D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[Alzrius]

Exactly that. Equally-weighted player-facing choices can be readily, even quantitatively evaluated for balance.

I'm of the opinion that such an evaluation has limited (at best) impact with regard to the practicalities of play, and so is of only modest worth.

Unlike verisimilitude which is wholly subjective.

That's sort of what I'm getting at, though: since it can only work in overarching abstractions with limited applications due to the incalculable diversity of the play experience, balance is subjective as well. Hence, better to lean into the verisimilitude, which embraces that.

I mean, there are 12 classes. You pick one. They gain abilities as you level that are delineated. What's the obstacle.

It's not a question of obstacles; it's a question of calculating those abilities on paper versus using them in play. You can calculate the latter very well as an abstraction, but in terms of actually applying that to game-play, it's limited at best.

That you can declare actions no covered by the rules? Sure, there are an infinite number of actions that you could declare that have no effect on the progress of the cooperative game. I don't see how that matters.

I don't see how it doesn't. It's a demonstration that fine-tuning "balanced" options will only have modest impact on improving the play experience, because the play experience is broader than what such calculations are able to take into effect. The focus on verisimilitude is that it recognizes that the entire experience is subjective, and so needs to be understood with regard to the context that play is happening in; doing so allows for (in my opinion) more to be "gotten" from the course of play. Context, in other words, is everything.

TTRPGs are interesting in that players can take them in almost any direction, but they still present finite sets of tools with which to do that, the actual system (which is, by definition 'systematized'). That system can be evaluated for balance among other qualities, some quantitative (like some measures of balance), some qualitative, some objective, many subjective (like verisimilitude).

Even if we leave aside methods of interaction that don't necessarily rely on the game mechanics per se (interpersonal interaction between PCs and NPCs/monsters is a big thing here, as I've seen plenty of "social" mechanics be eschewed in favor of role-playing the encounter without any sort of crunch), those finite sets often rely on combinations of options, with the potential results being large enough that they might as well be infinite for all intents and purposes. And in many instances that's before you take into account some variables that aren't even part of the standard sets of tools.

How can you determine how many people's verisimilitude will be harmed by a game that is not radically imbalanced? When verisimilitude is a subjective perception, in the first place?

Because, in my experience, the level of balance that you're talking about (presuming that I've understood you correctly) requires restricting options in order to move from the theoretical to the practical. Things like limiting mundane (i.e. non-magical/supernatural) abilities to "per day" or "per encounter" usage, for instance, tends to hurt people's sense of how the world works if there's no good in-character reason for why they can't do such things more often. Obviously, personal variance will mean that some people don't mind that, but I feel fairly confident in guessing that a not-inconsiderable number of people would.

Really, it gets back to what I said about chess. It's a very finely-balanced game, but nobody uses it to role-play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's sort of what I'm getting at, though: since it can only work in overarching abstractions with limited applications due to the incalculable diversity of the play experience, balance is subjective as well. Hence, better to lean into the verisimilitude, which embraces that.

Play experience may be varied. Systems are finite. It's systems that can be evaluated for balance, quantitatively.

5e offers 12 classes, 13 including Ebberon. That's hardly unmanageable.

those finite sets often rely on combinations of options,

No one says balance is easy. Unanticipated power combos are what CharOP live for. Closing such loopholes is the second reason to have errata.... (the first being, not having good enough editing)

Because, in my experience, the level of balance that you're talking about (presuming that I've understood you correctly) requires restricting options in order to move from the theoretical to the practical.

Remember the definition of balance I offered. Balance maximizes options. Imbalance restricts options by rendering them some of the meaningless or non-viable.

The distinction between a game with only one option, and a game with only one worthwhile option, in terms of balance, is minimal.

Restricting options may make a game simpler. It harms it terms balance.

 

[Lanefan]

No. Remember the definition of balance I offered. Balance maximizes options.

Or minimizes them, if the primary means of balancing is to remove unbalanced options until there's only a few (or one) left.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or minimizes them, if the primary means of balancing is to remove unbalanced options until there's only a few (or one) left.

The point of balance is maximizing options. Removing an option that is imbalanced low, only saves anyone who might have been unaware that it was non-viable from mistakenly taking it. The number of viable options remains the same.
OTOH, removing an option that is unbalanced high may render multiple options viable, again, increasing the number of real options.

In either case, tho, replacing an imbalanced option with a balanced one is superior, as it increases choice.

 

[Alzrius]

Play experience may be varied. Systems are finite. It's systems that can be evaluated for balance, quantitatively.

5e offers 12 classes, 13 including Ebberon. That's hardly unmanageable.

I think that the options you're outlining are far more granular than just classes; they're individual class abilities, feats, backgrounds, spells, magic items, etc. Multiply those into various combinations, and the possibilities are large enough that they're greater than can be casually calculated. And that's before you get into issues of contextualizing any given combination in terms of the play experience.

Those options can be looked at and compared to each other, but they can't be compared to the unrestricted possibilities of what can happen in any given session, which makes me question how much utility they have, regardless of how well they're balanced.

No one says balance is easy. Unanticipated power combos are what CharOP live for. Closing such loopholes is the second reason to have errata.... (the first being, not having good enough editing)

Sure, but in many cases that removes options, which strikes me as paving the way to tightening balance via restriction of what can be done, which runs the risk of the game and verisimilitude being in conflict. When you're in danger of saying that an ability based purely on muscle power is so good that it can only be done once per day, to reuse that example, that tends to not go over well (that I've seen).

Far better to be less worried about the potential of abusive combinations; I know people like to point to Pun-Pun as emblematic of everything that was wrong with 3.X, but I don't remember ever seeing anyone try to make/play/run Pun-Pun at the game table. A lot of the specters that get hunted down in the abstract tend to be non-issues in actual play, that I've seen.

Remember the definition of balance I offered. Balance maximizes options. Imbalance restricts options by rendering them some of the meaningless or non-viable.

The distinction between a game with only one option, and a game with only one worthwhile option, in terms of balance, is minimal.

Restricting options may make a game simpler. It harms it terms balance.

To reiterate, I perceive a mismatch between the idea that balance maximizes options and the results of that put into practice. Balance, presuming again that I'm understanding you right, requires controlling and quantifying variables and their interactions. But leaving aside that the circumstances of play are a host of variables that can't be quantified, bringing various options into parity with each other almost always requires some things to be reined in (unless you boost absolutely everything to match the highest gradation of functionality), and that's the point where you introduce restrictions, potentially at the cost of immersion via groundedness via verisimilitude.

In other words, balance can be over-tightened. Far better to let it serve as a guideline and let each table take care of the rest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Verisimilitude, the weapon of choice against Fighters for nearly 5 decades.

Fighters are plenty effective in pre-WotC editions, so I'd say it couldn't have been the weapons of choice for more than 23 years.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fighters are plenty effective in pre-WotC editions, so I'd say it couldn't have been the weapons of choice for more than 23 years.

Nah. Fighters need weapon specialisation in TSR editions - and to walk around covered in magic items like a Christmas tree. Gygax openly said they were underpowered. (Admittedly that's possibly due to Rob Kunz/Robilar and player skill)

 

[Neonchameleon]

And while on the subject the TSR whipping boy wasn't the fighter but the equally versimilitude-hampered thief.

 

[Alzrius]

Nah. Fighters need weapon specialisation in TSR editions - and to walk around covered in magic items like a Christmas tree. Gygax openly said they were underpowered. (Admittedly that's possibly due to Rob Kunz/Robilar and player skill)

Would you mind sourcing that quote? I recently picked up Rob Kuntz's new release regarding Robilar, and "underpowered" wasn't the word that came to mind when reading his adventures.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that the options you're outlining are far more granular than just classes;

Classes are one example. They're a big one, in D&D.

they're individual class abilities, feats, backgrounds, spells, magic items, etc. Multiply those into various combinations, and the possibilities are large enough that they're greater than can be casually calculated. And that's before you get into issues of contextualizing any given combination in terms of the play experience.
Those options can be looked at and compared to each other, but they can't be compared to the unrestricted possibilities of what can happen in any given session, which makes me question how much utility they have, regardless of how well they're balanced.

The theoretically unrestricted possibilities of a TTRPG are a very real appeal. But they don not cause the system, itself, to become infinite, imponderable, or immune from reasonable evaluation.

Sure, but in many cases that removes options, which strikes me as paving the way to tightening balance via restriction of what can be done,

As I mentioned, above, improving balance by removing an option is possible, when that option is invalidating multiple other options, but replacing the offending option with a balanced one will necessarily be a greater improvement in balance.

Balance isn't about restricting options, it's about maximizing real options.

Verisimilitude is arguably about restricting options - someone wants to play a certain concept, you object that it will ruin your verisimilitude.

which runs the risk of the game and verisimilitude being in conflict. When you're in danger of saying that an ability based purely on muscle power is so good that it can only be done once per day, to reuse that example, that tends to not go over well (that I've seen).

Verisimilitude can be placed in conflict with anything at any time, since it is subjective and arbitrary, by the very definition you game, of 'making since' in spite of fantastic elements.

In other words, you judge what you think makes sense, and then arbitrarily excuse some of those things as fantastic, while demanding other be removed.

To reiterate, I perceive a mismatch between the idea that balance maximizes options and the results of that put into practice.

Well, 4e was a reasonably balanced game, and over 2 years, presented 23 classes, 2 of which were arguably sub-par, but still usable.

5e is a decidedly imbalanced game, and, over 10 years, has presented 13 classes, 6 of which are on an entirely different plane of sheer power and versatility from the others.

And then, there was 3.5 ....