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

[Imaro]

A game being indie doesn't make it a Forge game. A game that set up its online presence making heavy use of The Forge makes it a Forge Game (or rather a Forge company). How is this complicated?

Because the Forge has certain "views" (or maybe ideologies would be a better word??) as far as making role playing games, and if you use their message boards but none of their theories, ideology, views, etc. I don't see how you've created a "Forge game"... It's like saying if I use their boards to promote a pure retro-clone of D&D (but adopt none of their philosophy in making the game) then it suddenly becomes a Forge game. I view it as I am an independent publisher and maker of an indie game sure (which is what the Forge message boards were originally designed for) but not a maker of "Forge games".

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

...which would be caring about balance, just in the "opposed to it" way not the "want it" way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

...which would be caring about balance, just in the "opposed to it" way not the "want it" way.

Again, that oversimplifies. They are not necessarily opposed to it, they might just care how any factor in game design affects the final product, without particular concern for balance itself. Either way, people telling others they should not have an opinion on something because they said they don't care if characters are more or less powerful is a bit silly.

I might be pretty neutral on the idea of balance in general, but if someone introduces a mechanic i dislike in the name of balance, it is okay for me to be critical of it, and this doesn't change my balance neutral position.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because the Forge has certain "views" (or maybe ideologies would be a better word??) as far as making role playing games, and if you use their message boards but none of their theories, ideology, views, etc. I don't see how you've created a "Forge game"... It's like saying if I use their boards to promote a pure retro-clone of D&D (but adopt none of their philosophy in making the game) then it suddenly becomes a Forge game. I view it as I am an independent publisher and maker of an indie game sure (which is what the Forge message boards were originally designed for) but not a maker of "Forge games".

Ron Edwards had certain views and wrote most of the columns for the Forge. The Forge itself was about encouraging people to publish RPGs. Burning Wheel (which I believe to be the third most successful company that emerged via the Forge after only Evil Hat (Fate) and Bully Pulpit (Fiasco)) in no way appears to be in line with GNS theory or look like a stereotypical Forge Game. Vincent Baker's latest (Apocalypse World) doesn't appear to be in line with GNS theory to me or to look like a stereotypical Forge Game even if his previous known game (Dogs in the Vineyard) did.

Ron Edwards had views. Ron Edwards was also a big contributor to The Forge. Doesn't mean they were the same thing (and Vincent Baker is generally IME much more worth reading than Ron Edwards).

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't see himself distingusihing himself from "members of the Forge" - which furthermore would be dishonest, wouldn't it, if the forum for his game was based at The Forge. (Unless you are working with some other definition of "message board member" that I'm not familiar with.)

Frankly it seems to me that he is trying to avoid being tarred with the Forge's brush, despite selling a game which strikes me as pretty "indie" by any typical measure (eg player protagonism via metagame mechanics that hook onto fictional positioning of PCs), because there is a degree of Forge hostility in many RPGers that I personally don't really understand.

I wouldn't be surprised if that feeds into the motivation a bit, but in the case of Fate, much of its original development as a game happened without much direct Forge/GNS influence.* Evil Hat, the company, benefitted (I would presume) from using the Forge resources as the incubator they were intended to be. As I mentioned elsewhere, Evil Hat also produces other games which appear much more influenced by GNS theory.

I think in this case that fundamental part of the problem is that calling something a "Forge game" has come to mean a lot more than just "indie". Forge fans seem to want to give the site credit for anything rpg and "indie", even though other indie games existed before the Forge. I would hope that you are not claiming that the Forge is responsible for inventing the ideas of player protagonism, metagame mechanics (still hate that phrase), or using fictional positioning for either. On the other hand, Forge's detractors use the term pejoratively and ascribe it to a lot of the often inscrutable rules sets that came out of that think tank.

Which is correct? Heck, I dunno. However, I do have a problem with your second paragraph above. Painting "indie" and "Forge" as synonymous is, I think, simply not correct. At the very least, there are gobs of OSR games out there that patently reject the Forge, even simply as an incubator. I also do not think that Evil Hat/Fate is the only pairing of Company/Game that used the Forge as a business incubator, but not a game/development/design incubator. (Although, Evil Hat/Fate appear to be the most successful case...the others on my hard drive appear to have been "on hiatus" for several years.) I have suspicions about how and when this might have been a small trend, but that's getting even farther OT than we already are.


*The last time I saw anyone attempt a serious GNS analysis of Fate (this was pre-Fate Core), their conclusion amounted to "this game should be dysfunctional."

 

[Ahnehnois]

...which would be caring about balance, just in the "opposed to it" way not the "want it" way.

On the level of individual campaigns, I see a lot more DMs actively promoting class-based imbalances rather than perfect balance between them. For example, in one game, a DM might declare one PC a chosen of this or that or make him otherwise the special focus of the game and make him more (or less, if you're going the Frodo route) powerful than the others.

In other cases, it might be true across an entire swath of characters. For example, many of the BoVD prestige classes were purposefully overpowered to represent the allure of the dark side; the temptations being offered by the requisite lords. In another game, a DM might decide to reward the forces of good and make paladins and good clerics better than everyone else, maybe give them some extra benefits. In an FR-type world full of magocracies, the arcane classes might be favored. Another setting might emphasize the perils of magic and reward the nonmagical classes. (Personally, I try to make the world geared towards psionics).

It seems to me that the in-game implications of the various classes suggests all kinds of purposeful imbalances, which is why balance is ultimately a DM thing. Part of those purposeful imbalances is about the DM trying to decide what world he wants to build, and what message he wants to convey. Which again, I think is why it's best for a generic set of rules not to take a stance on which is or should be better or not better.

 

[Ratskinner]

Again, that oversimplifies. They are not necessarily opposed to it, they might just care how any factor in game design affects the final product, without particular concern for balance itself. Either way, people telling others they should not have an opinion on something because they said they don't care if characters are more or less powerful is a bit silly.

I might be pretty neutral on the idea of balance in general, but if someone introduces a mechanic i dislike in the name of balance, it is okay for me to be critical of it, and this doesn't change my balance neutral position.

I don't think we were citing particular mechanics to discuss. We instead have two rather blanket claims:

"I don't care about balance"
"Pursuing balance introduces elements which I find objectionable."

Now, I don't see how both can be true. To me this sounds much more like someone attempting to take a moral high ground of assumed neutrality to promote their actual position.

To be clear, I'm perfectly okay with saying "I don't like balanced games" or "Balanced classes don't fit my playstyle" or any similar thing. There are playstyles/agendas for which that is a perfectly legitimate concern. That's fine, but then you can't say you don't care about it, because well, you do, you object to it.

 

[Ratskinner]

<snippage>
It seems to me that the in-game implications of the various classes suggests all kinds of purposeful imbalances, which is why balance is ultimately a DM thing. Part of those purposeful imbalances is about the DM trying to decide what world he wants to build, and what message he wants to convey. Which again, I think is why it's best for a generic set of rules not to take a stance on which is or should be better or not better.

That's perfectly fine. That's a particular playstyle/agenda. (I'll make no claims on its popularity vs. other ones.) However, in the line of your "balance should be a DM thing" I would still think it would be better to have classes be balanced and then let the individual DM "unbalance" them according to his fancy.

Which is honestly, all I really have to say about the issue in the context of D&D's general mechanical milieu.

 

[Imaro]

Ron Edwards had certain views and wrote most of the columns for the Forge. The Forge itself was about encouraging people to publish RPGs. Burning Wheel (which I believe to be the third most successful company that emerged via the Forge after only Evil Hat (Fate) and Bully Pulpit (Fiasco)) in no way appears to be in line with GNS theory or look like a stereotypical Forge Game. Vincent Baker's latest (Apocalypse World) doesn't appear to be in line with GNS theory to me or to look like a stereotypical Forge Game even if his previous known game (Dogs in the Vineyard) did.

Ron Edwards had views. Ron Edwards was also a big contributor to The Forge. Doesn't mean they were the same thing (and Vincent Baker is generally IME much more worth reading than Ron Edwards).

Ron Edwards was the face, of the Forge... plain and simple.

OAN... Evil Hat retired their presence at the Forge in 2008... the latest edition of Fate (FATE core which is the one I believe you are erroneously, or not, citing as 2nd in popularity to D&D) was published in 2013... that means it hasn't been a "Forge game" by your definition for over five years... Unless you are now arguing that any publisher who has ever set up a message board on the Forge site has his games forever labeled as "Forge games".

 

[Ahnehnois]

"I don't care about balance"
"Pursuing balance introduces elements which I find objectionable."

Now, I don't see how both can be true. To me this sounds much more like someone attempting to take a moral high ground of assumed neutrality to promote their actual position.

I don't see how this is a contradiction, unless the only difference between your definition of "balance" and "not balance" is the balance part, and in every other way the game remains completely the same.

Instead, what we've seen is edition after edition filled with stupid mistakes made by trying to make things more balanced (say, giving 3e clerics too many spine numbers because 2e clerics were seen as too weak, or giving the monk a low BAB to "balance" its special abilities, or creating a warblade to "balance" nonmagical classes), often having the opposite effect in the process.