In part one, we discussed how the game of DnD has changed over the editions in an effort to reflect what people wanted from the game, or at least how some people played it. For me this was merely a lead in to the real meaty question. Are the changes in DnD, specifically the search for balance, good for bringing people into the hobby? I am going to argue that this search for balance, especially the need to balance the classes, is not a good thing. I want to really bring attention to how the fighter and wizard have changed with the editions and how and why these may not be in our best interest as players of Dungeons and Dragons.
As I stated before I feel that early editions revolved around the idea of characters roaming around“dungeons”, looting, killing and pretty much just trying to see how far they could push it before they died, either through bad choices, bad luck or some combination thereof. Pretty much it was a game of survival. Something I didn’t touch on last time was the idea that the rules state, quite specifically IIRC, that when you die you start over again at level 1. This to me is huge because it means that the classes are not just archetypes that define how you interact with the game world, but they were also intended to be a risk vs. reward mechanic.
I look at the fighter as being an “easy mode” as it were compared to the wizard’s more challenging “hard mode”. At first level the fighter is the boss with high HP, AC, to hit bonus,the best damage and saves. A fighter was far more likely to see level 2 than anyother class. Unfortunately that ease of survival just leads to more of the same level over level. The wizard on the other hand is much harder to get to level 2, and beyond, requiring both player skill as well as good dose of luck. (Seriously 1 hp at first level is a very real thing for early edition wizards.) However a player that chooses to do it the hard way is rewarded, with power. This creates its own kind of balance but one that only works within the confines of the dungeon survival game, starting over at first level is key to this. When we started to move towards “narratives”and “exploration of character” this was one of the first things to go, probably because it’s hard to “role”play when you roll up a new character every session (or sooner).
It doesn’t help either that conceptually wizards from earlier editions were pretty bad at being wizards in addition to
their extreme fragility. Being able to cast only a single spell before you have to run and hide, or get creamed by a
monster before you even get to cast it. You can see over the editions moves to make wizards more playable and survivable at low levels. By 3ed wizards are pretty decent unfortunately that means pretty much everything that was used to balance them was removed. Compare that to fighters who have been bland but generally effective at being a fighter out of the gate and you can see why there has been a push towards class balance in 4e. Unfortunately I feel that this has really raised the bar when it comes to getting people into the game. Where once youcould invite somebody over who had never played an RPG hand them a character sheet (of a fighter anyway) and get them playing in next to no time. Today with even a “simple” class having pages and pages of permutations and choices it has got to be easier for some people to say “screw this” and spend their time doing something that doesn’t have such an initial time investment. And that is only if the new guy is playing with veterans I feel sorry for a group of kids that has to slog through 900+ pages of core rules to play 5-6 hours of game on a Saturday night. (Though I envy them being able to look at the game with a fresh sense of wonder and possibility :'( )
I certainly welcome the options that developed over the years but I can help but feel that perhaps having a good simple base and maybe a few “easy mode” choices to help ease people into the wider rules system will go a long way to help draw more people into the game we all enjoy.
As I stated before I feel that early editions revolved around the idea of characters roaming around“dungeons”, looting, killing and pretty much just trying to see how far they could push it before they died, either through bad choices, bad luck or some combination thereof. Pretty much it was a game of survival. Something I didn’t touch on last time was the idea that the rules state, quite specifically IIRC, that when you die you start over again at level 1. This to me is huge because it means that the classes are not just archetypes that define how you interact with the game world, but they were also intended to be a risk vs. reward mechanic.
I look at the fighter as being an “easy mode” as it were compared to the wizard’s more challenging “hard mode”. At first level the fighter is the boss with high HP, AC, to hit bonus,the best damage and saves. A fighter was far more likely to see level 2 than anyother class. Unfortunately that ease of survival just leads to more of the same level over level. The wizard on the other hand is much harder to get to level 2, and beyond, requiring both player skill as well as good dose of luck. (Seriously 1 hp at first level is a very real thing for early edition wizards.) However a player that chooses to do it the hard way is rewarded, with power. This creates its own kind of balance but one that only works within the confines of the dungeon survival game, starting over at first level is key to this. When we started to move towards “narratives”and “exploration of character” this was one of the first things to go, probably because it’s hard to “role”play when you roll up a new character every session (or sooner).
It doesn’t help either that conceptually wizards from earlier editions were pretty bad at being wizards in addition to
their extreme fragility. Being able to cast only a single spell before you have to run and hide, or get creamed by a
monster before you even get to cast it. You can see over the editions moves to make wizards more playable and survivable at low levels. By 3ed wizards are pretty decent unfortunately that means pretty much everything that was used to balance them was removed. Compare that to fighters who have been bland but generally effective at being a fighter out of the gate and you can see why there has been a push towards class balance in 4e. Unfortunately I feel that this has really raised the bar when it comes to getting people into the game. Where once youcould invite somebody over who had never played an RPG hand them a character sheet (of a fighter anyway) and get them playing in next to no time. Today with even a “simple” class having pages and pages of permutations and choices it has got to be easier for some people to say “screw this” and spend their time doing something that doesn’t have such an initial time investment. And that is only if the new guy is playing with veterans I feel sorry for a group of kids that has to slog through 900+ pages of core rules to play 5-6 hours of game on a Saturday night. (Though I envy them being able to look at the game with a fresh sense of wonder and possibility :'( )
I certainly welcome the options that developed over the years but I can help but feel that perhaps having a good simple base and maybe a few “easy mode” choices to help ease people into the wider rules system will go a long way to help draw more people into the game we all enjoy.
Last edited:
