Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[BryonD]

I stand by what my own statements were. 3.X is a broken game.

Cool. So you *ARE* saying that my game does not exist.
And, as far as you are concerned it truly doesn't.

Just keep that in mind next time you get upset because you think someone else says something that disputes your experience.

 

[BryonD]

Bryond perhaps you could help me out. My tea leaves don't seem to be working. Is it better to use chicken or goat entrails when seeking the "truth"?

I've always found rational methods and an open mind to be the best approach. So I'm afraid I can't help you. But best of luck with whatever new method your transition from tea leaves takes you into.

 

[Hussar]

I've always found rational methods and an open mind to be the best approach. So I'm afraid I can't help you. But best of luck with whatever new method your transition from tea leaves takes you into.

Well, you're the one claiming to have the answers here, so, I'm just trying to find out where they came from.

I mean, since you absolutely know that 4e was a "market failure", perhaps you can answer any of the following (even in a ballpark):

1. How many people are currently playing D&D (in any version) today? How has that changed over the past 5 years? 10? 20?

2. How much is the RPG industry worth per year? How has that changed over the past 5 years? 10? 20?

3. How many people are playing D&D by edition today? How has that changed over the past 5 years? 10? 20?

I mean, since you can state categorically that "The bottom line is the 4E approach didn't work on the market scale.", you must know the answers to these questions. So, would you like to share with the rest of the class?

 

[Savage Wombat]

I have no clue how you got your interpretation out of that quote. I won't bother offering mine, but I will say that yours seems like a bit of a stretch.

I dunno; I disagree with his point, but I think his interpretation of the quote is correct.

Mearls is saying "we gave you a game, but only showed you a particular way to play it." He statement says nothing about the game's options on other styles, just that they only showed you one style.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno; I disagree with his point, but I think his interpretation of the quote is correct.

Mearls is saying "we gave you a game, but only showed you a particular way to play it." He statement says nothing about the game's options on other styles, just that they only showed you one style.

IMNSHO this is 100% largest problem with 4e. It's not the mechanics, it's not this or that. It's the presentation. 4e is presented with a very strong voice - the previews were strongly worded, the core books are strongly worded, the bloody modules are almost entirely combat and everything since then has been colored by that.

4e is no more about combat than any other edition. There's at least as much support in 4e for many other playstyles as there is in any other edition. But, and this is the biggie, all that support is buried under ten tons of crappy verbiage that is telling you "Play THIS WAY!"

I mean, 4e has pretty decent ritual rules. Characters have all sorts of out of combat options. But, when you look at the character section, what's the first thing you see? Role: Striker! Controller! Leader! Following that is a wall of powers, many of which are specifically combat powers. All the non-combat stuff gets ignored because so little attention is paid to it.

I honestly believe that if 4e had been written in a softer style, we wouldn't be having all these edition wars.

 

[Hussar]

I've always found rational methods and an open mind to be the best approach. So I'm afraid I can't help you. But best of luck with whatever new method your transition from tea leaves takes you into.

Oh, meant to get back to this.

Thank you BryonD for that unique and interesting definition of "open mind". I had no idea that "open mind" meant "choose an interpretation based on the sketchiest of anecdotal information, defend that interpretation against all other interpretations, thus claiming it to be the one true interpretation and no other interpretation comes even close."

I'll be sure to add that one to the dictionary.

 

[billd91]

IMNSHO this is 100% largest problem with 4e. It's not the mechanics, it's not this or that. It's the presentation. 4e is presented with a very strong voice - the previews were strongly worded, the core books are strongly worded, the bloody modules are almost entirely combat and everything since then has been colored by that.

4e is no more about combat than any other edition. There's at least as much support in 4e for many other playstyles as there is in any other edition. But, and this is the biggie, all that support is buried under ten tons of crappy verbiage that is telling you "Play THIS WAY!"

I mean, 4e has pretty decent ritual rules. Characters have all sorts of out of combat options. But, when you look at the character section, what's the first thing you see? Role: Striker! Controller! Leader! Following that is a wall of powers, many of which are specifically combat powers. All the non-combat stuff gets ignored because so little attention is paid to it.

I honestly believe that if 4e had been written in a softer style, we wouldn't be having all these edition wars.

I agree that the 4e game sets its tone and it's a very combat heavy tone. Even the skill challenge rules have a combat heavy tone. But I also get the impression it wouldn't really have been anything but that. I really don't think a softer tone was going to come out of the project team behind 4e because I think we saw parts of that tone develop under 3.5 particularly the way we saw non-combat uses of certain spells diminished with combat-oriented durations (invisibility, the buff spells). Then there was the Tome of Battle. The whole view of balancing characters was fast focusing around combat combat combat and hardly anything else.

As much as I thought organized play via Living Greyhawk had a lot of potential for people to get out and enjoy the game in new ways yet with the old character, I think its popularity and the challenges associated with running it helped drive that focus. Combat heavy scenarios, an easy route to get feedback from the RPGA network, coming up with ways to iron out variance between tables. I think all of it contributed to the 4e design atmosphere.

If 4e's combat-heavy tone was a mistake, I'm beginning to think it was a mistake they had to make and learn from for the long term health of the game.

 

[hanez]

I dunno; I disagree with his point, but I think his interpretation of the quote is correct.

Mearls is saying "we gave you a game, but only showed you a particular way to play it." He statement says nothing about the game's options on other styles, just that they only showed you one style.

Your interpretation is becoming closer to rational, and a little less selective. Neonchameleon quoted only the adventures even though Mearls didn't mention the adventures at all. Plus we know there are significant rule changes (and regressions) coming up of which Mearls is a part of, so it is a big stretch to insinuate that his first quote in the article is regarding adventures only. If you include the core books with his "thrash metal" then I think were getting closer to a proper interpretation. I don't know what in the core he is referring to, (could be only presentation, or rules, or fluff, or all of it) but I would say he has to be referring to the D&D game, and not just adventures.

I agree that presentation was a huge problem with 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your interpretation is becoming closer to rational, and a little less selective. Neonchameleon quoted only the adventures even though Mearls didn't mention the adventures at all. Plus we know there are significant rule changes (and regressions) coming up of which Mearls is a part of, so it is a big stretch to insinuate that his first quote in the article is regarding adventures only. If you include the core books with his "thrash metal" then I think were getting closer to a proper interpretation. I don't know what in the core he is referring to, (could be only presentation, or rules, or fluff, or all of it) but I would say he has to be referring to the D&D game, and not just adventures.

I agree that presentation was a huge problem with 4e.

OK. The adventures and the guidance. What I am saying is that 4e is a much wider game than much of the direct material written by WoTC pointed to. If you started with Keep on the Shadowfell (ugh) or Encounters and then went through, finding that the skill challenge mechanics were broken, the stealth rules were broken, and a lot of the guidance was for combat then you could get there easily. In practice 4e is good for just about any cinematic two-fisted setting where ranged weapons in personal combat are only used effectively at short range - but WoTC guidance has never reflected this, instead mostly focussing on the straightforward fantasy adventure. They've been pushing Thrash Metal rather than the range that can be done with some very good instruments.

He certainly isn't saying that Thrash Metal is all you can do with 4e, merely that that's what WoTC has been indicating. I listed the adventures because they are the absolute worst part of this (the DMGs are actually pretty good at pointing in other directions).

 

[hanez]

OK. The adventures and the guidance. What I am saying is that 4e is a much wider game than much of the direct material written by WoTC pointed to. If you started with Keep on the Shadowfell (ugh) or Encounters and then went through, finding that the skill challenge mechanics were broken, the stealth rules were broken, and a lot of the guidance was for combat then you could get there easily. In practice 4e is good for just about any cinematic two-fisted setting where ranged weapons in personal combat are only used effectively at short range - but WoTC guidance has never reflected this, instead mostly focussing on the straightforward fantasy adventure. They've been pushing Thrash Metal rather than the range that can be done with some very good instruments.

He certainly isn't saying that Thrash Metal is all you can do with 4e, merely that that's what WoTC has been indicating. I listed the adventures because they are the absolute worst part of this (the DMGs are actually pretty good at pointing in other directions).

Ok now we're pretty close to agreement. I agree the adventure certainly had that problem, I went through H1-H3 (and kept going), foolishly thinking they were going to be great. So I know exactly what your talking about this. I would add that the presentation of the content in the PH are also a problem, it seems more like a rulebook then previous edtions. I know most will disagree, but I'm a big fan of fluff mixing INTO powers.

Lastly, and Im sure this is where we differ, I think some of the monotony and focus on balance in the classes is telling us "to play thrash metal" where thrash metal is the type of tactile combat play that H1-H3 was geared for. In my POV, more balance is required in a combat heavy tactical game, in my different type of rock (lets call it folk), I think it is much more valuable to have powers that are NOT siloed between the pillars, and an emphasis on fantastic powers that are mechanically different to give as much flavor to the players. I think the fact that in the PH all classes could only use the same amount of powers in the same format (will, encounter, daily) indicates a preference to thrash metal. I think both styles require balance, just thrash probably requires a bit more fine tuned balance then folk does. I see their move away from strict will, encounter, daily powers in Essential is an attempt to welcome other styles.