Unpopular opinions go here

[overgeeked]

Balance in a cooperative game is completely unnecessary.

Tell that to the players who are constantly overshadowed by other players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Balance in a competitive game can slide a little, as long as it stays fair. That is, everyone has access to all the same options, so it becomes an exercise in picking the best options, and putting them to best use. If the balance is really bad, the players might all have made all the same choices... the game might even be 'solved' with victory guaranteed by order of play or impossible to achieve - unless someone makes a mistake.

In a cooperative game, 'winning' can be nominally collective, but individual fun comes from contributing (and so does collective victory), under- or non-contributing (or worse than useless) options both rob the player who took them of enjoyment, and reduce the chances of a collective victory. Balance is critical in a cooperative game.

In a TTRPG, where choice of character and character abilities will be driven by concept, as well as effectiveness in contributing cooperatively, balance is even more important, as less-effective, even non-viable, options can still be very enticing.

 

[Gradine]

Tell that to the players who are constantly overshadowed by other players.

Certainly.

If you want to be more effective in combat, then choose the options that let you excel in combat.

If you don't care if you're as effective in combat, find the ways you can shine brighter outside of it.

I've played several characters who were next to useless in combat. In D&D, no less! I never felt overshadowed. If you're tired of not having the spotlight, take it.

I mean, unless the problem is a show-boating min-maxer ruining the fun for everyone, in which case the solution is the door.

 

[Hussar]

D&D is a fantasy game about traveling murderers killing monsters for gold. It's not, say...a superhero game nor a sci-fi game nor a modern-day spy game. So, by design, the game limits your choices before you even sit down to play. D&D is a class- and level-based game, i.e. you cannot play a concept that is not covered by the class system.

Above you argued that balance leads to homogeneous results. That's demonstrably not true.

Firebolt, 1 action, 120 ft range, 1d10 fire damage, ignites flammable targets.

Eldritch blast, 1 action, 120 ft range, 1d10 force damage.

These are balanced in that they deal the same damage at the same range. They are differentiated in that one deals force damage while the other deals fire damage, including igniting flammable objects.

And, realistically that applies to pretty much all attack cantrips. They all do weapon damage (d4-d12). The lower damage effects have riders to balance out the lower damage. Thus a d4 cantrip might inflict disadvantage on attacks. A d10 or d12 cantrip will not have any riders.

It's a balanced system but, I'd argue not very homogeneous. Sacred Flame and Produce Flame and Firebolt all work pretty differently, despite being very closely balanced to each other and created for 3 different classes.

But, let's be honest here, most of the "balance=homogeneous" thing is largely a red herring anyway. It's an easy way to score internet points without actually making any sort of reasoned criticism. Good grief, the entire weapon system has been balanced this way since OD&D. Without a whole lot of changes - at least once you get into varied weapon damages. Yet, no one complains how that means that all fighter types are homogeneous.

 

[Gradine]

In a cooperative game, 'winning' can be nominally collective, but individual fun comes from contributing (and so does collective victory), under- or non-contributing (or worse than useless) options both rob the player who took them of enjoyment, and reduce the chances of a collective victory. Balance is critical in a cooperative game.

There are plenty of ways to contribute. Find the ways that are the most fun for you and build the character that will help you achieve that.

If 5e fails at all from a balance perspective, it is not in the character options. It's in the over-emphasis on one pillar at the expense of another.

I've played in games where combat is a non-trivial part of the system, alongside PCs such as a small child, or in a Star Wars campaign, a protocol droid. Believe me, neither of them felt like they were under- or non-contributing.

 

[Cadence]

Balance in a cooperative game is completely unnecessary.

Edit: Looks like I was Ninja'd, so nevermind.

Some might value regularly feeling useful or having a decent amount of spotlight even if it is cooperative?

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is "unpopular opinions" so I don't think I want to pick on 5e and the Martial/Caster Gap, too specifically or too hard. But, y'know, it's there, and in every pillar, and there's no point denying it.

D&D has always been accused of being too combat-focused, because, well, the people who hated D&D for existing (like Jack Chick or Priscilla Pulling) prolly liked to think they abhorred violence, too. OK, and also because, y'know, it was a wargame, and always devoted a fair chunk of the rules to combat (though a larger chunk to spellcasting and magic items - but, oh, they had many combat uses! ).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

D&D is a fantasy game about traveling murderers killing monsters for gold. It's not, say...a superhero game nor a sci-fi game nor a modern-day spy game. So, by design, the game limits your choices before you even sit down to play. D&D is a class- and level-based game, i.e. you cannot play a concept that is not covered by the class system.

Above you argued that balance leads to homogeneous results. That's demonstrably not true.

Firebolt, 1 action, 120 ft range, 1d10 fire damage, ignites flammable targets.

Eldritch blast, 1 action, 120 ft range, 1d10 force damage.

These are balanced in that they deal the same damage at the same range. They are differentiated in that one deals force damage while the other deals fire damage, including igniting flammable objects.

I think that is my point entirely. A class based system won’t be truly balanced. One attack type using the same damage die? Sure.

I don’t have a problem with it but firebolt users are often not considered balanced with say a ranger. And that is ok with me.

I won’t say more about my impressions about the push for balance and what kind of game results…people have had that conversation

 

[overgeeked]

Certainly.

If you want to be more effective in combat, then choose the options that let you excel in combat.

Someone at the table will optimize, therefore everyone must optimize unless they want to be constantly outclassed. Or, you know, don’t have optimizers.

I mean, unless the problem is a show-boating min-maxer ruining the fun for everyone, in which case the solution is the door.

All min-maxers are showboaters. They all ruin everyone else’s fun. As mentioned, that’s part of their fun.

 

[Gradine]

This is "unpopular opinions" so I don't think I want to pick on 5e and the Martial/Caster Gap, too specifically or too hard. But, y'know, it's there, and in every pillar, and there's no point denying it.

Someone at the table will optimize, therefore everyone must optimize unless they want to be constantly outclassed. Or, you know, don’t have optimizers.

That, or... recognize that combat is only one pillar, and that there are many ways to optimize, and thus contribute, in many facets of the game