D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Bedrockgames]

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?

I petsonally like games that balance playability, plausibility and the integrity of flavor/setting. So I want some balance but everything comes at a cost, and I want balance that doesn't disrupt my sense of immersion or the excitement and surprise that comes with exploring a fantastic world. But again , that is my preference. I don't think you can take that and turn it into an objective measure of good design.

When it comes to balance, I prefer games where I can make a character who is weak at combat but good at something else. I like having that in a party as it seems to lead to more interesting developments. I do not like feeling like the system protects me from these sorts of things.

and a game where no one sucks at combat is not my preference.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What does bother you?

I have said what bothers me here and elsewhere. I just don't equate my dislikes with bad design.

i should probably clarify, I have not taken the position that balance is bad or that designers shouldn't strive for it. I posted in this thread originally to say I think balance can be good.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That said I do think some aspects of design can be gauged good or bad objectively. If the intended probabilities are off for example, that is bad. If the designers don't match the needs or expectations of their audience that can be bad. (I.E. They give people expecting gritty fantasy a game and setting that plays like the gummy bears cartoon). I am not saying everything is equally good. But these balance issue like how evenly across the pillars the characters should be balanced are very much about taste. Not wanting your character to be bad at anything, is a preference, and it is a preference that isn't universally shared. So I think it would be a big mistake to turn that into a good rule of design just because shidaku can say why he thinks it is bad design. For every shidaku who thinks it makes more work, you will have someone like me who thinks it makes the game more varied and entertaining (and either doesn't agree it makes more work or doesn't care).

 

[n00bdragon]

Responding to any objective judgement of things as "good" or "bad" with "that's just your opinion" would make it very difficult to generate any objective judgements at all. It's a bit of a tautology really, it should be obvious that if I deem one thing better than another that is my opinion. But collective opinions can still be formed that encompass the vast majority of people. Most people's opinion would be that murder is bad for example.

What it really sounds like to me is that you don't want characters that have no story excuse being capable at something suddenly being brought up to that level simply so that everyone is on a level playing field, while I think the argument others are trying to make is that characters who aren't able to meet a certain minimum capability at things shouldn't be presented as options to the player at all.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

I very much doubt if [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] was thinking of it, but I'd point to the example of Gloranthan Heroquesting (Runequest, Heroquest or other systems). Failure at completing one point in a quest should lead to complications, and a gorge appearing where there shouldn't be one (or where a bridge should be but isn't) is exactly the sort of thing that might happen.

And on a more common basis, if you're making a Nature check in D&D, presumably to find your way through an unfamiliar area, failing it and finding yourself faced by a gorge seems perfectly reasonable. It's not as if maps are perfectly detailed, and people following an established trail would probably not be required to make a check - I certainly wouldn't demand it.

 

[Hussar]

But that's not the issue. The gorge appearing is fine. It's that for some reason the gorge disappears after its existence has been established in play.

I doubt hero quest does that.

 

[Bluenose]

But that's not the issue. The gorge appearing is fine. It's that for some reason the gorge disappears after its existence has been established in play.

I doubt hero quest does that.

It depends where you are when you come across the gorge. Fail (or succeed, if you're supposed to find it) in the same way at the same place, perhaps it is. But perhaps it's not. When you're on a Hero Quest in Glorantha, deviating from the standard procedure is dangerous and the things you expect should not be there. Hero Quests do not take place in quite the same reality as the world, so geography can be mutable.

Edit: And in more normal situations, getting lost and stumbling across something hidden doesn't necessarily mean that you can find it again, though it might be easier for you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Responding to any objective judgement of things as "good" or "bad" with "that's just your opinion" would make it very difficult to generate any objective judgements at all. It's a bit of a tautology really, it should be obvious that if I deem one thing better than another that is my opinion. But collective opinions can still be formed that encompass the vast majority of people. Most people's opinion would be that murder is bad for example.

What it really sounds like to me is that you don't want characters that have no story excuse being capable at something suddenly being brought up to that level simply so that everyone is on a level playing field, while I think the argument others are trying to make is that characters who aren't able to meet a certain minimum capability at things shouldn't be presented as options to the player at all.

In this case, i think it prety much amounts to being just his opinion. The reasons he identified may be genuine, but that doesn't mean he has stumbled on a universal law of good design we should apply to all rpgs. Having reasons for not liking something simply doesn't establish a rule of good design automatically. I think it is pretty clear people are highly divided on the issue of balance, and on this issue in particuar. So any universal claim that parties balanced to be good at all pillars, needs to account for the fact that a substantial number of people don't enjoy that, and consider it unfun. I have my own reasons forcfinding that less exciting, and i have stated them. But one thing i understand is that reasons for disliking that kind of parity vary quite a bit. What is more important to me here is that some people like parity of the pillars and some people don't. I am not terribly interested into constructing theories round why and then using that to establish an objective measure of good design.

Again, i am not saying balance is unimportsnt, i think it is important. But i don't value the same kind of balnce as shidaku. He wants to ensure through the system that everyone always has something meaningfu to contribute in every type of event or challenge. He also seems very interested in making sure the GM has a much easier time presenting challenges to the party that are a good match for the individual skills of the player characters. That looks like it assumes he also wants play to be structured around challenges that are "just right". That isn't the kind of play i enjoy. My style of play and prefernces don't fit into that. So a game designed that way pretty much makes my style of play impossible or requires me to make all kinds of adjustments to achieve it. This is why i consider it a flawed design principle. A great principle to use for an audience of shidaku and like minded players, but not great for a gave that is trying to appeal to a broad audience that includes a lot of people like me. And certainly not a good principle for RPGs in general, where you have an enormous range of tastes and preferences around this specific concern (but again it is a good principle for the right target audience).

 

[Bedrockgames]

What it really sounds like to me is that you don't want characters that have no story excuse being capable at something suddenly being brought up to that level simply so that everyone is on a level playing field, while I think the argument others are trying to make is that characters who aren't able to meet a certain minimum capability at things shouldn't be presented as options to the player at all.

I do not believe this is what is behind my dislike of the pillar parity (though I do also somewhat happen to agree with the sentiment expressed). A lot of it also has to do with our assumptions of
lay and fun. I believe shidaku sees fun as being linked to the player's ability to meaningfully contribute to every challenge, whereas i see that as missing an opportunity for fun and greater depth of interaction with the setting. I welcome challenges that could be harder or easier depending on the exact make up of the party, and I like having areas I don't shine in because I honestly find it boring if I just happen to be good at combat, social interaction, finding traps, etc. I am much more interested in balance over the campaign, than around every challenge. To me that is more organic, keads to more surprises and is just more enjoyable. I think ot is fine if someone doesn't agree, but to me this feels like the principle 4E tried to apply to combat, but takes it to all other aspects of play as well. I just don't enjoy that kind of design. It simply isn't for me. And to be frank, I find it frustrating that, when one expresses that preference, there is a demand for proof or an explaination for why it isn't bad design.

 

[billd91]

[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!​

<snip>

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.

Finally, an explanation that makes sense rather than posts like this:

By "ingame causation" I mean extropalting consequences from known fictional states via application of the causal reasoning that operates within the fiction.

Runequest and Classic Traveller are poster-children for systems where ingame causation is the primary constraint on, and guide to, resolution.

Jump checks in 3E, and the comparable Athletic checks used to jump on the grid in 4e, are also examples of the phenomenon at the more local level.

The resolution of a grapple check in 3E is another example, and one of the WotC designers - Monte Cook, maybe? - once posted expressly that grapple was designed on this sort of model.

… or posts about metagame decision-making, neither of which have any clear relationship to the terminology: "in-game causation". And, yes, I do favor adjudication of in-game elements based on in-game cause and effect relationships (though that, in no way, indicates that metagame considerations must be the foremost or even important means of doing so).

I also don't see any necessary way in which Runequest or Traveller are poster children for in-game causation being primary restraints on resolution any more than 4e is (or is not). That's what I'm getting at with process simulation or whatever you do being a result of you, your prejudices, and your approach to gaming. The "Say Yes" style of GMing that 4e espouses has been around longer than 4e and could easily be used in any of these games. That the "Say Yes" trend came after the appearance of these games doesn't make them poster children for a different style - it just makes them prior to that trend. And Traveller, which I have more familiarity with than Runequest, isn't exactly a stranger to genre credibility as a constraint on the rules, actions, and the results - you just have to realize its genre is semi-hard science fiction.