D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Undrave]

A hero in a world of magic, is one who makes a difference in spite of the many challenges posed by that magic. Not one who's just a pawn in a game of wizards, whose decisions and actions make no difference, who's readily replaceable with a golem or summoned monster or off-the shelf mercenary.
The point of a cooperative game is, similarly, for everyone to contribute to winning the game. You don't win that game by making choices to keep another player down for your own glory. Making good choices needs to stand out as a good contribution - even if, say, they're sacrifices. An option in a cooperative game that requires the player to make decisions that net harm the overall chances of winning, in order to appear to be making an important contribution, is a trap option....

Can I just say this is extremely well put? Love it.

Balance-by-pacing CAN make sense in various contexts, even purely narratively, but not in a cooperative TTRPG game if you ask me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can I just say this is extremely well put? Love it.

Thanks.

Balance-by-pacing CAN make sense in various contexts, even purely narratively, but not in a cooperative TTRPG game if you ask me.

I think balance-by-pacing is pretty awful when it comes to balancing equally-weighted, long-term, player-side choices, like 'Class' in a D&D-style RPG, certainly. OTOH, as an encounter-balancing tool, it can make some sense. That is, it's not a bad thing if a game can make a long enough series of modest encounters as dangerous as one very difficult one - it opens up more possible sources of drama & challenge.

 

[Garthanos]

What's an example of a very - nigh 'perfectly' - balanced game?

Rock paper scissors Roshambo almost utterly balanced feels pointless to most people except it can be sort of "cheated" as people outguessing one another is a real thing. A better example since its less cheatable - tic tac toe - who goes first?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rock paper scissors Roshambo almost utterly balanced feels pointless to most people except it can be sort of "cheated" as people outguessing one another is a real thing. A better example since its less cheatable - tic tac toe - who goes first?

Wasn't asking you. ;P

But, I was half-expecting tic-tac-toe. It's a solved game. The only way to win is for your opponent to make a mistake, otherwise it ends in a draw. It's also not a balanced game as there are few viable choices in correct play (nor is it even fair, as starting first is an advantage - you have more potential opportunities to take advantage of an opponents error), and fewer meaningful choices than there appear to be (the first move appears to be a choice of 9 positions, but the 4 corner positions are equivalent, as are the 4 sides, so there's only 3 meaningful choices).

 

[Campbell]

I come from the perspective that a GM should not be dictating pacing. The length of the adventuring day should be based on decisions players make based on the details of the scenario.

Pacing based balance feels hallow to me because the player gets their moment in the sun because it was given to them. I do not want anything to be given to me. I want to earn it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pacing based balance feels hallow to me because the player gets their moment in the sun because it was given to them. I do not want anything to be given to me. I want to earn it.

You can earn victory, as a party, by carefully choosing your battles so that you're always at maximum resources. The essence of "CaW" style play.
...of course, if you plan to play that way, only resource-heavy classes are viable choices, so pacing-based class balance becomes moot.

 

[Campbell]

You can earn victory, as a party, by carefully choosing your battles so that you're always at maximum resources. The essence of "CaW" style play.
...of course, if you plan to play that way, only resource-heavy classes are viable choices, so pacing-based class balance becomes moot.

Exactly so. I am not personally a fan of the "Combat as War" terminology, but you get the general sense of what I am looking for. Cooperative play where we tackle the scenario using the tools we have together in the manner of our choosing.

I am not opposed to some characters being more tactical while others are more strategic, but the more tactical characters should have access to gameplay that the more strategic characters do not.

 

[Undrave]

Thanks.
I think balance-by-pacing is pretty awful when it comes to balancing equally-weighted, long-term, player-side choices, like 'Class' in a D&D-style RPG, certainly. OTOH, as an encounter-balancing tool, it can make some sense. That is, it's not a bad thing if a game can make a long enough series of modest encounters as dangerous as one very difficult one - it opens up more possible sources of drama & challenge.

Balance-by-pacing could make sense in a competitive tactical game where you command multiple units in limited quantities and the advantage of both need to be weighted carefully.

 

[Garthanos]

Wasn't asking you. ;P

Raspberries to you too... and yes Roshambo is by the way the very first "die" rolling method that Arneson used for D&D so its even in context

It has a form of read the adversary going on that causes some people to actually still like it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Raspberries to you too... and yes Roshambo is by the way the very first "die" rolling method that Arneson used for D&D so its even in context

Funny, they were still doing that in early LARPS, too.

 

[Garthanos]

Funny, they were still doing that in early LARPS, too.

Still are or I have been assuming such, add in a some strategic resources like Fate Points / Hero Points or Some such and its not the worst. If you are only going 3 call em Direct(Rock), Deceptive(Scissors) and Reactive (Paper). 5 is even better though add in Analytical and Chaotic and you can imbalance the win conditions, ahem. Because the flavor of conflict is important. ... and RPS isnt great in that arena

 

[Garthanos]

i cant provide a decent analysis... for DW ... will have to do more analysis of the game itself. Especially with who is fans of the game. Basically if you have to decide to apply the roll without knowing if the roll succeeded in a sense it is wasted ... it might have been better to save it. There are abilities that let you know the roll you are aiding before you spend the resource. Like a bards inspiration die if I recall.

That inspiration die is pretty damn bad-ass really its only positive for allies and I am not even sure why? seems like an alternative of demoralizing the enemy forces with charismatic influence could/should stand right alongside aiding allies.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is what the implications of "tightly balanced" means upon play:

1) Macro (at the overall conflict level and "workday" level, if the system involves such resources scheduling/recharge dynamics) play outcomes have a fairly high level of predictability for GMs.

2) Following from (1) above, GMs can enact mutivariate threats (conflicts with moving parts, stages, and/or short-term downstream effects) with consistent tactical depth (both GM-side and players'-side) and reliably avoid anticlimax.

3) Decision-points have a broad spectrum of action declarations that lead mechanical success.

4) Following from (3) above, a broader spectrum of action declarations leading to mechanical success means that more archetypes can put into action a positive gamestate change (achieving story-trajectory-impact-parity which emerges from gamestate change).

 

[Garthanos]

but the more tactical characters should have access to gameplay that the more strategic characters do not.

What that means is niche protection and I know PF2 is trying but honestly D&D always fails at this.... . The reward garnered by strategic is not just doing what others cannot but also doing what they can more extremely you really really have to remove the latter entirely AND as you say partition off what non-casters can do making it utterly unapproachable without sacrificing the ability to do what non-casters cannot. Basically if skills accomplish things casters cannot... Caster must be lacking access to the skills. (their skill slots are spent on spell casting). Also Note how roles are niches in the combat arena. So it can work. I am just saying it hasn't. These roles are defined in what they accomplish well but all of them work towards a rather singular end goal.

Then there is the very real ambiguity between what is accomplished and method of doing so. In martial arena I cannot teleport us out of danger no and I never will ... but can I warn the party and timed perfectly collapse the roof creating a perfect escape route (see my pet Engineering skill and a recent martial practice)

So far the only way we have had to embrace the above AND to actual balance was to allow everyone to dabble in both tactical and strategic choices and what is so bloody wrong with that? (one is really just a manifestation or implementation of the other sometimes in shorter term but time is arbitrary these are not actually vastly different arenas partitioning them off is artificial) and I think the real biggy is allow skill users the similar extremes of effect casters gain and yeah you might notice that went utterly missing from 5e, skills are now a mother may I game with presumptions of mundanity plastered all over them. Damn it I did it again.

 

[Garthanos]

nor is it even fair, as starting first is an advantage

play to tie...