Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8697990" data-attributes="member: 7030755">I recently came across a twitter <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rant-sometimes-i-hate-the-d-d-community.689712/post-8696576" target="_blank">thread criticizing the lack of DM support</a> in 5e that seemed to gain a lot of traction.&nbsp; The argument was this:[MEDIA=twitter]1542866778375995393[/MEDIA]It seems to me a pretty common complaint, and especially one that pushes people to Pathfinder 2e (and perhaps also to Level Up or products like Flee Mortals from MCDM).&nbsp; The main objection with the lack of DM support is that the game&nbsp; is not &quot;balanced&quot; in a way that allows for the DM to play it with &quot;mechanical integrity.&quot;&nbsp; I think this means that the author here wants as a DM to present authentically challenging encounters (where they don't have to fudge dice or HP) while still generally having the players emerge victorious if they are tactically competent.&nbsp; In sum, &quot;<a href="https://youtu.be/qnKc64ADYf8" target="_blank">combat as sport.</a>&quot;&nbsp; This would supposedly enable WOTC to add in more character options (classes, feats, etc) without &quot;breaking&quot; the game (also similar to pathfinder 2 (apparently; I have no experience with pathfinder).Now, contra some of the claims of the OSR, concern for game balance is <a href="https://youtu.be/r89J0-vsq_g" target="_blank">not new</a> to wotc editions.&nbsp; But &quot;balance&quot; and &quot;breaking&quot; are terms we use a lot in talking about games, and it might be worth interrogating what we really mean.&nbsp; What do we want if we want the game to be &quot;balanced&quot;?&nbsp; What counts as &quot;breaking&quot; the game?&nbsp; What does more DM support look like--a more streamlined game or one with more precise math?&nbsp; Extensive rules and subsystems (strongholds, magic item economy, water combat) or more vague advice on how to design your own?For example, <a href="https://youtu.be/LEoM9Z3FSHQ?t=1237" target="_blank">one response agreeing</a> with the above twitter thread gave a very specific example of the 5e being unbalanced and not supporting DMs: random encounter tables that are not balanced for party level, so that 1st level characters have a chance of randomly meeting a manticore, which will tpk them.&nbsp; Because players will have their characters fight the manticore, rather than parlaying or running away.&nbsp; Is that what balance means?&nbsp; And if so, should a design ethos focused on balance and explicit and extensive rules underpin the game as a whole?Note: this issue probably doesn't matter to most 5e players, and so perhaps shouldn't even be a concern for the revised edition.&nbsp; Carry on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8697990, member: 7030755"] I recently came across a twitter [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/rant-sometimes-i-hate-the-d-d-community.689712/post-8696576']thread criticizing the lack of DM support[/URL] in 5e that seemed to gain a lot of traction. The argument was this: [MEDIA=twitter]1542866778375995393[/MEDIA] It seems to me a pretty common complaint, and especially one that pushes people to Pathfinder 2e (and perhaps also to Level Up or products like Flee Mortals from MCDM). The main objection with the lack of DM support is that the game is not "balanced" in a way that allows for the DM to play it with "mechanical integrity." I think this means that the author here wants as a DM to present authentically challenging encounters (where they don't have to fudge dice or HP) while still generally having the players emerge victorious if they are tactically competent. In sum, "[URL='https://youtu.be/qnKc64ADYf8']combat as sport.[/URL]" This would supposedly enable WOTC to add in more character options (classes, feats, etc) without "breaking" the game (also similar to pathfinder 2 (apparently; I have no experience with pathfinder). Now, contra some of the claims of the OSR, concern for game balance is [URL='https://youtu.be/r89J0-vsq_g']not new[/URL] to wotc editions. But "balance" and "breaking" are terms we use a lot in talking about games, and it might be worth interrogating what we really mean. What do we want if we want the game to be "balanced"? What counts as "breaking" the game? What does more DM support look like--a more streamlined game or one with more precise math? Extensive rules and subsystems (strongholds, magic item economy, water combat) or more vague advice on how to design your own? For example, [URL='https://youtu.be/LEoM9Z3FSHQ?t=1237']one response agreeing[/URL] with the above twitter thread gave a very specific example of the 5e being unbalanced and not supporting DMs: random encounter tables that are not balanced for party level, so that 1st level characters have a chance of randomly meeting a manticore, which will tpk them. Because players will have their characters fight the manticore, rather than parlaying or running away. Is that what balance means? And if so, should a design ethos focused on balance and explicit and extensive rules underpin the game as a whole? Note: this issue probably doesn't matter to most 5e players, and so perhaps shouldn't even be a concern for the revised edition. Carry on. [/QUOTE]

Verification