Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[billd91]

I fail to see how having balanced mechanics somehow makes a "good" DM not achieve great results. How does having characters which are balanced in the three "pillars" as they are calling them in 5e, result in mediocre DM's?

Heck, I've still never quite figured out how having 4e's level of parity between classes somehow magically makes good DM's merely mediocre. Apparently some DM's can't seem to make the 4e mechanics work for them, I guess. Is that a failing of the system? Perhaps. I don't know. I do know that the two or three DM's I'm playing with currently have also DM'd various other systems within the group and, for some bizarre reason, their games are always great. Much better than mine, to my shame.

I completely reject the idea that somehow system makes for better DM's. It's ridiculous on its face. I'm pretty darn sure that if I sat down and played a 3e game with Monte Cook, I'd have a damn good game. But, I'm also sure, he'd run a damn good 4e game as well. And, heck, I'd line up to sit at a Basic D&D game if he'd run one.

So, yes, BryonD, I blow off your argument as the standard "training wheels" rant that you've been trotting out every so often for the past couple of years. That somehow having a system with imbalances makes better DM's because they'll have to rise to the challenge, rather than have the game work out of the box. If that were true, then the greatest DM's in the world would all play Palladium.

I think you're not really getting what BryonD's getting at.

For one thing, he's not directly challenging that a balanced system could be a solid system, rather that there's no way it can be balanced in all circumstances. A DM will be forced to compare apples and oranges at some point. For the gaming experience to be at its best, in those circumstances, you still do better with a good DM than you will with a bad one.

I think he does have a point about overdesigned rule systems that try to come up with an answer for everything. Some really good GMs may feel that the system constrains them under cumbersome rules. This is similar to why all simulation-based elements of games are all significantly abstracted in the first place. Too much attempt to model reality = cumbersome rules and details. By a similar token, I think too much attempt by the game to be comprehensive = constraining. While there has always been rules lawyering, I do suspect that complaints about player entitlement and rules lawyering have increased with the increasing comprehensiveness of rule systems. I feel that does constrain a GM's ability to make rulings at the table rather than administer rules and that does make for poorer GMing.

This isn't about deficient systems like Palladium necessarily making better GMs through some kind of trial by fire (although, you have to figure that a GM who makes that game really sing has some awesome GMing chops). I think it's more reasonably solid system that allows and acknowledges need for GM rulings + good GM > comprehensive but otherwise reasonably solid system + good GM.

 

[billd91]

This I literally do not understand.

The first tabletop roleplaying game I got into was GURPS. Classless.

I played Cyberpunk 2020 long before I played D&D - and each class in Cyberpunk has one single specialist skill that makes it different. That is all. And that was more than enough to differentiate a Rocker from a Corp or a Solo from a Techie.

<snip>
What is it about Dungeons and Dragons that needs completely different mechanics for different classes?

Let's keep in mind that the mechanical differences aren't just in character creation, but in implementation of the special things characters do. Netrunning is very different from playing a Solo in CP2020 because of the system mechanics. I'd say there's more difference between those two than between, say a paladin and a wizard. And that's saying a lot.

Champions despite being classless and universalist system can generate characters that interact with very different mechanics. Compare a mentalist superhero with a brick, a brick with a flying energy projector. In both cases, they roll with combat values and power effect dice, but the flying energy projector interacts with turning radii and range, the brick doesn't. The mentalist is probably comparing his result to ego values to see how much mind control he exerts rather than counting up Stun and Body. And doing even get me started on a wizard hero with a variable power pool and skill checks to rearrange his points.

In D&D, weapon combat and spells occupied substantially different subsystems. I believe they work better when they do so because way too much is lost from the magic end of fantasy by constraining it into something that is designed to work with a non-magical character. I don't have a problem with fancy combat maneuvers by non-magical characters, but don't try to shoehorn magic into the same structure. It loses a lot in the translation.

 

[Bluenose]

In D&D, weapon combat and spells occupied substantially different subsystems. I believe they work better when they do so because way too much is lost from the magic end of fantasy by constraining it into something that is designed to work with a non-magical character. I don't have a problem with fancy combat maneuvers by non-magical characters, but don't try to shoehorn magic into the same structure. It loses a lot in the translation.

So quite explicitly you're declaring that it doesn't matter whether there's a huge difference between what magic does and what weapons/skills do. What matters to make them seem different is that they have to use "substantially different subsystems" else "too much is lost from the magic".

This does not match my experience with a huge variety of games.

 

[Hassassin]

So quite explicitly you're declaring that it doesn't matter whether there's a huge difference between what magic does and what weapons/skills do. What matters to make them seem different is that they have to use "substantially different subsystems" else "too much is lost from the magic".

This does not match my experience with a huge variety of games.

It matters whether players feel there is a substantial difference between the two. Having different subsystems is one way to enforce that feeling.

 

[Mattachine]

I can understand the value of subsystems for different aspects of the game. There was a time when I loved that. I no longer love it. I loved 3e for bringing most parts of the game squarely into the "no table, roll a d20" mechanic, and 4e did that even more.

Though I have very few dealbreakers for 5e, conflict resolution subsystems is right on the top of my list. I don't want tables, I don't want one system for turning undead, another for item saves, another for psionics, and yet another for potion miscibility.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I reject your claim that the DM is "fixing" anything.
My point is that the synergy of good DMing and good rules can achieve vastly more than either one can EVER do alone.

Oh, absolutely. A necessary condition to this, however, is that although true balance is unattainable in anything more detailed than 3:16, an unbalanced set of rules is not a good set of rules. Balance is one of the measurements of quality.

If you try to write rules that by-pass the need for quality DMing you *will* fail to produce the highest possible end result.

And I can't think of any rules ever that have done this. Except possibly the 1e automatic dungeon generation ones. Or ones like Fiasco whre there is no actual DM.

Now really sucky modules that try to do this are another matter (and a lot of WoTC modules should be shot). Or simple lowest common denominator modules like Encounters.

Trying to brush it off as just a "rant" does nothing to change the practical truth of the point.
You can disagree. But you can't point to an example that backs your claim.

You're talking past each other. Hussar thinks that the job of rules is to support the DM.

For one thing, he's not directly challenging that a balanced system could be a solid system, rather that there's no way it can be balanced in all circumstances.

Other than e.g. 3:16. But when we move beyond there, a genuinely balanced game is like a frictionless environment. A nice goal but we're never going to get there. Still, that's no reason to stop using oil in our engine.

I think he does have a point about overdesigned rule systems that try to come up with an answer for everything. Some really good GMs may feel that the system constrains them under cumbersome rules.[/quoet]

Oh, possibly. I just wonder where he is coming from and why this is relevant. 5e does not appear to be heading in the direction of 3e that way.

I do suspect that complaints about player entitlement and rules lawyering have increased with the increasing comprehensiveness of rule systems.

What do you mean "increasing comprehensiveness"? The Wilderness Survival Guide was a 1e publication. I don't think that 3e at its most detailed comes close to this level of comprehensiveness, and compared to 3e 4e is a rules light system.

I'm not sure about player entitlement. But rules lawyering IME normally happens much more in systems that are too bulky for the DM to manage. And happens in situations that immediate death is on the line - CAW rather than CAS.

 

[BryonD]

Oh, absolutely. A necessary condition to this, however, is that although true balance is unattainable in anything more detailed than 3:16, an unbalanced set of rules is not a good set of rules. Balance is one of the measurements of quality.

I agree very much.

However, I strongly suspect you and I disagree on what those words actually mean.

And I can't think of any rules ever that have done this. Except possibly the 1e automatic dungeon generation ones. Or ones like Fiasco whre there is no actual DM.

Now really sucky modules that try to do this are another matter (and a lot of WoTC modules should be shot). Or simple lowest common denominator modules like Encounters.

You're talking past each other. Hussar thinks that the job of rules is to support the DM.

I agree that that Hussar thinks that. But I assure you we are not talking past each other. Hussar and I have discussed this a few times before.

I am certain that the peak of gaming experience requires quality rules, but in order to be truly quality, those rules must be designed knowing the semi-infinite potential of actual at-the-table gaming and also know their own limits in ever getting there. So the rules must presume DM support for them as well as their own support for the DM. Once we accept this mutual support we can either presume that part of the rules job is to compensate for the DM learning process or we can presume that the DM is a highly skilled and experienced DM. If it presumes the former then every time it concedes anything inexperience, it is limiting itself. If we assume the later then the boundaries for quality are maximized.

A really ideal rule system is like the best of the best in suits. You need a great suit to start with, but the suit is manufactured with the expectation that a skilled tailor will make it perfect for each customer who buys one. In RPGs the rules are the suit, the DM in the tailor, and every single encounter is a customer.

A beginner DM isn't going to get the same results. But a beginner DM can still have a ton of fun and muddle through getting better and better. Myself and every other DM who started in 1E or earlier can testify to that.

But Hussar is referencing that we he says "tee-ball and training wheels". (With "rant" being an effort to discredit the point without actually showing anything wrong with it.)

We are not talking past each other.

 

[BryonD]

Again, I totally disagree. There are any number of systems out there that have basic task resolution mechanics that can be broadly applied.

I didn't say they are not out there. I'm talking about being the very best of the best.

I fail to see how having balanced mechanics somehow makes a "good" DM not achieve great results. How does having characters which are balanced in the three "pillars" as they are calling them in 5e, result in mediocre DM's?

I didn't say that. I said that a really good system is going to need to realize that sometimes you have to balance apples and oranges. And only a really good DM there managing the situation can do the best possible case-by-case job of that. Every DM starts out mediocre or worse. Lack of experience dealing with these issues would keep them there.

But I certainly don't concede this is about what they have said about 5E so far. This is about a specific interpretation of what has been said. If the three pillars try to be a way to dodge ever dealing with apples and oranges, then three years from now WotC will be scratching their head again.

I, for now, will presume they won't go that route.

Heck, I've still never quite figured out how having 4e's level of parity between classes somehow magically makes good DM's merely mediocre.

I presume you are claiming I have said this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I never said that. I've said that a great DM is a great DM and can produce great results. There are several 4E DMs I've specifically called out saying that I'm fully certain their 4E games are awesome. But a great DM in a mediocre system system isn't going to be as good as a great DM in a great system. (I also make no claim whatsoever that 4E isn't the peak of "great" for some specific groups. But clearly market share is a key consideration over niche support)

I completely reject the idea that somehow system makes for better DM's. It's ridiculous on its face.

And I'm pretty sure the idea the the system makes the DM is the point I was rejecting. The DM makes the DM.

I'm pretty darn sure that if I sat down and played a 3e game with Monte Cook, I'd have a damn good game. But, I'm also sure, he'd run a damn good 4e game as well. And, heck, I'd line up to sit at a Basic D&D game if he'd run one.

Of Course!!! And Monte has many years of experience with tons of different systems. We can consider it a finding-of-fact that Monte is a great DM. As a great DM he can run a great game in 4E or most any other system.

It isn't the Monte Cooks I've referenced. It is the 11 year old future Monte Cook I'm thinking of. (Or the 47 year old guy who just discovered RPGs yesterday)
If the 11 year old never plays a game that expects him to deal with apples and oranges on his own then he will never reach his full potential as a future Monte Cook.

So, yes, BryonD, I blow off your argument as the standard "training wheels" rant that you've been trotting out every so often for the past couple of years. That somehow having a system with imbalances makes better DM's because they'll have to rise to the challenge, rather than have the game work out of the box.

Right, because I've called for "systems with imbalances". Welcome to this week's episode of Hussar puts words in Bryon's mouth.

 

[Bluenose]

It matters whether players feel there is a substantial difference between the two. Having different subsystems is one way to enforce that feeling.

I'm pretty sure you can get people to feel there's a difference between their characters/classes by having those classes/characters able to do different things.

 

[BryonD]

I'm pretty sure you can get people to feel there's a difference between their characters/classes by having those classes/characters able to do different things.

I agree with this.

But I also think there is negative potential in preconceiving either way.

If you make new subsystems as a means to the end of "different" then you have put the cart before the horse.
But if different abilities are all required to be expressed by different text on top of a universal system, then you have needlessly painted yourself into a corner.

A perfect world *probably* would have one "go to" system and would only use subsystems after carefully considering use of the core system. But it would also not be the least bit shy about going to subsystems when they are called for.