D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Mistwell]

My dispute is with "always put balance ahead of all considerations." Sometimes playability was put ahead of balance. Sometimes interesting story elements were put ahead of balance. Sometimes popularity/marketing was put above balance. Sometimes tradition was put above balance. Sometimes simulation or emulation was put above balance. I am sure others can think of other priorities that played a role at various times and for various things.

The game has never had one criteria above all others at all times. I think if it had, it never would have succeeded and would have been a very boring game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I am sure others can think of other priorities that played a role at various times and for various things.

Sometimes (often) selling more content is put ahead of balance. Sometimes copying things from the designer's home games that they thought were cool was put ahead of balance. Sometimes, one type of balance is pursued at the expense of another.

And no, I don't buy the idea that creating fundamentally different classes that act and advance in wildly different ways and later tacking on a suggestion that one of them acquires more starting gold than the other means that balance was the #1 goal.

Nor would I lump balance and some broad "gameplay" category together. In almost any game in which multiple participants are working together on the same team, their roles are not remotely balanced with each other. The ability of the different teams to achieve the goals of the game is sometimes tightly balanced, but that's a completely different agenda, analagous to the balance between PCs and the challenges they face. The ease or enjoyability of play are not all that closely related to this idea of parity of options for the players. If anything, satisfaction on the "gameplay" level involves players trying to min/max and find the best options, with rather requires that there are such options to be found.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Every single edition of D&D has focused very strongly on balance. The difference between the editions has to do with evolving views on how to achieve balance, not that one edition is more or less concerned with balance. Starting with Gygax and moving forward, D&D has always put balance ahead of all considerations.

I'm going to disagree here. I think 1e and 2e played lip service to balance. But I don't think it was a prime consideration at all.

Most of the mechanics in both those editions were clearly of the "This'll be super awesome and cool!" variety. Often the game appeared to be balanced in terms of "So, this guy is a Wizard. He can Wish that the world would explode and it might just work. This guy is a Thief, he can pick locks and sneak around. Hmm, the Wizard sounds a little more powerful. We'll make it so it requires less XP for the Thief to go up levels...that'll balance it out."

It doesn't balance it out...not by a long shot. Yes, I agree that the designers INTENDED that to be a balancing factor, however there were so many other ways they could have actually succeeded in balancing the game. The fact that they never used any of those other ways shows they were never all that concerned with balance. It was at best a tertiary concern.

 

[N'raac]

Often the game appeared to be balanced in terms of "So, this guy is a Wizard. He can Wish that the world would explode and it might just work. This guy is a Thief, he can pick locks and sneak around. Hmm, the Wizard sounds a little more powerful. We'll make it so it requires less XP for the Thief to go up levels...that'll balance it out."

I also perceive a lot of "well, he'll be massively powerful at high levels, so make him wimpy at low levels and it will all come out in the wash. No armor, lousy weapons, terrible melee skills, 1-4 hp and one spell per day at L1, so he's unbalanced throughout virtually all of the campaign. It's like keeping your house stiflingly hot half the time, freezing cold the rest - on average, its nice.

 

[Manbearcat]

The fact that they never used any of those other ways shows they were never all that concerned with balance. It was at best a tertiary concern.

There is another option here. Gygax, Arneson et al weren't very good at the math and/or there were conceptual blind spots/holes in their game. I think a strong case can be made for both.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

There is another option here. Gygax, Arneson et al weren't very good at the math and/or there were conceptual blind spots/holes in their game. I think a strong case can be made for both.

Certainly. However, it definitely appears to me that it was just a lesser concern. They designed a game that was able to emulate their favorite fantasy stories. Most of the spells are almost ripped right out of novels.

I'm positive someone sat down and said "So, Wizards should be able to turn invisible. How long should they be able to turn invisible for? Well, it can't be too low, because in this novel the Wizard turns invisible and wanders the entire complex without being seen and it takes him a couple of hours. And in this novel, this wizard stays invisible for a week straight. I think D&D should allow that. So, let's say it lasts forever until they want to become visible. But wait, it might be too powerful if you can attack while invisible. So, let's make it end when you attack."

No one sat back and said "Wait, if Wizards can turn invisible forever doesn't that make hiding in shadows a little bit of a weak power?" because balance wasn't really the focus, except to prevent anything from becoming absurdly powerful.

The primary goal of the system almost always appears to be "Can it properly simulate the fantasy novels we like?"

 

[pemerton]

The ease or enjoyability of play are not all that closely related to this idea of parity of options for the players. If anything, satisfaction on the "gameplay" level involves players trying to min/max and find the best options, with rather requires that there are such options to be found.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "satisfaction on the 'gameplay' level" - which seems to invovle a lot more than just character building - but as far as PC building is concerned I think my players care as much about finding options that better express their PCs as finding options that "min/max". Although it's complicated, because - to the extent that PC concept is mechanically expressed, and in 4e that extent is quite high - then finding options that better express your PC is at least partially about making the relevant lists or numbers on your PC sheet bigger.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "satisfaction on the 'gameplay' level" - which seems to invovle a lot more than just character building - but as far as PC building is concerned I think my players care as much about finding options that better express their PCs as finding options that "min/max".

Sure. And if player want options to express their PCs and the system either alters or excludes those options because they are perceived to be unequal to others, that player is going to be pretty disappointed. Moreover, if I as a DM am trying to push the characters, challenge them in some way, and I can't because they're equally useful in all situations, it makes my job harder.

I've seen variations on those problems a lot more than I've seen anyone complain that their character options were over/underpowered.

But I also think it's important to point out that the charop forums, builds, and min/maxing are important parts of the game, and that a true parity of all options presumes that they aren't and renders them a waste of time.

Or, to phrase it another way, the idea that system mastery should not be a factor is equivalent to taking skill out of the game. A truly balanced game, in this paradigm some people are putting forth, would be Chutes and Ladders. You make no relevant choices and the outcome is completely random. Replace that with a d20, call it an rpg, and you can narrate the outcome however you like. Not the game I want to run though. I much prefer to look at the "game" aspect of D&D as a game of skill, in which selecting some options will lead to better or worse outcomes than others, in a somewhat but not completely predictable fashion.

 

[sidonunspa]

The game changes to another form of system mastery, it's not 'how you built your charatcer' but how you play him.... And don't fool yourself 5e will have min/maxing potential, but it wount completely punish and smack around players who don't 'crack out' there charatcers.

If I took what you said as gosphal, many RPGs would fall by the wayside because they don't demand the same level of system mastery.

There should be a balance between min/maxing and playing a 'fun' charatcer. 3.X tossed that balanced out the window and demanded min/maxing

 

[Ahnehnois]

The game changes to another form of system mastery, it's not 'how you built your charatcer' but how you play him....

I've seen that argument before and I don't understand it. Yes, choices you make during play will matter, probably more so than those you make when creating a character. However, creating a character is playing D&D. It's a part of the game, a significant part. If you don't enjoy that part, there are ways around it.

There should be a balance between min/maxing and playing a 'fun' charatcer. 3.X tossed that balanced out the window and demanded min/maxing

Not in my experience. I've played plenty and DMed more and I've never been 'demanded' to min/max anything. Games don't demand anything, and if 3e encourages one thing, it's customization, which may or may not lead to a particularly powerful character as a result.