Free Will and Story

[Majoru Oakheart]

D&D started off life as a hacked tabletop wargame in which the intention was to win. And this has remained true throughout the history of D&D - the object isn't to win against the other PCs, it's to overwhelm the opposition. D&D is set up to enable such play (with one of the main criticisms of 4e being that it's balanced - i.e. that it clamps down on power gaming). I think that you either want to be running low level 4e (where there is little room for power gaming - once you cross the level 11 threshold all bets are off) or to be running a different game entirely. (And Next doesn't qualify here).

I'm curious why you think Next doesn't qualify here.

So far, it's fixed my powergaming issues with Jim and Ryan, our 2 resident power gamers. The system gives them few enough options that they can't find anything TRULY broken. They may be slightly more powerful. But I found that with combat taking only 15 minutes instead of 90-120 minutes that the focus of the game has been less on combat and more on the rest of the game. So, even if they completely overpower an encounter and finish it in 5 minutes instead of 15, that it's not a big deal.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, that's not what balance is. Balance has nothing to do with players and never has. Balance is between options within the game.

That's one, very simplistic definition of balance. I sincerely hope you are the only one using it.

If option A is measurably better than option B, then most people will take A, not because they are power gamers or out to break the system, but, because A is better than B.

Given that there are no defined outcomes (i.e. no winning and losing), and most of the options cannot be measured in any meaningful way, this is rarely an appropriate way of framing the issue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm curious why you think Next doesn't qualify here.

It doesn't qualify as a different game entirely It's still a hacked tabletop wargame. Just at present not too badly broken.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But, that's not what balance is. Balance has nothing to do with players and never has. Balance is between options within the game. Well balanced games make it more difficult to break the system, but, that's a bonus. The point of well balanced systems is to allow more viable choices for players.

I propose that this is a limit on the number of viable choices. At a certain point it is impossible to balance options and therefore one will ALWAYS be more powerful. The only way to guarantee balance is to limit options. Which causes the problem where people get angry because their options are too limited. It's a circle that just keeps repeating itself.

If option A is measurably better than option B, then most people will take A, not because they are power gamers or out to break the system, but, because A is better than B.

I completely agree, however, the problem I've found is that powergaming has 4 tiers:
1) I took this feat because I like bows and I want to be able to shoot far, that sounds awesome. It gives me +2 to hit when I have an ally next to them. I didn't look at the rest of the feats since that sounds exactly like the thing I wanted.
2) I took this feat because it gives me a +2 bonus to hit with bows as opposed to this feat that gives +2 bonus to hit with bows only while I have an ally next to the enemy because it's better to have a bonus constantly than only sometimes. Next level I'll take something non-bow related since I want my character to be rounded like a real person an not just focused on one thing.
3) I will take both the feats. If +2 to hit is good, +4 is better.
4) I will take both the feats, then I'll take this paragon path that let's me declare a square as occupied for purposes of my feats to guarantee +4 all the time. Then I'll muticlass into rogue so I qualify for a feat that allows me to apply my sneak attack on attacks if an ally is adjacent to the enemy. Also, this feat lets me consider an enemy flanked if one of my allies is beside it, giving me another +2 to hit. Then I will use this power that makes an AOE bow attack. The feat doesn't specify how many people I'm allowed to declare have a person adjacent to...it just says "the target". I'll assume that means all of them in an AOE.

The real problem with balancing based on "is A or B better" is that it almost always fails to address option C that the designer didn't even consider an option.

This is fundamental to any game design. Trying to ignore balance gives us systems like RIFTS.

On one hand, Rifts is precisely that example. On the other hand, ignoring balance meant that it often didn't matter. No one went into a battle in Rifts thinking their Street Rat was going to be as effective as the Dragon. They knew they were playing the non-combat character and would be bad in combat.

Not that I agree with that philosophy, but there were quite a few less balance arguments in our Rifts game than in our 4e D&D game. Because everything is balanced so well, the options that aren't become a point of contention.

 

[the Jester]

That's debatable. He lives with me and the only time he leaves his room is to eat and play D&D really. If I didn't play D&D with him, I'd probably never see him. We met at the D&D group I joined when I was 15. That's pretty much what we've had in common since the beginning. We used to also do movies and watch tv. But since he has more free time than me, he's already watched all the shows before I even get off of work. And recently he's decided that he refuses to go into public long enough to go to a movie.

You make it sound like you have all the responsibility for maintaining your friendship with Jim. May I suggest that if he isn't willing to put any effort into that friendship, it may be more of a one-sided relationship than you realize? I'm not trying to disrupt your friendship with him, but the more you describe him, the less he sounds like a friend and the more he sounds like a crazy housemate who wants his tastes catered to and screw the rest of you. He really ought to be willing to do SOMETHING to make things better or to maintain your guys' friendship.

 

[Hussar]

That's only one possible definition for balance. But balance also may be about balance between players and how they are kept in relatively equal importance for the ongoing story rather than purely mechanical options. In fact, it's probably the single most important definition of balance for an RPG.

But, game mechanics cannot maintain balance between players. That's impossible. If you have played a game for years, and I'm just sitting down for the first time, there is no balance between us and no way for the rules to create that balance.

Your definition of balance makes no sense. RPG's cannot possibly balance this way and never could.

 

[Hussar]

That's one, very simplistic definition of balance. I sincerely hope you are the only one using it.

Given that there are no defined outcomes (i.e. no winning and losing), and most of the options cannot be measured in any meaningful way, this is rarely an appropriate way of framing the issue.

Umm, no?

Two feats for using swords. One feat gives you +4 to hit. The other gives you +2. Balanced? I don't think so.

Two weapon specialization in 2e. Lose 1 point of AC (no shield) to double your damage output per round. Balanced? Not even close. Which meant that anyone who could, took two weapon fighting in 2e. Not taking it was deliberately handicapping yourself.

Virtually every mechanic can be measured in a meaningful way. That's why they're math and not just vague qualifiers. With math, you can most certainly measure things.

 

[Kelimar]

I enjoy 5e (I don't know why they called it Next) because of how limited it is, though I understand that options and unbalancing will come with time as they have with every edition thus far. Another thing I really like about 5th edition is, as Majoru stated its de-emphasis of combat. Thus far I have seen that combat takes a short period of time to run through, allowing for both multiple combats in a session and for extensive RP options to exist simultaneously in one session. Something which in my experience both DMing and playing was difficult to achieve in 4e.

The examples and arguments against power gaming that Majoru stated were what I was trying to get across. For example I had a debate fairly recently with one of those players regarding my use of a Dex based offhand weapon on my strength based warrior. I had chosen the weapon for flavor sacrificing the damage because I wanted m character to have a certain feel, (using a long sword in his main hand and a Katar, which we had house ruled to use dagger stats as katars don't as yet exist in 5th in his offhand) the player in question simply couldn't grasp why I would chose a weapon my character wasn't built to use when other options were available. Often in my experience power gamers don't view their opinions as being disruptive to the other players, they simply view building the absolute best character the rules allow to be the proper way to play, regardless of how much more powerful their character is in comparison to those of others around the table.

 

[billd91]

RPG's cannot possibly balance this way and never could.

And that's why mechanical balance will always be secondary to the referee balancing player interests, focus time, and attention at the table.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

He really ought to be willing to do SOMETHING to make things better or to maintain your guys' friendship.

He used to be. My gf moved in with us and I think he's bitter about the fact that I now go see most movies with her.

Plus, he used to spend all his time downstairs sleeping on my couch so I couldn't do anything in my living room without waking him up. Or when he wasn't sleeping, he'd be watching tv in there. I couldn't spend any alone time with my gf because he didn't have a job. So he was there, 24 hours a day pretty much.

I yelled at him and told him he was only allowed to be in the living room when I was and I had to invite him first, he wasn't allowed to just walk in and sit down. Ever since he's been kind of stand offish. He still comes downstairs once every 2 days or so to tell me about some video game that he's enjoying playing....and I mean, telling me every single detail of it. Then when I change the topic to something else he leaves and goes back upstairs.