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

[pemerton]

That's the problem whenever these "design" discussions come up. People refuse to define what they think the design goals are. So, because they refuse to define those design goals, they make claims about this or that being poorly designed and it winds up everyone talking past each other.

I'm not sure who people are. But I don't think I'm one of them:

I think 5e is a pretty tightly-designed game.

On the PC build side its maths draws heavily on 4e D&D, with many correlative departures from tradition (eg fighters get their 2nd attack at the same time magic-users get 3rd level spells, ie 5th level - although tradition for a second attack is 7th level in AD&D (fighters go from 1/1 to 3/2) and 6th level in 3E; and fireball etc do a fixed number of dice of damage rather than a level-scaling amount) yet the player-facing aspects of PC build are close enough to tradition that it causes little outrage.

On the action resolution side, it has a stat/skill system that is deployable in something like the 2nd ed AD&D way (ie more-or-less as a descriptor system that the GM establishes some fiction around, calling for rolls if they like), in something like the 3E way (ie using "objective" DCs for task-oriented resolution) and that is not wildly different from 4e in the actual skill list itself. And its combat system is a cleaned-up version of 3E and 4e.

And on the GM side, it supports the mainstream approach of low-stakes, frequently free-form exploration leading from combat encounter to combat encounter - there is nothing too toothy to get in the way of that, like a skill challenge framework or other out-of-combat conflict resolution - and (as we're discussing in this thread) the combat encounter guidelines mean that accidentally TPKing a group is pretty unlikely, even though resource management is largely on the traditional per-day model.

Now none of the above is very appealing to me, but that's not because of bad design. It's because of deliberate design away from my preferred approaches to D&D and to RPGing more generally.

WotC have clearly worked hard to consolidate the position of D&D as the RPG with the highest level of broad appeal. Of course there are network effects - that is part of the appeal - but WotC seem to be doing well at maintaining and building those networks. And they are publishing stuff that many people seem to want to buy.

I think they "down-tuned" in their guidelines, which is likely to work for non-wargame-y players - those players won't be especially good at the maths or tactics that characterise the technical aspects of combat, and so won't necessarily realise that the tuning favours them; but nevertheless they are likely to succeed in combat because of the tuning, even if they come in suffering quite a bit of attrition.

That's one way to present encounter-level guidelines for an "adventure day"-based resource suite.

I think the game design assumes that more technical RPGers will be able to tighten the tuning themselves, based on their skill and experience.

I'm happy to elaborate on any of these observations about 5e's design, if you like.

But I remain of the view that popularity is not a metric for quality or aesthetic value: which was the point of my comparison of The Hunger Games to The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle; and of The Hardy Boys to At Swim-Two-Birds.

 

[MGibster]

Meh, I've been playing the "inferior game" since day 1. Everyone has told me how crap D&D is and that Game X is just so much better and does things so much better. RIFTS is better. Warhammer is better. Vampire is better. GURPS is the superior game. So on and so forth. If only people weren't so stuck on D&D...

The nice thing about Rifts is that it doesn't have any balance issues...

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I don't agree that every alternative comparison beyond sales is subjective - at least, if "subjective" means not amenable to reason or analysis.

Just to give a simple example: the change to how to hit number and armour class are calculate in D&D, that was inaugurated with 3E, seems to me to be a straightforward improvement. It eliminates weird stuff like a +1 ring or +1 armour operating by way of subtraction to a number.

Establishing a uniform progression table for all PCs is also an improvement: it means that rules that refer to levels or HD operate the same for all PCs, and opens the door to more rules that treat level or HD as an input. Whereas in AD&D and B/X, these rules operate weirdly, because of differences from character to character as to what a level actually means (and that's before we get to multi-classsing).

First let's look at the definition of subjective;

"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

There is no factual basis for your assessment of "better" or "improvement" in the examples in this post. They are statements of opinion. As opinions, I can fully disagree with you on these examples as nothing factual is stated.

I hate to break it to you, but you are fully operating in the realm of subjective, as defined by Oxford. And therefore, my original statement is true.

 

[pemerton]

First let's look at the definition of subjective;

"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

There is no factual basis for your assessment of "better" or "improvement" in the examples in this post. They are statements of opinion. As opinions, I can fully disagree with you on these examples as nothing factual is stated.

I hate to break it to you, but you are fully operating in the realm of subjective, as defined by Oxford. And therefore, my original statement is true.

Some relevant facts: the ease of computation; the avoidance of contradiction in having "+" means "-"; the comparability of "level" as a measure of character puissance; the avoidance of unintended oddities like level drain being more severe for a paladin than (say) a thief or a mid-level MU.

These are structural features of the game. The changes I mentioned improved them, in the sorts of ways I've just described.

The notion that there is nothing more to be said about quality in game design than "it's as subjective as whether or not banana tastes better than pineapple" is not plausible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its not probably trying for at least the first of those (I'm actually not sure what "reliability" would mean in an RPG design, but I suspect to the degree it could be applied there are probably better terms for it). I'd argue D&D does, indeed, to some extent aim for "consistency" in the sense that there's a particular kind of experience D&D style games tend to produce and they've aimed for those for a very long time (some of that has shifted over time of course, but its not a coincidence you hear a lot of discussion sometimes of "feels/doesn't feel like D&D")

But I also don't think that's a general trait of "quality" because it doesn't mean a thing to people who aren't already steeped in the D&D cultural sphere. You can argue an awful lot are, to one degree or another (either because they've seen things about or have done things like played fantasy computer games) but that's still far from everyone entering the hobby. Otherwise, it becomes kind of a tautology of "D&D works well for people who like D&D" (though obviously that still turns on what people think of as "D&D" as Micah shows in these discussions frequently).

Well, I admit the question was kind of a leading one, because my answer to it is "absolutely not."

Because that's--allegedly--the benefit of this glorious age of "DM Empowerment." That it's supposed to be, in a sense, boutique for everybody. Everybody gets something custom-tailored to them specifically because they custom-tailor it themselves!

My problem is that I find that this lofty ideal not only falls painfully short, I further find that the books don't even quarter-ass the tools needed to actually DO that, and cover the gap with "you're the DM, you figure it out!"

 

[Daztur]

Well, I admit the question was kind of a leading one, because my answer to it is "absolutely not."

Because that's--allegedly--the benefit of this glorious age of "DM Empowerment." That it's supposed to be, in a sense, boutique for everybody. Everybody gets something custom-tailored to them specifically because they custom-tailor it themselves!

My problem is that I find that this lofty ideal not only falls painfully short, I further find that the books don't even quarter-ass the tools needed to actually DO that, and cover the gap with "you're the DM, you figure it out!"

In any case, no edition of D&D has been an especially flexible system. I love D&D but D&D works best when you let it be D&D and some of the worst campaigns I've ever played/run have been attempts to try to push D&D out of its comfort zone into campaigns that it's just not suited for.

I like 5e more than most of us crotchety old grognards and think that is has a lot of good design that really contributed to its success (as well as a lot of things that annoy me) but when I hear about 5e campaigns that regularly have whole sessions go by without any combat whatsoever I just scratch my head in confusion. There are FAR better games out there for that specific type of thing so it ends up like trying to eat dinner with screwdriver. A screwdriver a well made tool and you CAN eat dinner with it but why would you?

 

[Zardnaar]

In any case, no edition of D&D has been an especially flexible system. I love D&D but D&D works best when you let it be D&D and some of the worst campaigns I've ever played/run have been attempts to try to push D&D out of its comfort zone into campaigns that it's just not suited for.

I like 5e more than most of us crotchety old grognards and think that is has a lot of good design that really contributed to its success (as well as a lot of things that annoy me) but when I hear about 5e campaigns that regularly have whole sessions go by without any combat whatsoever I just scratch my head in confusion. There are FAR better games out there for that specific type of thing so it ends up like trying to eat dinner with screwdriver. A screwdriver a well made tool and you CAN eat dinner with it but why would you?

5E strikes the balance between newbie friendly but crunchy enough.

3E and 4E didn't win many new converts hell one pushed them away.

I like B/X but don't run it as it's to basic for modern player. I have 5E players in older material. Generally they like some moving parts or complexity. I've has the most success with 2E (with options/moving parts), Castles and Crusades (B/X levrl with AD&D options). and ACKs (which has some moving parts).

Of the complex ones 3E it's not really the power imbalance that wrecks it. It's the numbers it's easier to groink than say 4E.

Once you build it (by that a PC) 4E runs smoother than 3E but it's horrible for new players. Simple fighter is power attack, cleave in 3E. 3E game falls apart later even if you keep the power level down.

Modern gamers like moving parts but not to the extent of 3E 4E or PF2 generally (some do obviously).

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Some relevant facts: the ease of computation; the avoidance of contradiction in having "+" means "-"; the comparability of "level" as a measure of character puissance; the avoidance of unintended oddities like level drain being more severe for a paladin than (say) a thief or a mid-level MU.

These are structural features of the game. The changes I mentioned improved them, in the sorts of ways I've just described.

The notion that there is nothing more to be said about quality in game design than "it's as subjective as whether or not banana tastes better than pineapple" is not plausible.

We have to parse opinion and fact here. The definition of fact, in case it's in dispute;

"a thing that is known or proved to be true."

Lets, also, look at the definition of opinion;

"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

Under these definitions, barring further evidence, every comment you made here is an opinion. From you "improving" something, to something being "unintended." Even the last statement about plausibility is, you guessed it, an opinion.

Remember that calling an opinion "fact" does not make it so. Which means that you are still well within the realm of subjective. And my initial statement remains true.

Either way, if you'd like to continue to call your opinions "facts" I won't intervene any more.

 

[MGibster]

In any case, no edition of D&D has been an especially flexible system. I love D&D but D&D works best when you let it be D&D and some of the worst campaigns I've ever played/run have been attempts to try to push D&D out of its comfort zone into campaigns that it's just not suited for.

Bingo. I discovered this harsh truth circa 1991. There are times I want to play D&D and D&D is really good for that. But if I want to play in other fantasy mileus then D&D is usually a bad choice.

 

[Daztur]

5E strikes the balance between newbie friendly but crunchy enough.

Yup, I said as much upthread. 5e just NAILS that level of complexity for my son and it's absolutely perfect for him, simple enough that a young teen can grasp it but complex enough that he can nerd out about it for hours. I'm afraid that the general trend with 5.5e is going to start to push 5.5e out of that sweet spot though, especially when new 5.5e splatbooks come out.

Bingo. I discovered this harsh truth circa 1991. There are times I want to play D&D and D&D is really good for that. But if I want to play in other fantasy mileus then D&D is usually a bad choice.

Yup I remember spending so much time thinking "come on guys, you're supposed to be the HEROES!" as a teen DMing 2e in the 90's, when I learned to sit back and let the players be Cugel the Clever from Jack Vance's Dying Earth books (a huge inspiration for D&D and still the best example out there of the tone that works best wtih D&D) instead of trying to herd them through Lord of the Rings things went sooooooooooo much more smoothly.