D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Bedrockgames]

Me, I think playing or GM mpower player protagonism. I really, really dislike the '90s RPG style of linear campaigns, watcher PCs, and endless Metaplot..

I dislike these things as well (not fond of adventure paths either or of the structure of building adventures around specific CR encounters that you often found with 3E in the 2000s). I just wouldn't describe these as causing lastin damage to peoples' creative capabilities. I would describe them as styles of play i don't like (i would descrribe railroading as a generally bad gming style because it irritates players). To me they are simply not fun, but they are not harmful. No one is going to require therapy because they were in a railroaded campaign. To me, this kind of language (and speaking about peopoe who leave these sorts of campaigns for others as "refugees" just take things way too far and in a direction I have no interest in).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Or, are you only content when your play style is the only one considered valid and every one else can go hang?

If someone else's play style includes things that mine doesn't, such as miniatures, experience points, or some rigid notion of exact equality in combat effectiveness across all levels, they are perfectly welcome to do that. That's why I advocate a playstyle-neutral ruleset which treats the rules strictly as descriptors of in-game realities and does not impose metagame agendas like balance. Even 3e, as I'm sure you're happy to note, is not that, but it was a step in that direction when it was released, and I would have liked 5e to take more steps that way towards making a generic rpg for all, which was supposed to be the mandate.

It would seem to me, that since you don't care if your character is more or less powerful, then you shouldn't care about balance at all. Thus, a balanced system would be just as agreeable to you as an unbalanced one. So, why not let us have our balanced systems and we're both happy?

It seems to me that I already play the most comprehensively balanced D&D-like rpg ever released, and that most of its flaws that I've had to fix result from steps taken to create that balance. Balance is in itself problematic, but moreso it detracts from more important things.

What's really bad is when the rules encourage or even require metagaming, or when they encourage player entitlement, or when they violate genre conceits to enforce a type of balance that doesn't exist within the underlying genre (trying to make a rogue into a "striker" for example). Those ideas, perhaps used in the name of balance, are the source of most of the problems that exist within published D&D (though thankfully not in my game).

***

It would seem to me that if you have a goal (say, enforcing an extreme between-PC balance), the best way to achieve it would be a simple, generic, and transparent core rules system (like one of the more minimalist 3e offshoots), and a DM using it to enforce that goal, rather than expecting the writers of the world's ostensible #1 rpg to cater to that specific goal at the exclusion of anything else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It was.

Point. I thought that was brought up by Mistwell. It certainly doesn't reflect positively on The Forge.

Here's an interesting post excerpt from the Evil Hat website by Rob Donoghue (co-creator of FATE) concerning indie rpg's being equated with the Forge and his feelings on the Forge.... Since he clearly draws a distinction between himself and "members of the Forge" I'm starting to believe that Fate isn't a Forge game. I have found similar comments by Fred Hick's concerning Fate and how it doesn't fit into Edward's GNS model.


Indie == A particular design ethos
By this what’s really meant is, of course, games out of the Forge (an RPG community with a heavy emphasis on certain RPG theories and small press publication). Now, this absolutely fails in the face of it – there is no one I know of from the forge who would accept such a definition, and they would be the first to point to indie games which are not from forge members or which do not subscribe to the theories popular in The Forge. Despite that, this is an incredibly common definition because it seems like the obvious one. The Forge is the loudest voice of ‘indie’ design and many of the current crop of games that are thought of as indie are from forge members.

Interesting, thanks. I'd also point out here that the OSR games are generally indie games (by just about every definition) but they are emphatically not Forge games. On the other hand I have no problems calling a game that used The Forge for its official messageboard a Forge game.

I'd also point out that not fitting the GNS model doesn't mean anything. All models are flawed and it was more than most (incoherence can be a strength for one thing).

And that's perfectly fair. Not caring whether your character is more powerful or not is perfectly valid.

But, why do you get to tell everyone else that your point of view is the only one that matters? If someone does care if their character is stronger or weaker, why do they have to sit down and shut up simply because you don't care? What makes your point of view so much better?

It would seem to me, that since you don't care if your character is more or less powerful, then you shouldn't care about balance at all. Thus, a balanced system would be just as agreeable to you as an unbalanced one. So, why not let us have our balanced systems and we're both happy?

Or, are you only content when your play style is the only one considered valid and every one else can go hang?

This. People who claim not to care about balance should be neutral on the subject. And positive about it because if what they are saying is accurate it helps many of us while not hurting them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'd also point out that not fitting the GNS model doesn't mean anything. All models are flawed and it was more than most (incoherence can be a strength for one thing).

.

I do think it is relevant in whether a game is described as a forge game though, especially in this conversation where what people are primarily reacting against is GNS theory and terms. I th no the forge, I think GNS (and most forge proponents I encounter advocate GNS). Again, if you find GNS useful, by all means employ it. I just find it really doesn't work for me (and I don't buy into it) so I tend to react negatively when it feels like folks are pushing its concepts on me (nit suggesting that is what you are doing, just explaining why i tend to even respond at all in these forge discussions).

 

[Bedrockgames]

This. People who claim not to care about balance should be neutral on the subject. And positive about it because if what they are saying is accurate it helps many of us while not hurting them.

I think this oversimplifies. One might not car if 3E is balanced for example, but they might still care how effirts to balance it further affect play and flavor.

 

[Imaro]

I dislike these things as well (not fond of adventure paths either or of the structure of building adventures around specific CR encounters that you often found with 3E in the 2000s). I just wouldn't describe these as causing lastin damage to peoples' creative capabilities. I would describe them as styles of play i don't like (i would descrribe railroading as a generally bad gming style because it irritates players). To me they are simply not fun, but they are not harmful. No one is going to require therapy because they were in a railroaded campaign. To me, this kind of language (and speaking about peopoe who leave these sorts of campaigns for others as "refugees" just take things way too far and in a direction I have no interest in).

I agree with all of this... and let's not forget after equating this to "brain damage", Edwards goes on to further equate it to sexual abuse of a 12 year old, I mean seriously, If you think the playing of an AP or a railroad adventure equates to the sexual abuse of a child I can't in any way take anything you say seriously.

That aside, I think some people, such as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] are missing the fact that while they may not enjoy playing in railroads with meta-plots and little to no "protagonism" apparently some/many people do. Outside of AP's by paizo we have all those [sarcasm]poor damaged souls[/sarcasm] who showed up to 4e encounters seasons week after week, and season after season (If only they had known they were being scarred for life!!). I also find it interesting that no one has addressed the fact that Vampire the Masquerade is credited with bringing an influx of new blood into the hobby that no other game besides D&D has matched or exceeded. Maybe, just maybe the people that are making the playing of elves "serious business" are the exception and most casual players just want to live out a fantasy "story" and aren't really concerned with whether they are leading or the DM is leading as long as they are having a good time. No that couldn't be it...

 

[Imaro]

Interesting, thanks. I'd also point out here that the OSR games are generally indie games (by just about every definition) but they are emphatically not Forge games. On the other hand I have no problems calling a game that used The Forge for its official messageboard a Forge game.

So the only requirement to be a Forge game is using their message boards... seems a bit simplistic especially if the author is inferring he doesn't want to be lumped in with them... but I guess you would know better than the actual author about where his game should lie...

 

[Neonchameleon]

So the only requirement to be a Forge game is using their message boards... seems a bit simplistic especially if the author is inferring he doesn't want to be lumped in with them... but I guess you would know better than the actual author about where his game should lie...

So one way of being a Forge game is using their message boards as your official company message boards. Not simply posting there. Using resources they have provided under their name as part of their core function of supporting companies like you gets you marked as one of their companies, yes.

 

[pemerton]

I advocate a playstyle-neutral ruleset which treats the rules strictly as descriptors of in-game realities and does not impose metagame agendas like balance.

<snip>

What's really bad is when the rules encourage or even require metagaming, or when they encourage player entitlement

Are you being deliberately provocative?

What you describe might be a good RPG (Runequest and Classic Traveller both have a lot going for them) but it's not remotely playstyle neutral. For instance, I can't run the sort of game I prefer to run very easily using either of those systems, and the only reason that Rolemaster (a superficially comparable game) makes it easier is because it has certain aspects of its rules (both in PC build and action resolution) that encourage metagaming and player empowerment.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Are you being deliberately provocative?

No. If the rules don't include metagame mechanics, you can still metagame aplenty. If they do, the rules no longer function for anyone that doesn't play that way.