D&D 5E Concept of Perfect Imbalance for DndNext Game Design

[CAFRedblade]

A very good (although Video Game centric) talk on game design concept of creating Perfect Imbalance.

Penny Arcade - Extra Credits – Perfect Imbalance

Balance is a tricky thing to design, and while you don't want things to directly fall back into a version of Rock/Paper/Scissors, I do think that each class should do something(s) really well, and can/could be countered by another class under the right set of circumstances. ( not that I'm advocating pvp )

But this hearkens to the idea that each character should be able to "shine" at different points of an adventure.
I think this concept should be reflected in some monster design as well, as a few monsters of old required certain counters to combat them effectively.

I think the initial 4th edition mechanics might have gone too far in this respect of perfect balance in the mechanics, making everything the same format, they improved upon it with the essentials versions of the base classes. Although some of the class structure is now fixed. (trade off of good and bad)

And similarly for 4th ed Monster design, they eased back on the traditional save/die mechanic, which allows for safer use of these monsters in combat, but, in my opinion reduces their effectiveness.

I realize that some of this is partial to play style of particular players, but the idea of Perfect Imbalance should be there in the core system to some degree for both Class/characters, and World Design/Monsters.

 

[Savage Wombat]

While I support any mention of Extra Credits, I don't really feel that what they were saying quite applies here.

Since "perfect imbalance" as they described results in better gameplay through the natural push-pull dynamic of competing players, it doesn't quite fit the D&D experience. You don't want players to say "oh, wizards are the toughest, we'll all play wizards until the DM starts using exclusively monsters that mess with wizards - and then we'll start playing fighters in response" - if nothing else, the constant changeover of characters is distracting to D&D campaigns.

However, your point of how "characters shine at different times" is a worthy discussion topic. My only problem is that it requires a lot of DM work.

 

[Jester David]

Perfect imbalance works a little better in a competitive PvP environment and less-so in a cooperative game like D&D. At least not from a player perspective where balanced yet different options are key.

It might work well for a way of thinking of monsters. Where you can have monsters that are more powerful or defy the standard method of killing. The DM presents the hard-to-defeat monster and it is up to the PCs to figure out an alternate strategy or tactical plan to achieve victory.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This reminds me of Sirlin's discinction between global balance and local balance, from this article:

Does every possible situation in a game even need to be fair to both players?
Answer: definitely not.

Remember that I defined fairness by the overall chance of winning, given different starting options. Think of that as a global term, in that it applies to the game as a whole from the start of gameplay until someone wins. But the local level, meaning a particular situation in the middle of gameplay, does NOT need to be fair. Even symmetric games like Chess are supposed to have unfair situations. When you have 3 pieces left and the other guy has 9 pieces left, it’s supposed to be unfair to you. Or in StarCraft, if we find that two Zealots beat (or lose to) 8 Zerglings--even though they cost the same resources to make--that is perfectly fine. We don’t care if local situations like that are unfair or not, we only care if Protoss is fair against Zerg.

What's the deal with the annoying voice modulation on the Extra Credits guy, anyway?

 

[n00bdragon]

I think the initial 4th edition mechanics might have gone too far in this respect of perfect balance in the mechanics, making everything the same format, they improved upon it with the essentials versions of the base classes. Although some of the class structure is now fixed. (trade off of good and bad)

To steal a video game example this is like saying that because every class in Team Fortress 2 has a primary, a secondary, and a melee weapon that they are all "perfectly balanced" and samey. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't really think you understand the difference between having a similar format and number of options and actual mechanical balance (perfect or imperfect).

If you want D&D to be a good game you have to put everything on the table and be willing to ask yourself "does this make game better?" instead of "is this D&D?" The standardization between mechanical options and presentation in 4e was an excellent step forward that allowed people to examine exactly what effects certain pieces of the game were having in much more detail than before when class abilities where haphazard jumble and almost entirely rule-of-thumb.

 

[BobTheNob]

In a DM+Players setup I think balance is important. More recently though I have come to the conclussion that its not the most important facet of play and it is possible to sacrifice good game elements to achieve it, and I just dont want any 5e design to go into that trap.

FWIW the video was interesting. A meta-analysis of game design which was relevant to where game design has evolved to. I do think there is a certain parallel between Computer game design and table-top game design, but it is a line one must tread carefully. To forget the strengths of TT gaming (mainly improvisation and creativity) in order to create superlative mechanics is nothing short of a sin.

 

[Savage Wombat]

What's the deal with the annoying voice modulation on the Extra Credits guy, anyway?

Would you rather he sounded like Mr. Plinkett from Red Letter Media?

 

[ComradeGnull]

If you want D&D to be a good game you have to put everything on the table and be willing to ask yourself "does this make game better?" instead of "is this D&D?"

Whether or not this is actually true is the crux of the dispute between two major constituencies that WotC is trying to please: those that think good ideas should go in 5e because they are good ideas, and those that think good ideas should go into 5e if and only if they do not move the game away from its precursors in a jarring way.

 

[dkyle]

I don't think this concept applies to D&D. The argument in the video is about fostering a metagame, but there can't really be a metagame to D&D, at least not the type they're talking about. The video should not be construed as a justification for imbalance in PnP RPGs.

The video's arguments also have nothing to do with allowing different characters to "shine" at different places in the adventure, because that is not in any way in opposition to perfect balance. A good, perfectly balanced system would allow different characters to shine at different places in the adventure. Perfect balance does not imply sameness.

Nor does the video have anything to do with the "format" of abilities, or save or dies.

Basically, the OP is completely unrelated to the content of that video in any way other than linking to it.

 

[Cadfan]

An RPG is literally the last plausible place to use the "perfect imbalance" concept described in the video. Literally the absolute least.

Notice at the end where he described how you need

1: Choices to counter each other
2: Players to have the freedom to switch between the various choices in reaction to one another?

None of those happen in an RPG. The players' choices don't counter each other, they hopefully counter the DM. The players don't have the freedom to switch between different options. There is a metagame, but the players don't create it and the players can't adjust to it without rolling or rewriting a character.