D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Bedrockgames]

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.

This sort of thing has never been an issue for me. I am sorry, I agree it is design some people don't like, but I don't think it is bad design ...it is one approach to design and balance and one I think produces a better experience for some gamers , myself included . So if someone is making a game to my demographic it would be good design.

 

[n00bdragon]

But why is it good design [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]? He's explained his position and why he thinks classes designed to be bad at stuff causes problems but all you've said is "it doesn't cause problems for me". Is that the threshold of "good design"? Something that "doesn't cause problems"? Would the converse not be true for you? Would a game where no one was expressly designed to be bad at something cause problems for you? If so, why?

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

Only applicable if the PCs had information to the contrary beforehand.

Adapting to new fiction is not in the same league as retconning something that has been presented differently.

For example PCs in my game once saved an NPC I intended to die for the sake of ambiance, but since I never declared that the NPC was absolutely impossible to save, it wasn't an issue when they decided they were going to save that guy no matter what and I started up a skill challenge.

Nothing has to be set in stone until you have presented it to the players.

 

[Hussar]

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.

What games would those be?

It would seem to me, that once the gorge is established in play, it would always be there. Why would it disappear? What game system, or game system advice would advocate this?

IOW, where are you getting this interpretation from? It certainly doesn't appear in any version of D&D.

 

[Hussar]

But why is it good design [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]? He's explained his position and why he thinks classes designed to be bad at stuff causes problems but all you've said is "it doesn't cause problems for me". Is that the threshold of "good design"? Something that "doesn't cause problems"? Would the converse not be true for you? Would a game where no one was expressly designed to be bad at something cause problems for you? If so, why?

I think I can answer that.

For some people, "I like it" is the sole judge of what makes for good game design. I don't really understand it, but, that's the explanation I've always gotten when I've asked the same question. If someone likes it and it works for that group, then it's well designed.

IOW, some people are incapable of distinguishing personal tastes from qualitative critique.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But why is it good design @Bedrockgames? He's explained his position and why he thinks classes designed to be bad at stuff causes problems but all you've said is "it doesn't cause problems for me". Is that the threshold of "good design"? Something that "doesn't cause problems"? Would the converse not be true for you? Would a game where no one was expressly designed to be bad at something cause problems for you? If so, why?

I am sorry but that it causes problems for shidaku isn't a good threshold for bad design either. Ultimately how well something is designed is about whether it results in people enjoying the game more or less. That is going to vary considerably from person to person and group to group. Bad design is mudslinging that. Taking a balance idea like, everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to combat, to social interaction, to investigation and exploration and saying it is always good design, is a bad design principle. It may be good for some games and some audiences, but a lot of people will find it artificial and doesn't encourage a diverse or textured party.

 

[Hussar]

I am sorry but that it causes problems for shidaku isn't a good threshold for bad design either. Ultimately how well something is designed is about whether it results in people enjoying the game more or less. That is going to vary considerably from person to person and group to group. Bad design is mudslinging that. Taking a balance idea like, everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to combat, to social interaction, to investigation and exploration and saying it is always good design, is a bad design principle. It may be good for some games and some audiences, but a lot of people will find it artificial and doesn't encourage a diverse or textured party.

But, that's not what he said. He never said it causes problems for him, and in fact, pointed out that the DM can certainly tailor the scenarios for imbalanced PC's.

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.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6249039#ixzz2quhZTkNL

Is a pretty solidly reasoned argument. It's based on easily demonstrable elements (utility characters are easier to play than high niche characters) and points out that generalist characters are easier to design for since you don't have to tailor each scenario so much.

All you've stated amounts to, "Well, I don't mind tailoring". Which is all well and good, but, that doesn't show why it's good design. All it means is you have a higher threshold for bad design.

Something that is well designed should work better and more often, with less work than something that is less well designed shouldn't it? Isn't that a sign of good design?

 

[Bedrockgames]

.

IOW, some people are incapable of distinguishing personal tastes from qualitative critique.

I don't know, I have to admit I find this attitude is a bit insulting. It could be turned the other way , where some people are mistaking their own personal tastes for qualitative critique. I just feel like people are holding up these metrics of 'good design' and saying they are one size fits all. I just don't see it. My sense is, when it comes to balance you have to factor personal preference because not everyone values the same things or is troubled by the same issue. This is something we see again and again in these balance debates.

 

[n00bdragon]

Which is why I must, once again, ask "what would you consider to be so-called good design"? Shidaku has clearly labeled what he considers to be good design. You can agree with that or not, but you aren't telling us what you consider to be good design other than "not that". You keep saying that a system which does not possess equality doesn't bother you, and that's fine, no one's criticizing your tolerance of those games; but if you had to set games of a scale from "better to worse" based on something how would you rank them? Is a game where no one expressly sucks at combat a bad design choice to you or is it merely a design element you don't care about? "It doesn't bother me" is so impossibly noncommittal. What does bother you?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But tailor the scenarios for imbalanced PC's.



Is a pretty solidly reasoned argument. It's based on easily demonstrable elements (utility characters are easier to play than high niche characters) and points out that generalist characters are easier to design for since you don't have to tailor each scenario so much.

All you've stated amounts to, "Well, I don't mind tailoring". Which is all well and good, but, that doesn't show why it's good design. All it means is you have a higher threshold for bad design.

Something that is well designed should work better and more often, with less work than something that is less well designed shouldn't it? Isn't that a sign of good design?

It doesnt mean I have a higher threshold for bad design. It means I find campaigns with more varied character abilities much more interesting and fun . Games where characters all automatically do well in every 'pillar' feel less interesting to me and a bit artificial. I enjoy when a party needs to account for strengths and weaknesses that arise from that. I can see how not everyone feels that way , but would never say those who like more parity just like bad design.