D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Obryn]

I'm going to stop you right there. D&D isn't a video game. Balance in D&D is not the same thing as balance in a video game, board game, athletic competition, or any of various other types of games.

Ignoring lessons learned from other kinds of games will only serve to make D&D stagnant and regressive. It's not a computer game, but that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from that (vastly larger and more popular) form of entertainment. Or from the (vastly larger and more popular) board game audience. Or from the (vastly larger and more popular) card game audience. All of which generally embrace innovation.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

They dont represent the ongoing last ditch defensive luck which eventually runs out...

No.

hit points do.

Well, that one's debatable.

Gygax had a wierd rant he made about the characters being heros like Conan and so not being subject to a fluke of the dice. and it taking many errors on the players part for a character to go down.

I am calling it a wierd rant because the man invented the save or die... or the just die to heck with a save effect, he wasnt very consistant.

The mechanics here don't match the goals and are inconsistent with each other. If you want a big hero not to be subject to a fluke of the dice, you should write rules that prevent that explicitly and specifically, "hero points" (or action points or some other such mechanic). Conflating this concept with hit points (which are primarily about tangible things like how much blood you have left in your circulatory system) was a bad idea. A Really Bad Idea. Lumping together unrelated concepts (like your character's physical health and the importance of that character to the game) is where a lot of other problems start.

Which is where the inconsistency comes from. He had a world in mind, and wrote rules that didn't do a good job of creating it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ignoring lessons learned from other kinds of games will only serve to make D&D stagnant and regressive. It's not a computer game, but that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from that (vastly larger and more popular) form of entertainment. Or from the (vastly larger and more popular) board game audience. Or from the (vastly larger and more popular) card game audience. All of which generally embrace innovation.

There may be lessons to be learned, but D&D can't be judged on the same criteria. If I'm playing a computer game, the world is closed; only things that the programmers programmed can happen. In D&D, the possibilities are only as closed as the minds of its players.

Which means that practically speaking, it simply can't be balanced in the same way.

But more importantly, the goals of D&D are different. In that there aren't any. In an rpg, all the players can play their characters equally well, and have different outcomes. One character might become a lord, another might retire as a hermit. One might grant wishes while another simply slays his enemies. One might become a deity while another might die and be left to rot, and that's okay. In a board game, if equally competent play gets you such divergent results, something is wrong. If that happens in an rpg, something is very right.

"Innovation" in the context of D&D generally means moving away from its roots: miniatures games. The less D&D is about combat and treasure hunting, the harder it is to balance. And yet that innovation has largely already happen. At this point, innovation means accepting that D&D doesn't have to be balanced like a minis game, because it no longer is one.

D&D also has a lot to learn from the worlds of theater, literature, and film and television, as well as from open-ended, noncompetitive games. D&D has more in common with children playing house than it does with adults playing a video game, so why don't we talk about learning from that?

 

[mlund]

They dont represent the ongoing last ditch defensive luck which eventually runs out... hit points do.

It's way easier to convert the other way, though. By that I mean create luck-based defensive effects that cost hit points. Don't want to have Conan or the Elder Red Dragon be completely nullified in a fight thanks to one bad saving throw against Dominate Person / Monster? At the end of the victim's next turn spend 20, or 50, or whatever number of Hit Points to end the effect. If you don't have the Hit Points to spend you're luck's run out.

You can do that just be tacking on abilities to characters by means of Specialties, Prestige Classes, or just writing it into a monster's Stat block - and you don't need to monkey with re-writing any spells or core mechanics at all.

 

[Obryn]

There may be lessons to be learned, but D&D can't be judged on the same criteria. If I'm playing a computer game, the world is closed; only things that the programmers programmed can happen. In D&D, the possibilities are only as closed as the minds of its players.

Which means that practically speaking, it simply can't be balanced in the same way.

It's still a game, though - and that means principles that can be applied to other games can be applied here as well. Reward structures, engaging mechanics, finding the right balance of simple to learn with tactical depth, and so on.

D&D also has a lot to learn from the worlds of theater, literature, and film and television, as well as from open-ended, noncompetitive games. D&D has more in common with children playing house than it does with adults playing a video game, so why don't we talk about learning from that?

It has and does all the time; any collection of DMing advice will draw heavily upon those sources. For example, "Say Yes (or roll the dice)" DMing has its roots in theatre improv, where one of the first rules is "Yes, and..." In other words, "don't stomp on your collaborators' ideas, build off them."

Likewise literature, film, and television - the lessons of pacing and storytelling are fairly universal. Good adventures and collections of DM advice keep this in mind. (For example, in another thread, noting that no matter when the PCs find Kalaros or whatever his name is in Keep on the Shadowfell, he's always X rounds away from finishing his ritual. That's a lesson learned from film and television - keep the tension high, and make sure the chance of failure is on-camera rather than off.) This is something that's been going on for a long time and continues to go on.

So yes, it does have a lot to learn from those, and it does. Constantly.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

So yes, it does have a lot to learn from those, and it does. Constantly.

Well yes, but I mean specifically in terms of balance. Stories have balance. Open-ended games have balance. Balance created by the participants. And in some ways, D&D is losing balance. So I think there's some work to be done there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gygax heavily pushed the fighting man as the protector of his squishier allies.. but never got around to actually giving him any decent ability to do so.. .. maybe if all you did was tunnel fight.

It was almost impossible to leave combat safely and you were meant to be tunnel fighting until high level in older editions of D&D. Plus the groups were much bigger, allowing testudos.

 

[Obryn]

Well yes, but I mean specifically in terms of balance. Stories have balance. Open-ended games have balance. Balance created by the participants. And in some ways, D&D is losing balance. So I think there's some work to be done there.

D&D's been learning about balance from TV and movies, too, though I didn't think you liked the results? When it comes down to it, this thread is about balanced spotlight-sharing, something good D&D-analogue shows have been doing for a long time. Look at team-oriented shows such as Leverage, Mission: Impossible, the A-Team, and so on. Those shows are very good at sharing the spotlight between the characters, providing unique obstacles only they can overcome, and demonstrating that nobody can do everything. It's balance. Even in Buffy, where she's a superhero and the rest of the characters are mostly just people, the spotlight is shared to a very great extent.

That's the issue here - because the 3.x D&D Wizard is kind of a spotlight hog and a one-man team. That's why the Angel Summoner and BMX bandit thing gets brought up on occasion; because if unbalanced D&D it were a TV show, it would be a poorly-made one. This is another thing which D&D learned from other media in 4e, and a lesson I sincerely hope it maintains. So I'm really glad you brought it up, because this is a critical point.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D's been learning about balance from TV and movies, too, though I didn't think you liked the results?

I'm talking about learning from the people involved in creating those types of fiction. The way balance is created is not through preexisting rules but in a reactive fashion. When one character or other element isn't working, someone calls it out. Then people fix it.

That's how balance really works in D&D. If and when a player does something that's "unbalanced", the DM fixes it, or a consensus of everyone involved fixes it. Creating balance using game rules is about having rules with clear meaning that allow issues to be identified and provide tools for resolving them. That's what 4e (and to some extent 5e) are backing away from.

It is not about legislating balance or building it into the rules themselves. And yet, some have tried to do that anyway. That didn't work out so well.

 

[Obryn]

I'm talking about learning from the people involved in creating those types of fiction. The way balance is created is not through preexisting rules but in a reactive fashion. When one character or other element isn't working, someone calls it out. Then people fix it.

That's how balance really works in D&D. If and when a player does something that's "unbalanced", the DM fixes it, or a consensus of everyone involved fixes it. Creating balance using game rules is about having rules with clear meaning that allow issues to be identified and provide tools for resolving them. That's what 4e (and to some extent 5e) are backing away from.

It is not about legislating balance or building it into the rules themselves. And yet, some have tried to do that anyway. That didn't work out so well.

Saying it can't be through rules is a very arbitary limitation when we're talking about a roleplaying game. That's part of the point - we're using mechanics and - as we agreed - taking lessons from fiction.

The argument here (and elsewhere) is that with the 3.x wizard's mechanics and general lack of downsides, spotlight-sharing through targeted obstacles like you'd see in ensemble-based fiction just doesn't work. In an RPG the rules inform the fiction and vice-versa. If the rules aren't working towards the fictional goal, the rules aren't working. If you take a look at any RPG that is based on a fictional work - such as Star Wars Saga Edition, Call of Cthulhu, Green Ronin's Black Company d20 game, or Buffy/Angel Cinematic Unisystem, getting the rule set just to both match the source media and encourage the sort of gameplay found in the source media are paramount.

So I agree - D&D needs to learn better from fiction. And part of this is through clever and intentional manipulation and correction of the game's rules.

-O