D&D 5E (2014) Is Point Buy Balanced?

[EzekielRaiden]

The question then becomes one of whether they should cater to that player psychology or try to incrementally change it such that a "miss" streak is simply accepted as part of the game rather than bemoaned.

Let me put it this way:

Would you allow yourself to be "incrementally change[d]" so that you accepted the kind of gameplay 4th edition offered?

If you would not, then why would you expect others to allow themselves to be "incrementally change[d]" to accept the kind of gameplay you favor? And if you would allow that, then what need is there for changing everyone else to match your current preference?

Because as it stands, this looks to me like just a slightly more courteous way of saying, "Should we let people have badwrongfun, or should we slowly teach them how to have goodrightfun?"

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I would be quite surprised if they aimed much lower than 60%. It's less a matter of feeling heroic, and more a matter of missing four attacks in a row feels bad, since that can mean two whole rounds of doing diddly squat in a combat, more at early levels. If you're batting at 50%, then getting four missed attacks in a row is a 6.25% chance. Even with Advantage, it's not beyond the pale to miss three out of four (just shy of 2% if I did my math right), and getting advantage two rounds in a row is hardly guaranteed. Conversely, upping that to 65% makes missing four attacks in a row very unlikely, 1.5%, while hitting all four is ~17.9%.

It's not guaranteed by any means. You could be right. I'm just not really seeing much in 5e which mitigates that player psychology element.

Getting advantage two rounds in a row is very easy. Not guaranteed, but very easy. Getting bonuses to hit is also fairly easy. Not as easy as getting advantage, but still pretty easy starting at low levels.

 

[ECMO3]

Getting advantage two rounds in a row is very easy. Not guaranteed, but very easy. Getting bonuses to hit is also fairly easy. Not as easy as getting advantage, but still pretty easy starting at low levels.

It can be very easy, but you need to build for it and if you don't it is not that easy.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me put it this way:

Would you allow yourself to be "incrementally change[d]" so that you accepted the kind of gameplay 4th edition offered?

If 4e was all that was out there and I was brand new to RPGing, I wouldn't have much of a choice.

Similar to when (with a few niche exceptions) B/X and 1e was all there was; and anyone brand new to RPGing ended up for the most part accepting the kind of gameplay those games offered.

Since then, however, what I've seen is a slow incremental change, driven by design, toward less acceptance of loss conditions and-or bad things in the game and-or whiffing. All I'm suggesting is that maybe it's time to turn that ship around.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The question then becomes one of whether they should cater to that player psychology or try to incrementally change it such that a "miss" streak is simply accepted as part of the game rather than bemoaned.

Since its been bemoaned to some extent for half a century, I'm not holding my breath on the latter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If 4e was all that was out there and I was brand new to RPGing, I wouldn't have much of a choice.

Similar to when (with a few niche exceptions) B/X and 1e was all there was; and anyone brand new to RPGing ended up for the most part accepting the kind of gameplay those games offered.

Since then, however, what I've seen is a slow incremental change, driven by design, toward less acceptance of loss conditions and-or bad things in the game and-or whiffing. All I'm suggesting is that maybe it's time to turn that ship around.

Was it "driven by design"?

Or was the design driven by player preference?

Because that seems to be the root of the disagreement here. You think that (somehow?) games made players think failures are bad and something to be avoided. I think that's the natural state of being for people--it feels bad to fail, that's pure human nature. It seems to me that what actually happened is, when 1e was the only game in town, you were forced to endure failure until you stopped caring about it.

That's not an experience most folks are interested in. Now, it is an experience that a very meaningful chunk of players are interested in, despite being only a minority of players. Hence, I genuinely believe it should be supported--for exactly the same reason that I think 4e-like things should be supported, because a meaningful chunk of players, despite being a minority, value that experience. We can see from the success of games like Elden Ring that there is meaningful appetite for hardcore gaming experiences; I am not even slightly saying that you have to like Elden Ring or similar video games in order to want to play hardcore D&D stuff, simply saying that the fact that that game got such significant appeal proves that things well-crafted for a hardcore-leaning audience do actually sell, and thus need to be integrated into the whole of the experience.

As I've said many times before, this is why I think D&D, as a system, needs "novice levels". They can be called any other name; I have no attachment to those specific words, just the concept behind them: "level 0" characters, "funnel" characters, whatever you want. The core point is that that allows for an official, well-defined, and most importantly well-constructed, set of rules for the kind of experience you and yours desire. You deserve that. That kind of experience has been part of D&D since before there was a thing called "D&D".

This does, of course, have one wrinkle that I know you would prefer not to deal with: having to convince players to embrace such a campaign. You would, as you have said many times, prefer that your style of play be the innate default--highly lethal, no-holds-barred, grim-and-gritty, failure-prone, maximum swinginess, etc.--because that would spare you the effort of having to convince people that that's an enjoyable experience.

I am not personally of the opinion that that is the best approach. I think every GM actually does need to sell their players on the thing they want to do. And, yes, the structure I'm proposing would mean that you do in fact need to sell your players on that experience, which may be challenging, because a lot of people are not going to respond well to a blunt explanation of what you're aiming for. I don't think sparing you that effort is a reasonable demand. I think you should have to sell your players on that--just as the GM should have to sell their players on ultra-high-magic Eberron, or on the chitin-and-sandal extremity of Dark Sun, or the pervasive horror of Ravenloft (when it's done well)--or even the gritty realpolitik of Greyhawk....or the hero-to-superhero experience of the Points of Light setting in 4e.

I don't think any of us merit special treatment in that regard. Every one of us GMs should have to sell our players on our vision. Nobody gets a free pass. Not you, not me. Otherwise, what we'd actually be saying is, "I want to have my players as a captive audience who don't get to decide whether they accept what I want to do as GM." And that sounds...pretty bad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Balance is a myth. There i said it!!!

What % of people just make up their stats so they get what they want? And is what they want today for character X the same as what they might want tomorrow for character Y?

This all sounds more poignant in my head. I'm going to go eat lunch now.

I missed this post on first reading, so I'd like to ask a question. How do you define "balance"? You've said it's a myth, but what is that myth?

I have written out a long spiel...but I think it best to just say, I gave my definition for "balance" above, if you can pry it out of the logorrheic sludge I am wont to produce. TL;DR: If you can calculate a clearly superior path, it's not balanced. If calculation leaves you unable to pick a clearly superior path--if you have to actually make a value-judgment, not a calculation--then, at least in that respect, the game is balanced.

How does this compare to the myth you see?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Someone upthread posited that there's a trade-off between balance and freedom.

For me, it's more a trade-off between balance and interesting*. Too balanced = boring (point-buy falls squarely into this category for me). Not balanced at all = interesting*.

* - or enteratining, either works.

As a follow-up to my previous post:

For me, not-balanced is boring. Because an unbalanced game does one of two things. Either it makes it so your choices don't matter, because there is one clear path forward and everything else is distinctly worse, or it makes it so it literally doesn't matter what you chose, you cannot actually affect the outcome, it's all decided for you. Either way, it bores me to tears.

An asymmetrically balanced game, however, IS interesting. Because my choices, that is, the player's choices--tastes, situational awareness, the things the player personally values--are the primary difference between success and failure. That means when I fail, it's because I failed--it's not simply because some stupid dice said "hahahaha nope". It's not because the GM abused a stupid combination, or overlooked something. It's not because I think cheese is awesome and so I chose to be a Cheesemonger, when everyone knows Cheesemongers suck and I should've been a Pastamancer.

It's failure because I earned failure--and I get some, limited, space to actually learn from that failure, rather than just "HA HA, you failed, go suck eggs!!!" Which is precisely how I feel about every single game that goes for hardcore lethality, zero wiggle room, and maximum swinginess. The game mocks me for being dumb without ever giving me the chance to not be dumb, and then adds insult to injury by saying that I wouldn't be dumb if I just chose the obviously powerful options.