.

It is not. That doesn't mean the game isn't balanced, though. Mutual Assured Destruction in the Cold War was munchkinism, yet it was balanced.
The point of 4e balance is not that you have made impossible to build strong characters. The point of 4e balance is that you can make a strong build character *with any class*. Which is vastly different to 3e, where you only had the option to build strong build character with tier 1 spellcasters. Everyone else just played in a minor league. Sure, they could be better than average in that minor league. But the best Center in Woman NBA is no match to Dwight Howard, and at the end of the day, an optimized 3e fighter was, still, a woman playing in the men's NBA of God Wizards and CODzillas, from an optimizing point of view.

 

[Emerikol]

So in other words.... because it's magic. Which is more or less where we started.

-O

You have a hang up with magic being magic. I get that. If mundane does everything magic does then is magic magic?

 

[Ahnehnois]

You have a hang up with magic being magic. I get that. If mundane does everything magic does then is magic magic?

No, it isn't.

It just made all abilities equally important and equally easy to dump (ie: balanced)

Well, that's a creative definition. I don't define balanced as being "equally easy to dump".

This makes me scratch my head. If the monsters are more balanced over the course of an average encounter, and the monsters do not survive an encounter, per definition, how are they less balanced overall?

Ask the same thing of PCs. If two PCs are balanced over the course of one possible type of encounter, are they balanced? If you're going to posit a game with open-ended possibilities, balance in that game needs to occur outside of the typical encounter. If a monster has a daily ability, and using that ability once during each day of its enture in-game lifespan would cause problems, it's not balanced, even if it plays fine during a short straight-up combat.

More to the point, most monsters will be used for some purpose other than a 6 round straight up combat encounter against an on-level party at some point.

The point of 4e balance is not that you have made impossible to build strong characters. The point of 4e balance is that you can make a strong build character *with any class*.

So basically, what you're saying, is that two independent, free thinking players could build characters that aren't balanced with each other? Guess the system's not that balanced (which was my point).

***

The broader point is that these definitions of balance are extremely narrow. If you're playing in a scenario that is exactly what the designers envisioned, then they might work, but if you aren't, they don't. Ergo, the system itself isn't balanced, the playstyle it supports (enforces) is.

 

[Obryn]

You have a hang up with magic being magic. I get that. If mundane does everything magic does then is magic magic?

Not even the point.

If the only thing that makes "dissociative" mechanics or "plot coupons" dissociative or coupon-y is "they're not MAGIC!" ... and any mechanic suddenly becomes "associative Alexandrian-approved" by saying "MAGIC!" ... well, I don't really think it's the mechanics that are the issue, eh? And it's not a very strong argument about RPG design, much less something to build an entire manifesto around.

To answer your specific question - I'm good with magic and swording doing different stuff. But when you limit swordy guys to "stuff a guy with a sword could do but DEAR GOD NO ANIME OR WUXIA OR LEGENDARY OR DIE-HARD" and you limit a magic guy to "Eh. Just ... not too often per day, okay?" that strikes me as a problem.

-O

 

[Emerikol]

So, you ran 'tier' 5-6 games, then. OK.

I ran the wizard, fighter, fighter/rogue, cleric. Thats what we ran last campaign. I agree the Rogue is subpar in combat. Still fun though. I'd play it. But I agree it's not as good as it could be.

OK, not just that. 3e could be balanced, at a point, over a modest range of levels. It takes a lot of DM intervention and vigilance, but it's possible. It's obvious from your active participation in discussions like this that you're up to that sort of task. I, too, had the fortune to play in 3.x games where the balance didn't completely disintegrate too early. It was a combination of DM intervention, player restraint, and something akin to brinksmanship, but it could happen. Doesn't mean the game wasn't poorly balanced, or that a better-balanced version wasn't a pleasant surprise when it came along, though.

We just played. Didn't recall any issues with this.

No. Because there's no such thing as a mechanic that /causes/ you to break immersion. Mechanics are abstract, no mechanic can pull you in and 'immerse' you, immersion is a choice players make. If you can't keep from laughing during a serious moment in a game - whether it's a mechanic that doesn't fit what it's modeling well enough in your eyes, or a player whose RPing a character that he's a radically bad physical 'fit' for, or a plot whole the DM has left open, or an un-intended pop culture reference that accidentally slips into the dialogue - then you just weren't quite up to the challenge of intense RP at that moment.

And yet, I've ran campaigns for over thirty years. I often have more players than I can let in my campaigns. We had awesome fun right up to 2008. So what changed for us? We conclude it was the game.

I guess it must just be a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back thing for you guys, then. Because the suspensions of disbelief required to get from guys sitting around a table rolling plastic dice, to heroes fighting dragons in orders of magnitude beyond that last little bit of suspending dis-belief because of a 'plot coupon.'

There is a fine distinction between unrealism and a plot coupon/dissociative mechanic. That distinction matters to a lot of us and not to you. Thats the difference.

I do not blame anyone for not playing a game they don't care for. Not at all. But the edition war was not people just not playing a game they don't like, nor even just mentioning they don't like it. It was an outpouring of nerdrage and vitriol - the kind of thing that happens to some degree with every rev-roll, errata, or other change to a popular game - that went on for 4 years until the target of that ire was discontinued, /and still continues/.

Well I only came around when 5e was announced. And yes I am fighting for a 5e that is different than 4e. Not that 4e fans can't be catered to but rather they can't be catered to exclusively. I do think though that 4e was such a drastic change that it did shock a lot of 3e and earlier players. It's kind of like finding out the U.S. has went communist. It was an attack upon many things we held dear. So no I'm no surprised a lot of people reacted strongly against 4e. I was just slow on the uptake.

And 5e will be a new edition of a game that people had already stopped playing. In both cases, the idea was to address the issues voiced by those how hated it in an attempt to get them back. Essentials failed miserably, and tanked worse than ever. 5e thus has even more people to try to win back.

You have to realize that there is a big difference between a variation on an existing edition and a new edition. Case in point. I didn't even know about Essentials until it was long after the 5e announcement. I found out about 5e almost immediately.

For that matter, 4e tried to 'fix' the problems people complained about, and, while it's failure may have had more to do with timing, presentation, or the GSL, it's clear that just trying to cater to the squeakiest internet wheel is not a formula for success, by itself.

But we found out that it wasn't just some radical squeaky wheels. It was a big chunk of the playerbase. My theory is it is as high as 75%. But you could argue differently (and will I'm sure).

Balance doesn't require dailies, it just requires that different classes not have substantially different proportions of their effectiveness in the form of daily resources. A real 'plot coupon,' by design, is a strong narrative device. The 'plot coupons' in 4e were just one way of interpreting a martial daily, one of several - all of which, coincidentally, are objectionable to you. Yet, also coincidentally, the idea of eliminating dailies across the board is also objectionable.

I don't think 3e was super far from being balanced. I would work on some spells. I don't see the basics of D&D being imbalanced.

So 'nobody' has anything against balance, but you, and others, are extremely insistent that mechanism that achieve balance be abandoned. And, you reject any and every rational for such mechanics, often on grounds that are equally applicable to other mechanics to which you have no objection.

yeah we just aren't willing to accept just any mechanics. That is true. Mechanics are the game. Why play with ones you dislike instead of ones you do. I don't believe like you do that balance is as hard as you say. But again what you believe is balance to me is bland uniformity and is not fun.

Which is consistent with balance being something they're against.

If you told me drinking from the toilet would cure the common cold, I'd say "I'll just let it run it's course." I am not saying I have a solution for the common cold. But the solution offered is unacceptable. Try again.


There is no important difference between someone arguing zealously and uncompromisingly against every mechanism that has succeeded in delivering balance on the basis of a grab-bag of rationales, and one arguing against those same mechanism for sheer dislike of balance, itself. Both want the same thing.

Well, obviously not everyone has the same vision of D&D's 'identity.'

Sure. But unlike you. I see the rejection of 4e as a firestorm like no other. Compared to any other edition it's a tidal wave next to a splash.

 

[slobster]

That doesn't fit what I see though. If I understand correctly, the choice of applying an ability score to various modifiers has made it even easier than previous editions to have dump stats, and I would argue that balance between the six ability scores is fundamental to the game and far more important than balance between classes and races.

Interesting point. Why should all the ability scores be balanced compared to each other for every character? It's not like every character (talking 4E here) dumps Cha, or Str. Every build has a few stats that are important to it, and one or two that aren't. But no stat is a dump for every (or even most) builds, and no stat is a necessary go-to for every build either.

After all, taking "every stat is equally important to every character" to its logical conclusion would lead to every character having middle scores in every stat, and every character thus being identical to every other in every stat. That's a kind of balance that I'm not interested in having.

For me, balanced stats means every stat is important to someone, not that every stat is equally important to everyone (talking RPGs in general, here).

 

[Emerikol]

Not even the point.

If the only thing that makes "dissociative" mechanics or "plot coupons" dissociative or coupon-y is "they're not MAGIC!" ... and any mechanic suddenly becomes "associative Alexandrian-approved" by saying "MAGIC!" ... well, I don't really think it's the mechanics that are the issue, eh? And it's not a very strong argument about RPG design, much less something to build an entire manifesto around.

To answer your specific question - I'm good with magic and swording doing different stuff. But when you limit swordy guys to "stuff a guy with a sword could do but DEAR GOD NO ANIME OR WUXIA OR LEGENDARY OR DIE-HARD" and you limit a magic guy to "Eh. Just ... not too often per day, okay?" that strikes me as a problem.

-O

You are right that different fluff can make something associative that was formerly dissociative. So it is a combination of fluff and mechanics. It's how they relate. If I dropped the fighter and just used the paladin then I could rationalize dailies. As I did above.

So? I like mundane fighters. I like mundane rogues. But I want to play a non-magical hero, in these cases not a magical one. So yes I want those classes limited in some ways to represent the fact they aren't using magic. It doesn't mean they have to be less fun to play. And it doesn't mean they can't use magic items. But it does mean innately they don't do magical tricks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Interesting point. Why should all the ability scores be balanced compared to each other for every character? It's not like every character (talking 4E here) dumps Cha, or Str. Every build has a few stats that are important to it, and one or two that aren't. But no stat is a dump for every (or even most) builds, and no stat is a necessary go-to for every build either.

After all, taking "every stat is equally important to every character" to its logical conclusion would lead to every character having middle scores in every stat, and every character thus being identical to every other in every stat. That's a kind of balance that I'm not interested in having.

For me, balanced stats means every stat is important to someone, not that every stat is equally important to everyone (talking RPGs in general, here).

I would define it as them all being important, but different, for each single character.

I full well expect the average wizard to max Int and dump Str, I just think that it should matter that their Str is low. Even moreso, I think that it should matter if a character's Int, Wis, or Cha is low (or high). Too often in 3e, this was not the case. I get the sense 4e worsened the problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, 3e can be balanced over all levels, without any excessive effort by the DM.

There are numerous examples of strict superiority of one class over another at even modestly high levels - even some arguable ones with specific builds at lower levels. That's not only imbalance, but imbalance of the most black-and-white kind.

As opposed to balance, which is not abstract, not a function of player choice, and is an immutable property of rpg mechanics?

Balance is an objective property of RPG mechanics, yes - and not even that qualitative a property (it's quite possible to make quantitative comparisons between game elements to check for worst-case imbalances).