D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Celtavian]

From a player psychology perspective no one wants to be forced to play a gimp character or what they perceive as a gimp character. Given D&D is a game that allows players to be fantasy heroes, most don't want to play Frodo Baggins or some other commoner hero. They want to play some extraordinary hero that allows them to feel powerful and equal to their companions in their specialty. I see no reason to force someone to play a character they don't like due to substantially lower stats than the other players. Otherwise, what's the point?

This isn't real life. Most aren't trying to teach real life lessons about "fairness" and "hard knocks." People deal with that stuff enough in their daily lives, why would they want to deal with it in a game? D&D allows them to fulfill their fantasy of being an extraordinary person with vastly superior capabilities to the common populace. They get to be the celebrity or hero of their day and time. Why would any DM force a player to play a character so lame that they won't have much fun playing them.

Whatever system is used make sure players all end up close to the same and extraordinary unless someone really wants to play someone weaker for role-play reasons. I see no reason to force a player looking to have fun to experience the "unfairness" of life or any hard knocks. That seems unnecessary and might drive that person away from the game or to a different table. I would not treat someone in that fashion when I DM.

 

[Crothian]

We had all these arguments six months ago in this thread. Now having the same ones again. Maybe a mod can close this thread so when it finally goes to rest, someone doesn't necro it again in six months to have the SAME arguments all over?

This argument has been going on since point buy was introduced to the game. If Morrus closed down are the discussions that have gone on these boards before it would be a barren place.

 

[spinozajack]

There's a large range of fairness vs unfairness.

Comparing a D&D character having a 14 stat instead of a 16 to being born with cholera is one of the most absurd, outrageous things I've ever read on any website.

I can't even..

D&D is very fair, if you are born sickly and ill and weak, you will likely die and be reincarnated. With only a little time wasted. Hardly the same league as being born with a delibitating disease and live in misery for the entirety of your one life here on Earth. This is shameful. You should be ashamed that you even went there, pemerton. I'm adding you to ignore now, I never want to read another thing you have to say about anything.

And yes, you can't have justice without injustice, black without white, plus without minus, light without darkness. That's just basic, basic, basic stuff. I can't believe the level of absurdity. I'm astonished.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fact that goods are distributed by way of an unbiased die roll is not a sufficient condition of the resultant outcome being fair.

Point buy and Die-rolling for stats are 2 different kinds of fairness: one is an example of fairness of outcome, the other is an example of fairness of opportunity.

You may legitimately prefer one over the other- and which you prefer may vary depending on context- but calling one fair and one unfair is a logical no-no.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This argument has been going on since point buy was introduced to the game. If Morrus closed down are the discussions that have gone on these boards before it would be a barren place.

I'm just saying we don't need to have the same argument every six months in the same thread with the same half dozen people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A mace in AD&D does 1d6+1 points of damage, which is as good as a longsword's 1d8, and has arguably better weapon vs armour mods if those are in use. Pre-Unearthed Arcana and weapon specialisation, the cleric has as many attacks as the fighter until 7th level. And in 2nd ed AD&D, there are options that allow the cleric to get specialisation benefits.

So the mace's average damage per hit is equivalent to the longsword. Big whoop. The fighter has a host of weapons to choose from with even better DPH that the cleric cannot use, barring divine dispensation, like the Bastard sword.

The difference in "to hit" is not tremendous at low levels (eg a 4th level cleric needs fewer XP than a 4th level fighter and has either the same to hit as a 4th level fighter or one worse, depending on which THACO/table option is in use), and the difference between a 16 STR (on the fighter) and a 17 STR (on the cleric) can make up for it or even allow the cleric a better chance to hit.

But the difference does exist, and over time, the Fighter will continue to improve his to-hit at a better rate and will gain multiple melee attacks per round...something non-warrior classes didn't get until 3Ed.

But this is not a reason for me to want to roll stats, given that I am a person of different preferences which I have set out pretty plainly in several posts upthread. Likewise @GMforPowergamers.

Hence the eternal struggle.

Which is no justification to deem one method "fair" and the other "unfair." They are different, but objectively equal in fairness.

 

[billd91]

Point buy and Die-rolling for stats are 2 different kinds of fairness: one is an example of fairness of outcome, the other is an example of fairness of opportunity.

You may legitimately prefer one over the other- and which you prefer may vary depending on context- but calling one fair and one unfair is a logical no-no.

Actually, I'd call them both fairness of opportunity with the primary difference being the injection of a random element into one but not the other. Point-buy is fundamentally a fairness of opportunity case as much as rolling, just the differences in outcome stem entirely from choices rather than random generator.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Correction, it's a roleplaying game. You are supposed to play the character as if you are him. That's the whole point.

yes and I see nothing at all in either one of our games that change that...

Now, to get back to your original question, what is wrong with balanced encounters?

They break immersion.

not in my experence...

If players know each battle will be "balanced", it means they know they stand a good chance of winning since it's more or less guaranteed that it's a straight-up, fair fight. But why should monsters or PCs fight fair, if they want to win? (and live!). Han Solo doesn't fight fair. Darth Vader doesn't either. There is place for Luke and Han in the same universe. Don't make every battle "Luke", in other words two-dimensional.

um... balance xp and stats for encounters has nothing to do with tactics...

Monsters should flee and come back when PCs are sleeping and slit their throats, or lock the door to that dungeon room then flip the lever to let the water in and drown them. Those things are not "balanced" in the sense of fair, straight up fights.

why can't those be balanced encounters... I use them that way...

The monsters sneaking in to slit throats have a balsnced check to get by guards... Ifthe pc don't set guards they die... or at least get ciup de grace

The fact that players know you are making encounters they can win, tips your hand.

yes... it tips my hand that it is a GAME

It breaks immersion, because fairness is something humans try to impose on the world, not something inherent in any remotely reasonable approximation of a fictional world which might indeed plausibly exist. An implausible "fair" world is unbelievable, on its face. It's fake.

no its not. I read a book series called the Dresden files and my heart is in my chest once per year as I read about him almost dieing... the fact that we are on book 16 and I know the author planed 20ish books then a big apocoliptic trilogy to end it means I know he can't die... but I am so imursed in the world I don't care...

When I went to see Avengers 2 there is a line about not everyone making it out... after the movie a reviewer made a joke that we knew a dozen more movies set in the world with most of the characters... but in the momet that doesn't stop the immersion...

A DM shouldn't impose a will to make a fair playground for PCs to level up in, in my opinion.

I dis agree that is the DM's job 19 out of 20 times...

Players should pick their battles according to which they think they stand a chance of winning. It's not the DM's job to do that. If I had a bunch of 1st level PCs try to attack that group of ogres over there head on, I would let the dice and the rules slaughter them mercilessly. Maybe next time they will know, Ogres = tough. Lots of ogres = we dead. Don't do that again. Lesson learned. Your DM isn't your golden parachute to bail you out of every mess you jump head first into, he's an impartial observer.

You do realize that scenero where PCs pick a fight is the same in both of our games... now in mine the ogers would not invade your town... but if you choose to try to pick a fight, you did that not the game...

By presupposing every fight is balanced, you restrict the wide variety of experience the game can create needlessly. You inflate casual skirmishes to boost up enemy ranks, or make some of those ogres leave. Why? Let players attack when they have overwhelming odds and a great chance of winning (smart game play, it's a game, right? So let them play. And learn by failing), and avoid battles where there is a substantial risk of death or loss. That's pretty obvious.

That isn't how it works at all...

lets say my 1st level PCs are on a kobold hunt, and hear about ogers in these caves... then the ogers are most likely just fluff and flavor text, unless the PCs go pick a fight. Now where balance comes in is in 2-3 levels when they have to fight the ogers, I as a DM will not design the encounter to be 18 ogers all sitting around a cmp fire. I awill have 3 sets of 2 ogers on patrol... that way PCs can fight each group as 1 easy encounter... then three at the cave entrence... then 4-5 sleeping then a few in othere areas... still 18 but broken up... if PCs CHOOSE to ignore this and charge in yelling for ogers that is still a set of balanced encounters, but they chained them with no down time and got killed...

Balanced encounters are the bane of immersion, they are a terrible invention if you want to maintain player focus and the illusion of an independently existing and populated world, full of mystery and danger and excitement. Balance is the opposite of danger, it's forcing a level of fairness on battles which doesn't belong there.

3e,3.5,4e, and 5e all disagree with you according to there DMGs (I bet 2e did too but I can't find my DMG)

D&D is not a sport. But even sports have rules, and you aren't supposed to cheat to make sure one side wins every time.

I don't cheat I set up challenges...

And yes, D&D is a game. A roleplaying game. Meaning immersion and the suspension of disbelief not only matter, they are actually of central importance. Reducing D&D combat to a sports contest trivialized any danger it might have. Which is not only bad for immersion, I don't think it's fun to play a game I know I'm going to win every time. It's like playing chess with your kid sister. Winning every time, yay. So exciting. I can't wait to see the surprise in store for next time I play. Oh wait, I won, again?

and that isn't the way it goes eaitehr... reread my last post. I want the PCs to win but they don't always... sometimes they lose, sometimes they die... hell I have had 3 TPKs in 10 years... no one who plays my fair and balanced game would mistake it for playing a child at checkers or chess...

Early D&D was very much closer to Martin than Tolkien in effect.

for you maybe... but the oldest player I have was playing in the early 80's with his uncle who had played int eh 70's and neaither of them (player or uncle) agree with that...

Players are not guaranteed to become heroes with the invisible hand of The Author ensuring them safe passage back from the slopes of Mount Doom.

no, the only gurantee is if they try it isn't an impossible task

The dice are there to make sure the outcome of the game is uncertain, even a total loss is a distinct possibility. That's what makes D&D great.

up... and a nat 1 on the wrong save ends your character...

Combat as sport trivializes battle and only comes about in games where it's difficult to die, to the point that every possible chance for battle will be taken, again, since players know they're supposed to be "balanced" in other words winnable in a straight fight. Those two things go hand in hand, and both contribute to wrecking immersion, the feeling of danger, and thereby the sense of actual accomplishment and the thrill of victory.

You should play in one of my balanced games to see how wrong you are... my players avoid fights, come up with odd ball tactics (there number 1 tactic is to make someone else fight the bad guy... hopefully another badguy) they not only feel dangers, but sometimes they retreat from very easy fights because they are playing there characters who don't know how easy it is...

There is no real difference between making sure the maths work out so the players always win statistically, and just playing a story game without dice.

There is a HUGE difference... every fight (ok like 85% of fights) we roll could cost a PC dearly, maybe even kill the charater... the fact that it is balanced doesn't mean auto win....

You are removing the agency of dice from the game, silencing their voice.

no... if you give a monster +14 to hit and the PC with the highest AC the PCs have is 18, then you silence the dice, or if the highest AC is 24 and you only give the monsters a +3 it silence the dice... when you balance the encounter you do no such thing...

If the maths are manipulated behind the scenes so every battle is an expected win, players won't think of running, they won't try to think of other ways to win than fighting, or of avoiding battle at all. You are actually restricting gameplay, since players see combat as sport, and are sportsmen (and women), and those games are fixed.

have you ever played a game like mine... because you make a lot of assumptions about how it goes and none of them are how it goes..

It's funny that on the one hand you see nothing wrong with combat as sport, but on the other hand, you admit that you skew the math so the outcome is favorable. This is the D&D equivalent of deflating the monster's balls (although that does, sometimes, literally happen. Ha).

yes because using 3 goblins instead of 5 orcs is totally cheating...

When players know that, they lose fear of the world, and that destroys immersion and suspense. How can there be suspense when the dice don't matter? Where is the thrill, the surprise in that? You are playing a game of D&D that is founded on dice, and it seems to me like you don't actually want the dice to have any real significance to the outcome of the plot. Or if they do, you want to minimize it to such an extent that you might as well be playing a diceless game.

I want dice to randomize events in game not at character creation... how do you not get that?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And yes, you can't have justice without injustice, black without white, plus without minus, light without darkness. That's just basic, basic, basic stuff. I can't believe the level of absurdity. I'm astonished.

This is just...no. It is entirely conceivable to have a world that is always just. Justice is not a zero-sum game. Abiding by the moral principles of right conduct absolutely does not entail that you, or others, must also fail to abide by the moral principles of right conduct.

Similarly, depending on the particular arena, it's totally possible to have black without white (turn off all the lights), plus without minus (ionized hydrogen nucleus), and light without darkness (a room with walls, ceiling, and floor made of luminous material). And even if absolutely every single one of those things WERE in fact truly, inherently dipolar, it wouldn't prove a single thing about justice and injustice--because the argument is inductive, not deductive ("X, Y, and Z are all dipolar, therefore Q *must* be dipolar too!")

This is like that ridiculous "if everyone is special, no one is special" Syndrome spouts in The Incredibles. It's the equivocation fallacy--because two different meanings of "special" are being used. If you actually force a single meaning of "special" the whole idea falls flat--e.g. "If everyone has a unique ability possessed by no one else, then no one has a unique ability possessed by no one else." The only way it works is if it becomes statistical: "If everyone becomes above average by the old average, then no one is above average by the new average." But again, you have to sneak in that "old vs. new" distinction--the two specials aren't the same because they don't refer to the same population data anymore. (And it also overlooks the fact that, by having an average, there almost certainly have to be some people who are below it and above it, because a population that was all EXACTLY at the mean would be incredibly unusual.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is like that ridiculous "if everyone is special, no one is special" Syndrome spouts in The Incredibles. It's the equivocation fallacy--because two different meanings of "special" are being used. If you actually force a single meaning of "special" the whole idea falls flat--e.g. "If everyone has a unique ability possessed by no one else, then no one has a unique ability possessed by no one else." The only way it works is if it becomes statistical: "If everyone becomes above average by the old average, then no one is above average by the new average." But again, you have to sneak in that "old vs. new" distinction--the two specials aren't the same because they don't refer to the same population data anymore. (And it also overlooks the fact that, by having an average, there almost certainly have to be some people who are below it and above it, because a population that was all EXACTLY at the mean would be incredibly unusual.)

Reminds me of that proof: there are no uninteresting numbers, because if there were, there would be a smallest one and that would be interesting.


Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2