D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Manbearcat]

What do you mean by "in-game causation". Your example is just metagame decision-making since it's out of character perspective and entirely player perspective. What causal mechanism are you trying to identify? Did the rules cause the player to make a jump decision in this fashion? Did the GM make a consequences decision based on in-game causal effects? What do either you or Pemerton mean in terms designed to communicate rather than block communication?

100 HP fighter survives 50 foot fall completely unscathed within the fiction. No sprained ankle. No vertebral damage. No corresponding injury whatsoever, immediate or lasting.

Player knows that 50 foot leaps are trivial by way of the falling damage and HP mechanics interfacing with each other. The Fighter knows that he has survived a fall unscathed that would be mortal to most everyone (0 level NPCs even through most 3rd level characters).

This little experiment will then be reproduced within the fiction (by way of player decision) multiple times throughout the course of the campaign as the player does the math to ensure the odds of survival trivialize the potential mortality of the leap. The Fighter has now affirmed that leaps that would kill most people are trivial to him. Luck, divine intervention, uncanny skill at dissipating the energy of the fall? Who knows. But its trivial. And the Fighter knows this.

I hope that breakout of what I figured was implicit is sufficient to prove I'm not interested in blocking communication and that I've kept my showing off at a low enough threshold to meet your satisfaction.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So what you are trying to say is, that the fighter does not need to know of the existence of HP or falling damage rules, because he can repeatedly test his ability to survive 50' falls and not die. So completely within his viewpoint as a game character, he still knows that 50' drops are a non-threat.

 

[ArmchairReactionary]

Balance is pretty much a meaningless subjectivity

Balance is entirely subjective, I find discussions of it are actually confused discussions of other topics. DPS, etc. has to do with tactical viability under an assumed set of play goals. However, as I play sandbox games where my goal is world building and evolution - and not story, party niches or fighting, per se - it matters little to me if one guy is Superman and the other is Batman. If you're the sort of player who feels possessive of story roles, character success and being able to participate in all aspects - don't play with me? I have a gritty style that persists regardless of whether it's GURPS or RISUS, because I like logical structure to cause and effect, even if there's no mechanical aspects to it. Superman can kill most people with one punch and Batman can probably rig elections with his absurd super skills. If the players decide to do it, that's fine with me. The only genre conventions and mood I put into the game is system choice and thematic/ambient factors.
Quite simply, the things people limp under balance are not important to me and I'm not inclined to compromise with anyone who does find it important.
Crunchy or lite are both viable with my style, and my problems with 3e is distaste for its values and content, plus the quirks of the system. Maybe this is caused by a focus on mechanical 'balance', 4e certainly seemed too reflect this. But I just wouldn't play these games and players who want to can go elsewhere. I'm a selfish DM, and I generally only invite people who I expect can deal with playing the game I feel like running. I don't give options for systems or settings, but I have a core of people who seem to prefer my no compromise serious business anti-plot style to anything anyone else is running.

I had a d20 player get irritated because I wouldn't let him reroll a 1e character who had average stats except for a 7 STR and 17 Int. He thought his character ' sucked' and was clearly wrapped up in the video game/fighting=roleplaying logic that infects casuals like a facehugger. He fell asleep pregame anyway, so I'm not going to worry about whether he likes the game or not; if you don't like it go elsewhere.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], thanks for the tips. It's more helpful than starting a thread on another site to slander someone.

But [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] is hardly a novice in discussions on this topic. He's been posting posts critical of non-process-simulation rules for the past several years, and has participated in many if not most of the big threads discussing these issues.

If either of you wants more examples of rules that prioritise ingame causal logic as a constraint on resolution:

* rules in which oozes can't be tripped;

* rules in which inspiration healing can't restore a character from a swoon or unconsciousness;

* rules in which you must touch someone first in order to grapple them;

* rules in which bonus stacking is regulated by identifying the nature of the bonus within the fiction (eg morale vs luck vs competence etc etc);

* rules in which character's have a chance of dying during PC generation because, after all, growing up can be a tough business!​

If either of you wants more examples of rules that do not prioritise ingame causal logic as a constraint on resolution:

* rules in which a failed Nature check, during an escape, can be narrated as the PC suddenly encountering a gorge across his/her path;

* rules in which a successful save againt a dragon's breath by a fighter chained to a rockface can be narrated as finding a small niche in the rock and using it to take some shelter;

* rules in which a blow from a sword which is in mechanical terms identical (eg same to hit roll, same damage roll) can be narrated as a light scratch, or a blow that would have felled a lesser swordsman but was able to be ducked by the skilled PC, or as a decapitation, depending upon the mechanical state of the target of the blow;

* rules in which bonus stacking is governed by the source of the bonus in mechanical elements (feats vs powers vs items) regardless of the infiction character of the bonus (training vs blessing vs dumb luck etc);

* rules in which the players can produce changes in the shared fiction without their PC having him-/herself having to take actions, within the fiction, that would produce that change.​

If neither of you has ever encountered the "realist" criticism of such classic D&D mechanics as hit points and saving throws, from players of games like Runequest, Hero, Rolemaster, GURPS etc I'd be surprised. This has been a commonplace in the fantasy RPGing community for over 30 years.

If neither of you has noticed that the change in saving throws from AD&D to 3E involved rewriting the mechanic from one which does not model or care about ingame causal logic, to one which does - therefore leaving hit points and levels as the two main non-process-sim elements of 3E - I'd be less surprised, because it is one aspect of that edition transiation that is rarely commented upon in these terms. Once it's pointed out, though, and if you reread Gygax's discussion of saving throws in his DMG, then I think it's pretty clear. (Eg He gives, as an example of what a poison save might involve, the sucking of the poison out of the wound. I don't think anyone ever interepreted a 3E Fort save in that way.)

Now imagine a segment of game play in which the PC is negotiating with the mayor. The player makes a Diplomacy check, and it fails: the PC has therefore failed to persuade the mayor. Here are some ways in which the GM might narrate that failure:

* Ignorant of local customs, you say something that is insulting to the mayor and she walks off;

* Ignorant of local customs, you say something that is insulting to the mayor and she walks off;

* You spit on the mayor in the course of your impassioned address - offended, she walks off;

* As you are addressing the mayor, it starts raining heavily, and she goes inside to take shelter before you can finish stating your case;

* After you finish your address to the mayor, she says "I feel the force of your point, but unfortunately I swore an oath to my late father never to do as you now ask me to - so sadly I cannot aid you".​

If you find yourself objecting to Schroedinger's oaths, Schroedingers's rain or even Schroedinger's customs, than probably you favour ingame causal logic as a constraint on action resolution.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's worth keeping in mind that different people view the same rules in different ways. You may see that a failed Nature check caused a gorge to appear, but I would say that the gorge was always there and your failed check caused you the ill luck of running into it. Inspiring healing when you're unconscious... is actually kind of an incredibly standard trope in heroic fiction. "Wake up Leela!" Damage rolls represent a relative state, not a specific one, and have only ever meant actual, specific damage in the minds of some players and GMs. And I can assure you, a Fort save in my games generally means someone has squeezed the poison out of their system somehow.

That said, there is certainly the difference between using rules to govern existing fictional elements and those designed to change the fiction itself, but that generally comes down to exactly how many details the GM has put into the scene. Having learned to ad-lib fiction with one edition, I'll carry it into any other game I ever play and you'd have to pay me (well) to do otherwise, whether we're talking 5E or OD&D.

 

[Derren]

It's worth keeping in mind that different people view the same rules in different ways. You may see that a failed Nature check caused a gorge to appear, but I would say that the gorge was always there and your failed check caused you the ill luck of running into it.

Was it there on the map the PCs bought sessions ago? Is it on the handout the players have from the area? Did the PCs see the gorge in their previous travels? Will it still be there in a few sessions? In some rules systems the answer to those questions, at least when following the default assumptions by the system, would be no. The gorge appears when the player fails a roll and disappears when the challenge is over and it is not needed any more.
The DM can handle it differently, but that is not the expectation of the system.

 

[Starfox]

Was it there on the map the PCs bought sessions ago? Is it on the handout the players have from the area? Did the PCs see the gorge in their previous travels? Will it still be there in a few sessions? In some rules systems the answer to those questions, at least when following the default assumptions by the system, would be no. The gorge appears when the player fails a roll and disappears when the challenge is over and it is not needed any more.

Which is all fine, if this is a playstyle the gaming group likes. Or, as Robin Laws says "in Feng Shui the map is not your friend" (that was a paraphrase, not a quote).

Of course, the opposite is also fine, for other groups. Or even the same group in a different game/setting/mood. Or both are fine all the time for some people. All a matter of preference, no right and no wrong.

BTW, my preferred playstyle is Participationism, I just learned from following the diagram from earlier in the thread and looking it up. Actually, I have a hard time seeing any other way to play as viable. And I am not ashamed of it. It's just my opinion, you are free to have yours.

The one thing I don't like is one-true-way-ism.

(And this is not in any shape or form directed at Derren personally, his was just the last post and a decent summing up of the thread.)

 

[dd.stevenson]

I hope that breakout of what I figured was implicit is sufficient to prove I'm not interested in blocking communication and that I've kept my showing off at a low enough threshold to meet your satisfaction.

Any way, next time I'll use "obfuscate" - that piece of everyday conversational English - rather than "extrapolate".

FWIW, I'm another person who appreciates clear English. The sad fact is that, even though I generally find you two to be the most civil posters in these types of threads, I've spent large amounts of time at ENWorld with both of you on my ignore lists. Not because I object to the content, but simply to make the threads more readable, because you make a lot of long posts that I can't make heads or tails of.

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], thanks for the tips. It's more helpful than starting a thread on another site to slander someone.

I didn't start a thread on another site to slander you or anyone. I asked for advice on that site, and I linked to it here to make it out in the open. I don't know why you're dwelling on this martyrdom act, but please cut it out. If I want to slander you, you'll know it for sure. It won't be implied.

If neither of you has ever encountered the "realist" criticism of such classic D&D mechanics as hit points and saving throws, from players of games like Runequest, Hero, Rolemaster, GURPS etc I'd be surprised. This has been a commonplace in the fantasy RPGing community for over 30 years.

It has nothing to do with the theme of your argument, and everything to do with the language you use to make the argument. At least, for me.

And I think you know, at this point, that's the theme of my argument.

 

[Sunseeker]

And that is an entirely fair approach. I think because i cut my teeth on 2E, where thieves and bards were not expected to do much in combat, i am comfortable with some characters being essentially non combat classes, with focus on other aspects of the game.

The problem with this is that when a class is say, 90% good at social and 10% good at combat, or even 0% good at combat, it means that other classes have to make up for it. Those who are good at combat must be more good at it. Certainly a DM could tailor a campaign to a bunch of non-combat classes this is certainly true, but I think that something would be decidedly lacking if there was NO combat, or so little as to have no meaning in such a situation.

Making a class expressly bad at something is terrible design. Making a class more dependent on a group is good design. The goal is a balanced group, but I find groups are more difficult to balance when you have characters that are only good at one thing ever. Which is why a party of utility wizards usually rocks any game, while a party of highly-niche characters requires highly tuned situations in order to make sure they don't TPK.