Free Will and Story

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

Don't worry, I can't grasp it either. There's basically no reason at all for you to use a katar in your offhand except for some strange desire to use one.

There are certain times when role playing choices make sense to me. I've argued that this whole thread. There are other times when you are just gimping yourself on purpose. There are a bunch of weapons with similar flavor to the Katar that would do a lot more damage.

It's times like this that I always ask people "So, imagine you go right before the enemy. You attack and you bring them down to 2 hp. They go and kill one of your allies...or you. Was it worth it to make that roleplaying choice? Do you think your character would have chosen a weapon they were bad at over one they were good at knowing that there were life or death stakes?"

 

[Kelimar]

There aren't really a plethora of other weapons which have a similar flavor to a Katar and aren't dex based.

 

[Starfox]

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.

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.

It's [DnD] still a hacked tabletop wargame.

Though it was probably not intentional, I feel Neonchameleon answered Ahnehnois's rhetorical question very deftly here - in so many ways DnD is still a tactical wargame hidden inside the framework of a story. Something I quite like, as it lets me combine two aspects of my interest - storytelling and solving tactical situations.

In the tactical wargame aspect of the game, there most certainly exists the kind of balance Hussar is talking about. You can have two similar options, of which one is clearly superior. For an example, compare Enlarge Spell and Reach Spell in Pathfinder - Reach Spell is clearly superior in all cases as it does all Reach Spell does and better, in addition to offering more options. This is the kind of balance Hussar is talking about, game balance.

In the story part of the game, balance is very different, if it can be defined it all. This makes talking about balance in the above meaning rather meaningless in the story part. In the story part, "balance" has to do with camera time, plot relevance, and ability to engage the other players. Which in DnD is entirely up to the acting ability of the DM and each player, with a nod to the character's social skills and Charisma. For an attempt at balancing the story part of the game, check out Robin D. Laws' Hillfolk on kickstarter. Talking about this kind of balance in a DnD thread is to talk latin in greek class - it is not wrong, but beside the point. People will not understand you unless you translate into terms they can accept.

We really need two different words for these kinds of balance. Maybe simply game-balance and story-balance?

 

[sheadunne]

Though it was probably not intentional, I feel Neonchameleon answered Ahnehnois's rhetorical question very deftly here - in so many ways DnD is still a tactical wargame hidden inside the framework of a story. Something I quite like, as it lets me combine two aspects of my interest - storytelling and solving tactical situations.

In the tactical wargame aspect of the game, there most certainly exists the kind of balance Hussar is talking about. You can have two similar options, of which one is clearly superior. For an example, compare Enlarge Spell and Reach Spell in Pathfinder - Enlarge Spell is clearly superior in all cases as it does all Reach Spell does and better, in addition to offering more options. This is the kind of balance Hussar is talking about, game balance.

In the story part of the game, balance is very different, if it can be defined it all. This makes talking about balance in the above meaning rather meaningless in the story part. In the story part, "balance" has to do with camera time, plot relevance, and ability to engage the other players. Which in DnD is entirely up to the acting ability of the DM and each player, with a nod to the character's social skills and Charisma. For an attempt at balancing the story part of the game, check out Robin D. Laws' Hillfolk on kickstarter. Talking about this kind of balance in a DnD thread is to talk latin in greek class - it is not wrong, but beside the point. People will not understand you unless you translate into terms they can accept.

We really need two different words for these kinds of balance. Maybe simply game-balance and story-balance?

Let's not forget narrative-balance between Player and DM (which is different than the story-balance between players that is being discussed). That seems to be ignored in D&D (although it's existed to a limited degree with casters in 1e-3e and to a larger degree in 4e with powers and rituals) but is making a push in the indie scene (although I find that the indie scene doesn't have enough focus on game-balance and story-balance).

 

[innerdude]

There's a real argument to be made, however, that "game balance" is in some cases a forebear to "narrative balance" and "story balance." Which is, if I'm reading 4e players correctly, the strongest argument to be made about 4e as a whole --- "The 'game' is balanced between classes, particularly in combat, and therefore is able to better support narrative balance and story balance, because the mechanics drive the players into more equitable situations at the table where their involvement matters."

This is certainly a valid outlook, though in my experience, there are lots of ways of creating Narrative/Story balance through social contract in addition to the mechanics. My characters in Savage Worlds have decidedly different capabilities in combat, but none of them have ever felt "useless" in any situation . . . but then again, Savage Worlds isn't class-based, and mechanically doesn't go as "deep" in character ability. Even a character with a d12 skill in Savage Worlds (the highest possible) is probably equivalent to a character with a +12 in D&D. Sure, it's obvious that the character is good at it, but not wildly out of balance with a character with a d4 in the same skill.

 

[the Jester]

There's a real argument to be made, however, that "game balance" is in some cases a forebear to "narrative balance" and "story balance." Which is, if I'm reading 4e players correctly, the strongest argument to be made about 4e as a whole --- "The 'game' is balanced between classes, particularly in combat, and therefore is able to better support narrative balance and story balance, because the mechanics drive the players into more equitable situations at the table where their involvement matters."

This is certainly a valid outlook, though in my experience, there are lots of ways of creating Narrative/Story balance through social contract in addition to the mechanics.

While this is true, it's worth noting that creating balance via social contract is a lot less reliable than having a system impose balance from above, as it were; the social contract relies on the entire group not only agreeing on it, but all perceiving it in roughly the same way and acting in good faith. While this is easy-peasy for many groups, others aren't so lucky; many of them have "that one guy" in them, and he can't be relied upon to behave.

(Of course, that's a deeper problem anyway...)

 

[Starfox]

Post deleted by author - I was in the wrong thread

 

[Starfox]

Don't worry, I can't grasp it either. There's basically no reason at all for you to use a katar in your offhand except for some strange desire to use one.

<Tangent>
Now, a rule saying your off-hand weapon has to be Dex based might help balance two weapon fighting in Next.
</Tangent>

 

[billd91]

<Tangent>
Now, a rule saying your off-hand weapon has to be Dex based might help balance two weapon fighting in Next.
</Tangent>

Light should be appropriate, in no small part because finesse weapons allow the wielder to choose whether to use Dex or Str as the modifying stat in D&D Next.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Something I quite like, as it lets me combine two aspects of my interest - storytelling and solving tactical situations.

I agree, and I suspect a diverse bunch of others would as well.

We really need two different words for these kinds of balance. Maybe simply game-balance and story-balance?

Much as I appreciate the intent, I don't think that covers it. There are lots of different kinds of balance.

First off, even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context. Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM. In one campaign, Weapon Focus (Longsword) might be close to the best feat available. In another, Skill Focus (Spot) might rule the day. You cannot tell which feat is better just by looking at the rules, no matter how knowledgeable you are or how hard you look. There are only very rare cases where one particular option is unambiguously better than the other, usually in different publications that are not cross-referenced very well.

And that only become more true when you start looking at mechanical elements as complex as classes. You can certainly make some subjective judgments, but there is no definitive answer in any rpg that I'm aware of as to which one is the best.

When you start throwing other approaches to balance out there, the picture only gets more complicated.