So I ran a 6-8 encounter day...

[Ancalagon]

A comment about how "pulling back" affects the long-rest classes.

This is very true... but it also affects the short rest classes too! "I should keep a ki point or two just in case" "Maybe I won't cast my warlock spell, I only have one spell left". "I shouldn't use action surge on this fight, I already used 3 maneuver points" etc etc etc.

It can be quite significant.

 

[5ekyu]

Everything non-mechanical chopped. I didn't find anything left.

Ah, I was looking for mechanical solutions within the toolkit of the system. While you had some great points, they are all outside the mechanics and I can already balance outside the system. My point was that the stories that I can tell are impacted by trying to also balance the mechanics of the system.

Thanks anyway.

The only limits are those you place on yourself. To me it seems the options i present each used the mechanics to produce and control or infkuence the results as desired as far as balance.

My point was the toolkit as is provides you with balance if you chose it and imbalance if you chose that using the mechanics.

Its like a mathematical equation. It has variables you control and operations on those defined by the rules/mechanics. You seem to want to change the operations to create balance divorced from the variables (balancing outside the mechanics)

I see that as fruitless unless you grossly limit your variables - and it would only apply fir a small set of variables and overly simpke operations.

But good luck anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

That's the idea, yes. You can achieve balance over a long term, by balancing short-term imbalances. It's, well, a balancing act. You have a massive single encounter where sort of character shines, you 'balance' it with a long slog where that same sort languishes.

Imposing that kind of balance does "limit" how the campaign can be run - a better way of putting it is that it makes establishing and maintaining balance a constant consideration for the GM, that has to be, well, ahem, balanced with other considerations in plotting his campaign...

What constitutes a 'right' or 'wrong' choice in terms of balance depends on the PoV and objectives of the ones making the choice. A 'right choice' in optimizing a party to defeat enemies in 3.0, for instance, was scry/buff/teleport, it's radically imbalanced, but it achieves the objective. 'CaW' style play gravitates towards badly-balanced systems for that reason. In-game and meta-game decisions can create wild swings in effectiveness relative to the challenges presented, raising the significance of 'player skill' in gaming the system.

They're just guidelines, and they work over a limited range. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't operate outside that range, just that the guidelines stop being very helpful when you do. Considering how long many of us designed & ran encounters with no guidelines at all, that's obviously an issue that can be dealt with. But, if you do want to be able to 'trust' encounter design guidelines, if you do want to impose some rough balance on classes without micromanaging challenges to give each PC is ration of spotlight time more or less arbitrarily, then you can run the game at the pacing it's calibrated to. Either of those options limit you as a 'storyteller.' You can use such limitations as a source of inspiration, of course - a blank page with no assumptions can be a downright intimidating place to start, anyway.

Again, "sameness" is not a synonym for 'balance.' Indeed, it's arguably antithetical, since, in the absence of choice, there is nothing to balance. You can differentiate two choices by means other than making one superior to the other.

And, yes, since D&D was the first RPG, and was 'balanced' over the whole campaign (and probably many characters played by each player in the process), that's a foundational way of providing balance. That doesn't make it the only, or best, or adequate, or even a good way of achieving balance. But, it is a method of imposing balance that requires the GM to make decisions about the campaign with the purpose of making balance happen.

More robust balancing mechanisms can reduce or all but remove imposing or maintaining intraparty (class in D&D) balance as a consideration the GM has to work into his campaign. That's what makes using spotlight or pacing to impose balance seem 'limiting.'

Yes, I am. There's no question there's an impact, but minimizing it isn't going much beyond what DMs do just as a matter of course running the game, in the first place.

All 5e classes cast spells, and most of them cast spells as a daily resource, so you're really down to sub-classes. Roughly:

Short-Rest-heavy: Warlock, Monk, BM.

Long-Rest-Heavy: Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard

At-will heavy: Thief, Assassin, Champion.

At-will & long-rest heavy: Paladin, EK, AT, Ranger, Barbarian.


Nod, that includes all the primary casters, the half/third casters who can stack their long-rest abilities with their solid at-will baseline, and the Barbarian (which does likewise in a big way with Rage). That's Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, & Wizard plus EK & AT - /most/ of the classes in the PH. It would be no effort or hardship, at all, to have a party made up entirely of members of those classes (and sub-classes). The Warlock also does just fine in the scenario, since it's short-rest resources /are/ the same spells as the other's long-rest slots, and it gets to recharge them after every encounter, and the Monk & Battlemaster aren't far behind for the sane reasons.

So, really, it's the Champion, Thief & Assassin out in the cold. Just drop them from campaigns that are going to use the 3-4 trans-deadly encounter/2-3 short rest 'day' as the average. No big loss.

Ok so the isdue to me is seeing it as limiting vs requires gm contribution.

I have never seen a "balancing system" for an rpg (non-indie as in not geavily dependent on player-authorship) where balance did not deoend mostly on GM efforts and choices made to balance.

As long as players get to assemble different types of character without being locked into pre-fab "sameness- at per character or per group added to the GM being allowed to author and design challenges from a very very briad swath of options... There is no sustem for balance that does not depend on that gm effirt and constant monitoring for balance.

Two different GMs run invasion angke campaigns - one with undead as primary bads, other with goblinouds and giants - apply those to a half dozen different parties and let me know what rpg non-limiting balance system would accomodate both with limiting being limited to non-gm focused effort thingy.

Its a red herring.

Limiting cannot mean the same as making balance an ongoing considerstiin for the gm cuz unless a ton of meaningful choices are taken away from both pkayers and gm there wont be any sort of consistent balance over time.

If you have a set of mechanics that makes it true, post them.

But the only thing clise i have seen were mechanic like indies games where your pc abilities were authorship or relevance based... Each had x takens of influence and could play them to advance things by creating scenes tie in etc.

The closest crunchy system that kinda did this i saw recently was Mophi 2d20 which seemed in play to let most every key task boil down to momsntum spends so the fact that earlier you rolled well on your grow leafy greens skill and filled up the momentum pool (with help from the phaser operators exceptional rolls) allows the transporter tech to burn momentum to re-split Tuvix with auto-successes. That let completely unrelated activities play into the pool needed for the key momant so regardless, everybody adds to the win. It really made character stats mostly secondary except as flavor. (Observation made from watching a long running game play plus read of the rules, not a ton of APX myself. It soured the system fir me so i dud not run it.)

To the way i see it, i am not limited by choosing to make balancing choices since i still gave infinities of balancing choices that work for party a, even if they are different infinities of choices than i would pick for party b.

The idea that theres some set of math that balances party a, party b party c etc all without my effort to choise to balance... that is less limiting... Has to remain in the realm of vaporware red herring until i see it.

But if you have one, feel free to pist it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok so the isdue to me is seeing it as limiting vs requires gm contribution.

That's fair.

The DM can put a lot of work into balancing challenges for his campaign, or a lot of work into creating an interesting world with engaging challenges, or a lot of work into plotting a bewildering JMichael Strazinsky story arc.

Or, he can approach the campaign as a whole, and let the 'limitations' of trying to do each if those things spark off eachother, saving himself a lot of work and potentially running a pretty good game in spite of the system.

That the system hangs class & encounter balance precariously on a certain average pacing is thus inevitably, limiting (so I find myself arguing with you), but it's a limitation you can leverage rather than fight (so I find myself arguing with Blue, as well).

I have never seen a "balancing system" for an rpg (non-indie as in not geavily dependent on player-authorship) where balance did not deoend mostly on GM efforts and choices made to balance.

Balance is on a spectrum, of course, and perfect balance unattainable, so I'm not about to tout any superior systems, but D&D, in general is deeply imbalanced, to just an execrable degree, were talking not even aspiring to a 0 on a reasonable 1-10 scale with 10 being merely functional, and 1 being virtually unplayable.

As long as players get to assemble different types of character without being locked into pre-fab "sameness- at per character or per group added to the GM being allowed to author and design challenges from a very very briad swath of options...

There is no sustem for balance that does not depend on that gm effirt and constant monitoring for balance.

On the contrary, most systems that aren't D&D are significantly less dependent on constant DM intervention to impose a semblance of balance.

They might still have pretty poor balance, 2-5 on that hypothetical scale, of course.

Limiting cannot mean the same as making balance an ongoing considerstiin for the gm cuz unless a ton of meaningful choices are taken away from both pkayers and gm there wont be any sort of consistent balance over time.

Dead wrong. The big mistake you're making is in associating balance with a lack of meaningful choice.

Think about it, a system, with many nominal choices, one of which is vastly superior to all others, and a system with no choice at all, once understood, are functionally identical. Imbalance is lack of viable, meanigful choice.

If you have a set of mechanics that makes it true, post them.

Just randomly check out a half dozen systems that arent D&D, 5 of them will be better-balanced.

To the way i see it, i am not limited by choosing to make balancing choices since i still gave infinities of balancing choices that work for party a, even if they are different infinities of choices than i would pick for party b.

I don't want to try slinging alephs, that's above my math nerd paygrade. But, yes, RPGs can be pretty open ended in what you can do in them, even if what you can do as a practical matter may be limited in some, even very substantial ways.

 

[5ekyu]

That's fair.

The DM can put a lot of work into balancing challenges for his campaign, or a lot of work into creating an interesting world with engaging challenges, or a lot of work into plotting a bewildering JMichael Strazinsky story arc.

Or, he can approach the campaign as a whole, and let the 'limitations' of trying to do each if those things spark off eachother, saving himself a lot of work and potentially running a pretty good game in spite of the system.

That the system hangs class & encounter balance precariously on a certain average pacing is thus inevitably, limiting (so I find myself arguing with you), but it's a limitation you can leverage rather than fight (so I find myself arguing with Blue, as well).

Balance is on a spectrum, of course, and perfect balance unattainable, so I'm not about to tout any superior systems, but D&D, in general is deeply imbalanced, to just an execrable degree, were talking not even aspiring to a 0 on a reasonable 1-10 scale with 10 being merely functional, and 1 being virtually unplayable.

As long as players get to assemble different types of character without being locked into pre-fab "sameness- at per character or per group added to the GM being allowed to author and design challenges from a very very briad swath of options...

On the contrary, most systems that aren't D&D are significantly less dependent on constant DM intervention to impose a semblance of balance.

They might still have pretty poor balance, 2-5 on that hypothetical scale, of course.

Dead wrong. The big mistake you're making is in associating balance with a lack of meaningful choice.

Think about it, a system, with many nominal choices, one of which is vastly superior to all others, and a system with no choice at all, once understood, are functionally identical. Imbalance is lack of viable, meanigful choice.

Just randomly check out a half dozen systems that arent D&D, 5 of them will be better-balanced.

I don't want to try slinging alephs, that's above my math nerd paygrade. But, yes, RPGs can be pretty open ended in what you can do in them, even if what you can do as a practical matter may be limited in some, even very substantial ways.

A few quick notes...

First

The various factors you list including balance, interesting world, p,its etc etc are simply not exclusive and are magnificent in how they work together.

I think the problems some have is when they divorce them from each other, like say throwing out balance elements that dont derive from mechanics as we recently say.


Second

Also, just saying most systems that arent... etc and following with claims is just whistling vaporware.

I have played and edp GMed many systems other than DnD and DnD is far far from the system I have most experience in even if I count all its editions together.

HERO is likely #1, Traveller likely #2, then we get into a big mix of WoD/VtM, DnD, Cyberpunk, MnM, Stargate as second tier with multiple campaigns and then a much bigger pool with Amber Diceless, Serenity, Marvel Diceles, RollMaster, OtE, Unisystem, 7th Sea, Black Company, Fudge and others not coming to me that got limited play - one campaign each iirc

That's not a random collection, doesn't include systems I bought/read adapted from.

Not one of them is "significantly less dependent on constant DM intervention to impose a semblance of balance." than 5e. Some are much more or at least much harder for the GM to manage it.

But that's me providing specifics, not vaporware, not claims about random grab bags.

Finally, I am not equating balance and lack of meaningful choices.

I am equating balance that doesn't depend on "constant DM intervention to impose a semblance of balance" (or less than DnD 5e does) with lack of meaningful choices (or significantly minimalized choices.)

All of this assumes balance is a concern. There are games where it's not an issue at all, I assume, and where if one character solves 90% of the challenges that's cool.

But my references are about games played where balance is concerned.

So, unless I am to assume all those games

 

[Tony Vargas]

The various factors you list including balance, interesting world, p,its etc etc are simply not exclusive and are magnificent in how they work together.

My point was that you could get them to energize, yes. I think 'magnificent' is over the top, though.

Also, just saying most systems that arent... etc and following with claims is just whistling vaporware.

Look, I'm not going to be baited into defending some other system so you don't have to defend 5e from a legitimate criticism.

Let's just pretend that there aren't myriad systems that don't depend on GM-force and dictated pacing to even theoretically balance their classes - heck, let's pretend all games have classes.

That doesn't eliminate the issue from the games that remain.

Finally, I am not equating balance and lack of meaningful choices.

I am equating balance that doesn't depend on "constant DM intervention to impose a semblance of balance" (or less than DnD 5e does) with lack of meaningful choices (or significantly minimalized choices.)

No difference.

Lack of choice is lack of balance.

I can defend 5e with that, too, and have been doing so to Blue, above. He's concerned with the ckass imbalance that crops up in a campaign that clusters around 3-4 brutal encounters rather than the standard 6-8, but, I pointed out, that, really, only a few sub-classes are obviates by that pacing. Many choices remain.

All of this assumes balance is a concern.

It does, yes, and not only are there folks for whom balance is not a concern, there are those to whom it is anathema. D&D Is fine for the former, and ideal for the latter. But, again, that a flaw can be worked around, ignored, or even exploited & reveled in. does not render it nonexistent, merely deeply entrenched.

 

[Psikerlord#]

IMO the best way to fix the 5e rest problem is as follows:

1. Short rests only restore HD
2. All short rest abilities are now twice per long rest.
3. Long rest takes 8 hrs
4. After long rest, roll on the table to see how many expended abilities are restored:

2d6 ABILITIES RESTORED
2-5: None of the character’s
expended abilities are restored.
6-8: Half of the character’s expended
abilities are restored.
9-10: Three quarters of the character’s
expended abilities are restored.
11-12: All of the character’s expended
abilities are restored.

This system allows for dungeon crawls, wilderness treks and city adventures. All classes refresh on a consistent mechanic, but importantly, when an ability is used, there is no guarantee the PC will get it back after 8 hrs rest. This means there is a disincentive to nova, rest, repeat on days with fewer encounters (eg wilderness trek), but still allows for combat heavy days (eg dungeon crawl), assuming at least some of the party get lucky with their recovery rolls (and if they dont, and run out of resources completely, well sh*t happens, but also no doubt you have put in place some kind of formal party retreat rule with a cost).

 

[5ekyu]

My point was that you could get them to energize, yes. I think 'magnificent' is over the top, though.

Look, I'm not going to be baited into defending some other system so you don't have to defend 5e from a legitimate criticism.

Let's just pretend that there aren't myriad systems that don't depend on GM-force and dictated pacing to even theoretically balance their classes - heck, let's pretend all games have classes.

That doesn't eliminate the issue from the games that remain.

No difference.

Lack of choice is lack of balance.

I can defend 5e with that, too, and have been doing so to Blue, above. He's concerned with the ckass imbalance that crops up in a campaign that clusters around 3-4 brutal encounters rather than the standard 6-8, but, I pointed out, that, really, only a few sub-classes are obviates by that pacing. Many choices remain.

It does, yes, and not only are there folks for whom balance is not a concern, there are those to whom it is anathema. D&D Is fine for the former, and ideal for the latter. But, again, that a flaw can be worked around, ignored, or even exploited & reveled in. does not render it nonexistent, merely deeply entrenched.

Ok so here is where we part company.

You chose to make multiple claims about other games balance as compared to dnd in a qualitative sense. Evrn to the point of making the random grab bag and 50 percent claim.

To then posture that being asked to show an example that would illustrate your point, give us some context, is some form of bait and switch tactic is too far outside of reasonable discussion to continue.

 

[5ekyu]

IMO the best way to fix the 5e rest problem is as follows:

1. Short rests only restore HD
2. All short rest abilities are now twice per long rest.
3. Long rest takes 8 hrs
4. After long rest, roll on the table to see how many expended abilities are restored:

2d6 ABILITIES RESTORED
2-5: None of the character’s
expended abilities are restored.
6-8: Half of the character’s expended
abilities are restored.
9-10: Three quarters of the character’s
expended abilities are restored.
11-12: All of the character’s expended
abilities are restored.

This system allows for dungeon crawls, wilderness treks and city adventures. All classes refresh on a consistent mechanic, but importantly, when an ability is used, there is no guarantee the PC will get it back after 8 hrs rest. This means there is a disincentive to nova, rest, repeat on days with fewer encounters (eg wilderness trek), but still allows for combat heavy days (eg dungeon crawl), assuming at least some of the party get lucky with their recovery rolls (and if they dont, and run out of resources completely, well sh*t happens, but also no doubt you have put in place some kind of formal party retreat rule with a cost).

I rarely find random a fix.
While the greater sameness of your removing recover on short rest abilities (or making them long rest abilities) might remove some complexity to me it costs some variety and also doesn't really help that much unless I know what you did to them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok so here is where we part company.

Lack of threading strikes again, let's get back to the original point made by Blue that set us both off arguing in slightly different ways...

This is why designing a game and balancing classes around 6-8 encounters during a set time / often-player controlled limit is a problem.
It's tying a mechanical balance point to a narrative-controlled action. [bIt limits the stories we can tell without distorting the class balance.[/b]

If I want to have a three week trek across a gnoll-infested jungle that'll take a single session and have 1-4 combats over those 3 weeks depending on how good the party is at avoiding them, I need to resign myself to the long-rest-recovery classes dominating every fight. And that they won't be challenging unless the encounters are all amazingly tough for their level. Can I do that? Sure I'm the DM. Should I be forced by the mechanics every time because they can't support the story? That's where I have a problem.

...

Everything non-mechanical chopped. I didn't find anything left.
Ah, I was looking for mechanical solutions within the toolkit of the system. While you had some great points, they are all outside the mechanics and I can already balance outside the system. My point was that the stories that I can tell are impacted by trying to also balance the mechanics of the system.

To me the mindset that a baseline restricts story options is not one I will subscribe to.
I see 6-8 plus 2 shorts and 1 long as just a benchmark, not THE LAW.
I know that I can have sequences where it will skew one way and certain chars will shine. I know other times it can skew other ways and the others will.
I know that as long as I as GM Express a lot of different takes on the baseline that let's me show and spotlight the differences.
So, it's a toolkit for me to use, not a straightjacket.

Which is all lovely, of course, but does not address Blue's complaint, that it's a toolkit that is innately limiting to the stories you can tell, if you do try to use it to impose balance on an innately imbalanced system.

Obviously, if you are indifferent (or hostile) to balance, that's not an issue. And, if you find those limitations convenient lines within which to color, it may even seem like a positive. But those feelings about the limitations in question don't mean they don't exist.