D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[TwoSix]

I anxiously await the references to people who said they left 4e because their #1 reason was it was too balanced for their tastes. I really look forward to that evidence. Every reason I've seen came down to other factors that had nothing to do with balance: how it felt, the mechanics, etc. Things that while may impact balance, are not dependent or reliant on it at all. AEDU is just a mechanic, like any other mechanic, that isn't on itself any more balanced than anything else. It can both be extremely balanced, or completely imbalanced depending on how it's used.

I know 3 different people (personally, not online) who have told me that one of the main reasons they didn't like 4e was that it made Wizards more like the other classes, and it didn't feel like D&D because Wizards should end up being the strongest class at high levels.

Anecdotal, of course, but it's something I remember because it was similar sentiments, spoken to me by different people, at different times (they weren't all just agreeing with each other).

You can like or dislike whatever edition you like for whatever reason you like. Water under the edition war bridge. <shrug>

 

[Sacrosanct]

I know 3 different people (personally, not online) who have told me that one of the main reasons they didn't like 4e was that it made Wizards more like the other classes, and it didn't feel like D&D because Wizards should end up being the strongest class at high levels.

Anecdotal, of course, but it's something I remember because it was similar sentiments, spoken to me by different people, at different times (they weren't all just agreeing with each other).

You can like or dislike whatever edition you like for whatever reason you like. Water under the edition war bridge. <shrug>

"feeling like other classes" is not necessarily balance related either. It was one of the reasons I posted above. Nothing to do with how they were balanced, but the feel of them felt like the same thing with serial numbers filed off. "Being the strongest at higher levels" may be balance, but not necessarily. for example, it depends on how one views balance. Some people may view balance on a level by level basis, while others view balance on a campaign by campaign level. Ie. if class A is weaker than class B at low levels, but stronger at high levels, then it is still "balanced" for them, and thus their aversion isn't necessarily related to balance, but how the game feels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[sblock=Edition Stuff]

I know 3 different people (personally, not online) who have told me that one of the main reasons they didn't like 4e was that it made Wizards more like the other classes, and it didn't feel like D&D because Wizards should end up being the strongest class at high levels.

The bottom line on the 'feelz' and 'Vtude' arguments was usually something that had been done to balance the classes, very often something done to make the martial classes better.

You'll notice that Sacrosanct dredged up that old 'samey' saw, which never held water, and had no answer to actual examples that illustrated just how different martial 'exploits' and arcane spells really were in 4e, he just kept getting madder and making it about 'insults.'

Anecdotal, of course, but it's something I remember because it was similar sentiments, spoken to me by different people, at different times (they weren't all just agreeing with each other).

You can like or dislike whatever edition you like for whatever reason you like.

Sacrosanct, though, apparently needed to block me (you quoted a post I can't see, I don't feel like I'm missing much), even though I thought I made that fairly clear.
I can't say I'm surprised, the way he kept making the discussion personal instead of actually replying to the points being made. The edition war in miniature, really.

Ironically, his initial observation, equating 'balance' and 'the science of gaming' wasn't particularly off, he just couldn't seem to make it without re-fighting the edition war. I certainly didn't help.
Two shell-shocked veterans triggering eachother, I guess.

Water under the edition war bridge. <shrug>

Sorry y'all had to see any of that, but if you're lucky, you never looked under the cut, and aren't reading this.

...back to the thread...
[/sblock]

Of those two groups (as loosely defined as they are) there could be any number of reasons for people to claim one or more elements of the game as negative. But, sticking to what's been said in this thread, it seems that the people who expect the rules and regulations to yield very exact results

...I think merely 'consistent' results might be acceptable...

who seem to be more disappointed, while the folks who are ready and willing to change the rules and regulations a bit are claiming their experience to be largely positive.

That goes towards experiences, sure, not that personal anecdotes need that much explaining if they're left at just that, rather than generalized or used as evidence.

Take [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post a page or so back, where he cited his preference for a more scientific approach to the game. He may be right, that there are games that can be designed that achieve such scientific balance, where the formulae used to create the game create clear, consistent, and predictable results. That's great.

But is that the game we're all discussing? I don't think so.

As Sacrosanct pointed out, D&D had been er 'formulaically'-balanced & scientific in one ed, if not for very long, and 5e is meant to be for fans of all past editions, so the germ of making it that way should be in there. And, we do have CR & encounter-building, and encounters/rests/day guidelines that could be that germ.

(So, like, put on the surgical masks, those of you who don't want to be infected, especially if you visit the 'Elephant' thread...)

I think that's case of someone trying to make the game what they want it to be....and that's fine, but we should acknowledge it as such.

If you're referring to the book he said he thought would sell like hotcakes, it sounded more like a request for tools to facilitate making the game into something with more room for DMing on the 'science' side.

 

[TwoSix]

"feeling like other classes" is not necessarily balance related either. It was one of the reasons I posted above. Nothing to do with how they were balanced, but the feel of them felt like the same thing with serial numbers filed off. "Being the strongest at higher levels" may be balance, but not necessarily. for example, it depends on how one views balance. Some people may view balance on a level by level basis, while others view balance on a campaign by campaign level. Ie. if class A is weaker than class B at low levels, but stronger at high levels, then it is still "balanced" for them, and thus their aversion isn't necessarily related to balance, but how the game feels.

No, I understand. "Balance", as a term, is pretty much meaningless. If someone feels that balance "over the campaign" is balanced enough, they're not going be able to have a discussion about game balance with someone who bases balance around DPR calculation per level. Or if they prefer everyone has a job to do "spotlight balance" over everyone has a role to play in every phase balance.

The real tension point, I feel, is determining what elements of the game must be mathematically imbalanced in order to create a specific feel, and where it's impossible for the game to cater to the concerns of both balance-oriented and feel-oriented players.

 

[Eric V]

Sacrosanct, though, apparently needed to block me (you quoted a post I can't see, I don't feel like I'm missing much),

You're definitely not.

I get what you're saying when you say 5e is ore art than science, Tony. I probably grudgingly agree. It's not like my group isn't having fun and I will admit I am enjoying bending rules more in this edition than others; it has indeed captured a sort of nostalgic feel for me (2nd edition, in my case, though I played plenty of 1e).

Having said that, I assume professional game designers have skills, experiences, tools et al. that I don't when it comes to game design. I also assume that subsequent iterations of a game clean up things that didn't work before. This is why people like myself and Zapp (and others, I am sure) are genuinely perplexed that the latest edition isn't 'tighter' when it comes to the "science-y" aspects of the game (which necessarily includes encounter-building based on CR, one of the more high-end math parts of 5e). It can be more art, sure, but the math and the science should be tighter, IMO, and it falls apart at higher levels. I suppose "I love how DnD never works properly at higher levels!" might be a form of nostalgia, but...

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, I understand. "Balance", as a term, is pretty much meaningless.

It gets bandied about in different ways (including some that are essentially 'straw men'), but that doesn't make all of those ways meaningless, it's just a little confused - and, of course, some people are against it.

If someone feels that balance "over the campaign" is balanced enough, they're not going be able to have a discussion about game balance with someone who bases balance around DPR calculation per level. Or if they prefer everyone has a job to do "spotlight balance" over everyone has a role to play in every phase balance.

I did see a definition of balance (I don't think it was in reference to RPGs) that I liked & remembered:
A game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.

It's a higher bar than it may seem.

Take the common thought-experiment of the 'perfectly balanced game,' with no options (coin-flip dungeon) or no difference among options (rock/paper/scissors). Not balanced at all under that definition.

Or consider the classic-D&D balance-of-imbalances-over-levels scheme: your magic-user is wildly overpowered at 18th, but that's 'balanced' by him dying at 1st level, because he only had 1 hp, and was attacked by a house-cat? What if he's rolled a high con & good hps, and was not killed by a house cat? What if the campaign peters out at 7th? What if you roll a low DEX and can /only/ build a Cleric? Does that balance your arch-mage because you didn't get to play him? Do the times you play a fighter because you didn't get a 17 CHA 'balance' the time you play a Paladin?

The real tension point, I feel, is determining what elements of the game must be mathematically imbalanced in order to create a specific feel, and where it's impossible for the game to cater to the concerns of both balance-oriented and feel-oriented players.

I'm not sure I believe that there is a tension between balance-oriented and feel-oriented players. They both really want the same things, they want a game where they can play the character they want, and have the experience they expect, and generally enjoy the game - and don't begrudge others the same. No matter how 'feelie' you may be, you /probably/ don't want the 'feel' of dominating play and keeping anyone else from having any fun all campaign long, for instance.

You're definitely not.

I get what you're saying when you say 5e is ore art than science, Tony. I probably grudgingly agree. It's not like my group isn't having fun and I will admit I am enjoying bending rules more in this edition than others; it has indeed captured a sort of nostalgic feel for me (2nd edition, in my case, though I played plenty of 1e).

Nod. In my case it's 1e. I ran a 10-year AD&D campaign, spanning 1e & 2e, and I ran so much of it in an improvisational style, exactly like I enjoy running 5e, today.
Especially as the campaign reached higher levels.

Having said that, I assume professional game designers have skills, experiences, tools et al. that I don't when it comes to game design. I also assume that subsequent iterations of a game clean up things that didn't work before. This is why people like myself and Zapp (and others, I am sure) are genuinely perplexed that the latest edition isn't 'tighter' when it comes to the "science-y" aspects of the game (which necessarily includes encounter-building based on CR, one of the more high-end math parts of 5e).

Just because I see 5e and 5e DMing, in particular, as 'more art than science' doesn't mean I think the two are mutually exclusive. You can have great art that's amazingly technically precise, bordering on 'perfection,' (the Mona Liza, Mozart symphonies) and you can have great art that adheres to no technical standards whatsoever (ee comings, Jackson Pollok). You might get a little more push-back on the latter, I suppose, but that's art for you.

After staggering around the map for 40 years, D&D realized it /couldn't/ afford to get it's act together, and had to be true to all the extremes it'd blundered into over the decades. 5e is the result. It's technically...
...well, it has artistic merit.

It can be more art, sure, but the math and the science should be tighter, IMO, and it falls apart at higher levels. I suppose "I love how DnD never works properly at higher levels!" might be a form of nostalgia, but...

Yes, and it's legitimately part of the classic feel, which 5e, equally legitimately, has striven, successfully to evoke. Doesn't mean you can't patch it up, though. If you patched it up in the past, and patch it up similarly now, that's not just classic feel, that's classic feel /specific to your experience/. Now that's nostalgia!

 

[TwoSix]

It gets bandied about in different ways, but none of them are meaningless, it's just a little confused - and, of course, some people are against it.

Well, I look at it this way...I'm someone tells me a game is "balanced", I'm no closer to understanding if the game suits my preferences without doing a lot more digging. It's close enough to meaningless for online discussions, anyway. (Especially around here, where disagreeing over word choice is a full-contact sport!)

I'm not sure I believe that there is a tension between balance-oriented and feel-oriented players. They both really want the same things, they want a game where they can play the character they want, and have the experience they expect, and generally enjoy the game - and don't begrudge others the same. No matter how 'feelie' you may be, you /probably/ don't want the 'feel' of dominating play and keeping anyone else from having any fun all campaign long, for instance.

Sure, everyone wants to have fun and play their character. But different people have different beliefs as to what's required to get there, and some of them are diametrically opposed to each other. Plenty of people simply can't play the same game and enjoy themselves, their needs from the game are simply too different.

 

[TwoSix]

Having said that, I assume professional game designers have skills, experiences, tools et al. that I don't when it comes to game design. I also assume that subsequent iterations of a game clean up things that didn't work before. This is why people like myself and Zapp (and others, I am sure) are genuinely perplexed that the latest edition isn't 'tighter' when it comes to the "science-y" aspects of the game (which necessarily includes encounter-building based on CR, one of the more high-end math parts of 5e). It can be more art, sure, but the math and the science should be tighter, IMO, and it falls apart at higher levels. I suppose "I love how DnD never works properly at higher levels!" might be a form of nostalgia, but...

I hear you. I feel like the pro-"more art than science" people could be making a positive argument, something along the lines that a more aggressive formalization and structure to higher level play would impede creativity (or something), but all the arguments are more along the lines of "it just can't be done, be a better DM!".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I look at it this way...I'm someone tells me a game is "balanced", I'm no closer to understanding if the game suits my preferences without doing a lot more digging.

Doesn't help if you know what they mean by 'balanced?'

Anyway, if you have any reason to trust their assessment, at least you know it's not broken...

...oh, 'broken' doesn't mean anything either, does it... ?

It's close enough to meaningless for online discussions, anyway. (Especially around here, where disagreeing over word choice is a full-contact sport!)

On-line discussions are probably close enough to meaningless.

Sure, everyone wants to have fun and play their character. But different people have different beliefs as to what's required to get there, and some of them are diametrically opposed to each other. Plenty of people simply can't play the same game and enjoy themselves,....

Ironically, one of the issues that balancing a game tends to address. The more viable choices you provide, the more likely each player at the table will find /something/ that does meet their gaming needs, without wrecking the experience for the next guy.

(Sometimes, though, those needs /include/ wrecking the experience for the next guy, so... well... no solution is perfect.)

Oh, and still relevant to the topic, since balance (still using my preferred definition, so not meaningless ;P ) is one of the things that tends to go wonky at high levels - you get more & more choices, but some of the old ones will be obviated, and new combos can pop up that render whole swaths of alternatives non-viable, and major choices, like class, that seemed viable at low level can turn out not to be so, at high level...

I hear you. I feel like the pro-"more art than science" people could be making a positive argument, something along the lines that a more aggressive formalization and structure to higher level play would impede creativity (or something), but all the arguments are more along the lines of "it just can't be done, be a better DM!".

I consider it more of an observation. The reality is that running 5e is more art than science. It's just that kinda game. House-ruling 5e extensively is another Empowered DM option to 'make the game your own,' and a lot of work, but that'd be the way to ratchet up the science side.

 

[hawkeyefan]

...I think merely 'consistent' results might be acceptable...

Do you think that the game is that inconsistent? I mean, some inconsistency is to be expected...maybe even preferred...but is the game as inconsistent as some are saying?

And further, if it was more consistent...would people suddenly find it acceptable? I mean, we're talking about people who claim that high level play is not viable but who seem to be playing high level D&D.

That goes towards experiences, sure, not that personal anecdotes need that much explaining if they're left at just that, rather than generalized or used as evidence.

I'm using the anecdotes that have been offered in this thread, and stating trends that seem to be present. Such trends could be isolated or could hint at a more widespread phenomenon, we cannot say of course, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth mentioning.

As Sacrosanct pointed out, D&D had been er 'formulaically'-balanced & scientific in one ed, if not for very long, and 5e is meant to be for fans of all past editions, so the germ of making it that way should be in there. And, we do have CR & encounter-building, and encounters/rests/day guidelines that could be that germ.

Sure, it has elements of each edition. But I think their approach to this edition has been pretty clearly skewed toward a less codified set of rules.

Would you agree with that?

If you're referring to the book he said he thought would sell like hotcakes, it sounded more like a request for tools to facilitate making the game into something with more room for DMing on the 'science' side.

No, it was more in response to this:

Finally (unrelated to the above), I dispute in the highest amount that (obviously not perfect, but well more than functional) balance isn't attainable in a TTRPG. That is simply not true and the engineering marvels (big and small) of the Industrial Revolution era certainly disagrees vehemently (an abundance of marvels of which weren't backed by big money/incorporation). We've already seen it in tons of games both complex and system light. The "its art, not science" ethos needs to dial it back a bit. Its both art and science.

I actually don't disagree with any of this. I just don't think that it describes D&D 5E. And trying to make D&D 5E into such a game is certainly fine should someone choose to do so, but if they encounter difficulty, I don't know if it is due to flaws in design.

If someone wants "rules not rulings" but still wants to play 5E, then I think it's their expectations that may be flawed.