D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Vaalingrade]

Na they went with 6'8 encounters based on polling.

You mean polling the older players who rioted while they were still taking test-swings with their pitchforks?

 

[Baron Opal II]

If someone picks a D tier option we tell them or as DM I'll buff it.

Where would I find a listing of those in general?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Encounter-based design.

There would still be per-encounter attrition, but everything resets after each encounter and no one has to care about tracking things throughout the day.

The issue with this is that it means that either we must introduce new mechanical stakes that somehow are not a type of attrition, (so any sort of injury is out) or the only thing that can be mechanically at stake at the encounter is a character death, and once we get resurrection magic, a TPK.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The issue with this is that it means that either we must introduce new mechanical stakes that somehow are not a type of attrition, (so any sort of injury is out) or the only thing that can be mechanically at stake at the encounter is a character death, and once we get resurrection magic, a TPK.

Or we could set actual character-based stakes instead of defaulting the maximum boredom in the form of death.

The party fails to get the MacGuffin, the party misses a transport they need to make it somewhere they want to be. The Party can't make contact with the person they need information from. The party isn't trusted for bigger jobs from their benefactors.

We as creators have gotten impossibly lazy and complacent with the easy shock button of death and escalation to the point that we can't even fathom stakes aside from it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or we could set actual character-based stakes instead of defaulting the maximum boredom in the form of death.

The party fails to get the MacGuffin, the party misses a transport they need to make it somewhere they want to be. The Party can't make contact with the person they need information from. The party isn't trusted for bigger jobs from their benefactors.

We as creators have gotten impossibly lazy and complacent with the easy shock button of death and escalation to the point that we can't even fathom stakes aside from it.

Those sort of stakes are indeed better. But they're way harder to come by. This is a mass market game that is also played by literal kids. There needs to be easy default mechanical stakes for combats.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Those sort of stakes are indeed better. But they're way harder to come by. This is a mass market game that is also played by literal kids. There needs to be easy default mechanical stakes for combats.

I think kids can understand the concept of missing the bus.

I think kids understand the permanency and story-ruining power of death less.

 

[Clint_L]

In a game where players are measured by Hitpoints gear and stuff that make them harder to hit and let them do more damage how do you get rid of attrition?

You create rarer but harder encounters, and add environmental and/or strategic elements at the same time. It takes more DM planning and there is more chance of getting it wrong, in my experience. But I do it because I don't enjoy attrition-style play; I think combat is generally the least interesting part of D&D, and I'm not interested in having more of it just to burn off resources before the fight that actually means something in terms of story beats.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think kids can understand the concept of missing the bus.

Im sure they do. But scenarios where there are constantly these story stakes are way harder to build. I think this is pretty obvious. I just don't think D&D is a right game for this sort of thing, it might work for something more narrative. Though even most narrative games have some sort of attrition.

I think kids understand the permanency and story-ruining power of death less.

That is easy to understand. But the point with attrition is that you actually don't need to meet the death, for things to go badly. You can be injured, you can be out of powerful magic. Without attrition you need to lean on death as consequence way more, as none of these more incremental consequences exist. Attrition is a very useful game design tool, and I think your desire to jettison it is misguided.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Im sure they do. But scenarios where there are constantly these story stakes are way harder to build.

Maybe we should have like a book that guides DMs to build satisfying game narratives...

... and then remove all that helpful kind of guidance to jaw about the planes and Greyhawk.

That is easy to understand.

Then why do so few writers understand it and why is it the core of most human superstition?

But the point with attrition is that you actually don't need to meet the death, for things to go badly.

Without any guidance to gauge the effects of that attrition, it's just a crapshoot that means nothing.

Without attrition you need to lean on death as consequence way more

No. You don't. I just listed a bunch of alternate consequences that were waved aside with the idea that people are incapable of conceiving of the thing I just easily conceived of because I am a living human that existing the world and has experienced non-death consequences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe we should have like a book that guides DMs to build satisfying game narratives...

... and then remove all that helpful kind of guidance to jaw about the planes and Greyhawk.


Then why do so few writers understand it and why is it the core of most human superstition?



Without any guidance to gauge the effects of that attrition, it's just a crapshoot that means nothing.



No. You don't. I just listed a bunch of alternate consequences that were waved aside with the idea that people are incapable of conceiving of the thing I just easily conceived of because I am a living human that existing the world and has experienced non-death consequences.

Write that game then if it is so easy. There is a reason why this is not how it is usually done.