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

[Ahnehnois]

Personal experience always depends on a number of factors... Chances are you play with a stable group of players that all share the same level of system mastery.

Well, stable anyway.

Toss in a new player with a higher level of system mastery and you'll see your experience change within the first two games.

I've done that and not had that result.

I recall two times where I came into a new group to play in an existing campaign. 1st question I ask 'what's not allowed' then I work from there....in both cases I was asked to 'tone down' my characters power level. Both times my presence changed the game, significantly, as I would point out new strategies and build options to the other players. Both times the list of banned items/books grew by quite a bit.

When you see more then one GM ask 'ohh wait, how are you doing that much damage?' Or 'how the heck is your AC that high' you know the game has shifted

So your experience, as I read it, seems to be that different levels of system mastery caused significant imbalances between characters, which the DM fixed. Sounds fine to me.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To me, the overt inequality of characters isn't a problem. I used to think it was, but playing non-fantasy rpgs largely changed my mind.

I don't find it to inherently be a problem. I play a "normal" amongst demon-tainted, a revenant, a shaman, and a witch in our ongoing Supernatural game, but I have alot of fun playing my character. It becomes a problem when the players aren't having fun.

I also think that said inequality plays very differently depending on the length of the campaign. When sitting down for a long extended venture, it becomes more important to ensure that everyone will at some point be engaged, whereas for a one-shot game, I'll commonly accept that one character might by the protagonist and others might not be involved at the same level.

No argument from me here.

Another thing that plays into it is passive DMing. When I see players with unequal levels of skill (or who for other reasons create unequal characters), I take it as my responsibility to identify and manage the resulting differences. When DMs don't do that, the inmates are effectively running the asylum, and mayhem may ensue.

I'm glad that works for your players. It doesn't for mine. Those who've figured out the system synergies feel punished if I try to reduce their effective solely because other players can't find those same efficiencies. And any help offered to those who made less-effective characters caused bad feelings with them.

None of which is to say that the system mastery or balance things can't be addressed on some level. I think making simpler and clearer rules fixes a lot of things.

Yes. I think you and I are more centrist on this topic than either of our posts make us seem.

I just wanted to highlight this statement because it illustrates the idea that balance is not simply something you have or you don't; it interacts with other aspects of the game experience, and creating balance can cause problems. What one thinks of the relative merits of different approaches is a separate issue, but balance does not simply refer to a "correctly" designed or professionally edited game.

Certainly. It should never be the only aspect given attention, but it should be kept in mind. I think 3E started off well, but as new options emerged it was if the designers of those new options forgot how customizable the base design was made.

And before anyone chimes in with the advice to just not use those new options, I will restate one of the joys of playing this game that my group shares. That is adding new options as the game goes on. If we can't do that without the game breaking (for us), then it's not a game I want to play.

 

[Weather Report]

I think 3E started off well, but as new options emerged it was if the designers of those new options forgot how customizable the base design was made.

It stared off well, until people shortly clued onto the most abusive stuff which is in core.

 

[sidonunspa]

So your experience, as I read it, seems to be that different levels of system mastery caused significant imbalances between characters, which the DM fixed. Sounds fine to me.

By further restricting options, adding house rule edits to spacific feats, or in one case banning an entire class...

As such, punishing my level of system mastery because other players felt my characters where 'crack'

I'm liking 5e because I'm rewarded for off builds, for example we have a fighter with a 16 int..

Due to saves being linked to all attributes and the way skill checks are done (int check instead of ranks in a skill) he has had constant rewards for his his choice.

 

[N'raac]

I've done that and not had that result.

So your experience, as I read it, seems to be that different levels of system mastery caused significant imbalances between characters, which the DM fixed. Sounds fine to me.

I think it's a combination of motive and opportunity, if we can criminalize min/maxing. A player can have a high level of system mastery, know that he could build a much more powerful and optimized character than the other players (opportunity), but be happy playing a less optimal character who is at the same level as the other players (no motive) because he doesn't need to demonstrate his systems mastery, maximize his damage per round or what have you, or otherwise run an overpowered character to enjoy the game.

Hero System is extremely flexible, so it's easy to break the game. One frequent Hero poster likes to tell the (new) player "Good for you, you won Hero. Now make a character that fits the power level of the game we're playing using the Hero system." Nothing wrong saying the same thing to a min/max'ed optimizer.

 

[Greg K]

I recall two times where I came into a new group to play in an existing campaign. 1st question I ask 'what's not allowed' then I work from there....in both cases I was asked to 'tone down' my characters power level. Both times my presence changed the game, significantly, as I would point out new strategies and build options to the other players. Both times the list of banned items/books grew by quite a bit.

When you see more then one GM ask 'ohh wait, how are you doing that much damage?' Or 'how the heck is your AC that high' you know the game has shifted

The problem isn't, necessarily, system mastery. The problem is one of communication failure between you and the DM.

You assumed not allowed meant everything else is open to do build how you want.

The DM's failure was not communicating his expectations to you, not discussing the character you had in mind and how you wrote it, from what you wrote, not vetting your character to ensure it fit the group's style.

In addition, approaches in play style appear to be have reared its head once the game started.

This is why the DMG should tell DMs to talk with prospective players- especially, new players entering an existing game. People need to determine if their wants out of the game and styles are compatible. If not, they should not be playing with one another and this would eliminate a lot of grief at the table.

 

[Weather Report]

David Noonan told me he kicked Rob Heinsoo (before he was David's boss) out of a campaign for "glassblowing" his character too much.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It becomes a problem when the players aren't having fun.

Most things do.

I'm glad that works for your players. It doesn't for mine. Those who've figured out the system synergies feel punished if I try to reduce their effective solely because other players can't find those same efficiencies. And any help offered to those who made less-effective characters caused bad feelings with them.

I've often observed players helping each other out; after all, someone who wants his character to be effective generally has a vested interest in improving the effectiveness of his comrades. I've also houseruled a lot; less to fix specific issues that arose during play and more to fix conceptual problems that I had with the game or to tweak it for my own preferences.

I have observed situations where players didn't like being told that their abilities were not going to be as useful as the rules said they would be.
For example, another psion player learned a power that granted him +30 to Int-based checks, and asserted that I should provide a comprehensive and accurate answer to any knowledge question he asked, because the highest DC for Knowledge checks is 30. I understood his interpretation of the rules, but I did not think it appropriate that his character be literally omniscient, so I gave him some information that wouldn't otherwise have been accessible, but often said no when he asked extremely specific or plot-breaking questions. He wasn't happy, and no one else was really happy with him. He never backed down, and neither did I. That's an example of a broken mechanic that really needs to be rewritten, and also a player who really needed to be more reasonable.

So yes, said problems exist, and yes, interventional solutions are not always optimal. I don't think, however, that every psion power needed to be exactly equal in utility, merely that the ones that allowed the player to do to much needed to be fixed.

Yes. I think you and I are more centrist on this topic than either of our posts make us seem.

Great!

Certainly. It should never be the only aspect given attention, but it should be kept in mind. I think 3E started off well, but as new options emerged it was if the designers of those new options forgot how customizable the base design was made.

And before anyone chimes in with the advice to just not use those new options, I will restate one of the joys of playing this game that my group shares. That is adding new options as the game goes on. If we can't do that without the game breaking (for us), then it's not a game I want to play.

"Power creep" is definitely a legitimate issue.

As I've stated above, I think balance becomes a less appropriate discussion when you're talking about disparate concepts. If you're talking about comparable concepts, it becomes more important and more actionable. For example, if Jump allowed one to duplicate the meaningful effects of Tumble, it would be overpowered, because there would be no point in taking Tumble. "Skills that let you move athletically" need to have one paradigm and need to work with each other. However, I don't think it would be reasonable to try to create and equivalence between Tumble and Diplomacy or Knowledge (Arcana), because they are completely different concepts.

Similarly, I think it's rather important that a barbarian and a fighter be balanced closely with each other, but how they compare with a bard is something that is harder to articulate and less important to manage.

At no point am I trying to say that balance is not a real thing, merely that it isn't the most important of all things.

 

[billd91]

David Noonan told me he kicked Rob Heinsoo (before he was David's boss) out of a campaign for "glassblowing" his character too much.

Glassblowing?

 

[Weather Report]

Glassblowing?

Think about it (it took me a second).