Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[BryonD]

Great statement, but Im going to twist it around. As much as giving the DM freedom can result in games that suck, it can also result is games that are spectacular.

Oh most certainly. That is my personal experience as well.

To me one big difference that drove the popularity of 3E as opposed to 4E was that 3E could be, and was intended to be, adaptable to whatever play style you wanted. If the monk was "the load" in your game then you could easily change something to "fix" that and still be playing 3E as designed. 3E could fit *MOST* any play style. But it may be more effort to run than a given group found worth it. And if that is the case, then 3E isn't for you. It may be completely fair to say that "3E sucks for me". There are a lot of people for whom that is true.

But in the case of 4E you either liked the style it was designed to cater to or you did not. It was AWESOME *at that style*. So if you had been playing 3E in *that* style then 4E was the same as 3E only way more awesome. You hit the jackpot. But if you were playing 3E (or anything else) in a style that was not the 4E style then you either started playing 4E style or you stopped being a WotC customer.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree that 3E didn't work for you.
That doesn't mean that 3E monks were "the load".
I agree that your 4E character works for you.
That doesn't mean that 4E offers the range of experiences that the overall gaming market demands.

I agree with this, mostly. The problem is that it reaffirms my belief that D&D can't be everything to everyone. 4e allows me to run the type of game I want to run much better than any other edition. If it were to go back to using some of the old mechanics, it would be a better game for you and a worse game for me. I think D&D needs to settle on one thing it's good at and accept that it will do the other things poorly and point that out in the rules.

But instead, it tries to be everything to everyone and fails. Every edition of D&D has been better at running in some preferred style than any other. Some people correct the game to allow it to play in their preferred playstyle using DMing tactics and houserules. Other people don't want to go through the effort and end up with a game that just doesn't work.

3e had an equally narrow range of games it worked perfectly in as well: Games where the DM continually forcibly balanced the game by denying any character that seemed too powerful, denying spells or classes that didn't fit in with the game or were too powerful, using techniques like custom creating encounters to hinder the abilities of the casters, or stealing spellbooks to make sure the Wizard knew he had disadvantages. Also, in addition, it only worked well in a group where the players mutually agreed(or just did because they weren't all that tactically wise) to not pick at the edges of the system where the seams were.

In virtually every thread where I've seen someone say "My Druid, Clerics and Wizards weren't too powerful" that none of the players in question even attempted to use some of the most powerful spells or combination of spells. I've said it in another thread but mathematically, Monks are "the load". But if your casters purposefully don't use their most powerful spells, they become balanced with "the load".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To me one big difference that drove the popularity of 3E as opposed to 4E was that 3E could be, and was intended to be, adaptable to whatever play style you wanted. If the monk was "the load" in your game then you could easily change something to "fix" that and still be playing 3E as designed. 3E could fit *MOST* any play style. But it may be more effort to run than a given group found worth it. And if that is the case, then 3E isn't for you. It may be completely fair to say that "3E sucks for me". There are a lot of people for whom that is true.

But in the case of 4E you either liked the style it was designed to cater to or you did not. It was AWESOME *at that style*. So if you had been playing 3E in *that* style then 4E was the same as 3E only way more awesome. You hit the jackpot. But if you were playing 3E (or anything else) in a style that was not the 4E style then you either started playing 4E style or you stopped being a WotC customer.

I think the key element here is the balancing act (if you'll pardon using "balance" in another context here ) between making something flexible and making it work well for a given style.

And by work well, I mean not only the opposite of suck, but that it does what you want, with reasonable effort. I've been able to run games I truly enjoyed (while playing) with many versions of D&D (almost all of them, and probably could all of them if I tried hard enough). And by limiting my styles to certain things that do work well in a given version, I could, today, run games I would enjoy in any of those versions.


The implications of all that, as I see them are:

1. You might be able to have a 5E that is able to run "In the style of edition N"--where that really means "A few of the more popular and characteristic styles that edition N catered to." But chances are, it is really going to mean, "The primary style associated with that edition," with everyone else left out or sent to other "edition mimicry" for their preferences.
2. With some work, you probably will be able to bend those parameters--but it will take that work. The game advice should be clear about this.
3. There needs to be clarity about what a given set of mechanics are designed to do. If you want to do something else with it, great, but that's on you.

So the net effect might be that you can play 5E in an "operational adventure/ fantasy Vietnam" kind of style if you want--easily. But if you do, that will mean that you'll be using a lot of the 1E emulation mechanics and widgets. If you want to use those same mechanics and widgets to run a 2E "storyteller" style, they probably want work that well.

There is, of course, some room for "drift" in this, especially in a game flexible enough to do more than one style. It might be that you take mostly 3E style as a base, grab that 1E element, those "basic" classes, this 4E subsystem, and get exactly what you were looking for. It will merely be one of those things that is hit or miss for a given mixture. It might work; it might not.

However, to the extent that the rules manage to emulate several styles well, it will do so by including optional pieces that don't always work in the other well-emulated styles--and which you'll be well advised to exclude for your particular style game. "Kitchen Sink" DMs hardest hit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As Mearls put it, 4E told people if you want to play guitar you should play thrash metal. If you happen to be someone who WANTS to play thrash metal, then you won't see any problem.

Mearls was wrong. If you play 4e you have all the instruments of a thrash metal band. Three electric guitars, a keyboard, and a drum kit, plus occasional other instruments. You're never going to play chamber orchestra music that sounds like the original. But with 4e I've played games I'd consider to be anything from The Clash to Dr Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, from Blind Guardian to Queen, and from Michael Jackson to Dragonforce.

It's not a perfect game. But it's a collection of instruments that work well together rather than a single genre. Zeitgeist is not thrash metal. And I wouldn't use 4e rules for a gritty game for example (I've got GURPS for that).

That said, most of the adventures that have been put out for 4e by Wizards are paint-by-numbers Thrash Metal. WoTC are instrument makers, not composers. And it shows.

By contrast 3e is an entire pile of instruments, some in tune, some out, and some that can be tuned every performance. (If necessary you can turn on the autotune for 4e). Some of the instruments are in tune, some are badly out, and some of the instruments have e.g. two in tune strings and you can learn which they are. And what's really annoying is that some of the instruments are tuned to concert pitch, others to baroque pitch.

This doesn't mean that you can't make an excellent sound out of this pile of instruments - or score things for drumsticks and broken fridges and cookers a la Hurra Torpedo and have an absolute whale of a time. But if I'm playing Smoke on the Water I probably want the guitars, the keyboard, and the drums - and a set that are already definitely in tune are a good start.

I agree that 3E didn't work for you.
That doesn't mean that 3E monks were "the load".

No. What makes 3e monks The Load (or a wandering problem that the DM needed to fix) is the mathematics and the design focus. On the other hand, as I've shown, you can make interesting music with kitchen appliances or by adding a typewriter, as Leroy Anderson did, to an otherwise normal group.

My serious objection to 3e is I don't want a collection of out of tune instruments - and I want the typewriters, the kitchen appliances, and the triangle to come clearly labeled rather than in a box that is just marked with a makers' mark. Yes, you learn which these are. But they are presented as instruments in 3e.

I agree that your 4E character works for you.
That doesn't mean that 4E offers the range of experiences that the overall gaming market demands.

I'm not talking about the range of experiences. I'm talking about specific experiences. Specific experiences that it was claimed could not be played. And that claim is flat wrong. I get that with a gnome illusionist or a summoner you will not have the same play experience as before.

Edit - hyperlinks removied - I don't want the youtube previews cluttering everything up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me one big difference that drove the popularity of 3E as opposed to 4E was that 3E could be, and was intended to be, adaptable to whatever play style you wanted. If the monk was "the load" in your game then you could easily change something to "fix" that and still be playing 3E as designed. 3E could fit *MOST* any play style. But it may be more effort to run than a given group found worth it. And if that is the case, then 3E isn't for you. It may be completely fair to say that "3E sucks for me". There are a lot of people for whom that is true.

And to me one big problem with 3e is that it does a lot - but not very well. I don't have just one RPG on my bookshelf. And most of them have something they do superbly. If I want a given game experience I'm likely to use a game focussed on that experience, not a generic game. Generic games don't interest me (and I say that when I may have more GURPS books than 4e books).

 

[BryonD]

Mearls was wrong.

Heh. Ok noted. You understand 4E better than Mearls and the market reality is not relevant.

Or you're just wrong.

One or the other.

If you play 4e you have all the instruments of a thrash metal band. Three electric guitars, a keyboard, and a drum kit, plus occasional other instruments. You're never going to play chamber orchestra music that sounds like the original.

Your last sentence is the point.

It's not a perfect game. But it's a collection of instruments that work well together rather than a single genre. Zeitgeist is not thrash metal. And I wouldn't use 4e rules for a gritty game for example (I've got GURPS for that).

I've got no argument that GURPS does things neither 3E nor 4E does. But that isn't the point. What 3E *DOES* covers a vastly wider range than what 4E does. For the niche that 4E services, it is awesome. But it is still just that niche.

That said, most of the adventures that have been put out for 4e by Wizards are paint-by-numbers Thrash Metal. WoTC are instrument makers, not composers. And it shows.

I won't argue with that, but the truth of it does nothing to change the truth of my point.

By contrast 3e is an entire pile of instruments, some in tune, some out, and some that can be tuned every performance. (If necessary you can turn on the autotune for 4e). Some of the instruments are in tune, some are badly out, and some of the instruments have e.g. two in tune strings and you can learn which they are. And what's really annoying is that some of the instruments are tuned to concert pitch, others to baroque pitch.

Ok, again we are back to you confusing a combination of your limited experience and pure opinion with the actual range of potential experiences of other people. You are, again, saying that my decade+ of experience does not exist.

I'll agree that 3E can be played out of tune. As I said, it has no safety net. But the fact that it CAN be screwed up is one thing and the obligation of that is completely another. If you believe you have accurately described 3E then you simple have a huge knowledge gap and your assessment is crippled by that blind spot.

No. What makes 3e monks The Load (or a wandering problem that the DM needed to fix) is the mathematics and the design focus. .

My serious objection to 3e is I don't want a collection of out of tune instruments - and I want the typewriters, the kitchen appliances, and the triangle to come clearly labeled rather than in a box that is just marked with a makers' mark. Yes, you learn which these are. But they are presented as instruments in 3e.

This is just repeating your claim that my experience does not exist.

My experience does exist.
So it seems the answer to my question is "huge double standard".

I'm not talking about the range of experiences. I'm talking about specific experiences. Specific experiences that it was claimed could not be played. And that claim is flat wrong. I get that with a gnome illusionist or a summoner you will not have the same play experience as before.

And, as I said, I'm on your side that you experience what you experienced from 3E in 4E, only better. I agree 100% that YOU can experience as you desire it. But also, being as we have clearly established that you have this massive blind spot regarding 3E, you are not getting the difference between your having the experience you desire and someone else not having a different version of that experience the way they want it.


In the end I'll continue to accept that 4E offers you everything you want. But you are presenting yourself as trapped trying to say that my 3E experiences do not exist. If you can't get past that, then you really can't offer useful insight into games that are not within the 4E niche.

 

[BryonD]

The problem is that it reaffirms my belief that D&D can't be everything to everyone.

I'm holding out hope until proven wrong.

But I suspect you are correct.

 

[Hussar]

Going back to the balance discussion and trying to ignore the low grade edition war going on here. :/

On the idea of homogenous classes: There's a major issue here that is being ignored. D&D is a classed system. That means any given class is identical to itself. Does that mean that you can only make 9 characters in 3e D&D? Of course not. Two fighters, even though they have identical mechanics, can be very different. Heck, even two AD&D paladins, with extremely restrictive mechanics, can still be very, very different.

Unique mechanics do not result in unique characters. All they do is make it very complicated to balance one character with the next. It means that everyone at the table is actually playing a different game. The casters are playing a fundamentally different game than the non-casters. The skill guy is playing a fundamentally different game from the combat guy.

And, because we insist on balancing like with unlike, those fundamentally different games are delineated by class. If you play a fighter, you are playing the combat guy because you don't have access to the caster mechanics, and you have very limited access to the skill mechanics. If you're playing the rogue, you don't have access to the caster mechanics and you're sucking hind mammary when it comes to combat (depending on edition, you might be sucking pretty hard). The casters break all the walls because, while they get minor access to the combat mechanics, the exceptions built into the caster mechanics allow them to excel in the other areas if they choose.

Unique mechanics result in tiered classes. You simply cannot build a balanced system, where no given option is clearly better than other options, when you have a slew of distinct systems kludged together. A high level caster is demonstrably better in all ways than a non-caster. That's what a tiered class system means. And, for a while, that was considered a feature - the magic user starts weak and then achieves cosmic power.

I'm not sure that that is really a feature anymore.

 

[BryonD]

And to me one big problem with 3e is that it does a lot - but not very well.

I absolutely buy that from the 4E point of view. But, again, over and over when I talk to 4E fans they want to safety net rules and reject the DM/Rules synergy approach. And that is the point I was first making here.

In the hands of a really good DM, 3E does a hell of a lot really really well.
Obviously 4E is always going to be better in the hands of a really good DM, but it kicks ass in its narrow niche and falls off really fast as you move out of that little sweet spot.

3E *CAN* do anything "not very well". Hell, 3E can completely SUCK at pretty much anything. But 3E can also be awesome in a vast range of ways. (just add quality DM)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Mearls was wrong. If you play 4e you have all the instruments of a thrash metal band. Three electric guitars, a keyboard, and a drum kit, plus occasional other instruments.

If the music you're listening to includes keyboards... that ain't thrash metal.