Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[BobTheNob]

De-emphasize combat? I suppose, but it is the core of the game, mechanically, and even the core of adventures.

In any edition, a player can make an ineffective combat-character. No one forces a player to make a combat-ready adventurer, even in 4e. You can pick feats that focus on skills, make non-combat stats the highest (or even just use lower stats than point buy gives), and choose magic items that are interesting in effect and flavor, if not the best in combat.

No rules are needed to make a character sub-optimal.

I would say is "has" been the core of the game so far, agreed, and I still want it to be there. But I disagree that it should be the core of the game, I think it should just be an aspect. That way it wont be the measure of every last character, which is what I felt 4e did.

Sure, I could have created a combat turkey in 4e if I really concentrated, but with 4e's focus on combat, that just made for a crap character. Thats not fun. What Im talking about is a way that I can create a character which is flavorful and doesnt get marginalized for it. For that to happen, the game needs to support you.

It funny that you said "No rules are needed to make a character sub-optimal" in the context that you did because it means you associate being optimal with combat capability. I dont, and I sincerely hope that 5e design takes that into consideration.

 

[Mattachine]

Combat has been the core of the game in every edition. I can't see a new edition, with the stated goals of uniting the game and drawing from older editions, straying from the combat focus.

A "combat turkey" can be made in 4e that is effective in other areas. Heck, I even played a "non-optimal" (meaning non-combat optimal) rogue in a long campaign. The character was a skill monkey, in social situations and in exploration. He also was a ritual caster, helping the party in non-combat ways.

The character was sub-optimal, though, because he did not do as well as the other PCs in combat encounters. Those encounters took the majority of the play time and were the source of most of the campaign's xp and treasure. Not being good in those situations sounds like sub-optimal to me.

 

[hanez]

3.x was imbalanced in every arena. If you weren't a spellcaster, you were inferior at: Exploration, Social Encounters, Trapfinding, Combat, Long-distance-travel, information gathering... basically, everything.

This sentence is so far from reality it makes me wonder if you ever played the game or if you had a rock for a DM. Do you mean a wizard could specialize to be the master in one or two of those areas, or could be the best in all the areas simultaneously? Seems to me like lots of people were playing exclusive epic level 3.x, or rather not playing it at all and instead reading codzilla on forums.

Otherwise I agree with the rest of your quote

If fighters are useless outside of combat then they need to be the best in combat.

If thieves are useless in combat, they need to be amazing outside it.

If wizards are good both in combat and out of it, they need to not be too good at either.

 

[BobTheNob]

The character was sub-optimal, though, because he did not do as well as the other PCs in combat encounters. Those encounters took the majority of the play time and were the source of most of the campaign's xp and treasure. Not being good in those situations sounds like sub-optimal to me.

Dont you find that discouraging though? When combat takes the absolute majority of time, and because your not combat optimal, your marginalized for the majority of play (and potentially XP and treasure depending on your DM). Surely you dont think that's a good thing?

Take our Gnome illusionist. He knew the character which he wanted to play, and it wasnt a totally terrible idea, but he didnt want to be combat focused. If combat is the majority of time, all he is doing is creating a character he knows is going to be sidelined for the majority of play.

The essence of this is I want the rules to be such that non-combat roles are a good choice, not just "a bad choice your free to make".I want the rules to celebrate the non combatant, to allow him to shine, to revel in his quirkiness and cheer his non conformity.

4e worked the "combat bug" out of me. Now, Im happy for "combat focused, mechanically heavily" game rules to play out in computer games (Just finished Dragon Age 2...loved it ). For the table top, I want something else.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

De-emphasize combat? I suppose, but it is the core of the game, mechanically, and even the core of adventures.

In this context, I think "de-emphasize" should be read as "less emphasis" rather than "remove emphasis".

I wouldn't be terribly nonplussed at a D&D version that had a higher emphasis on combat than anything else, and I agree that this has been the case in every edition thus far, at least as far as mechanics are concerned. Even a lot of the stuff that isn't strictly combat has often been about avoiding it, getting away from it, getting an adventage going into it, etc. That's still an emphasis on combat, even if an indirect one. Still, how much emphasis is a valid question, even among everyone that agrees that it is the biggest single emphasis.

 

[hanez]

There were lots of 2e and 3e games that were not combat focused. There were even lots of 2e and 3e official adventures that were not combat focused, pick up a copy of Dungeon magazine in the used bin at your game shop or get a pdf if you need reminding. Wedding Bells, Challenge of Champions and Prince of Redhand were recent combat-less or combat-light adventures off the top of my head.

Need more proof, there were even whole CLASSES in the game that were not combat focused. See the bard, the rogue, the illusionist and some types of clerics. These classes only became problems in a recent edition that tried to force every class to be equally combat effective.

The very reason skill monkeys existed was because some campaigns had a high emphasis in social interaction and exploration, and some players wanted to excel in those areas.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Combat has been the core of the game in every edition. I can't see a new edition, with the stated goals of uniting the game and drawing from older editions, straying from the combat focus.

Not really. Largely it comes down to what grants the largest XP rewards. In the vast majority of TSR produced editions, that was treasure.

Defeating tricks, traps, and monsters earned only a fraction of the experience gained from a typical adventure.

In reality though, whatever a particular group enjoyed the most ended up being the core of the game for them. If a group loved combat then it really didn't matter if more XP could be gained by avoiding it, they were kicking in the door and commencing with the slaughter anyhow. Others might prefer interaction, negotiation, deception, or outright theft over killing.

The game rewarded getting the loot. How that happened was very much up to the players.

 

[Mattachine]

For all the various examples of non-combat focused D&D material out there, the ones wherein combat is the focus, is the means of conflict resolution, and is the means of treasure and xp make the VAST majority.

That is reflected in the rules of the game, all editions. Individual gaming groups (my own included) may spend more time on non-combat storylines, but they are straying away from the core game.

A new edition could provide less emphasis on combat and more on other things, but that will be a new direction for the game, not a consolidation of older editions.

 

[BobTheNob]

A new edition could provide less emphasis on combat and more on other things, but that will be a new direction for the game, not a consolidation of older editions.

In which case, thats where I am at. I for one put my hand up for a de-emphasis even if it does fly in the face or previous editions.

I know Im in the minority, but Im also very happy to be there.

Regardless of which camp you belong to, and as to what the OP is asking (which we have gone off topic a little) de-emphasizing combat is how I see flavorful imbalance working. If combat is 3/4 of your gaming experience, you have to balance.

 

[Rhenny]

PC balance is important, but I don't want to see balance that makes PCs one dimensional or "not heroic."

If designed properly, all PCs should be able to add/do a number of things in each of the situations - Combat, Exploration and Social/Interaction. If a PC is loaded too heavily in one of the three pillars, and lacks in others, then it will be too difficult for DMs to make adventures that engage all players. As DM, I don't want to study all my pcs to the point where I know how many will be good at only combat, which will be good at exploration and social...which will be totally useless in social, etc. I want to design adventures that use them all, and I want all players to engage in all aspects of the game.

If D&D Next is designed properly, in combat, a warrior will be better at melee and may have 2 or 3 options. A spell caster will have spells that make him or her have 2 or 3 options to support or engage in combat. Rogues will sneak and move and try to get the sneak attack and they may be ok at melee and ranged attacks. The key is that they all add to the combat experience. Just as each class adds something in a combat experience, each class/PC also needs to be able to do 2 or 3 things in Exploration and Social/Interaction to add to those experiences.

4e did a very good job at this. I think that if Abilities (and specialties) are used for skill checks, and players can choose options or classes get options that act like powers, there should be enough balance.

That being said, I don't mind some spells tipping the balance of power, really. I'd rather have a rich spell system where casters can actually do magical things than try to keep too much balance and forgo interesting effects. For example, I really want summoned/conjured creatures or pets to function on their own. I don't like that a PC with a creature/pet has to give up his or her move or attack to have the creature act. That seems contrived balance.

Balance is "just right" when it is in service of the game and not contrived. As soon as it seems contrived, I think it goes too far.