D&D 5E Encounter Balance holds back 5E

[jayoungr]

So you do genuinely think resource management isn't fundamental to 5e, and yet you don't want to actually address what I and Micah said?

It's a big and multifaceted game. Resource management is one part of it among many. Claiming that it is "fundamental" is, in my opinion, overstating the case and elevating a particular playstyle as the "one true way."

 

[Emberashh]

It's a big and multifaceted game. Resource management is one part of it among many. Claiming that it is "fundamental" is, in my opinion, overstating the case and elevating a particular playstyle as the "one true way."

For one, your opinion is a massive straw man, as nobody was saying that (unless I missed it, but I'd be surprised if I did).

And no, resource management is fundamental. Its how the classes are designed and its how everything is classified.

5e at the end of day is and always has been 4e with the parts grognards didn't like filed off and renamed. To say it isn't about resource management is just indicative that you've never played the game how it recommends that it be played.

Which is fine, that is in fact allowed. But you can't then use that as justification to make the claims you have been. 5e is not just set dressing for your tables calvinball. It has a specific design and that design matters, especially when we're talking about what 5e is or isn't.

 

[jayoungr]

For one, your opinion is a massive straw man, as nobody was saying that (unless I missed it, but I'd be surprised if I did).

Err, I was literally responding to people saying that the resource management minigame is "fundamental" to D&D. You say it yourself right below.

And no, resource management is fundamental. Its how the classes are designed and its how everything is classified.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just questioning the centrality of it when it comes to the actual at-the-table experience. I'm saying that some groups care more about it than others. And as I said upthread, the game is (in my opinion) what happens at the table, not just what's written in the books.

 

[Parmandur]

It's a big and multifaceted game. Resource management is one part of it among many. Claiming that it is "fundamental" is, in my opinion, overstating the case and elevating a particular playstyle as the "one true way."

I mean, everything in modern D&D is built around the Adventuring Day. The clever part of the design is that the game works if the tools to push the game aren't used, even if unbalanced. So people who care about a challenge can get it, and those who just want to play can do so.

 

[Emberashh]

Err, I was literally responding to people saying that the resource management minigame is "fundamental" to D&D.

It is.

Lets try this:

What do you believe that phrase means?

To me, something being fundamental to a game means its an intrinsic part of the gameplay loop you engage in by playing the game.

As noted, 5e is fullly designed around resource management. The adventuring day is rooted in it, as is every single Class and every single Ability. All spells all items, everything. Before it was scattered to the 9 winds, so was the procedure for actually exploring dungeons and towns and the wilderness.

As should be obvious, what I just listed is approximately 80-90% of whats actually in the books, and unless you've completely abandoned the rule books altogether, you will still be engaging much of this content, even if your specific group is loosey goosey with resources.

The only way to not be doing this is to either A) remove all limits period or B) not really be playing 5e at all beyond nabbing setting details.

As I said above, the game is (in my opinion) what happens at the table, not just what's written int he books.

The game is what the game was designed as, which can only be derived from the books and what we know from the developers. Your personal homebrew and calvinball don't count for that.

No one can deny that that is what your table is like and how they like to play, but that does not mean your table is synonymous with 5e. No one's is. 5e is what was designed and what is in the books.

 

[Shardstone]

Your definition is so egregiously biased, I cannot even begin to engage with your thoughts, because they begin from demonizing something without even attempting to examine whether it has any positive characteristics at all.

You have defined "balance" so that it is an actively pernicious design evil, and then built an argument about how horrible it is to inflict an actively pernicious evil onto the game. Unless and until that part comes under question, I cannot do so.

So. Are you willing to consider that there might, possibly, maybe, be actual good things and value that can come out of the use of balance? That balance does not have to be a straightjacket? That it is not a "rigid" system, but rather a useful system?

Because this would be like starting a discussion about diction and modern language by defining "dictionaries" as rigid structures that allow no freedom and actively prevent the formation of new words. Your definition denies even the possibility of discussion.

I just wanted to express that succinctly (something I am normally very bad at doing.)

And I consider it already starting off on an impolite foot to declare "the thing I dislike is literally the worst thing ever by definition". Beginning an academic debate by defining your opponents as not merely wrong but actively trying to harm the field is not particularly conducive to academic discussion.

Holy naughty word, I have never seen someone hyperbolize my arguments so much. Pernicious design evil? Horrible to inflict? Bro, what are you TALKING about? Can you read my post again but this try not to actually amplify what I'm saying? I specifically used soft language to make sure that I wasn't taken across as saying balance is horrible for a game or evil. Like what? Are you being freaking serious with me man?????

 

[Shardstone]

@EzekielRaiden

limiting the stories that are being told to "Can you kill this thing in a straight up fight now or later?" And while this type of story is fine, and I enjoy it, it would have been interesting if 5E embraced a variety of fantastical stories instead of just that one.

Like, the fact that my entire post is just saying that embracing softer balance makes for a more varied and engaging game as opposed to having only a bad attempt at hard balance and you are trying to tell me that this is me painting balance as EVIL?

I'm just so appalled you came in here and tried SO DAMN HARD to paint me as someone calling your preferences """""evil""""" and that you hyperbolized my post to this extent before you actually engaged with it. I can't believe it. I don't even know how you can do that and feel proud in your stance, because it's such a blatant mischaracterization of what I wrote.

 

[jayoungr]

What do you believe that phrase means?

To me, something being fundamental to a game means its an intrinsic part of the gameplay loop you engage in by playing the game.

I would say fundamental means "central to the play experience." Not something you just engage with, but something that must unavoidably be the object of focus. If you're not forced to focus on it, I wouldn't call it fundamental.

As noted, 5e is fullly designed around resource management. The adventuring day is rooted in it, as is every single Class and every single Ability. All spells all items, everything.

That doesn't make it fit the definition of "fundamental" in my book. It just means there's a coherent system behind that particular part of the game. Which is desirable, don't get me wrong. But the adventuring day, the classes, the abilities, the items ... they're not the game. They are rules, a framework. Not the game.

No one can deny that that is what your table is like and how they like to play, but that does not mean your table is synonymous with 5e. No one's is.

That's my point. I feel that saying "5E is this one specific thing" is trying to claim your table is synonymous with 5E.

 

[Parmandur]

I would say fundamental means "central to the play experience." Not something you just engage with, but something that must unavoidably be the object of focus. If you're not foced to focus on it, I wouldn't call it fundamental.


That doesn't make it fit the definition of "fundamental" in my book. It just means there's a coherent system behind that particular part of the game. Which is desirable, don't get me wrong. But the adventuring day, the classes, the abilities, the items ... they're not the game. They are rules, a framework. Not the game.


That's my point. I feel that saying "5E is this one specific thing" is trying to claim your table is synonymous with 5E.

The balance of resources is fundamental to how everything in D&D works, whether a given table pushes the limits or not at any given time. That it is a flexible sliding scale that can be unconsciously plugged into is part of how fundamental it is.

 

[Emberashh]

That's my point. I feel that saying "5E is this one specific thing" is trying to claim your table is synonymous with 5E.

It isn't, and nobody you've spoken to has implied that.