D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[thecasualoblivion]

Sure it is. In fact I prefer it as a measure to the encounter (personally found 4e encounters very dull because of how they were balanced). Now if you balance over an adventure not every adventure will come yield the same results...and it may vary from group to group...but it produces a much more textured end product where choices matter (and tends to balance out over time). I dont want my thief to match e fighter in combat (i want him to shine in the cities and dungeons). I can accept that in some adventures or in some campaigns this will mean he is going to shine more or less---the trade off is worth it to me. Not everyone wants the extreme parity and balance 4e provided...i was certainly don't.

As you've said, balance isn't a priority to you. I'm saying that if balance is a top priority, balanced over the adventure is not balance.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I am still not interested in Euro style balance of giving people something to do in each part of the game. To me that is not the kind of balance I want at all in an RPG. It takes balance too far for my tastes. There are different ways to do balance. You could balance every aspect of the game for instance (ie everyone has something to do in combat, in exploration, in social situations, in mercantie endeavers, etc)--to me that is dull and uniform. I would much prefer things be balanced around the overall experience of the game so each choice feels unique and matters.

What I am interested in is having the options available from Day 1 to decide which areas my character is useful. I want to, as a Single-Class Fighter, be able to devote attention to Exploration and Interaction - and even minor "martial magic" type abilities. I do not want to be forced to be solely "Combat Dude." And I want the options to be flavorful and make sense. Plus the options should be balanced, so that any trade-off is neither over-powerful or too weak.

 

[Incenjucar]

Again, i dont want to have to work to remove the 4e parity from the core system.

Which is why I suggested that they build the balanced core system, but tuck it under the official, unbalanced system, with some sort of mark so balance fans can scrape off the unbalanced stuff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The adventure really isn't a useful measurement of balance. It just varies too much.

It doesn't vary as much as we might like to think it does.

There are only four basic activities that any D&D character undertakes.

You put those in a goal -> challenge -> reward/failure format, and you've got the necessary bits and fobs for any D&D adventure. Everthything else is just nesting challenges, matryoshka-doll style, to either make the thing bigger or make the thing smaller.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Again, i dont want to have to work to remove the 4e parity from the core system.

And I sure as hell don't want to have to re-write 5E to institute 4E balance if it is not already present. Where does that leave us?

 

[Janaxstrus]

Sure it is. In fact I prefer it as a measure to the encounter (personally found 4e encounters very dull because of how they were balanced). Now if you balance over an adventure not every adventure will come yield the same results...and it may vary from group to group...but it produces a much more textured end product where choices matter (and tends to balance out over time). I dont want my thief to match e fighter in combat (i want him to shine in the cities and dungeons). I can accept that in some adventures or in some campaigns this will mean he is going to shine more or less---the trade off is worth it to me. Not everyone wants the extreme parity and balance 4e provided...i was certainly don't.

Exactly what I want. Over the course of the adventure/campaign, I want each person to have their time. I don't care that the rogue has nothing to do in Encounter X, because he can't sneak attack undead or get through it's DR. I don't care that wizard can't (easily) hurt a golem because it's got SR:All in combat Y.

I do care that over the adventure, the Rogue spotted and disabled a trap that could have crippled the cleric, and dropped a massive hit on the wizard that had paralyzed the fighter, which allowed them to win a battle. I care that wizard's fireball was able to root out some well fortified goblins so the fighter could escape back to the party, or that his dimension door allowed them to quickly reach a balcony where a Lich was raining down devastation.

Whether or not both get to click on "really cool power A" followed by "Sorta Cool Power B" every round is immaterial.

 

[P1NBACK]

This argument goes round and round. Incenjucar keeps insisting we need a 4E core and hack it to suit our needs. We say if we wanted to do that, we'd just play 4E - or better yet, not play 4E and just use AD&D or B/X (which I am).

The good news is that if 5E goes the route of "4E-style balance" there's plenty of designers out there doing it the old school way, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Adventurer Conqueror King, Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, etc. And, those of us interested in playing that way can spend our hard-earned money on those games. Maybe not a win for WotC, but certainly a win for the gamer.

My guess is, Mearls appreciates 4E's neat aspects, but understands that a large D&D player section doesn't like the sterile approach to class design. And, with his OD&D chops, will likely bring back a lot of the stuff that people loved about the old games.

Hopefully, he can create a core framework that is extremely basic, so that issues like this aren't really issues.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As you've said, balance isn't a priority to you. I'm saying that if balance is a top priority, balanced over the adventure is not balance.

No balance is important to me, total parity isn't important to me. I do want balance over an adventure. I just dont need it over each encounter. It is still balance, but the focus is different from where you want it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It doesn't vary as much as we might like to think it does.

There are only four basic activities that any D&D character undertakes.

You put those in a goal -> challenge -> reward/failure format, and you've got the necessary bits and fobs for any D&D adventure. Everthything else is just nesting challenges, matryoshka-doll style, to either make the thing bigger or make the thing smaller.

It's not the activities that vary, its the amounts of various activities and the total amount of all activity added up that vary. It varies from adventure to adventure and from table to table, and you can't balance it across that spectrum using adventure as the standard of measurement. One adventure is going to have one fight, and another will have five, and those adventures won't be balanced against each other. It may, as Bedrockgames puts it, balance out in the long run, but as far as I'm concerned that isn't good enough.

 

[P1NBACK]

Exactly what I want. Over the course of the adventure/campaign, I want each person to have their time. I don't care that the rogue has nothing to do in Encounter X, because he can't sneak attack undead or get through it's DR. I don't care that wizard can't (easily) hurt a golem because it's got SR:All in combat Y.

I do care that over the adventure, the Rogue spotted and disabled a trap that could have crippled the cleric, and dropped a massive hit on the wizard that had paralyzed the fighter, which allowed them to win a battle. I care that wizard's fireball was able to root out some well fortified goblins so the fighter could escape back to the party, or that his dimension door allowed them to quickly reach a balcony where a Lich was raining down devastation.

Whether or not both get to click on "really cool power A" followed by "Sorta Cool Power B" every round is immaterial.

This. Would XP yah, but already have.