Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Savage Wombat]

Imagine 4E as not just five thrash metal instruments, but five instruments that will automatically play backup for you whenever you pick one up. They take care of the music for you, as long as you play. If what you want is thrash metal, or something similar.

3E in this analogy is the rest of the orchestra, but requiring you to learn how to play all the instruments yourself. And tune the ones that you don't like the sound of.

At least, that's the analogy I think he's going for.

 

[Kynn]

Imagine 4E as not just five thrash metal instruments, but five instruments that will automatically play backup for you whenever you pick one up. They take care of the music for you, as long as you play. If what you want is thrash metal, or something similar.

3E in this analogy is the rest of the orchestra, but requiring you to learn how to play all the instruments yourself. And tune the ones that you don't like the sound of.

At least, that's the analogy I think he's going for.

This analogy is so painfully tortured that we really should try to put it out of its misery, to be honest.

 

[hanez]

I may be repeating this, but in the 400 threads I post a day, who knows, so here goes.

In 3e, as DM, I took a necromancy spell netbook with hundreds of spells and gave it to a player who wanted to become a lich. This was an amateur, collaboratively written online book that was written for AD&D.

So the player started using it, some spells sucked in it, some didn't. At 7th level found a spell the summoned something like 1d12 skeletons, 1d8 zombies, 1d4 raiths and a ghost, and he could cast it a few times a day. It was CRAZY unbalanced. If I knew this spell was in the book I would have deleted it.... but instead I dealt with the problem, I made some reeeaaally good items for the rest of the party, buffed my monsters, learnt some quick mass combat rules, and let him use the spell. One of our FAVORITE D&D memories is the campaign where the party was followed around by legions of undead for level after level. (the party knew I screwed up with this spell, but I rolled with the punches ).

Anyways I tel this story because I want a system that allows me to do stupid things like the story above. Sure don't print that horribly unbalanced spell, but dont give me a system where all spells work exactly the same either! Let me make mistakes, they may turn out fun or I might learn a lesson!. I want a system that lets cool things be cool, instead of squeezing them into a formula.

Try and Balance the game sure, but dont go crazy with that. Try and simplify the mechanics please, but dont make every one work exactly the same. I don't want a wizard or a cleric being more powerful then a fighter, please fix the problem, but dont fix it by completely changing what a wizard or a cleric is in the game.

I know someone may read the above story and say, "so, you could have done that with any edition". I would prerespond I dont think thats correct. The super balanced edition told me as a DM in no uncertain terms, "we've done it all for you, stay away, everything is balanced, dont screw it up." And I as an amateur DM was inclined to trust them. This resulted in 2 years of boring tactical D&D for our group. I personally believe that a system that focuses too much on the balance philosophy will result in boring tactical D&D for many groups.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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)

Now that is precisely too far. It's simultaneously claiming positive ground for 3E that it doesn't own, but also nailing it too hard in other ways.

I'd say that there are a wide range of things 3E can do, and the quality is all over the place--sometimes in surprising ways. There are things you can do with other games you flat can't do with 3E--and I don't even need to go to something as esoteric as Forge or other niche games to say that. Heck, there are whole realms of things you can do with GURPS out of the box that 3E would have a difficult time of even if you expanded 3E to mean "any possible d20 variant that has been made or even could be made or tweaked."

OTOH, some of what 3E (and its close kin) does well is not solely the province of a good DM. You can, for example, run a pretty mean dungeon crawl or wilderness expedition or similar adventures in, say, the 5th to 10th level range, and it will work quite well. (Exact level range may vary. Side effects include extreme surprise. Consult your physician if problems persist.)

Likewise, 4E has a wider range than its critics give it credit for, in part because it absolutely nails a couple of things so well, that a lot of people don't even try to branch out. Running a good "indie narrative" style in 4E is akin to running a good intrigue game in mid-level 3E--it is far from perfect, but if you know what you are doing, it isn't a totally awful fit, either.

The bigger difference is the uncertainity of what the respective versions do well. 4E claims less ground and is more accurate in the claim (i.e. doing X well). (Though it is far from perfect here, giving the two mutually incompatible threads of advice that are presented as one in the original DMG.) 3E claims more ground, and really does cover more ground, but is a little more free with its claims than are warranted. And of course, in this respect, both are far superior to any version that came before, which all rather implied ground that was covered but left you mostly on your own to puzzle out where it goes off kilter--and frequently to deal with the consequences after you got blindsided.

4E is like a guy that told you he had 10 years experience running a crane. When you hired him, you found out, yep, he can do that really well--and also could handle a few other machines in a pinch. Plus, he plays a mean harmonica in the company band. 3E is guy that told you he could run most heavy equipment, including specifically a crane, bulldozer, road grader, and dump truck. Turns out he does pretty well with three of those, but was a bit "ambitious" on the fourth. OTOH, you also found out he could run a chainsaw and fix electrical wiring in a pinch, which made up for it. 1E was this really handy guy that could do this wide range of abilities, some quite esoteric, once you gave him enough time. But the day he started, he was learning everything on the job.

 

[BobTheNob]

Try and Balance the game sure, but dont go crazy with that. Try and simplify the mechanics please, but dont make every one work exactly the same. I don't want a wizard or a cleric being more powerful then a fighter, please fix the problem, but dont fix it by completely changing what a wizard or a cleric is in the game.

This is where this topic scares the holy-hell out of me. PLayers have to love their characters, and you you balance too hard, they just end up and mild flavor differences...

Player 1 : I use that close burst power that damage everything around me. Here are my rolls
Player 2 : I use that close burst power that damage everything around me. Here are my rolls
Player 1 : How was that different from what I just did?
Player 2 : Yours was elemental, mine was holy...

Woopy Do. Fluff is important, but its hard to love your character when he does exactly the thing as everyone else. For all ultra-balance creates a warm happy feeling that we quashed the "unbalanced boogy-man" it should never be at the cost of uniqueness or individuality.

 

[Hussar]

/snippage for length - interesting story

I know someone may read the above story and say, "so, you could have done that with any edition". I would prerespond I dont think thats correct. The super balanced edition told me as a DM in no uncertain terms, "we've done it all for you, stay away, everything is balanced, dont screw it up." And I as an amateur DM was inclined to trust them. This resulted in 2 years of boring tactical D&D for our group. I personally believe that a system that focuses too much on the balance philosophy will result in boring tactical D&D for many groups.

However, I think the problem here is, lots of groups get this, and the game goes pear shaped because the DM didn't bring his A game and is given virtually no guidance on how to fix the problem.

Sure, you can fix problems. A lot of us began gaming when that wasn't something that happened once in a while, it was the basis for the entire game. You were given so few guidelines on fairly common events and every DM had to come up with some sort of solution.

However, we need to step back a bit Hanez. I'm presuming in the story that you're telling that you are not a new gamer. You'd been gaming for quite some time by that point and had a fairly decent grasp on mechanics and whatnot. Again, great.

But how many games using that same Netbook went pear shaped and down in flames? Is the chance that your game will shine worth however many games don't? Should game designers care? Who should they cater to? The guy who can write his own rules or the guy who can't?

 

[Hussar]

This is where this topic scares the holy-hell out of me. PLayers have to love their characters, and you you balance too hard, they just end up and mild flavor differences...

Player 1 : I use that close burst power that damage everything around me. Here are my rolls
Player 2 : I use that close burst power that damage everything around me. Here are my rolls
Player 1 : How was that different from what I just did?
Player 2 : Yours was elemental, mine was holy...

Woopy Do. Fluff is important, but its hard to love your character when he does exactly the thing as everyone else. For all ultra-balance creates a warm happy feeling that we quashed the "unbalanced boogy-man" it should never be at the cost of uniqueness or individuality.

This is not helping though. Even a cursory glance through the 4e rules shows this to be false. If you're going to criticise the edition, at least have the good grace to actually read the book.

 

[Kynn]

This is not helping though. Even a cursory glance through the 4e rules shows this to be false. If you're going to criticise the edition, at least have the good grace to actually read the book.

This seems to impose an unfair burden on those who dislike 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Actually having looked the original quote up, it's option 4. You are mis-summarising Mearls. What the actual quote was was “In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’” says Mearls. “But there’s other ways to play guitar.”

This does not mean that Thrash Metal is all 4e can do. Or that Mearls thinks that Thrash Metal is all 4e can do. It means that Encounters, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Scales of War were geared to Thrash Metal - and that's where most people got their introduction. It's like the designers of 4e were superb instrument makers who also put out beginners primers for how to play - and the primers all spoke about thrash metal and used almost all their examples as Thrash Metal.

Now kindly don't twist Mearls' words to mean something they don't. I'm going to take what you wrote as a good faith representation of what was actually said - and get very disappointed when, as here, that proves not to be the case.

And besides. Do you want me to dig up what WoTC was saying about 3E before 4E was released and treating that as the Unquestionable Word?

Your last sentence is the point.

If I want to play chamber orchestra music, I have Spirit of the Century. And that, to me, is the point.

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.

And to me the point is that 3.X covers a medium range. For a genuinely wide range I have GURPS 4E. And the critical point to me is that 3.X does it badly. To take one example, by the book NPC design rules are a nightmare. Yes, you can change this behind the screen. But I don't have to.

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.

Not at all. The right DM can make any game rock. I've dealt with a DM that made Rifts rock - and for all its faults, 3E is a much better designed game than Rifts. However that people can make a game rock despite the system doesn't mean that the system takes the credit. It means that the DM rocks.

I'll agree that 3E can be played out of tune. As I said, it has no safety net.

I don't care about a safety net. What I care about are greased rungs and a fraying tightrope. And 3e has both those.

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.

I believe my assessment of 3E is a lot more accurate than yours either of 4e or of a simple statement by Mearls.

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.

You really aren't giving yourself enough credit here. I have never said it is impossible to have a fun 3e game. However 3e requires that the DM go round tuning most of the instruments personally.

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.

For the seventeenth (or however many) times, you are mischaracterising my position. I am saying that a good DM can make any system rock. I am saying that with the right DM, probably even F.A.T.A.L. would be a fun game. Rifts certainly is.

I'm holding out hope [that D&D can be all things to all people] until proven wrong.

But I suspect you are correct.

I hope that it isn't. Because if it was we'd lose some great games like Dread or Fiasco. And I think that's where our essential disagreement lies. If you want to run a game of gritty fantasy you'll reach for D&D 3.X. I'll go for either WHFRP 2e or WHFRP 3e, or possibly GURPS. (Probably WHFRP 3e as I find the mechanics inspiring).

And both of us would make the right decision here. With your ten years of DMing you'd do a better job with 3E than you would with WFRP 3E. With my range of experience I'd do a better job of WHFRP 3E.

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)

Agreed. However a quality DM is not part of the 3E ruleset. It should therefore not be factored in to assessing how good the game system is. If anything, needing a quality rather than an average DM is a strike against 3E - quality DMs don't grow on trees.

What needs factoring in is IMO two things. The first is what can be done by an average or novice DM (and it's here that 4e is one of the best games I've ever seen), and the second is how much it reward any given amount of time put in to it - something which is very hard to measure. You've put a hell of a lot of time in and got a lot of reward out. I am not disputing that. And 4E in my experience caps out at the amount it rewards you by putting the time in relatively early.

On the other hand 3E really does not reward low amounts of time or novice DMs, and while it's still at the levels it supports you, 4e does. But when 4e stops rewarding extra time I can always jump to a new system (I'm DMing both 4E and WHFRP 3E campaigns at the moment). Of course learning a new system has significant overheads. And, having both systems on my bookshelves and having run and played both, I can't help but think that GURPS 4E would be more rewarding to sink vast amounts of time into than D&D 3E is. It's a bigger and more encompassing and flexible system.

Likewise, 4E has a wider range than its critics give it credit for, in part because it absolutely nails a couple of things so well, that a lot of people don't even try to branch out. Running a good "indie narrative" style in 4E is akin to running a good intrigue game in mid-level 3E--it is far from perfect, but if you know what you are doing, it isn't a totally awful fit, either.

And for the record you can run a good intrigue game in 4E at least as easily as you can in 3E. But absolutely this.

This is where this topic scares the holy-hell out of me. PLayers have to love their characters, and you you balance too hard, they just end up and mild flavor differences...

Player 1 : I use that close burst power that damage everything around me. Here are my rolls
Player 2 : I use that close burst power that damage everything around me. Here are my rolls
Player 1 : How was that different from what I just did?
Player 2 : Yours was elemental, mine was holy...

Woopy Do. Fluff is important, but its hard to love your character when he does exactly the thing as everyone else.

And if your PCs are approaching the game that way no wonder you have trouble. There's a significant difference between a close burst attack with a sword (mechanically almost always friendly for one) and a close burst attack using elemental damage (which hits everyone). And IME most people describe what they are doing before rolling. (And if they don't I tell them to describe what it does until they learn).

However, we need to step back a bit Hanez. I'm presuming in the story that you're telling that you are not a new gamer. You'd been gaming for quite some time by that point and had a fairly decent grasp on mechanics and whatnot. Again, great.

But how many games using that same Netbook went pear shaped and down in flames? Is the chance that your game will shine worth however many games don't? Should game designers care? Who should they cater to? The guy who can write his own rules or the guy who can't?

This. If I'm paying someone for rules I expect them to have done a professional job. And if I'm producing them I expect to have enough pride in my work to not cause glaring issues in someone else's game.

[Actually reading the rulebook] seems to impose an unfair burden on those who dislike 4e.

I wish I knew why.

 

[Hassassin]

I wish I knew why.

I wonder what percentage of D&D players have read through the book of their edition of choice. I suspect a small minority.