D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?

[iserith]

What I find laughable is the game designers getting a free ride on not putting enough work into balancing things and then getting defended by people who say its not the designers' job to balance things its the DM's job. Great way to produce the perfect game lol

What I also find laughable is that if you think its the DM's job to balance things, why do you care if the game gets balanced differently? Can't your DM just adjust things at your table accordingly? hmmmm......

I think that, given the game system we've been given, part of the role of the DM is to "balance" it as he or she finds appropriate to the game desired. We've been told as much both by the designers and the books themselves. I don't know how anyone can be surprised by the fact that it's the DM's role to make a game out of the tools provided and that the game system won't do it for you.

As far as whether I care if the game gets "balanced" differently (whatever that means), that's an easy question to answer - I don't. So if you want to go ahead and invent a time machine, go back a couple years, and give the designers a serious talking to before the books were sent off to print, maybe you'll have a shot at getting what you want.

Until then, if you want a "balanced game," - again, whatever that means to you - it's on you to make that happen. Complaining about it won't solve the problem you perceive you have.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think you can separate balance...or perhaps "sensible design" is a better phrase?...from DM judgment in 5th edition. And I think that is intentional.

And I am grateful for it.

Well, kinda sorta.

Balance, insofar as how I define it - that no given option is so much better than all other options that it becomes the default choice - still allows for quite a bit of flexibility. And, to be fair, perfect balance is impossible. There are just too many variables. How many PC's are in your group is probably one of the biggest issues. Balancing the game for 3 PC's and 9 PC's is a very different beast.

But, so long as everything is in the right ball park, we're all good. If my character is doing 10% more damage than your character, it's probably not going to be much of an issue at the table. However, if my character is doing 100% more damage than your character, then, well, that probably is.

5e, by and large, is pretty well balanced. You can unbalance it - and generally those are known issues. It's pretty hard to do unintentionally - which I've certainly seen in other games where character balance isn't at least paid lip service to. Original Vampire The Masquerade, for example, was ludicrously easy to break. To the point where you had to be careful not to break the system. Hrm, my vampire is hundreds of years old, makes sense that he's rich, I'll take 5 pips in wealth - oops, I'm now a billionaire and I can solve virtually all my problems just by throwing more money at it

 

[iserith]

I propose a post challenge:

Explain your point without using the word "balance" or any word containing the same. Go!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, kinda sorta.

Balance, insofar as how I define it - that no given option is so much better than all other options that it becomes the default choice - still allows for quite a bit of flexibility. And, to be fair, perfect balance is impossible. There are just too many variables. How many PC's are in your group is probably one of the biggest issues. Balancing the game for 3 PC's and 9 PC's is a very different beast.

But, so long as everything is in the right ball park, we're all good. If my character is doing 10% more damage than your character, it's probably not going to be much of an issue at the table. However, if my character is doing 100% more damage than your character, then, well, that probably is.

5e, by and large, is pretty well balanced. You can unbalance it - and generally those are known issues. It's pretty hard to do unintentionally - which I've certainly seen in other games where character balance isn't at least paid lip service to. Original Vampire The Masquerade, for example, was ludicrously easy to break. To the point where you had to be careful not to break the system. Hrm, my vampire is hundreds of years old, makes sense that he's rich, I'll take 5 pips in wealth - oops, I'm now a billionaire and I can solve virtually all my problems just by throwing more money at it

5 Pips in wealth doesn't seem to solve Bruce Wayne's problems....

I guess he had a good DM.

(Yes I realize I just mixed about three metaphors )

Kidding aside, I don't really disagree with anything you say. I just think that this edition was designed with the intention that the DM would provide significant input. So I don't think we can really separate those two elements. And for any flaw in game design (which is almost always subjective) can be "corrected" through DM judgment. And I think this was a smart design decision.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I propose a post challenge:

Explain your point without using the word "balance" or any word containing the same. Go!

Done!

 

[Tony Vargas]

In a balanced system, you can also play the game however you want and imbalance it through DM fiat.

Sure, and that's much easier to do than imposing balance through DM fiat.

The desire for imbalance, though, is a whole 'nuther topic..

What I find laughable is the game designers getting a free ride on not putting enough work into balancing things and then getting defended by people who say its not the designers' job to balance things its the DM's job. Great way to produce the perfect game lol

Beats the hell out of pouring resources and talent into it, only too discover that the result is unrecognizable and repugnant to the very people you were trying yo please...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I propose a post challenge:

Explain your point without using the word "balance" or any word containing the same. Go!

1- What does balance mean to you?.

A quality games possess to varying degrees, marked by a sufficiently or even surfeit of choices available to the player that are both viable and meaningful.

 

[Xeviat]

I propose a post challenge:

Explain your point without using the word "balance" or any word containing the same. Go!

I want a game where choices are meaningful, where there aren't options that vastly overshadow others, as well as no "reasonable" options that are vastly weaker than others. In combat, I want characters of similar roles to be able to contribute similarly. Out of combat, I want every character to be able to hold spotlight time, regardless of the roleplaying skill of the individual character. I want choices to mean something, and to not have too many "optimal" choices.

 

[shoak1]

(key bugle call)
Left brain comrades unite!!!! Our attempt to bring Balance (i.e.The Precioussss) to the game we love so dear is under furious attack by right brainers seeking to silence us !!!!! But fear not my logical friends - I am supremely (99.36554%) confident that their right brain nihilist arguments claiming The Precioussss is "subjective" - and therefore eternally elusive - will fall on deaf ears. Our much more rigorous left brain analysis will then be left as the One True Argument, and we shall prevail in our quest for The Precioussss !!!!!!

HUZZAH!!!!!!!
HUZZAH!!!!!!!
HUZZAH!!!!!!!

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I want a game where choices are meaningful, where there aren't options that vastly overshadow others, as well as no "reasonable" options that are vastly weaker than others. In combat, I want characters of similar roles to be able to contribute similarly. Out of combat, I want every character to be able to hold spotlight time, regardless of the roleplaying skill of the individual character. I want choices to mean something, and to not have too many "optimal" choices.

And balance gives players more genuine choices rather than the illusion of choice.