D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[FrogReaver]

There are many topics that apply to multiple versions of 5e. Do you really think "do players care about balance" is a topic exclusive to 5.5?

This one was tagged as exclusively a topic for 2024 d&d.

Or should we have multiple threads on every topic to make sure we don't cross the streams?

Exactly!

That is ridiculous, not to mention impractical. If your topic applies to more than your tag, maybe you should have used a different tag.

Or maybe you should accept the tag that was used?

Or at least been clear in the OP that you don't want to hear about anything but 5.5 in your thread.

The tag tells us the context of this discussion should be around 2024 d&d. Not sure why the OP would need to repeat that.

 

[Oofta]

I don't particularly care for influence systems or point systems when it comes to social interactions (I value roleplay at the table over rollplay), but I really do wish there was more around exploration. It doesn't necessarily need to be tables and tables of hard rules, but if it's provided and I can choose to eschew it if I like, that's fine - but if it's not provided and I have no idea how to run interesting exploration, then the game is very much missing something.

TSR era D&D had supplements that went into detail on exploration IIRC, but it's just another area that varies so much dependent on situation that I never found them useful. Doing exploration is a whole other topic, and what it means probably differs from one person to the next. I think the DMG should and hopefully will provide better suggestions, but I think suggestions are all we'll ever get.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree with there being no support for things outside of combat. If that were true we wouldn't have most of the skills, basically none of the tools and several of the feats. It may not be as encoded and rules heavy as you like but it also doesn't require heavy handed house rules. It just need you to set up situations that make sense to you as a DM that establish goals and obstacles.

The 2024 DMG will hopefully have better advice on that but the official rules are hardly the last place to look for that kind of stuff if you aren't comfortable running it more free form. For me, I like having a lot of freedom outside of combat because if I have a transparent point or influence system then people tend to focus on gaming the system, not playing their PC.

I on the other hand see no good reason why combat has to be the only place in the game with solid rules.

 

[Oofta]

I on the other hand see no good reason why combat has to be the only place in the game with solid rules.

We have solid rules. They just aren't stated in a level of granularity and detail that some people want.

 

[tetrasodium]

What if everyone is mature and understands the game is not adversarial. I mean, who the heck do you game with to have these issues? You just talk things out and come to an agreement on how to play the game. It is not that difficult.

You took a wrong turn and missed ignored or discarded all of the initial discussion leading up to the post you quoted where the hows & why's behind the reasons players get the ideas you are questioning. It wasn't the first post on that tangent & shouldn't be treated as such just to strawman it like that by blaming the playersfor not knowing better .

 

[Micah Sweet]

This one was tagged as exclusively a topic for 2024 d&d.

Exactly!

Or maybe you should accept the tag that was used?

The tag tells us the context of this discussion should be around 2024 d&d. Not sure why the OP would need to repeat that.

Because having multiple threads about the same thing is baroque, limiting, and needless. Are you really saying that no one should post in a thread, no matter the topic, unless the specifics of their content apply directly to the tag? You don't think people tag something as 2024 because its the new one, and not because that's all that applies to the topic? Do you have any idea how many uneeded threads would clutter up this site if everyone did what you suggest?

 

[Micah Sweet]

We have solid rules. They just aren't stated in a level of granularity and detail that some people want.

Yeah, much less granularity than the combat rules. There's "unbalance" right there.

 

[Xenolith234]

TSR era D&D had supplements that went into detail on exploration IIRC, but it's just another area that varies so much dependent on situation that I never found them useful. Doing exploration is a whole other topic, and what it means probably differs from one person to the next. I think the DMG should and hopefully will provide better suggestions, but I think suggestions are all we'll ever get.

By my meaning of exploration, I'd like varying survival and tracking mechanics, environmental conditions and hazards, different wilderness terrains and their effects, varying temperatures and their effects, weather, tables to make maps of different terrains. I don't think any of them would be wildly difficult to include and flesh out more than something like "disadvantage on XYZ". I don't think the default ranger will ever feel satisfying or balanced to play (no matter what changes WotC makes to it) and to satisfy the player expectation of what a ranger should do/be until exploration has more material around it for a DM to challenge the player with.

From what i understand, the designers don't think 5e is a game of attrition, which leaves me the wonder - what is it then? You try to reduce the characters' resources so that you can challenge them, but if you're not able to do that because the designers are fighting against it, then how can you possibly challenge them? That might be balanced in players' minds, but the DM is also a player, and one that doesn't seem to be valued. Though DMs are outnumbered, our opinion should weigh more heavily than just the equivalent of 1 player at best, which I don't think we're even valued that much.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because having multiple threads about the same thing is baroque, limiting, and needless.

If they are labeled differently then they aren’t about the same thing. We have labels for reasons.

Are you really saying that no one should post in a thread, no matter the topic, unless the specifics of their content apply directly to the tag?

Nope. Threads can drift as well. A counterpoint relevant to the discussion relying on an example from another game is probably fine in that context, even if it causes the other game to be discussed a bit.

Saying ‘I’m going to post about other games here just because I can and I want to’ is a whole different level though.

You don't think people tag something as 2024 because its the new one, and not because that's all that applies to the topic?

Doesn’t matter IMO.

Do you have any idea how many uneeded threads would clutter up this site if everyone did what you suggest?

Not many.

More importantly why do you insist on inserting non-2024-d&d games into 2024-d&d threads? At least with the 5e tag you could make an argument that the other games you talked about were 5e too, but that’s not the case for 2024-d&d.

 

[DarkCrisis]

D&D isn't about dungeon delving anymore. 5E still had that in mind when it was written.

Hopefully it's rebalanced for the 2-3 fight adventuring day with our ultra powered heroes going HAM in both of them.

But I doubt it. Monsters would have to be massively redesigned and rebalanced, and I don't think WotC wants to put forth that much effort for an edition they feel is not an edition change (although it is).