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

[DEFCON 1]

My preference is for a combination of the Classic and 2nd edition approaches, where the PCs make decisions about what to face, based on what they know of the living, breathing 2e-style world they live in, without DM fudging of the results.

You should go play those games then, rather than bemoaning that 5E isn't those games.

 

[Oofta]

"Optimize the fun out of the game" means a lot of things.

As an example, I'm fairly sure that you are among those on this forum who have (rightly!) complained that 5e is really quite garbage at survival experiences, because the mechanics will fight you tooth and nail. Why is that the case? Because players know that survival mechanics are often frustrating--and if given the choice, they will, essentially always, choose to obviate survival as a concern. It's a simple Maslow's hierarchy sort of thing. But that choice--effectively always obviating survival concerns whenever the opportunity presents itself to do so--is a form of "optimizing the fun out of the game," because overcoming meaningful challenges is the whole point.

You don't get to decide for me what I think or do not think. I don't think survival mechanics have ever been all that interesting in any edition so I rarely use them. If I did, I have exhaustion and other forms of attrition such as, off the top of my head I'd make it hard to rest and recover. In general when the story calls for this kind of thing I do it at a very high level with a few simple survival and concentration checks. Slogging through the desert is just not what I play D&D for.

And this isn't some new phenomenon that cropped up with 5e, or WotC D&D, or anything else. It's been with us since the very beginning. It's literally the reason ear seekers exist, because before the ear seeker was introduced, players had settled into a comfortable, safe, and above all reliable pattern, which hinged on listening at doors and similar ambush tactics. The Gygaxian solution to this is the blunt, brute-force, and fairly short-lived one of a gotcha monster that turns listening at doors into an instant kill, until the players (a) identify what is different, (b) determine how the obstacle can be overcome, and (c) integrate this into their SOP. Once step (c) is complete, the cycle begins again. Ossified SOPs were quite literally old-school players optimizing the fun out of the game.

Nah, ear seekers exist because Gygax (paraphrasing here) wanted to give the DM something to punish players if they were being overly cautious. Instead of, I don't know, simply having a discussion with the players about what they find fun.

I mean, I never said they do? I certainly reject adversarial DMing. If you've learned nothing else from my postings, I should hope you've learned that. But I did not say players want cakewalk fights. Look back at my earlier posts, and you'll clearly see that I said players want to feel they've accomplished something meaningful. The problem is that the completely natural, reasonable player instinct is to do things that are effective and which lead to greater success, and to avoid things which are ineffective and lead to greater failure. Like...that's literally what learning to play is.

Then it's up to the DM to make interesting and challenging encounters that reward smart play. If that means that sometimes the PCs make it through an encounter more easily and unscathed, celebrate with them. If it becomes an "I win" button they can press any time they want then it's an issue that as a DM you can either change the type of challenge or simply discuss it with the players.

I'm not sure who you're talking about, because I absolutely would not ever advocate such a thing. I don't think it's possible to be more diametrically opposite my beliefs. How many times have I spoken about the incalculable value of earnest, sincere player enthusiasm? How many times have I said that I believe the DM must earn their players' trust, their players' desire to participate?


Certainly. This is why rules matter as much as they do--and why the rules need to apply bidirectionally, not unilaterally upon the players alone. Rules are the system telling the DM what is a bridge too far, unless and until said DM collaborates with the table to do something else.

Did you reply to my post intending to speak to someone else? Because I'm deeply confused here.

What can I say. When you say things like "Seriously. Don't let them optimize the fun out of it. I completely agree that that's a serious issue, and it's one that genuinely affects 5e because they absolutely left the barn door WIDE open for it." it sure does sound like you're promoting old school Gygax style adversarial DMing.

Oh, and I don't think WotC is crap at game design or surveys. From where I'm sitting they've done a decent job, even if I don't agree with every decision.

 

[Oofta]

I never expected it to be the core focus. I would like it to be acknowledged in the rules as options though, because otherwise it looks like they killed the version game that gave them all the IP they're profiting from and are walking around in its clothes and calling themselves by the same name. I know that's very dramatic, and I really don't hate D&D, but it really bugs me on a deep level that they keep changing the game I grew up on and loved in a very formative way while maintaining the stance that it's the same game. Prior to say 3.5 they really made an effort to maintain a continuity of playstyle at least. I've been reading my old Dragon Magazine archive, and 3.0, while obviously a different game, operated on the assumptions that you play it like the TSR editions. They were trying to make a better version of that game.

The best selling version of the game ever produced is not relying on nostalgia from before the majority of players were born. It may not be the game you personally want, but it is the game a whole lot of people (myself included) enjoy.

Before you respond with the inevitable "popularity doesn't matter" or some variation therein, D&D is designed to be the mass market TTRPG. So being popular is a direct reflection of how well they designed the game. Personally I don't care about "continuity of playstyle" or how technically well designed the game is. All I care about is whether I, and my players, have fun at the table. We do, so it's hit the mark for us. It may not for you, and the game is not what you personally want, it doesn't in any way make it a failure of design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

That means you now need to start thinking not just about the total number of such things--because you admit you can't reduce it to 0--you also need to consider the importance of any such decision. It's now an open question whether the value gotten out of one non-RL-mappable choice is greater than the value lost in other areas by having that choice be so. Meaning, "I'm trying to minimize that, so I reject that outright" isn't available to you as an argument anymore. You have to actually defend why excising the non-RL-mappable choices is the correct thing to do, as opposed to just stating a blanket rejection.

Some non-RL-mappable choices accomplish a great deal and radically simplify things that would be impractical or even impossible otherwise. I certainly agree with you that, if and only if all else really is equal, one should use an RL-mappable choice instead of a non-RL-mappable choice if both options are available and of comparable utility. (I don't demand absolute perfection--maybe one is a slight loss of utility, that's fine.) The problem comes in when it's not a slight loss, but rather a massive one.

And that's precisely where the issue lies, isn't it? As far as I can tell, you reject outright the idea that non-RL-mappalbe choices can actually offer sufficient utility to permit them in the process of actual play. I think that it's self-evidently true that such things not only exist, but are fairly common. We just stick a massive excuse sticker on a large number of them. That sticker is a label: "Magic."

Yeah, I do. That's the supernatural part of "real life with supernatural elements". I would rather have such things be mediated via magic as much as possible rather than gamist or narrative rules that don't follow setting logic, at least in D&D-style traditional games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Historical berserkers" were people wearing bear shirts. Actual battle-rage does not have reliable historical attestation, and the closest thing we can get is, effectively, psyching yourself up with drugs before a battle. That's not at all the same thing.


How is that not the case? I don't see how you can possibly claim that, particularly when it's fuelled by a resource that runs out.


Yes. Because "magic" is the universal excuse. Only non-magical things must bear the yoke and lash of "no meta decisions." It's just another round of requirements that keep non-magical characters in the "realism" ghetto.


But that's explicitly not immersion. The player cannot possibly be feeling that fear. They can, at absolute best, be choosing to model that fear or that bravery. That choice to model X instead of Y cannot even in principle be mapped to the character's choices.

The supernatural allows you to explicitly break the laws of realism. I know you don't like it, but it is what it is. For the record, I'd love to tamp down magic's ubiquity in these games, but that's the opposite direction the mainstream is going.

Regarding the Battle Master thing: I see this as a rules problem. Martial exploits can be handled in a more realistic (if not completely realistic) way. I'd give an example, but this thread is exclusively about 5.5.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is one way that I know of wherein "spotlight balance" is achievable while playing D&D, and what classes are being used has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately... most players don't play their RPGs in this way so they don't get to experience it.

Talking in character most of the time and focusing on story.

When story and characterization is the primary focus of gameplay-- the players saying what they want their PCs to do and speaking with NPCs the DM controls (negotiation, exploration, argument, planning, invention, etc)-- then the spotlight all becomes about how often people step up to talk and what it is they they wish to say. And if you want to throw some ability checks in there too just to get some mechanics into the game, that's fine too.

But this is exactly how the "weapon-using characters" get to easily be in the "spotlight"-- contribute to the game all the time and at much greater levels, oftentimes more than the "magic-users" can do. Because everyone can come up with ideas and talk about them, and it doesn't matter what your class is or what game mechanics you have at your fingertips when you do so. When the group needs to accomplish something, then the Fighter player can come up with the idea and solution and present it to the team and get the "spotlight" on their discovery... even if the solution is for the "Wizard character" to use their X, Y, or Z spells in somesuch way to accomplish it.

Now sure... the mechanically-focused tables will say "No! If the Wizard is the one who uses their spell mechanics to cast the spell to solve the problem, then they are the ones who got the spotlight!" (even though the Fighter player is the one who actually thought of the idea and had control the of the table as they worked it out and presented it to the group). And if some people play at tables like that... when only the use of the numbers on a character sheet count as "spotlight time"... then my point is going to be a poor one for them. But that's fine. My style and focus of playing RPGs is an exceedingly small minority and we've all known that for decades. But if "spotlight balance" is really such an important thing for some players... then changing their game's focus to be about characterization and talking in character and improvising discussion and such is a great way to do that while still being able to play D&D (if changing your game away from it to one with more mechanical spotlight balance isn't going to fly.)

And spotlight balance doesn't even need to always involve solving problems. If one player wants their character to have funny banter with NPCs (even if wouldn't achieve anything "useful") giving them opportunities to do that is good spotlight for them. If one player likes playing their characters emotional trauma, giving them opportunities to do that is what is needed etc.

None of this of course means games shouldn't endeavour to be mechanically balanced. Or at least if not, then outright say that (like mages and non-mages in Ars Magica,) so that the participants can make informed decisions. But I certainly have had perfectly functional games where characters are intentionally wildly unbalanced. Granted, I don't think D&D is necessarily the best vehicle for such approaches.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You should go play those games then, rather than bemoaning that 5E isn't those games.

I don't have that option. My players (my wife and close friend among them) are comfortable with the 5e ruleset, so I modify it to suit my needs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I do like that idea.

I just think it's a lovely idea that doesn't work. Much like a la carte multiclassing or "monsters are written with the exact same rules as PCs". They're parts of the wide and easy road leading to design hell.

Though I'll note the latter doesn't work in D&D and adjacents; its not an automatically bad idea (as the BRP and Hero family of games have shown for decades). Its just not compatible with other elements of D&D and its kin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't have that option. My players (my wife and close friend among them) are comfortable with the 5e ruleset, so I modify it to suit my needs.

Then you shouldn't expect the designers of 5E games to design to your expectations, not their own. And they certain are not going to waste their time trying to make you happy, when you don't even want to play their game in the first place.

It does make me wonder though why you've tied your identity so much to a silly little game that every single thing done to it that stomps on your childhood desires is taken so to heart? Isn't it time for your life to move on?

 

[Xenolith234]

Is it so bad to hope and want for the designers to provide variant rules for different levels of challenge? Different encounter building guidelines for different types of players? Additional combat rule variants for each of those? This isn’t an earth shattering request, and it’s what NEXT sounds like it was promising. The game is modular, ish, WotC just didn’t provide those modular rules.