D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Obryn]

Not me. I'm perfectly fine with games that are not balanced. I had lots of fun with 1e-3e and 5e, none of which were even close to being balanced. Had a blast with Marvel Superheroes in the 80's and 90's(not balanced).

You know that's unrelated to the argument you just made, right? Enjoy the games you enjoy, godspeed.

I ran Marvel FASERIP myself last year. It worked less well than I had remembered from playing it in the mid 80's - the chart was a bear, and a few other things - but it was a good time overall. Next supers game, we'll try something else, maybe Marvel Heroic.

 

[ccs]

Also, drow. Yeah. Why is painting the *sole* matriarchy of black-skinned people as inherently backstabbingly evil and chaotic and misandric a problem....? Any guesses?

The problem lies with the reader, not the source material.

 

[Lanefan]

The primary problem with balance over time is that it assumes a group will start at first level

Yes, as far as I'm concerned that's a given.

and advance enough levels for it to kick in.

This, I admit, is more of a headache. Most games manage at least 1-10, though, so if things even out over that span you're probably more or less good.

When I played BECMI, AD&D 2e, and 3e, a lot of people started at third level just to have some measure of survivability. Plus, few campaigns ever had characters get very far into the double digits, especially the classes that were designed to shine at later levels and who advanced at slower rates in BECMI & 2e.

I'd never start at anything except 1st (and what is this strange thing you call 'survivability'?) but when I'm tweaking stuff I try to look at 1-10 or maybe 1-12 instead of 1-15 or 1-20.

If you balance at the character level, then you can start at any level, play to any level, or even never gain any levels at all and be balanced for the whole run.

True, though at cost of denying or closing off some design options.

But yeah, you are right on one level. If I allow that E Coli contaminated beef is OK, I've opened myself up to a huge amount of new culinary experiences.

You're equating longitudinal balance to poison?

Bang out of line.

In a game where a party can spend weeks, months, or the entirety of the campaign at a given level... that's not "micro balance" any more.

I've seen (and run) campaigns that spent weeks and-or months at each level - in fact, that's what I prefer - but never seen an entire campaign (other than one-offs) stay at one level. Sometimes macro balance does take years to manifest, but then my campaigns tend to be many years long.

I think Dungeon Crawl Classics, for example, is an outstanding game, and it sticks to unified advancement and gives all the classes cool things to do at each level.

DCC is fine unless you're a wizard, in which case the only question is how long it takes you to turn yourself into a twisted wreck of your former self because of all the side effects of casting. I found the system really appealing (for example I love love love the funnel method of character generation!) until I hit that bit, which turned me off it. I thought about ways to tweak it out but couldn't find anything that worked while keeping the spirit of the system vaguely intact...and so, I didn't change to it.

Lan-"the best use for 'balance' is as an old restricted white Magic card that could save your bacon in an otherwise lost game"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

You know that's unrelated to the argument you just made, right? Enjoy the games you enjoy, godspeed.

I ran Marvel FASERIP myself last year. It worked less well than I had remembered from playing it in the mid 80's - the chart was a bear, and a few other things - but it was a good time overall. Next supers game, we'll try something else, maybe Marvel Heroic.

Enjoying unbalanced games is unrelated to balance being a myth? In every game that I have played, and I've played a lot more than I listed previously, and in every game that I've read through, but didn't play, there were obvious better choices. That shouldn't be the case in any RPG that has anything resembling balance. That's okay, though. It's the imbalance that makes games fun.

 

[Obryn]

Enjoying unbalanced games is unrelated to balance being a myth? In every game that I have played, and I've played a lot more than I listed previously, and in every game that I've read through, but didn't play, there were obvious better choices. That shouldn't be the case in any RPG that has anything resembling balance. That's okay, though. It's the imbalance that makes games fun.

Who ever said people can't enjoy unbalanced games? You're introducing arguments nobody is making. On the more extreme end, Buffy/Angel and the Doctor Who RPG are intentionally unbalanced.

People can even enjoy terrible games. Tons of people still play Munchkin, for example.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Maxperson]

Who ever said people can't enjoy unbalanced games? You're introducing arguments nobody is making. On the more extreme end, Buffy/Angel and the Doctor Who RPG are intentionally unbalanced.

People can even enjoy terrible games. Tons of people still play Munchkin, for example.

Munchkin roleplaying or the card game? The card game is great. I haven't seen the roleplaying game.

Also, quit dodging and respond to the argument that I made that there is no such thing as a balanced RPG. Even that first "response" you made was a dodge and not really a response. In every RPG yet made there are obvious unbalanced better choices to be made. Balance is a pipe dream.

 

[Obryn]

Munchkin roleplaying or the card game? The card game is great. I haven't seen the roleplaying game.

Also, quit dodging and respond to the argument that I made that there is no such thing as a balanced RPG. Even that first "response" you made was a dodge and not really a response. In every RPG yet made there are obvious unbalanced better choices to be made. Balance is a pipe dream.

Munchkin the Card Game. And yeah, it's a wretchedly-designed game, but people still have a blast with it. More power to them; leave me out.

And I did. My answer is that you have a really sophomoric definition of "balance" if you think that's what it means. I also think it's so far afield of the OP's question that it's some pretty extreme thread drift, so I'd rather not go down this absurd tangent with you.

 

[Maxperson]

And I did. My answer is that you have a really sophomoric definition of "balance" if you think that's what it means.

This is a non-response response, though. It boils down to, "Nuh uh!", which I've rejected since elementary school when it came into prominence.

I also think it's so far afield of the OP's question that it's some pretty extreme thread drift, so I'd rather not go down this absurd tangent with you.

I can respect not wanting to move the thread off topic further. If you have a real response, feel free to PM me with it.

 

[cheeseguy]

Hmm no I preferbly like the limit breaks of normal means for PCs(now a gnome with 20str and a human with 20str are powerful however I wouldn't say they can do the same thing perhaps the gnome having normal human strength, like a 14-15 at most) but it adds to character creativity. Adds to the fun.

A female elf wanted to break the normal boundaries of her elven kind being seen as weak and atop of being female she sought to break that barrier. Just an example.

But like I mentioned before, an orc having 20str is still stronger than a human having 20str. So the DM and players have to take note of this playing characters.



Sent from my Z963VL using EN World mobile app

 

[Obryn]

This is a non-response response, though. It boils down to, "Nuh uh!", which I've rejected since elementary school when it came into prominence.

I can respect not wanting to move the thread off topic further. If you have a real response, feel free to PM me with it.

Nah, that doesn't sound enlightening, engaging, or fun, so I'll pass.

But seriously, play and enjoy the games you enjoy.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk