D&D (2024) Should the game be "balanced" and what does that mean?

[Malmuria]

I recently came across a twitter thread criticizing the lack of DM support in 5e that seemed to gain a lot of traction. The argument was this:


It seems to me a pretty common complaint, and especially one that pushes people to Pathfinder 2e (and perhaps also to Level Up or products like Flee Mortals from MCDM). The main objection with the lack of DM support is that the game is not "balanced" in a way that allows for the DM to play it with "mechanical integrity." I think this means that the author here wants as a DM to present authentically challenging encounters (where they don't have to fudge dice or HP) while still generally having the players emerge victorious if they are tactically competent. In sum, "combat as sport." This would supposedly enable WOTC to add in more character options (classes, feats, etc) without "breaking" the game (also similar to pathfinder 2 (apparently; I have no experience with pathfinder).

Now, contra some of the claims of the OSR, concern for game balance is not new to wotc editions. But "balance" and "breaking" are terms we use a lot in talking about games, and it might be worth interrogating what we really mean. What do we want if we want the game to be "balanced"? What counts as "breaking" the game? What does more DM support look like--a more streamlined game or one with more precise math? Extensive rules and subsystems (strongholds, magic item economy, water combat) or more vague advice on how to design your own?

For example, one response agreeing with the above twitter thread gave a very specific example of the 5e being unbalanced and not supporting DMs: random encounter tables that are not balanced for party level, so that 1st level characters have a chance of randomly meeting a manticore, which will tpk them. Because players will have their characters fight the manticore, rather than parlaying or running away. Is that what balance means? And if so, should a design ethos focused on balance and explicit and extensive rules underpin the game as a whole?

Note: this issue probably doesn't matter to most 5e players, and so perhaps shouldn't even be a concern for the revised edition. Carry on.

 

[Jer]

I had to go back to the very first post to see what he was talking about in context.

And then I laughed for a full 5 minutes.

Nearly 50 years of game play and revisions and new editions and that very first post with the complaint in it could have come from a Dragon Magazine letter written in 1983. Heck I probably can dredge up an issue that has a very similar Forum letter in it. Except it would have been written about AD&D 1e.

Anyway what is balance? Balance is the game runs at my table without me having to do a lot of work to make it run. What is an unbalanced game? An unbalanced game is one that gets away from me and my players in a way that makes it unfun for us because it turns into a job instead of a game.

I will also take issue with his second Tweet that you quote above - 5e actually IS a game whose mechanics, EXCEPT FOR THE COMBAT ENGINE, are a narrative focused rules-lite game. The game basically boils down to "roll a d20, add a number, try to beat a difficulty number" outside of combat - it doesn't get much more rules lite than that. It's a narrative focused rules-lite game with a slightly more complex tactical combat engine bolted onto it. The mistake is in thinking that because it has a somewhat crunchy somewhat tactical combat engine that means that all three "pillars" of the game are equally crunchy - and it really isn't.

And he's actually doing what I actually encourage folks who are thinking along these lines to do - start looking at other games! D&D is not and should not be the be-all end-all engine when it comes to RPGs. It's a great intro to the idea of roleplaying, and for some folks it's exactly in the sweet zone for rules and they never need to look any farther. But if you're hitting the limits of what the system can do and it's causing you to lose enjoyment in the system then trying a different game is exactly the right thing to do! It's what we always did once AD&D started to chafe.

Edit - on thinking about it further - "narrative focused' is wrong because there's actually no focus in the non-combat portions of the game at all. D&D's non-combat rules are a freeform improv framework. The focus has to be brought by the DM and the players at the table rather than by explicit rules to reinforce a narrative.

 

[payn]

Well the random monster table sounds like its bad adventure writing and not an unbalanced game. This is a long held tradition of random tables. Some folks think there should be Froghemoths that 1st level characters can encounter if they are unlucky in the draw. Smart players should run away. Thats a bit old school of an idea I think. In nu skool, random encounter tables are constructed with thought in that any encounter on the table makes both narrative sense, and is something that the party should be able to handle. Further, bounded accuracy makes this actually work better than it has in the past. So, I don't find this argument about 5E very compelling.

Now the tweet in the OP, seems to be talking about missing rules for perceived important things. Sounds like some chafe against rulings over rules philosophy. You dont need a rule for every instance, the GM can just arbitrate it as necessary. This being seen as a weakness or imbalance, is sort of why rules over rulings was popular about 20 years ago. There certainly is a difference in playstyle here, but im unsure what it has to do with balance?

 

[Malmuria]

There certainly is a difference in playstyle here, but im unsure what it has to do with balance?

For example, players who want a magic item economy in which the power of a magic item is quantified in a more explicit way. But yes balance and dm support are somewhat conflated here

 

[payn]

For example, players who want a magic item economy in which the power of a magic item is quantified in a more explicit way. But yes balance and dm support are somewhat conflated here

Yeap, all part of the rulings over rules. Folks found even in the 3E era where they tried to explicitly make economies in the rulebook, they still made no sense. To me, this is like a macro complaint of the "only can do things on my character sheet" only its now "I can only do things in game that are in the rulebook." Both players and GMs could learn to be a little more flexible and quick on their toes with the game. Of course, some tastes like that combat as sport codified gaming style and its totally valid too. Though, they should keep in mind 5E is not a rules lite game. Its a rules lite D&D edition.

 

[Jer]

To me, this is like a macro complaint of the "only can do things on my character sheet" only its now "I can only do things in game that are in the rulebook." Both players and GMs could learn to be a little more flexible and quick on their toes with the game.

I think that's a bit harsh - I do think that 5e does not do a great job of explaining what kind of game it actually is and expectations get set in wrong ways. Because it looks like the kind of game that wants to give you all of the answers - I mean, there are 3 whole books of rules! Long tables of equipment! Pages and pages of magic items and a whole DMG full of stuff! Shouldn't all of your answers be in there somewhere?

And I think that lack of explanation of what kind of game it is stems from its origin as a compromise edition between the folks who thought 3e and 4e were just too much complexity and wanted to go back to a more freeform handwavy game and the folks who liked the structure that 3e and 4e brought but thought that it took things too far. And I personally also suspect that Wizards basically thought this edition was going to be the "caretaker edition" where they'd keep the game in print and the brand active as a low selling game with a reduced staff to support it so they didn't need to really engineer the heck out of the game they way they did with 3e and 4e - and then were surprised to find out that the market was hungry for an under-engineered game again. I think that they don't explain what kind of game it is because they didn't really know what they were making when they made it and stumbled into something by accident. Heck sometimes I'm not sure they've figured out what kind of game they've made even after 8 years of shepherding it...

 

[Malmuria]

Yeap, all part of the rulings over rules. Folks found even in the 3E era where they tried to explicitly make economies in the rulebook, they still made no sense. To me, this is like a macro complaint of the "only can do things on my character sheet" only its now "I can only do things in game that are in the rulebook." Both players and GMs could learn to be a little more flexible and quick on their toes with the game. Of course, some tastes like that combat as sport codified gaming style and its totally valid too. Though, they should keep in mind 5E is not a rules lite game. Its a rules lite D&D edition.

I agree...I think 5e could handle being a rules lite game with rules medium combat when it was just the PHB. Looking at the new UA, it strikes me that every addition and change (feats, races, class features) makes the combat part of the game more complex and slower without, seemingly, satisfying the subset of players who want a more balanced, tactical combat-as-sport game. I know this happened with 3e--bloat--but if they want to make revised 5e and continuation of the current, I don't know what exactly they can (except to stop publishing new character options)

 

[Umbran]

I recently came across a twitter thread criticizing the lack of DM support in 5e that seemed to gain a lot of traction.

First, just to clear the air here - 5e does not pretend to be a narrative-focused, rules lite game. This is just... incorrect. It may be seen as slightly more narrative focused and lite than some previous editions. But it has no pretensions of being lite or narrative as compared to the broader gaming ecology out there.

I have seen this assertion before in discussions here - they are usually the result of someone taking what another person has said, driving it to a pole, and asserting the game itself claims to be thus. But in all honestly, if you look at the game itself, it doesn't.

That aside, and ignoring other nitpicks on the twitter thread, yes, I think going forward the game should be balanced. And I mean balance in the sense that by and large, most choices available to players should be fairly effective ones. Balance, from my perspective, is a quality of a system that means the GM does not usually need to work hard to correct for mechanical disparities that lead to disparities in spotlight time and effectiveness. A player should be able to open the book, make standard choices, and not end up feeling like they made errors, or are stupid, or their character is worthless to the party.

I don't care about balanced economic systems, for example - real economics is tedious, picayune, and poorly understood even by economists.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For all the disparaging of people wanting the rules they paid for to actually have rules and rather insist they be able to improv...

Then the books should have some discussion and instruction on how to improv.

If every answer to the players' questions is 'ask you DM', then the DMG should be telling the DM how to answer and how to arrive at those answers.

And I get why it's not. I'm writing a DMG-type section right now and it's hard, especially when you're 20 years deep into DMing by the seat of your pants and can throw out new NPCs like ninja stars. But the fact of the matter is, anyone actually trying to read the thing is not going to be a seasoned game-runner and is going to need guidance on hoe to get there.

Guidance that, not just in 5e, but historically, across most of the hobby, has not been there in the books.

 

[Ancalagon]

To me the balance that matters is balance between the PCs. You don't want a BMX Bandit/Angel Summoner situation. The DM can always make encounters smarter/tougher, sometimes merely by changing tactics.

And I've been discovering that the balance between PCs is... fraught, because player skill matters almost as much (and sometimes a LOT MORE) than the PC's powers.