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

[pemerton]

I don't think the casual gamer cares to much about science or philosophy in D&D.

And? What is this apropos of?

 

[Zardnaar]

And? What is this apropos of?

It was a funny appeal to authority by previous poster applying philosophy to opinions.

 

[Voadam]

Balance isn't really a big concern until it hits game wrecking or overshadowing the other players levels. In 5E that's usually level 17 or 18 comparing PCs. Assuming someone knows what they're doing and tries hard enough.

I think it can be a bit more of a concern but still be in a fairly loose good enough category.

In playing Rifts you can see there are wildly variable tiers of character classes in the core book, powerful MDC classes like the Dragon, the Juicer, the big power armor one with the giant boom gun thing, the Ley Line Walker and Techno Wizard and the Super Psy. There are some mid tier classes with OK but inferior stuff compared to the top ones, then bottom tier things like the scholar and city rat who are without MDC stuff and are basically normal people running around next to super powered stuff.

In my group we found it plenty of fun to play Rifts but we were all always top tier classes, there are different options with different mechanics and narratives and feels who can hang together in the same fight and it is close enough and was fun. It would have been terrible to play a scholar and be blown apart automatically in the first hit of a combat.

I consider 4e the best balanced D&D of the various editions. 5e is not as balanced, but is close enough to be not a big concern. 3e had balance as a goal but the execution was not always great and the options and set up allowed enough imbalance to become an issue fairly quickly. Pre 3e D&D has a number of balance issues starting with the thief introduced in OD&D supplement I Greyhawk and running through the whole set, particularly with AD&D stat reverse bell curve bonuses, gatekeeping more powerful classes with high stat requirements, and balancing low level stuff against high level stuff.

In pre-3e AD&D it is easy to avoid playing the low tier not-balanced thief and have plenty of fun options. I think it is better in 4e where IMO a thief is a fantastic class balanced well against other 4e classes and is a great choice for a typical D&D adventure.

Where balance becomes an issue will vary individual to individual, and the line of good enough balance will vary individual to individual as well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Stone is imbalanced, Paper is ok. Best regards, Scissors.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’s hair splitting.

No, its really not. You can design things to maximize sales in all kinds of ways that are actually malign for the end user.

DnD is a product for sale. The system is part of that product. Design goals of the product shape and define the system. Just like how a Hardy Boys novel is written on a certain formula to make it highly accessible to readers.

You can’t separate the two.

I absolutely think you can.

 

[Oofta]

No, its really not. You can design things to maximize sales in all kinds of ways that are actually malign for the end user.

I can't think of any that could apply to D&D.

 

[MGibster]

But it's an instant win to declare the shocking reality that that opinion someone stated.... is an opinion. And they didn't plaster 'IMHO' before every word.

You're not just whistlin' Dixie. I really wish more people would would accept a statement of opinion as an opinion. There is absolutely no reason to reply with "That's just like, your opinion, man." I just don't feel the need to put IMHO in front of every opinion statement I make. IMHO, it's just not necessary.

Edit: Maybe part of the problem is that it's important to prove we're right on the internet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not just whistlin' Dixie. I really wish more people would would accept a statement of opinion as an opinion. There is absolutely no reason to reply with "That's just like, your opinion, man." I just don't feel the need to put IMHO in front of every opinion statement I make. IMHO, it's just not necessary.

Edit: Maybe part of the problem is that it's important to prove we're right on the internet.

Sweeping generalizations that you both don't agree with and are not explicitly stated as opinions tend to get people's backs up. That doesn't make it not their problem, but it is unreasonable to expect such statements to go unchallenged because we need to assume everything is subjective.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let H be any historical event that ever occurred. And let C be some posited cause of that event. There is no scientific proof that C caused H. This is because claims of causation in history are not amenable to scientific demonstration.

It does not therefore follow that all claims about causation in history are purely subjective.

Some people in this thread seem to think the only thing that can be evidentiary are things that can be measured numerically. As I've said, that's quite a take.

 

[MGibster]

Sweeping generalizations that you both don't agree with and are not explicitly stated as opinions tend to get people's backs up. That doesn't make it not their problem, but it is unreasonable to expect such statements to go unchallenged because we need to assume everything is subjective.

Challenging the statement is fine. Getting upset because someone didn't explicitly state it was their opinion is a bit silly. Go ahead and assume I put an IMHO at the beginning of that last sentence.