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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I sense an undertone in some posts that a more "balanced" system was achieved in the previous version of the game.

It's a fact of the game's history that it's been more or less balanced at some times than others. Over 40 years have gone by, in spite of the current edition being '5th' there have arguably been more than 5 editions, they've varied in many ways, balance certainly not least significant among them.

If that is so, are you playing that game? If not, why not?

I just played it last night. I also run 5e. I'll also play 3.0 or 1e AD&D when I get the chance. I also play run/play Champions! and other hero systems games, ran/played WoD games in the past, run the very occasional old-school Gamma World game, and many others. In some cases, lampshading the flaws of a game account for a large proportion of the fun of playing it.

So, while balance is a highly desirable - even necessary, in some minimal degree - quality for a game to possess, it's one of many factors that go into deciding what games to play. Nostalgia, humor, desire to display system mastery, convenience, sunk investment in learning a specific system, lack of other options and/or feeling a need to have a 'fair' chance to dominate play might all be reasons to choose to play a badly-balanced game.

 

[shoak1]

First, allow me to express that despite the heated debate herein, I enjoy the exchange. I think I will attempt to take the rancor down a notch though as I feel we are beginning to disrespect each other. My apologies.

To have a completely 'balance' game mechanically, everything needs to be identical.

Balance is defined as "a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions." Different elements - not identical. Balance as an adjective REQUIRES the elements to be different.

What balance should be in my opinion, and this is how I try to structure my games, is everyone feeling fulfilled as part of the game experience. .....as long as everyone is enjoying themselves, I call it a win.

That is not balance - it is game fulfillment - and that can come in many forms. Many of us require balance to achieve fulfillment.

I've said it before: there is no way that, on an ability-for-ability basis, a person who alters reality with a word and a person who pokes sharp sticks through things are going to be on an even power level. At least not without the "everything the same but with different names" approach. So to make the game balanced, or enjoyable, we need to look beyond that constraint.

That statement is in contravention of thousands of games in history that have near universally been considered balanced. Balance is a condition strived for by virtually all game designers. D and D does not get a free pass on that.

Much of the burden for such an approach falls on the DM, and the players. That's fine. If I didn't want stuff falling on the DM and players, I'd play a video game instead of D&D.

Why would you want a sizeable chunk of the game's fan base to leave? The game is a business after all - it would mean less money, less support, more chances of the game being dropped by the publishers, less attraction of new gamers. Furthermore, why do you fight so hard against an attempt at balance as we see it? If as you state, the DM can and should be the one to create balance, it seems that YOUR game would be immune from any balance changes by the publisher, right? I don't mean that question to be rhetorical - I really am having a hard time understanding your resistance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree with the analysis, and the premise.

The issue is that you are defining balance in your own way.

Well, it's a definition I came across, and phrased in my own words...

By definition, a game where are the weapons do the same damage is perfectly balanced, but you wouldn't like it because it doesn't have "choice."

By what definition? And how good is a definition of balance which classes functionally identical systems (the game where all weapons do the same damage, and the game where one weapon does so much more damage that no other weapons are ever used) as somehow different?

Let's take another example. Rock, paper, scissors is a very balanced game, even though the options aren't the same.

It's a perfectly fair game. It fails my definition of balance because the choices aren't meaningful. Each is perfectly viable - it defeats one other choice and is defeated by one other. But none of them have any meaning, they're arbitrary.

3 is also a quite low number of choices relative to what you find in RPGs.

The issue is that as more options (choices) get built into the system, it will necessarily not be balanced.

Depends on the system and how robustly it's balanced. Adding choices to a system that's just a list of arbitrary sub-systems that can thus interact in unexpected ways is likely to result in a new choice rendering swaths of previous ones non-viable, or a new choice synergizing with certain past choices in a combo with similar consequences. That can reduce the net number of viable choices, rendering the game less balanced.

But, it's not inevitable, it's just a danger of increasing the scope and depth of a game. RPGs, though, thrive on scope and depth, they're 'infinite games...'

Going back to the weapon example, what you call "the illusion of choice" others might call freedom. For example, if every weapon did, ahem, d6, then what you called your weapon wouldn't matter. Some people would enjoy that.

Nod. While 'viability' is more prone to quantitative analysis, judgement does come into it, especially in the context of RPGs where situations can vary so widely. Meaningful, OTOH, can be outright subjective. Being allowed to choose the name/appearance of your weapon (or character, for that matter), and thus tie it to fiction, connotations, cultural signposts, metaphors or even simple puns, might seem 'meaningful' to some players. Thus the game with the large list of mechanically identical weapons or the option to define your weapon how you like, /can/ be experienced as better-balanced than the one with a list of weapons, one of which is so strictly superior as to render all others non-viable.

There is no perfect way to achieve this.

Correct. Perfection is not achievable.
Striving for perfection, OTOH, can result in continuous improvement.

 

[shoak1]

Not sure how many times I need to say this, but here goes one more time. We are saying that there does need to be a foundational balance in the game. However, when your (general you) style of game play is outside of what the game is designed to function to be (by focusing on tactical combat over the other aspects), then it is up to you to use the tools provided to you tweak the game to fit that style. This is needed because many of the things that would normally balance out most of your concerns you are ignoring by choosing to play the style you want, and are thus skewing certain abilities to be more powerful than they otherwise would be in a game that is played how D&D is designed.

Your argument would be spot on IF I was indicating something like "heavy armor kicks linguists butt." What I am saying is that WITHIN combat abilities, there are glaring imbalances. Those of us that DO focus on combat are MUCH more apt to catch those. Now there are some major and minor crossover feats that definitely require careful adjudication, but others are more clear. The nihilism comes in when you and others pull out the "based on individual playstyle" flag on virtually every debate. Perhaps individually you are very prudent and selective in your critique - but together you come off as a pack of wolves dismissive of any perceived balance issues. These forums are a very hostile environment when it comes to balance, and it is frustrating to have the pack voraciously descend on critics with these en mass "based on individual playstyle" arguments. To me it shows a lack of empathy and inclusiveness of other perspectives and serves to divide us.

 

[iserith]

First, allow me to express that despite the heated debate herein, I enjoy the exchange. I think I will attempt to take the rancor down a notch though as I feel we are beginning to disrespect each other. My apologies.

...you come off as a pack of wolves...

Hmm. That seemed pretty short-lived. But at least you tried.

As well, I think there is a difference between discussions that are along the lines of "5e is not a 'balanced' game system and the designers are to blame" and "My game is not 'balanced' because I focus almost exclusively on one pillar and the unmodified game goes all wobbly when I do that - how can I adjust things on my end?"

 

[shoak1]

Not necessarily. The reason being that "balance" can mean so many things. For example, let's take weapons. Let's balance it so that all weapons do the same damage. Every weapon now does 1d8 damage. This is balanced. It also renders any choice meaningless. You could also balance things along class lines. So that damage dealt is determined by class. Same as hit dice. So a fighter would do 1d10 damage regardless of weapon, a barbarian would do 1d12 and so on. This is also balanced, and makes the choice of class matter more, and choice of weapon meaningless. Finally, you could take each weapon and give it a different damage value, along with other factors that vary from weapon to weapon, in an attempt to make each weapon have some form of appeal. This seems to be what they went for, to varying degrees of success; I think there are still some weapons that are almost never chosen, but most have some kind of appeal. So, it really depends. Balance does not automatically mean more meaningful choices, or anything else. It's a highly subjective term that gets used as if it has very specific application.

I think perhaps it comes down to left brain/right brain. Right brainers are much more quick than left brainers to throw up their hands and sling out the "its all up to your individual playstyle and DM choices" flag. Left brainers see balance achievable through examining norms and averages across playstyles and settings - we see it as challenging and complicated to do so, but definitively achievable. Right brainers see such endeavors as subjective folly.

So I doubt we will ever come to consensus here, and that's ok. But what I see as troubling here, as I percive it, is the lack of budge on the part of the right brainers - a sort of "give no quarter, we are on top in this edition" mentality as I see it. I suspect its unintentional - but I think a wiullingness to share here would go a long way. And to be clear, waving the DM wand is not giving ground - that is a definitively unattractive option to us.

 

[shoak1]

I sense an undertone in some posts that a more "balanced" system was achieved in the previous version of the game. If that is so, are you playing that game? If not, why not?

Come on bud, sending us off to play another edition is not cool...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hmm. That seemed pretty short-lived.

Hey, it was 15 minutes. Apparently, according to people who have done such studies, that's longer than most men last.*


*so I've been told. Not ME of course

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think perhaps it comes down to left brain/right brain. Right brainers are much more quick than left brainers to throw up their hands and sling out the "its all up to your individual playstyle and DM choices" flag. Left brainers see balance achievable through examining norms and averages across playstyles and settings - we see it as challenging and complicated to do so, but definitively achievable. Right brainers see such endeavors as subjective folly.

So I doubt we will ever come to consensus here, and that's ok. But what I see as troubling here, as I percive it, is the lack of budge on the part of the right brainers - a sort of "give no quarter, we are on top in this edition" mentality as I see it. I suspect its unintentional - but I think a wiullingness to share here would go a long way. And to be clear, waving the DM wand is not giving ground - that is a definitively unattractive option to us.

I'm a systems analyst by my day job, and am extremely analytical, so I don't think your theory holds much water. But hey! Congratulations on insulting an entire half of the population. You're on roll.