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

[Oofta]

What if the players are trying to make the game a way the DM doesn't want? Wouldn't you blame the players for not listening to the DM? Again, why do you think the DM's fun has to come from the enjoyment of the players? Does the DM not get to have fun of their own?

Then there's a mismatch between player and DM and something has to give. What other option is there? I can't eat Thai food because of an allergic reaction. If my friends insist on Thai, I don't join them. Maybe we go eat somewhere else or they just eat without me now and then. Maybe we all get takeout. If someone is running a game with evil PCs I'll simply tell them I'm not interested. At that point they can either change the premise or if we still want to get together it becomes a board game night.

And also, we've been talking about how the book's very easy encounter standard makes it difficult to up the difficulty without pushback from players who feel this is unfair. Any comment on that?

What comment? The DM and players should discuss how difficult they want the game to be. Some of that may well be trial and error of course, people may not understand what it really means until they experience it. But, like adults, sometimes we have to compromise because not everyone can get what they want. It shouldn't always be the DM compromising of course, it's a two way street. But it does go two ways.

To quote Monsignor Jagger, you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes, well, you might find you get what you need. With very few exceptions ... maybe 1 in 50 players or so ... we've always been able to work something out.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Ah, yes. When he cast those spells on the Witch King of Angmar I was enthralled.

Pretty sure that was explicitly stated in an interview, somewhere.
Seemed pretty obvious to me, anyway.

 

[Steampunkette]

Pretty sure that was explicitly stated in an interview, somewhere.
Seemed pretty obvious to me, anyway.

Don't get me wrong: Aragorn might've been the inspiration.

The implementation, however, was kinda sloppy and nonsensical. Probably because there just wasn't a whole lot to separate "Aragorn" from "Fighting Man" because Tolkien wasn't trying to make him significantly "Mechanically" different from others and they were trying to make Rangers different from standard Fighters.

YMMV, I'm just saying there wasn't a whole lot -there- which conveyed "Aragorn", really. And the team considered a different path of characterization to be preferable.

And haven't been able to Balance that characterization since 3e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm very curious if and to what extent they've kept the DM-eating wolves at bay in the 5.5 DMG.

As am I. I have already been proven at least partially wrong in my predictions about what the 5.5 DMG would contain. The archdevil is in the details, as it were, but given I've already been surprised to that extent, I'm at least open to the possibility that they really did fix the issues and have made a dramatically better DMG.

Even if I still don't like 5e, I would very much prefer that its foundational books be well-written and promote responsive and constructive DMing. The previews look good, but of course, previews are always meant to look the best they possibly can. Cautious optimism is about the most I can summon, but they've earned at least that much.

 

[Mecheon]

I've always wondered about that. As far as I know, none of the books actually call out D&D as a casual, "chips and nachos" experience by default. Where does that idea come from?

I mean, with the go-to biggest introduction to D&D these days being a widespread bunch of generally low stress Twitch streams? Its generally a pretty chill experience and folks will relate to stuff like that as the way to play

It slows them down, but it doesn't change encounter balance by much (some buff to short-rest characters aside). It's not like now they'll be getting 6-8 encounters per day but only able to long rest once per week. My players like a roleplay, slow burn kind of game, but again, the perception of a nerf to them is a slight.

If we're taking away all things that annoy players, we wouldn't be left with much of a game in the end.

Its unrelated to balance, sure, but it is the player experience and isn't going to necessarily going to mesh with what people want. Its not a "Every group is fine with this" bandaid, and the perception very much becomes its going to be more of a long slog type of game, not a chill muck around one

Plenty of stuff that annoys players was taken away. Druids don't have to beat up people above them any more to level up, barbarians don't have to punch out every magic user, and bards are just a normal class rather than some godless multi-class specced nightmare

 

[pemerton]

Poker is rather famously both things.

But it's not, right? I mean, the experience of playing poker and the experience of playing chess are wildly different - one rests on secret information and deceiving opponents about ones' position; the other is an entirely open-position reasoning-based game.

If I want to get the pleasure of playing chess, why would I sign up to a poker tournament?

 

[pemerton]

When we talk about stuff that's "annoying to players", can we draw some distinctions?

Having my off-suite ace lead trumped in 500 or bridge play is annoying, but I don't want that removed from the game - the risk of being trumped, and the associated skill of counting trumps and following the play more generally, is key to the play of the game.

Cards getting scuffed or torn is also annoying, but that is not part of the play of the game (cf the scuffing of the ball in cricket). If someone can sell me cards that are more resistant to scuffing, that are easier to deal, etc - well, that sounds like a good thing!

And then there is an intermediate sort of annoyance - maybe someone really enjoys bidding, and following the play, but doesn't like the competitive aspect of five hundred or bridge. For that person, the cooperative game Crew is great, Or maybe they enjoy competition, but don't really enjoy partner play - then Up and Down the River might be a good alternative.

In the context of D&D, and what sorts of changes might be made to make it "less annoying", I think it would be helpful to be a bit more analytically clear, and maybe also a bit more honest, about what the desired play experience is, and how the details of the game design relate to that. Conversely, trying to "trick" players who are hoping for a hijinks-oriented free-form-y time punctuated by a bit of low-stakes skirmish play, by setting default encounter guidelines that are tuned for hardcore wargamers, seems like a silly idea to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it's not, right? I mean, the experience of playing poker and the experience of playing chess are wildly different - one rests on secret information and deceiving opponents about ones' position; the other is an entirely open-position reasoning-based game.

If I want to get the pleasure of playing chess, why would I sign up to a poker tournament?

Poker is a combination of gambling and strategy. Its not a roll of the dice, but it's not pure logic like Chess.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Poker is a combination of gambling and strategy. Its not a roll of the dice, but it's not pure logic like Chess.

I mean, it pretty much is a roll of the dice--or at least that's the intent. That's (part of) why casinos shuffle multiple decks together, so that things like card-counting (an actual strategy!) are harder to do.

The vast majority of the "strategy" is basically psy-ops. What can you deceive someone else into believing? What deceptions can you see through?

Absolutely none of that is part of chess, which is sort of the point. We already recognize that they have some elements in common, they have to, they're both multiplayer competitive games. But apart from those very slim commonalities, the two could hardly be more different, especially in terms of the experience provided.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the context of D&D, and what sorts of changes might be made to make it "less annoying", I think it would be helpful to be a bit more analytically clear, and maybe also a bit more honest, about what the desired play experience is, and how the details of the game design relate to that. Conversely, trying to "trick" players who are hoping for a hijinks-oriented free-form-y time punctuated by a bit of low-stakes skirmish play, by setting default encounter guidelines that are tuned for hardcore wargamers, seems like a silly idea to me.

Personally, this is why I favor having a game that is, at base, either wholly or primarily encounter-based, but which may offer or include daily-based things as an option.

Because it's damn near impossible to rebalance daily resources to work on a per-encounter basis. It's not easy to rebalance encounter resources for a per-day basis, but it's a damn sight easier than the other way around. Of course, there's also the option of making everyone have both per-day and per-encounter resources, but the edition war has made even the hint of a suggestion of a proposal in that direction more toxic than Lake Karachai.