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

[EzekielRaiden]

Who are these posters? Show me the textual evidence that proves this rather uncharitable point.

You want me to actually name names? Fine. I hate doing that, but you have demanded I do so, so I will. The main two I can remember off the top of my head are @Lanefan and @Maxperson. The former has explicitly said to me, despite my efforts to find any other avenue, that a DM-player arms race is not only good and proper but absolutely correct, and that players actively misbehaving for their own jollies, regardless of the consequences that has for other people at the table, is their inherent right. He actively rejected any notion of needing to be a "responsible adult" at the game table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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 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.)

So, in other words, you force people to not actually use the rules, and thus force everyone to be on a level playing field because the rules no longer matter?

At that point, why even bother with D&D?

You have fundamentally ignored the core of the argument: One set of classes gets a whole bunch of powerful tools to affect play, AND gets to roleplay and "focus on story" etc. the way everyone else can. The other set of classes does not get such tools, and cannot influence the state of play outside of dramatically more limited tools...except by roleplay and "focus on story," which everyone can do.

Group 1 has negotiation, which everyone can do, and also a bunch of other bennies besides. Group 2 has negotiation, which everyone can do, and not much else.

How can spotlight balance design "fix" that underlying problem?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Here's the problem: HAD vs. HAVE. The backstory, building your PC before you play, etc. is the HAD. You as a player get to decide most, if not all, of that. There are certainly games out there with random PC generation in more aspects (race, background, ability scores, even class) but since people generally want to play some concept they have in mind, these aren't as popular and usually just for a lark or something.

Obviously were are talking fantasy here, so I expect many experiences in the game that aren't mapped to real life, but by keeping all those that can be mapped to real life as close as possible, it allows me to feel more like I am in the game.

When you begin play, it is the HAVE, your HAD time is over for the most part. Now your choices have consequences you have no control over. And shouldn't IMO. This is where the dice come in...

Except that it's also experiences you HAVE. As in, YOU decide whether you feel terrified or galvanized by a horrible event. Again: that is YOU, the PLAYER, declaring what the CHARACTER does or thinks or feels or believes. That choice cannot even in principle be rooted in the character, because no character has the ability to sit for five minutes and think about whether they WANT to be terrified or galvanized.

IRL if I go to climb a cliff, I don't just "get to decide" that I climb the cliff. I have to actually try it. My skill, the conditions, etc. are all factors that will go into whether or not I climb it in the end. I might get to tired, I might get injured, etc. and have to climb back down. I might even fall!!!

In RPGs, this is where the dice come in. The dice determine the outcome most of the time--and easily could be ALL of the time. Certainly factors such as skill, features in the game, etc. can impact the results and we have the choice in those to a point, but that is as far as it goes.

So....you've....just described something where you don't get to decide it IRL....but you DO get to decide it in-game...?

This conflicts with everything you've just said.

No real risk, no real chance of ultimate failure because you know what--you cannot die.

This is, as it has always been, categorically false.

Death is not the only form of real risk. Death is not the only form of "ultimate failure."

If you don't think it is possible to survive while also experiencing ultimate failure, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Many, many, many, MANY people throughout history have survived their experiences of ultimate failure, where death would have been more successful. I frankly find it a bit hard to believe that you don't know of a single instance of something like this.

Some groups like the "survival" aspect of the game, tracking food, water, and ammo. Others handwave it away and don't worry about it.

Yes...but the rules themselves fight against you about it. Spells that obviate every part of actually surviving--food, water, shelter--are available as early as level 1, or occasionally level 3 or 5 for the particularly hefty stuff. Create food and water nixes literally any form of sustenance-based survival mechanics permanently once you have a 5th level Cleric (or particular flavors of Druid or Warlock, or 9th level Paladin/Artificer). Create water is a 1st level Cleric spell, and can be acquired through a variety of other means (and it was also a Druid spell in 5.0, but it seems to have been removed in 5.5e).

5th edition D&D is not, has never been, and will not ever be particularly supportive of this playstyle. I consider this a damn shame, because, just as you say, some groups love this stuff. I don't generally love it, but I'm on record arguing for many things I don't personally have any interest in, but which I think absolutely need to be supported.

As I posted, I use the guidelines to great success and have done so for the near six years I've been playing 5E. The issue is more the guideliens don't fit your style of play, which makes them useless to you, and maybe in the new DMG they will address the more 4E style of play option and present guidelines for that.

RE the bolded bit: That'll be the day.

GM vs. players? Really? Who? Even the most "aggresive DM" on these boards has never stated anything like that IME.

I've seen it from several. I named some names above. I don't have the energy to go trawling for quotes, but I guarantee you it's something I've seen over and over on this forum. Stridently anti-player DMs are active participants on these boards. @bloodtide would be another example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.



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.


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.



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.

I am saying that the designers should design the game so that optimizing it IS playing it. That the designers should be making a game where using and leveraging the rules IS the fun the game is designed to produce.

How on earth does that have even the SLIGHTEST intersection with adversarial DMing?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

So all classes have to be magical now?

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.

See above.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Fair enough. I've seen it stumble in other non-D&D games as well, though. I will concede that it is not automatically a problem. Can we agree then that it is a risky design choice? That is, while it sounds like a nearly-universally-good idea, in practice it is actually a difficult commitment that one might not actually be able to pull off.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, mainly exploration, for me.

Real life isn't limited to the urban rat race. Crossing Antarctica, finding ruins in Brazil, exploring caves in the Alps, excavating lost settlements in the Sahel, finding a path from the source of the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean are all sources of exciting adventure.

Okay.

Are you ready to spend three weeks doing absolutely nothing except trying not to die of disease?

Because if you've ever skipped over that boring stuff in order to get to the actually interesting parts of exploration, you are already excising the real-life parts in favor of the dramatic ones.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When I played a 1e thief (a poorly designed
Class!) I got dopamine from stealing treasure, going unnoticed and playing a role. Not that it was nearly as effective as a
Specialized fighter.

Some sort of balance matters to me. But if you tell me I did not enjoy AD&D and did enjoy 4e because the latter had better balance I say you are having a hard time in seeing past what maybe you want to see.

See, this is an appeal to emotion that I find extremely annoying.

Is it possible to enjoy using something that was badly-made? Abso-friggin-lutely. It is possible to find enjoyment in doing almost anything. If something were truly so horrendously, offensively bad that you literally could not enjoy using it, at all, under any circumstances, no matter what? That thing would be the scariest weapon of psychological warfare ever devised. It would literally be a way to force people to feel bad. That would be terrifying.

Further, just because something IS well-made, doesn't mean it is automatically fun for everyone who uses it. Again, that would be a terrifying tool of psychological manipulation--you could make people feel joy, regardless of their interests or preferences etc. That would be a scary, and extremely bad, thing.

I cannot deny that you had fun with that thing.

But I can absolutely say that we should demand better-made things, and that in general, on average better-made things more reliably produce the experience that the designers intended...because that's literally what "better-made" means.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the way that you're describing this tends to blur [irl=[URL]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/]the[/URL] actor/author stance distinction[/url]:

*In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.​

​

*In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)​

That is, I think you are tending to assimilate Author stance to Actor stance, unless the Author stance is Pawn stance.

I have no particular objection to that assimilation, as I'm not persuaded that the distinction between Actor and non-Pawn Author stance is (i) all that clear in practice, or (ii) all that interesting.

No not at all. What i mean by "external factors" are the character's environment and situation that is known to them!

I mean, sure in practice I do sometimes mix the stances, but this was not what I was talking about. But some people are very purists about this. And I do think the RPGs are at their best when you can be just almost fully in actor stance, just go really method and just be the character. LARPs are the best for this, but you can do really good stuff with tabletop too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can--but rarely do. That's the whole point. Most lives are not dramatic. “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.”

It's not about what is likely to happen. It's about what can happen, what could logically make sense and follow from events in the setting. It's also about avoiding as much as possible taking actions as a player that aren't from your PCs perspective or within the scope of that PCs knowledge.

I'm getting very tired of the, "all or nothing" realism argument.