Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7564610" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>One quick comment on balance. This comment will be invoking 4e (because that is what has been invoked), but at its heart, its a design question (as an input) and the related product of play (output).</p><p></p><p><strong>4e's balance often gets invoked as if its (a) some sort of retardent to dynamism and (b) some form of perpetuator of status quo.</strong></p><p></p><p>That isn't correct for 4e (its actually not even in the realm of correct and the inverse is provably so) and its not correct as a product of design aimed at balance.</p><p></p><p>4e has balance on 4 different axes:</p><p></p><p>1) Broad intraparty balance at the site of the encounter.</p><p></p><p>2) Broad intraparty balance at the site of the adventuring day.</p><p></p><p>3) Expectant results of a 5 player party (which covers all the Roles) vs unremarkable deployment of a same level encounter budget.</p><p></p><p>4) Expectant results of an archetypal workday for a 5 player party (which covers all the Roles).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because these 4 design aims are explicit and were achieved, there seems to be this designation by some (typically those that didn't play it very much or didn't play it at all), that such (achieved) design aims must yield a play culture that stays tightly within the boundaries of (3) and (4). Then, following from that, there is this assumption of my (a) and (b) above (lack of dynamism and boring, uninteresting status quo). </p><p></p><p>The problem with this is simple. The idea that (3) and (4) are actual play culture fundamentals is absolutely wrong. They are balance calibration features of design. Further, those two as play culture artifacts are completely at at tension as (4) assumes you aren't doing 3! Further still, both DMGs go on at length of how to perturb that balance calibration archetype and what the implications of such perturbance will be...therefore assuming you're going to be doing just that!</p><p></p><p>Further, further, further, still...</p><p></p><p>If each Role can be thought of as a different Magic the Gathering deck (and that is exactly how they should be thought of - I guarantee that was a design impetus if not THE design impetus; eg a "Monored Aggro Burn vs Jeskai Midrange"), then significantly varying the exact same encounter budget and using different battlefield qualities (terrain, obstacles, distances, terrain powers, Hazards/Traps) and different objectives (eg "Hold the Line vs Waves", "Escort/Protect the Minion from here to there", "Deal with Interference While Completing/Foiling the Ritual", "Defeat the Enemy Before X Rounds", etc) is going to change the dynamics of the combat significantly and introduce variables that will play to the strengths or to the weaknesses of different character builds and group builds!</p><p></p><p>Just because the baseline has been calibrated such that the GM can predict the outputs within a reasonable margin-of-error, doesn't mean that there ceases to be variables x, y, and z that can be perturbed to create significant dynamism at the encounter level and for the adventuring day. If anything, it <strong>emboldens GMs to perturb that x, y, and z</strong> because they can foresee the potential outputs of those inputs within a reasonable margin-of-error.</p><p></p><p>That is why GMs such as myself appreciate rigorous baseline calibration, especially if a system has a robust range of x, y, and z.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7564610, member: 6696971"] One quick comment on balance. This comment will be invoking 4e (because that is what has been invoked), but at its heart, its a design question (as an input) and the related product of play (output). [B]4e's balance often gets invoked as if its (a) some sort of retardent to dynamism and (b) some form of perpetuator of status quo.[/B] That isn't correct for 4e (its actually not even in the realm of correct and the inverse is provably so) and its not correct as a product of design aimed at balance. 4e has balance on 4 different axes: 1) Broad intraparty balance at the site of the encounter. 2) Broad intraparty balance at the site of the adventuring day. 3) Expectant results of a 5 player party (which covers all the Roles) vs unremarkable deployment of a same level encounter budget. 4) Expectant results of an archetypal workday for a 5 player party (which covers all the Roles). Because these 4 design aims are explicit and were achieved, there seems to be this designation by some (typically those that didn't play it very much or didn't play it at all), that such (achieved) design aims must yield a play culture that stays tightly within the boundaries of (3) and (4). Then, following from that, there is this assumption of my (a) and (b) above (lack of dynamism and boring, uninteresting status quo). The problem with this is simple. The idea that (3) and (4) are actual play culture fundamentals is absolutely wrong. They are balance calibration features of design. Further, those two as play culture artifacts are completely at at tension as (4) assumes you aren't doing 3! Further still, both DMGs go on at length of how to perturb that balance calibration archetype and what the implications of such perturbance will be...therefore assuming you're going to be doing just that! Further, further, further, still... If each Role can be thought of as a different Magic the Gathering deck (and that is exactly how they should be thought of - I guarantee that was a design impetus if not THE design impetus; eg a "Monored Aggro Burn vs Jeskai Midrange"), then significantly varying the exact same encounter budget and using different battlefield qualities (terrain, obstacles, distances, terrain powers, Hazards/Traps) and different objectives (eg "Hold the Line vs Waves", "Escort/Protect the Minion from here to there", "Deal with Interference While Completing/Foiling the Ritual", "Defeat the Enemy Before X Rounds", etc) is going to change the dynamics of the combat significantly and introduce variables that will play to the strengths or to the weaknesses of different character builds and group builds! Just because the baseline has been calibrated such that the GM can predict the outputs within a reasonable margin-of-error, doesn't mean that there ceases to be variables x, y, and z that can be perturbed to create significant dynamism at the encounter level and for the adventuring day. If anything, it [B]emboldens GMs to perturb that x, y, and z[/B] because they can foresee the potential outputs of those inputs within a reasonable margin-of-error. That is why GMs such as myself appreciate rigorous baseline calibration, especially if a system has a robust range of x, y, and z. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top