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

[shoak1]

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

Comrade please examine your behavior as well - you edited out a snippet from a larger text, that, when taken out of context, appears snarky. Seems argumentative on your part.

 

[shoak1]

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.

[sigh] Ironically its actually you doing the insulting. Apparently you, in contrast to myself, find one of the two ways of thinking superior to the other.....

 

[steeldragons]

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.

There has been no indication from any numbers I've seen over the past couple of years (as far as has been shared here on Enworld) that 5e's "design" or level of "balance" is leading to any "sizable chunks of the game's fan base to leave." If anything it has brought significant chunk back and seems to be drawing in new players in a way D&D hasn't since the 80's.

Furthermore, why do you fight so hard against an attempt at balance as we see it?

<Emphasis mine> Why does this read to me so much as hearing, "Resistance is futile" from a chorus of robotic voices?

I think I may have found something that could be a cause of some of the..."misunderstanding" and cross-talk:

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.

So, when you say, "games"....what do you mean? I've seen in your posts the terms "gamers," "gamists," "game designers," and of course "games" thrown around as if some universal standard. What do you mean? You can not defend a certain definition of a term with other different specialized and undefined terms.

Athletics contests are balanced because everyone is [supposed to be] following the same rules...same team sizes...and we're told from an early age that "cheating" is morally and ethically objectionable as it makes things unfair. Some side will win. Some side will lose.

Board games, which are largely just elaborately dressed up "races" - follow the path, get the end/finish line first - are similarly "balanced" by those involved...because everyone is following the same rules and [presumably] not cheating. Your adversaries are known quantities (however many people are on the board with you). You objective is clear. Someone will win. Everyone else loses.

Video games by and large can go a multitude of directions, but at a point have no choice but to be similarly linearly constrained. Number of character options, costume choices, possible directions or choice of action...Only so many options of code can be facilitated to take things in divergent directions. There are not so much "rules" in video games as there are "options of code." Why can't I do "X"? Because "X" wasn't written into the game, i.e. the computer can not just decide to "let you." It's not about following or breaking rules...it's about what the code is "designed" to allow. You win...if you're playing interconnected games, maybe you have some pals who also win with you.

Miniatures wargames and/or 3D "tactical" recreations/simulations are, again, "follow this preset system of accepted rules. No cheating." Winner. Loser.

D&D (as one of the first) and all TTRPGs, actually, is NOT like other games. TTRPGs are NOT designed to play like other games. They are designed to play within the imagination, even if you are using "maps and mini's." Yes, there are accepted "rules" to provide a framework "norm" that people understand and can be followed to gauge wealth, powers, advancement...give you some things to strive to achieve or succeed at...Note: "achieve" and "succeed," not "win." But there is no direct or set "us vs. them." It's "You IN [not necessarily "Against"] the [Fantasy/Scifi/Superheroes/etc...] World." The game just keeps going...as long as you want it to...there is no finish line, no World's Cup, no "Blackjack!"

Saying "all games...," as relates to D&D, gets a discussion/debate nowhere. Comparing board games or video games to a TTRPG and saying "Why doesn't it ---- like this..." will never get you anywhere.

They are different animals and just throwing the term "games" around or cordoning off yourselves as "gamists" or "gamers" [I liked that, as if "roleplayers" are not "gamers"] like it's something universally different (because you've decided to define it and identify as such) will not get any discussion anywhere...nor, for that matter, convince anyone of any preferences or perspective that "Huh, I guess shoak1 is right! I've been mistaken all of this time."

 

[Sacrosanct]

[sigh] Ironically its actually you doing the insulting. Apparently you, in contrast to myself, find one of the two ways of thinking superior to the other.....

Umm...you just said half of the population "throws their hands up" and "slings out" commentary, implying they just don't get it because they are right brains. And you've called people nihilists, and giving designers free passes, and people who disagree with you as "packs of wolves."

Are you reading the same thread I am? Is there another person named "shoak1" that I'm confusing you with?

Can anyone else help me out here? Am I not reading the same things as everyone else is?

 

[Ath-kethin]

See, I wrote a masterpiece of a response - believe me, it was the One True Katana of forum responses, and would have won me the whole thread, if not the whole site - but I'm on my phone in a crap signal area, and the ether consumed it.

Bummer for me - for all of us, truly - but so it goes. Carry on.

 

[shoak1]

There has been no indication from any numbers I've seen over the past couple of years (as far as has been shared here on Enworld) that 5e's "design" or level of "balance" is leading to any "sizable chunks of the game's fan base to leave." If anything it has brought significant chunk back and seems to be drawing in new players in a way D&D hasn't since the 80's.



<Emphasis mine> Why does this read to me so much as hearing, "Resistance is futile" from a chorus of robotic voices?

I think I may have found something that could be a cause of some of the..."misunderstanding" and cross-talk:



So, when you say, "games"....what do you mean? I've seen in your posts the terms "gamers," "gamists," "game designers," and of course "games" thrown around as if some universal standard. What do you mean? You can not defend a certain definition of a term with other different specialized and undefined terms.

Athletics contests are balanced because everyone is [supposed to be] following the same rules...same team sizes...and we're told from an early age that "cheating" is morally and ethically objectionable as it makes things unfair. Some side will win. Some side will lose.

Board games, which are largely just elaborately dressed up "races" - follow the path, get the end/finish line first - are similarly "balanced" by those involved...because everyone is following the same rules and [presumably] not cheating. Your adversaries are known quantities (however many people are on the board with you). You objective is clear. Someone will win. Everyone else loses.

Video games by and large can go a multitude of directions, but at a point have no choice but to be similarly linearly constrained. Number of character options, costume choices, possible directions or choice of action...Only so many options of code can be facilitated to take things in divergent directions. There are not so much "rules" in video games as there are "options of code." Why can't I do "X"? Because "X" wasn't written into the game, i.e. the computer can not just decide to "let you." It's not about following or breaking rules...it's about what the code is "designed" to allow. You win...if you're playing interconnected games, maybe you have some pals who also win with you.

Miniatures wargames and/or 3D "tactical" recreations/simulations are, again, "follow this preset system of accepted rules. No cheating." Winner. Loser.

D&D (as one of the first) and all TTRPGs, actually, is NOT like other games. TTRPGs are NOT designed to play like other games. They are designed to play within the imagination, even if you are using "maps and mini's." Yes, there are accepted "rules" to provide a framework "norm" that people understand and can be followed to gauge wealth, powers, advancement...give you some things to strive to achieve or succeed at...Note: "achieve" and "succeed," not "win." But there is no direct or set "us vs. them." It's "You IN [not necessarily "Against"] the [Fantasy/Scifi/Superheroes/etc...] World." The game just keeps going...as long as you want it to...there is no finish line, no World's Cup, no "Blackjack!"

Saying "all games...," as relates to D&D, gets a discussion/debate nowhere. Comparing board games or video games to a TTRPG and saying "Why doesn't it ---- like this..." will never get you anywhere.

They are different animals and just throwing the term "games" around or cordoning off yourselves as "gamists" or "gamers" [I liked that, as if "roleplayers" are not "gamers"] like it's something universally different (because you've decided to define it and identify as such) will not get any discussion anywhere...nor, for that matter, convince anyone of any preferences or perspective that "Huh, I guess shoak1 is right! I've been mistaken all of this time."

Your entire argument is based on a faulty division of games into black and white genres. You define D and D to be a certain type of game (RPG only), then use that definition to cordon off your turf. Just because the current edition favors a particular genre (RPG) at the expense of another of its traditional genres (miniatures), does not change what D and D is. D and D is 40 years of change, and there are many, many genres of players represented within its fan base, all of whom deserve a place at the table. You may choose to be inclusive and flexible or, as I say, cordon off your turf and alienate fellow fans.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Certainly, if you make a claim about balance, you should settle on a definition, first.

Sure...but that isn't going to happen.

I think overall balance should be kept in mind in all aspects of game design, but I don't think balance is the goal. I tend to agree with the meaningful choices take...I like that idea, and certainly think it's silly when there is an option that is clearly so inferior to all other choices so as to never be selected.

But again, this is one definition or angle.

Which isn't balanced.

Sure it is.

It's a very similar definition to my own, because we're both looking at the same quality, if in slightly different ways. When some choices are too bad, they stop mattering, and when one choice is too good, all the alternatives stop mattering. Strict superiority is the clearest case, if one choice does everything another does, does all those things better, and does more beside, and has the same or fewer limitations, and the same or more advantages, the other choice might as well not exist, it's that "illusion of choice," and not even a very good one. Strict superiority isn't necessary to make a choice meaningless or non-viable, either, just clear and broad enough superiority (that's where subjectivity comes in, not in whether there is imbalance, just in the individual's tolerance of imbalance).

Sure....and when some choices are effectively the same, they also stop mattering. This is why I would say balance should be kept in mind, but not be the overall goal.

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.

I know you were directing this question to someone else, but I have an answer to offer.

I don't think it's wrong in any way to have criticisms of the edition....to say this or that doesn't work for me is fine. However, to call for the approach to change seems odd. If there is a problem for you, then you have the ability to correct it, especially given this edition's particular approach.

But to act as if the designers have failed in some way, and deserve admonishment or that they owe it to anyone to fix things for them, seems odd.

 

[shoak1]

Umm...you just said half of the population "throws their hands up" and "slings out" commentary, implying they just don't get it because they are right brains. And you've called people nihilists, and giving designers free passes, and people who disagree with you as "packs of wolves."

Are you reading the same thread I am? Is there another person named "shoak1" that I'm confusing you with?

Can anyone else help me out here? Am I not reading the same things as everyone else is?

That has to be one of the best uses of out-of-context sound bites I have seen in recent times - well done, from a rhetorical standpoint.

I will yield the floor here, we appear to only be further alienating each other, lets put our time into more productive pursuits shall we?

 

[shoak1]

Off topic, I have to hand it to you hawkeye (not sure how to make that a hyperlink thingee), while you are often as demonstrative in your opinions and posts as the rest of us, you seem to carefully and adroitly avoid the escalation of rancor many of us seem to struggle with. You are an inspiration - well done sir !

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure...but that isn't going to happen.

I think overall balance should be kept in mind in all aspects of game design, but I don't think balance is the goal.

Nod. I see it more as a minimal standard, a game needs to be balanced to some degree to be playable, and can always be better-balanced, but /just/ being well-balanced won't make a game successful. It is one of the things that can be directly addressed with design, though, so it's well worth trying for, and every edition of D&D, even 3rd with it's 'rewards for system mastery,' made some attempts.

And, of course, for D&D, in particular, being too-well balanced can be controversial.

I tend to agree with the meaningful choices take...I like that idea, and certainly think it's silly when there is an option that is clearly so inferior to all other choices so as to never be selected.

But again, this is one definition or angle.

Yep, that doesn't make it invalid or not worth considering or acknowledging.

I mean, there are other ideas out there using the label of 'balance,' that doesn't mean that the idea of maximizing viable/meaningful choices is invalid just because the idea of "making everything identical" is also trying to claim the same jargon.

I don't think it's wrong in any way to have criticisms of the edition....to say this or that doesn't work for me is fine. However, to call for the approach to change seems odd.

Does it? I mean, people, often not even fans, have long complained about D&D, and each edition has addressed some of those complaints. There was controversy in the 80s, laughably, about D&D being 'Satanic' but, Demons & Devils were re-named for 2e. Vancian 'memorization' was roundly criticized for a long time, and it was re-imagined as 'preparation,' and is now spontaneous slot-casting. People complained about 3.x 'static combats' and 'rocket tag' and we got 4e 'dynamic,' 'set piece' combats, which people complained about, so we have 5e 'fast combats.'

The expectation that whining loud and long about D&D will eventually provoke a new edition, with new problems, certainly seems at least empirically justified.

If there is a problem for you, then you have the ability to correct it, especially given this edition's particular approach.
But to act as if the designers have failed in some way, and deserve admonishment or that they owe it to anyone to fix things for them, seems odd.

It is /particularly/ overt, in 5e, that DMs can just jump in and fix things up, but it was how we traditionally ran D&D back in the day, it was explicit in 3.0 as 'Rule 0,' however thoroughly the community ignored it, and it's really not possible for a game to prevent such tinkering, even where it might not be 'needed.'

So, OT1H, I agree, and don't blame designers for designing 5e as a 'starting place' from which the DM creates the game he wants, rather than being plug-and-play, since that was the only way they'd come close to meeting any of their pie-in-the-sky 'big tent' goals. But, OTOH, I also find the desire to evaluate, judge, and bitch about the current state of the game understandable.
At least, this time around, it's hasn't sunk to the level of edition warring.