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

[ECMO3]

Even in that criteria it's easily dismissable. It's philosophy lol.

Balance isn't really a big concern until it hits game wrecking or overshadowing the other players levels. In 5E that's usually level 17 or 18 comparing PCs. Assuming someone knows what they're doing and tries hard enough.

Game tends to fall apart before then.

In the last 2 years I have played over 10 games to level 20, most of them starting at level 1.

I will agree Balance is not generally a big concern in our group, but I will also say it changes during the course of the game. For example, I personally usually play highly optimized multiclass characters that multiclass very early (before level 5). When I say "optimized" I am optimizing around a character idea, not building the most powerful build possible. I am purposely using combos of rules to make my off the wall non-standard, against archetype character ideas powerful.

These characters are typically very powerful in tier 2 and tier 3 and I am often "overshadowing" other PCs through most of tier 2 and tier 3. But these same characters are also often overshadowed themselves in tier 4 and sometimes in parts of tier 1.

So does that make them balanced?

Also another key to the characters I build - mediocre Constitution. Either a 10 or a 12 on point buy. The "professional optimizers" will tell you to run a high Constitution but IME running a high constitution with a generally weak character class means your character will often be overshadowed because for most characters Constitution is generally the least useful ability in the game. Compared with having a mediocre score in another stat, there are generally better and less detrimental ways to mitigate liabilities associated with a low constitution. That is why I can make a character who is mostly a Fighter or Rogue but is also one of the most dominant characters in the party at all 3 phases.

 

[ezo]

In the last 2 years I have played over 10 games to level 20, most of them starting at level 1.

LOL how is that even possible!?! Do you play for a living?

I mean, seriously, in over six years I've played in a single 1-20 campaign and that, alone, took 2 years!

 

[Zardnaar]

LOL how is that even possible!?! Do you play for a living?

I mean, seriously, in over six years I've played in a single 1-20 campaign and that, alone, took 2 years!

Some groups level every session or two. 19 sessions to lvl 20.

 

[ezo]

Some groups level every session or two. 19 sessions to lvl 20.

Even so...

If you leveled once every session, played once a week, maybe 50 sessions a year, and started at level 3 each time, that is maybe 3 times--which would make it at best six times in 100 weeks.

Which, IMO, is completely crazy! But 10 TIMES??? Even crazier. I WISH I could play that much.

 

[ECMO3]

LOL how is that even possible!?! Do you play for a living?

I mean, seriously, in over six years I've played in a single 1-20 campaign and that, alone, took 2 years!

I am currently playing 5 games a week, it has varied between 3 and 6 over the past 2 years. I play a lot of D&D and one of the groups I play with consistently does 2 games a week with (2 different campaigns) and plays very fast. Generally about 4-6 Months for a 1-20 campaign.

In 2024 alone I have played the following campaigns beginning to end with one group:

Descent Into Avernus + Chains of Asmodeus (1-20)
Vecna Eve of Ruin (10-20)
Lairs of Etharis (1-20)
Dungeons of Drakenheim (1-13)

With this group, I am currently playing Where Evil Lives and a remake of a series of 1980s classic 1E adventures. We started WEL in late September, currently are level 4 and will probably finish at level 20 sometime around Christmas. The remake is an XP game and that will likely take longer.

 

[ECMO3]

Even so...

If you leveled once every session, played once a week, maybe 50 sessions a year, and started at level 3 each time, that is maybe 3 times--which would make it at best six times in 100 weeks.

Which, IMO, is completely crazy! But 10 TIMES??? Even crazier. I WISH I could play that much.

In most of the campaigns I play with one particular group we typically level once a session and twice a session is more common than not leveling at all in a session. Usually we are playing published adventures with milestone leveling. When we play a homebrew it is usually XP and that generally takes longer. But I have only played two XP games in the last several years.

WEL we are level 4 after 2 sessions (although we started that one at level 2). We played SODQ right after it came out and I think we were level 4 or 5 at the end of session 1.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am currently playing 5 games a week, it has varied between 3 and 6 over the past 2 years. I play a lot of D&D and one of the groups I play with consistently does 2 games a week with (2 different campaigns) and plays very fast. Generally about 4-6 Months for a 1-20 campaign.

In 2024 alone I have played the following campaigns beginning to end with one group:

Descent Into Avernus + Chains of Asmodeus (1-20)
Vecna Eve of Ruin (10-20)
Lairs of Etharis (1-20)
Dungeons of Drakenheim (1-13)

With this group, I am currently playing Where Evil Lives and a remake of a series of 1980s classic 1E adventures. We started WEL in late September, currently are level 4 and will probably finish at level 20 sometime around Christmas. The remake is an XP game and that will likely take longer.

I've done 6 times a week but turned out mostly because I was DMing 4 of them.

Aiming for two games 3/4 weeks. I've got the numbers for a third but time slot and burnout issues.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure you probably can “maximize sales in all kinds of ways that are malign”. Did 5e designers do that?

Edit: You know what, never mind, I'm going to take Umbran's advice.

 

[ECMO3]

I've done 6 times a week but turned out mostly because I was DMing 4 of them.

Aiming for two games 3/4 weeks. I've got the numbers for a third but time slot and burnout issues.

I am only DMing two right now. It is a lot harder to DM than to play.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said they did.

I am responding to someone's argument that we can dismiss a thing because it's philosophy, and therefore guaranteed subjective. Both of those components ("subjective things are always dismissable arguments"; "philosophy is always subjective") are false.

That has nothing to do with whether casual players care about science or philosophy. It is a response to a dismissal of an argument that is related to game design.

I said mostly, not always.