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

[Oofta]

So you regard social events - the First World War, for instance; or the transformation in so many parts of the world from pastoralist and peasant economies to industrial market economies - as having no objective causes?

Because their causes are not amenable to measurement. Yet these things seem to have happened, and to have impacted the lives of billions of people!

What are you measuring? Lives improved, lives lost? Technological advancement? Because for the former, obviously many lives were lost during WW I or II. But it was a real boon to technological advancement.

That, and war has nothing to do with quality. It's apples and used athletic socks.

 

[ezo]

After 1000 posts this thread has deviated so far from where it began we are almost back to the beginning...

 

[Zardnaar]

So you regard social events - the First World War, for instance; or the transformation in so many parts of the world from pastoralist and peasant economies to industrial market economies - as having no objective causes?

Because their causes are not amenable to measurement. Yet these things seem to have happened, and to have impacted the lives of billions of people!

It's objective the war happened. The justifications, objectives of the war and outcomes are subjective.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

People can define measurements and standards that they deem define quality and then measure things against those measurements and standards. You can measure the nutritional content, caloric intake, saturated fats in a meal but one person would look at a meal from a highly rated French restaurant and claim it was a quality meal while a nutritionist would say that it had way too many calories, saturated fat and lacked fiber and essential nutrients. Who is right? The both are! Based on what they define as quality.

There is no objective measurement of quality, there is only objective measurements of things we can actually measure.

The difference here as opposed to your example in nutrition. Is the nutritional measurements have meaning. They have research behind them that supports the importance of the thing being measured. We know the effects of eating too many calories, as an example. And we have a definitive method of measuring those calories. We can even, objectively, compare two measurements of calories reliably and draw conclusions based on that comparison.

In this discussion, the analysis proposed is measuring things we have no evidence are actually important outside of conjecture and opinion. And we have no standardized way to assess the measurement or means of comparing two measurements against each other. And in addition, reasonable arguments could be made to the contrary on the importance of some of these "measurements," such as balance. All of this is in stark contrast to the nutritional measurements you cite.

My issue is the dismissing of observational evidence as unreliable, but than defending subjective analysis as definitive. If we want to discuss the analysis, that is fine. But lets be honest and call it subjective. If we just close our eyes and pretend our opinions are objective facts by our own decree, we do ourselves a great disservice.

I don't know that further input by me is productive. If we can't even agree on what an opinion is, I don't see any real progress being made either way.

 

[CreamCloud0]

After 1000 posts this thread has deviated so far from where it began we are almost back to the beginning...

i'm just hoping that deviation can fully finish it's cycle so we can actually talk about mechanics and the game itself again rather than...whatever this current topic is

 

[Voadam]

As an 8 year old reading B/X and learning D&D it was clear to me I did not want to play the d4 HD leather armor limited thieves compared to the plate armor fighters, dwarves, elves, and clerics with their d8 and d6 HD. The conditional +4 backstab did not add up to balance against the other classes.

The really low percentage chance thief skills (80-90% failure when trying at 1st level, advancing to only 70-80% failure rate at 3rd) meant expecting the thief skills to fail and did not appeal either at all.

It was not until years later that I played a straight thief in AD&D trying to make the character concept work as a fun character. Starting out as a midlevel 2e dwarven thief trap specialist was OK on usefulness in some situations, but the combat imbalance compared to most everyone else in the party was noticeable and not so fun. I made the character fun, but it was despite the class design and combat imbalances.

 

[Zardnaar]

As an 8 year old reading B/X and learning D&D it was clear to me I did not want to play the d4 HD leather armor limited thieves compared to the plate armor fighters, dwarves, elves, and clerics with their d8 and d6 HD. The conditional +4 backstab did not add up to balance against the other classes.

The really low percentage chance thief skills (80-90% failure when trying at 1st level, advancing to only 70-80% failure rate at 3rd) meant expecting the thief skills to fail and did not appeal either at all.

It was not until years later that I played a straight thief in AD&D trying to make the character concept work as a fun character. Starting out as a midlevel 2e dwarven thief trap specialist was OK on usefulness in some situations, but the combat imbalance compared to most everyone else in the party was noticeable and not so fun. I made the character fun, but it was despite the class design and combat imbalances.

Yup 2E it had some uses and optional rules to make it fun.

One we use succeeds about 55% of the time on trained stuff ramping up 5% per level. While ramping up at same speed. Minor tweaks on combat and magic items tends to make it good

 

[Hussar]

That's not a design goal for the system. Its a design goal for the product. They aren't the same.

That’s hair splitting.

DnD is a product for sale. The system is part of that product. Design goals of the product shape and define the system. Just like how a Hardy Boys novel is written on a certain formula to make it highly accessible to readers.

You can’t separate the two.

 

[pemerton]

It's objective the war happened. The justifications, objectives of the war and outcomes are subjective.

I don't think the outcomes are subjective at all.

Some are beyond dispute - eg that millions of people died, and that the German and Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires all came to an end.

Some are disputed but in my view nevertheless are clear - eg that the modern state, that assumes authority over basically all aspects of economic and social life, came into being.

And in any event the post that you replied to was about the causes of the First World War. These are disputed among scholars; there is no metric that will identify them for us; yet no thinks that the First World War was an un-caused event.

What are you measuring? Lives improved, lives lost? Technological advancement? Because for the former, obviously many lives were lost during WW I or II. But it was a real boon to technological advancement.

That, and war has nothing to do with quality. It's apples and used athletic socks.

I'm talking about the causes of the First World War.

And the relevance is this: you (and some other posters) assert that everything that cannot be measured is subjective. I've given a counter-example - the causes of the First World War cannot be determined by measurement; yet this event really happened, and so really had some or other cause(s), even though what that might be is subject to reasoned disagreement.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think the outcomes are subjective at all.

Some are beyond dispute - eg that millions of people died, and that the German and Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires all came to an end.

Some are disputed but in my view nevertheless are clear - eg that the modern state, that assumes authority over basically all aspects of economic and social life, came into being.

And in any event the post that you replied to was about the causes of the First World War. These are disputed among scholars; there is no metric that will identify them for us; yet no thinks that the First World War was an un-caused event.

I'm talking about the causes of the First World War.

And the relevance is this: you (and some other posters) assert that everything that cannot be measured is subjective. I've given a counter-example - the causes of the First World War cannot be determined by measurement; yet this event really happened, and so really had some or other cause(s), even though what that might be is subject to reasoned disagreement.

War has nothing to do with the quality of a product. You are making a moral judgement on the outcome of the war based on your opinion and biases.