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

[Jer]

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

yes. This. They absolutely should. And it's so much easier now than it was 30 years go because the basics are all right there - have the players roll a die and add a number and decide what happens. The DMG would be far more useful to new players - though far less useful to me personally - if it had just some casual essays on DMing from different points of view and how to make those kinds of decisions rather than what DMGs have tended to be over the decades. Just knowing that there's more than one way to make these decisions and that's why you get to make the decisions is like half of figuring these things out.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I think, broadly speaking, that balance means the game is fun to play. Is D&D 5E fun to play? The game as written in the PHB? I believe so. Maybe not as fun as I think it could be (hence the homebrew rules I’ve made), but fun enough that if a friend were to invite me to a basic game I’d jump at the chance. No TCoE or XGtE needed.

So yes, balance is needed.

 

[Mort]

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.

Exactly correct. The DM has (edited)huge amounts of room to adjust encounter difficulty, but if the PCs themselves are imbalanced, the play experience suffers.

As for what that means? It means any given PC needs to be to allow the player to adequately contribute during the game session. And yes, contribution is certainly player dependant but if some PCs are able to do anything another one can do AND still do their own schtick, play will suffer for PC white playing second fiddle.

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.

I think there are elements of this. Interestingly, I've found that player skill tends to matter in different ways than people think.

For example, conventional wisdom is that casters require more player skill than non casters and that players tend to play them once they get better with the rules.

But I've found it usually takes greater player skill to design and effectively play a non caster because non caster players have to know the rules better and how to use them better than caster players in order to effectively keep up. Especially in multiple tiers of play.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

This, this, this, a thousand times this.

I have only been GMing with this edition, since 2015. Learning how to GM is/was very difficult, and is a perishable skill, especially early on. Figuring out how to balance different player expectations, the nebulous rules of exploration and social interaction, when rewards should be given out, and how to pace the game should be done for me in the DMG. I shouldn't have to go trawling up youtube videos, hopping on tiktok, or digging into 50 year old forums in order to run the game.

Almost every single RPG in print right now indeed suffers this same flaw.

 

[Shardstone]

On top of that, the word "balance" ought to have an official definition! If it is THAT important to the game, then the game should explain to you what literally BALANCE means. Not doing so and leaving it to us to argue is assinine!

 

[Malmuria]

On top of that, the word "balance" ought to have an official definition! If it is THAT important to the game, then the game should explain to you what literally BALANCE means. Not doing so and leaving it to us to argue is assinine!

The manticore example struck me, since what was seemingly annoying about it is that it is an unbalanced encounter for level 1 characters. Unbalanced there means that it is overly deadly if engaged in straight combat. I personally don't see the problem with that; that's when you come up with other strategies (including running away).

 

[TwiceBorn2]

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.

I concur with those who would like relative balance between PC powers at a given level. PC powers don't need to be absolutely equal at every level, but they should be roughly comparable so that everyone feels they can contribute equitably.

I am not in favour of complete balance in random encounter tables. As far as I'm concerned, appropriate thematic content in those tables is more important than balance between PCs and adversaries. And within that thematically appropriate content, the tables should contain a range of difficulties, from easy to difficult (i.e., you'd best hide or runaway). We don't live in a "level-balanced world," and I don't think the PCs in the fantasy RPGs I run should, either. They shouldn't be able to outright slaughter everything they encounter. The game has far more tension and excitement when the PCs have reason to fear some of the creatures they encounter, and question their ability to take them head on.

And I make that clear to my players when I start an adventure or campaign. "You are not playing in a level-balanced world. You may encounter things that are deadly and not realistic for your characters to take on. It's up to you to assess risk, and to live with the consequences if you assessed an encounter incorrectly." Of course, I as DM am responsible for dropping a few clues in advance regarding the potential lethality of any given encounter. If the players pick up on the clues, excellent... if they overlook or ignore them, oh well, live and learn.

I am grateful that my players are on the same page and enjoy my approach to GMing. YMMV.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think WotC or any of the writers have ever asserted that D&D is a narrative focused rules lite game. I would laugh at such an assertion if I ever heard anyone voice that opinion followed by a confused, "Wha-? You're serious?" I admit to having a hard time figuring out what player characters can do with all the loot they accumulate. Yeah, the possibilities are near endless, but a lot of the ideas aren't usually possible for itinerate adventurers who don't spend a lot of time in one spot. D&D has gone far beyond its simply dungeon roots, maybe it's time to rethink how treasure works. And I do know the DMG has some ideas for rewards to give players aside from gold.

 

[Oofta]

I think perfect balance is a myth, as well as calling D&D rule lite or crunchy is danged nebulous.

You can hand two people exactly the same PC and one will likely be more effective than the other. It's just reality. In my home game we have a 16th level monk ... who rarely spends more than 1 or 2 ki points per day. We have a battlemaster fighter that's used maneuvers so few times I could probably count them without taking off my shoes.
Every once in a while I remind him he can do an action surge because otherwise he never uses them.

I'm glad they're in my group and we have a lot of fun, but there is no way that they are as effective running their PCs as I have been with similar PCs. As far as we're concerned though, the game is still enjoyable and balanced because everyone feels like they contribute.

I've never used random tables straight out of the book in any edition, they never made a lot of sense to me. Fortunately they aren't exactly a core tenet of the game.

As far as rule "lite" or "heavy", it's a spectrum. Want a truly lite game? Go out in your back yard and play cops and robber shouting "bang" at each other. I think 3.x was far more rules heavy, but then again for certain aspects so was 2E. It just depends on what you're looking at and, to a large degree, personal preferences and expectations. I'm not even sure how I would rank 4E because powers and interactions were very explicitly defined but could be quite complicated in play.

I guess I read things like this and simply think "Okay, D&D 5E isn't for you. Can't you just say that and move on? No game can work for everyone, all of this feels like fluffery to prop up your opinion. That's fine I suppose, but it's not really saying much and just as important it's not necessary."

 

[jmartkdr2]

The manticore example struck me, since what was seemingly annoying about it is that it is an unbalanced encounter for level 1 characters. Unbalanced there means that it is overly deadly if engaged in straight combat. I personally don't see the problem with that; that's when you come up with other strategies (including running away).

This is a distinct lesson the books don't teach.

For players, the lesson is "there are many ways to deal with creatures. Fighting is one, but only one. Running, talking, sneaking past, and others."

For dm's, the lesson is "don't start the encounter by rolling initiative. Players should always have a chance to see things coming and if they see it they should have a choice in how to approach it."

So the manticore is fine on a level 1 random encounter table IF the dm knows that rolling a manticore should be followed by 'evidence of a manticore in the area' and not 'a manticore attacks.'