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

[Umbran]

Even in that criteria it's easily dismissable. It's philosophy lol.

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.

Mod Note:
So, you laugh at someone else's assertion, claiming it dismissible as "philosophy"

And you counter with... unsupported assertion? Personal experience?

That isn't okay. Be even-handed, or you can take a break from this discussion.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Yeah, I've had great fun in a lot of games with unbalanced classes and options by strictly avoiding the ones that look like they would be not fun for me. I have enjoyed the design of games more where more options were things I did not want to actively avoid.

I wonder where the center of the hobby is on balance. We obviously from this and other threads have people on the side of mathematical balance to various degrees. And we have the opposite as well. We also have the UA which, as the OP indicated, shows that 5e's players don't care as much - or at least don't seem to - as one may have thought.

Makes me wonder if balance is a large indicator of what system you like. I would guess that 5e's detractors like a more balanced game when compared to 5e's enjoyers - on a general level. I think the opposite is, likely, true of Pathfinder 2's players.

I largely agree with you on the "good enough" comment you made earlier in this thread, where for most players it just has to be "good enough." But I do wonder if importance of balance is a signal as to what system you end up preferring. And if the UA votes are because the balance lovers have found other systems leaving 5e with a more balance agnostic player base.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't change the goalposts, I suggested you should be able to figure it out since you didn't drop into the thread in the last few pages. But apparently you were just asking so you could set up an opportunity for a cheap shot because you don't like the way the conversation is going.

Mod Note:
Enough.

I know that repeating yourself can be frustrating, but that frustration is not an excuse for laying about with insults.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks, this thread is 100+ pages long. Frequently, that means that, at least for now, the topic has probably elicited most of the constructive thoughts available. If you're lingering because you can't let someone else have a last word, please rethink your position on that.

 

[Voadam]

Makes me wonder if balance is a large indicator of what system you like. I would guess that 5e's detractors like a more balanced game when compared to 5e's enjoyers - on a general level. I think the opposite is, likely, true of Pathfinder 2's players.

Having played lots of versions of D&D, from B/X to 1e to 2e to 3e to 3.5 to d20 Modern to Pathfinder 1e to 4e to 5e, I consider balance important and I enjoy 5e. It is better balanced than pre-4e D&D and balanced enough for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Having played lots of versions of D&D, from B/X to 1e to 2e to 3e to 3.5 to d20 Modern to Pathfinder 1e to 4e to 5e, I consider balance important and I enjoy 5e. It is better balanced than pre-4e D&D and balanced enough for me.

I'm playing 5E side by side with C&C.

Different xp rates for example aren't a big issue. Rogues buffed over the 2E one.

So it's balanced enough for me the ranger and fighter might be weaker than AD&D equivalent (2E requires an *).

 

[tetrasodium]

I wonder where the center of the hobby is on balance. We obviously from this and other threads have people on the side of mathematical balance to various degrees. And we have the opposite as well. We also have the UA which, as the OP indicated, shows that 5e's players don't care as much - or at least don't seem to - as one may have thought.

Makes me wonder if balance is a large indicator of what system you like. I would guess that 5e's detractors like a more balanced game when compared to 5e's enjoyers - on a general level. I think the opposite is, likely, true of Pathfinder 2's players.

I largely agree with you on the "good enough" comment you made earlier in this thread, where for most players it just has to be "good enough." But I do wonder if importance of balance is a signal as to what system you end up preferring. And if the UA votes are because the balance lovers have found other systems leaving 5e with a more balance agnostic player base.

I think that there are different kinds of (im)balance & not all of them are equally problematic or unfun. Since RIFTS☆ came up earlier I'll use it's MDC dragonPC/glitterboy literal (MDCrailgun equipped mecha pilot/hobo pc ("hobo" is literally a PC option & that's not innuendo or slang) it makes for a good example of why not all (im)balance is equal. unkillable godlike PCs existing in a world of cardboard where the only risk is fiat creates very different balance problems because the PCs cannot really be challenged or put at risk without doing so through fiat & similar methods that feel unfun.

The difference is that the gonzo system includes both tools to challenge the strongest PCs (ie creatures coalition forces etc) and gear that will bring up the weaker PCs to a level where they can contribute as more than a puff of red mist. At the other end you have "(im)balance" where the unfun result tends towards players of some PCs feeling like irredeemable baggage & others bored unless they are being unfairly bludgeoned by fiat in ways that often feels unfair.

☆I've played RIFTS & many years ago even ran it a couple times. Holy heck it's hilariously broken in a lot of ways, but that's the expectation & thee GM never feels helplessly disarmed of tools to elevate or challenge PCs as justified without needing to use fiat.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't change the goalposts, I suggested you should be able to figure it out since you didn't drop into the thread in the last few pages. But apparently you were just asking so you could set up an opportunity for a cheap shot because you don't like the way the conversation is going.

Look, if you're that irritable about how this conversation (not just mine, but other people with the same position) is going, I know there's a report button right there.

My position is fairly clear. I think that for a TTRPG, the only thing that matters is do people enjoy playing the game, which can be measured by sales and increasing sales numbers. I was responding to a statement that had nothing to do with D&D or the quality of the game, because I don't see any relevance to the conversation. Your response didn't refute my position or give reasons why in the case of D&D it is not a reasonable measure, you just stated that only your definition of quality mattered.

NOTE: there are obviously games that do not sell well that are well designed, lack of sales does not inherently indicate lack of sales although lack of sales can be caused by low quality.

And ... I really didn't mean to get pulled back into this. I was just pointing out that what you stated had no bearing on my position. You can disagree with my position, that's fine.

EDIT: didn't see the mod note. Sorry.

 

[Oofta]

Having played lots of versions of D&D, from B/X to 1e to 2e to 3e to 3.5 to d20 Modern to Pathfinder 1e to 4e to 5e, I consider balance important and I enjoy 5e. It is better balanced than pre-4e D&D and balanced enough for me.

There will always be imbalance in some areas because it's a group activity with different PCs contributing in different ways. It only becomes an issue to me if people are frustrated by one player dominating play. But in 5E? I find that the person dominating play is either fixed by the DM offering a variety of challenges or it's a personality issue with the player that has little to do with the game.

 

[Hussar]

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 absolutely think you can.

Sure you probably can “maximize sales in all kinds of ways that are malign”. Did 5e designers do that?