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

[Oofta]

• I didn't say anything about a "perfect game?"

I was just referring to the "best designed" game. Because that always comes back to "best designed for whom".

• Good call on CR switching from PF to 5e. Yup!
• I'm accounting for CR's upward popularity curve... I don't understand your saying that there's minimal correlation between ST and CR. I'd be interested to see this graph you're citing!

I really, really wish I could find it myself! Basically it shows a steady upward trend in estimated sales from the very start that went for a few years (the end of the graph). I'll look again later and see if I can find it.

• "Virtually any game could have taken advantage of this, but they didn't." Actually... they did? A lot of TTRPGs were born from the events you mentioned, the indie TTRPG scene has exploded. But DnD is huge and has name recognition, and grows from its popularity. People from outside of TTRPGs have heard of DnD, but chances are they haven't heard of Pathfinder. "The big hamburger boom happened, why didn't Mom and Pop burger shop take advantage of it like McDonalds did?" They probably saw some success, but to suggest that they have the same sort of opportunities as McDonalds suggests ignorance..

Well, I admit I don't pay that much attention, the few I am aware of are D&D. Doesn't mean there aren't a ton of other systems out there of course!

• "We don't know and never will," I know that's probably true but then what's the point of saying both this, and all your other justifications to support your assertions?

Because I don't claim to be omniscient?

• "I and the people I play with have fun and have no problem attracting players if we need to. That's all that matters to me." Clearly more matters to you, you've been arguing on some of its behalf here. It's great that you're having fun, and you have the privilege of having no trouble attracting players for the game system you prefer

If we really want to look at popularity my general go-to would be stats for fantasy grounds or roll 20. Fantasy Grounds has shown D&D 5E at a little over 70% of the games being played. I should note that the reference I found was from 2020, but IIRC other people have posted that it's still around the same

So I'm not saying D&D is the best game, that there aren't other great games. On the other hand I do look into a handful of other games at times. But talking to friends that tried PF, the game just doubled down on what made 3.5 semi-broken and all about character build expertise. I've also watched some streams on Dungeonworld for example, one of many PbtA games. It just wasn't for me and I can see why many if not most of the people I play with would likely not care for it. It's great for some people of course, but most people I play with? Even though we get together on a regular basis and have fun, they're quite casual about the rules of the game even if many get invested in the character they're playing.

The casual approach to the game that many people have also explains why 5E was more successful than, say 3.x to me. I had a lot of fun with 3E but I like reading the manual PHB and supplement books cover to cover and then figuring out options that work well. It's part of the fun for me, even if I don't go to the extent of a lot of optimizers looking for edge cases. But it was intimidating to a lot of people when some grognard would eventually tell them their PC would be oh so much better if only they had [insert gamer speak]. You can build a decent PC in 5E without having a firm understanding of all the rules and variants.

D&D 5E has broad appeal in my opinion because it's easy to play for the casual gamer (don't underestimate the cost of learning a system as a barrier to entry), interesting enough for a lot of experienced players. Of course my experience like everyone's is anecdotal, but I've also played with and DMed several groups over the years, including dozens of people in 5E.

And now I'm just rambling and don't really have a point. Other than perhaps debating my life choices of cutting back on caffeine this week.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You want me to actually name names? Fine. I hate doing that, but you have demanded I do so, so I will. The main two I can remember off the top of my head are @Lanefan and @Maxperson. The former has explicitly said to me, despite my efforts to find any other avenue, that a DM-player arms race is not only good and proper but absolutely correct, and that players actively misbehaving for their own jollies, regardless of the consequences that has for other people at the table, is their inherent right. He actively rejected any notion of needing to be a "responsible adult" at the game table.

Then it's a miscommunication. I don't see @Lanefan 's attitude as actively hostile or antagonist to players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not about what is likely to happen. It's about what can happen, what could logically make sense and follow from events in the setting. It's also about avoiding as much as possible taking actions as a player that aren't from your PCs perspective or within the scope of that PCs knowledge.

I'm getting very tired of the, "all or nothing" realism argument.

Then why are you the one demanding all realism, all the time, never anything else?

I'm not the one demanding all or nothing here! I'm responding to an all-or-nothing argument and calling out how the all-or-nothing is a problem!

 

[Micah Sweet]

So all classes have to be magical now?


See above.

Of course not. Five Level Up classes in the core book (more in the sci-fi supplement) have no supernatural base. But magical options and non-magical ones are equally valid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course not. Five Level Up classes in the core book (more in the sci-fi supplement) have no supernatural base. But magical options and non-magical ones are equally valid.

But you've already admitted that magic is the universal excuse for open violations of the principle you're claiming to apply.

That means one group now has an infinitely-reusable excuse to never actually have that limit, and the other group is always subject to that limit, no matter what.

This is not an acceptable situation. Either both sides actually need to be held to the same standard consistently, or the standard needs to be revised so that it isn't consistently punitive to one and totally permissive to the other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why are you the one demanding all realism, all the time, never anything else?

I'm not the one demanding all or nothing here! I'm responding to an all-or-nothing argument and calling out how the all-or-nothing is a problem!

I'm responding to the argument (mostly from @pemerton ) that, because mirroring reality isn't completely possible, then the entire concept should be abandoned (perhaps in favor of Pemerton's preferred narrative approach? That's just speculation of course), with the strong implication that continuing to try is in some way delusional.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But you've already admitted that magic is the universal excuse for open violations of the principle you're claiming to apply.

That means one group now has an infinitely-reusable excuse to never actually have that limit, and the other group is always subject to that limit, no matter what.

This is not an acceptable situation. Either both sides actually need to be held to the same standard consistently, or the standard needs to be revised so that it isn't consistently punitive to one and totally permissive to the other.

It's acceptable to me. Some things are magical and can do stuff you can't without it, and some things aren't. Plenty of fiction works this way, if you interested in emulating fiction. And rulesets can be fair to both. Level Up is fair enough to both to suit me. So are several others.

You are IMO overstating your case.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. In a way that actively conflicts with and denies reality. That's the whole point. It absolutely IS a meta-decision, specifically for that reason.

This makes no sense at all. You're just making objections based on nothing. Rage is a thing the barbarian can decide to evoke; they do so. It's not that difficult.

And see, this is exactly where I see a straight-up hypocritical contradiction. There is no difference between these two things. Yet you claim that one is fine, if a little weird, while the other is absolutely, totally verboten.

Doing something four times between ~two combats vs doing it once between each combat is not that different. Yet somehow you think they are WORLDS apart, even though--other than happening somewhere between "twice as often" and "about as often"--they are exactly the same.

Unless and until you can articulate a real difference between these things, your position is in no way a commentary on the nature of the abilities. It's a complaint about which edition published them.

You didn't need to interpret them that way in 4e either. Yet you chose to then. That's the point.

I did not interpret them as meta in 4e either, and I did not say they're worlds apart. This is just your edition war trauma talking. Both are weird, but yes, I do think 5e approach is less weird. I would prefer if the ability to do stunts was tied to something more concrete than it currently is though.

"No, it isn't!"

We can play the "I just reject what you say" game forever, but I consider it pretty pointless to do so. I articulated why. If you're actually going to respond, as in, taking the argument seriously and addressing why it's wrong, then I'm all ears. Until then? I'm going to take such meaningless responses as evidence you don't actually have an argument.


That is precisely why you can't feel them!

You can feel an image of them. You can model an approximation of them. But you cannot feel those exact same feelings. They are, always and inherently, at an arm's length from you. It would be a mental illness to ACTUALLY feel those feelings 100% as if they were really happening to you, because that would mean you couldn't actually distinguish imagination from reality.


"Get really close" = "actually there." That's...kind of the point. This isn't a mathematical limit. There is always, always a gap, so long as you aren't mistaking imagination for reality. And God, I certainly hope you aren't doing that.

This is just silly pedantry. Of course it is not exactly the same than literally being there, but that's the goal. And you can get pretty close too. Have you ever been in a good atmospheric LARP?

 

[ezo]

You are IMO overstating your case.

It's why I stopped replying. I just don't care enough about it to argue about it anymore.

Realism in fantasy (as you understand) is a good thing IMO. Death saves (vs. players getting to choose "to let their PC die") is part of that.

If you want to continue it, more power to you!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's acceptable to me. Some things are magical and can do stuff you can't without it, and some things aren't. Plenty of fiction works this way, if you interested in emulating fiction. And rulesets can be fair to both. Level Up is fair enough to both to suit me. So are several others.

You are IMO overstating your case.

Well, as I've said several times: Level Up isn't accessible to me. I would further argue isn't accessible to at least a plurality of people who play 5e, because, as a thread we have on this very forum has recently demonstrated, there are quite a few folks with a strident antipathy for anything that isn't 100% pure first-party content. Hell, even much of first-party content is considered suspect the way a lot of people act! I've seen more than a few people at absolute best giving the stink-eye to the Artificer simply because it's an additional class and not present in the PHB.

The case isn't overstated for folks stuck in as-written 5e, regardless of when the books were published.