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

[pemerton]

Sorry, no. Since the premise baked into a “+” thread is “no dissenting sentiment is permitted” it is not a trustworthy source for showing something is logically consistent

You can read the actual play and see for yourself. It's not written in code or anything!

 

[Xenolith234]

No it doesn't. You asserted that players are "trained" by a ruleset. @EzekielRaiden responded that the direction of causation is the opposite: that players have a preference, and the ruleset - in pursuit of popularity - has come increasingly to reflect that preference.

The problem is that players will always outnumber DMs if it’s a popularity vote for rules, and given the opportunity, will optimize the fun out of the game. People, and consumers, are notoriously unreliable at presenting fixes to things they see as problems.

 

[pemerton]

The problem is that players will always outnumber DMs if it’s a popularity vote for rules, and given the opportunity, will optimize the fun out of the game.

If a GM and a group of players are looking for fundamentally different play experiences, then they shouldn't be trying to play together. That's a recipe for bad play!

 

[Oofta]

The problem is that players will always outnumber DMs if it’s a popularity vote for rules, and given the opportunity, will optimize the fun out of the game. People, and consumers, are notoriously unreliable at presenting fixes to things they see as problems.

So you're saying that it's a problem if people enjoy the game they're playing? Because that's not as simple as giving players an "I win" button, at least for most players that would be boring.

 

[Xenolith234]

So you're saying that it's a problem if people enjoy the game they're playing? Because that's not as simple as giving players an "I win" button, at least for most players that would be boring.

Not at all, but it can and does come to the detriment of DMs due to missing the potential of a fleshed-out game. The default play style has changed, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting it to be better/different or at least provided with solid variant rules to tailor it to different desires. The default playstyle was different before, and now it’s something else. Designers could’ve just as easily retained the older playstyle and provide variants for lighter play, more social mechanics, less death, etc. But they didn’t. They threw it away and offered very little to replace it. That’s all this comes down to across all legacy DMs who miss the older style, IMO.

Sure, we can all play older versions, but we don’t want to be left in the dust. We want the new shiny material, but also to be supported in our varying playstyles. If the game was more challenging across tiers - exploration and combat, what stops you from just making it easier? Why is it folks that want it more challenging that are in the wrong? I’m not saying your playstyle is wrong at all, but that there should be (and can be) room for all of ours.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The problem is that players will always outnumber DMs if it’s a popularity vote for rules, and given the opportunity, will optimize the fun out of the game. People, and consumers, are notoriously unreliable at presenting fixes to things they see as problems.

Which is why I advocate for D&D to be run as an oligarchy where a few select elite shape the game for the masses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Rage uses-per-day is a meta-currency: it is regained on a long rest, and expended at the choice of the player.

There is no meta-currency for courage in D&D, because players have an unlimited power to choose for their PCs to be fearless. The fiction would actually become more realisitc if this was rationed via meta-currency, because at least sometimes (ie when the players choose not to spend their currency) the PCs might break as their courage fails them.

I'll also note that the notion of "whether or not you die" mattering is a narrative or game-play notion, not a notion that pertains to realism of the fiction!

You obviously can't have realism in everything, so my preference is to at least put in important things like life and death.

 

[Oofta]

Not at all, but it can and does come to the detriment of DMs due to missing the potential of a fleshed-out game. The default play style has changed, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting it to be better/different or at least provided with solid variant rules to tailor it to different desires. The default playstyle was different before, and now it’s something else. Designers could’ve just as easily retained the older playstyle and provide variants for lighter play, more social mechanics, less death, etc. But they didn’t. They threw it away and offered very little to replace it. That’s all this comes down to across all legacy DMs who miss the older style, IMO.

Sure, we can all play older versions, but we don’t want to be left in the dust. We want the new shiny material, but also to be supported in our varying playstyles. If the game was more challenging across tiers - exploration and combat, what stops you from just making it easier? Why is it folks that want it more challenging that are in the wrong? I’m not saying your playstyle is wrong at all, but that there should be (and can be) room for all of ours.

The game honestly doesn't play much different for me and I've been playing pretty much since the beginning. I've never enjoyed high lethality games so we just ignored stuff we thought was stupid. On the other hand, it's really not that hard to challenge PCs if you try, I've come close to more than a few TPKs in 5E and PC death is never off the table.

I guarantee you can make 5E lethal if that's what you and your group wants. On the other hand no game, no style of play, is going to work for everyone. I've discussed lethality level and how likely death is for decades now. If the people you play with want something different than what you want, that's not a problem with the system, or to be honest, the players. It's a mismatch of expectations and that has nothing to do with the game you're playing.

 

[tetrasodium]

I hate how 5e has corrupted discussion of risk & lethality in TTRPGs to the point where anything shy of

Spoiler: this

D&D 5E - Does “Whack-A-Mole” Healing really happen in games?

I’ve experienced a lot of 5e D&D over the years with players of varied play-styles, and at every level. I have never once seen players purposefully wait to heal someone until they drop to 0 hp, nor has dropping to 0 hp ever felt like a trivial matter. It makes me wonder if the whole phenomenon...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E Does “Whack-A-Mole” Healing really happen in games?​

• Thread starterRune
• Start dateDec 26, 2020

Does “whack-a-mole” healing really happen?​

• Yes.​

  Votes: 8074.1%

• No.​

  Votes: 2825.9%

is deemed to be "high lethality" as if it instantly crosses past the meatgrinder territory of DCC's most lethal funnel sessions possible

 

[Hussar]

The game honestly doesn't play much different for me and I've been playing pretty much since the beginning. I've never enjoyed high lethality games so we just ignored stuff we thought was stupid. On the other hand, it's really not that hard to challenge PCs if you try, I've come close to more than a few TPKs in 5E and PC death is never off the table.

I guarantee you can make 5E lethal if that's what you and your group wants. On the other hand no game, no style of play, is going to work for everyone. I've discussed lethality level and how likely death is for decades now. If the people you play with want something different than what you want, that's not a problem with the system, or to be honest, the players. It's a mismatch of expectations and that has nothing to do with the game you're playing.

Like I said before, adding lethality isn't actually all that challenging. Heck, remove death saves. Poof, instantly lethal game. Or reduce death saves. Use nastier baddies. Use baddies that bypass HP to kill PC's - I watched a 4th level ranger go from full to instant dead from a crit from a wraith.

I just don't get the notion that 5e can't be made higher lethality. If your game isn't featuring events that are dangerous enough in your mind, then that's on you. There are just far too many tools at hand to increase the lethality and danger in the game.