Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Symmetric Balance vs Asymmetric Balance.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9157021" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>The definition of balance I've encountered that I've found the most useful, goes something like this: a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both <em>viable </em>and <em>meaningful</em>.</p><p></p><p>I'm afraid that sort of balance would tend to present a lot of less viable to non-viable choices, depending on context.</p><p></p><p>D&D has certainly tried for balancing that way a lot over the decades, and has consistently failed. You can look back over D&D discussions, and find the Martial/Caster Gap, LFQW, 5MWD, and Fighter SUX discussions longer than there's been an internet. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>The danger here is that choices will turn out to be less meaningful. If you all ultimately <em>just </em>degrade the big bad's hp at the same rate, what difference does it make who is playing what?</p><p></p><p>D&D only really tried something that might have been classed as symmetric balance once, in 4e. Like 3e, 4e put all classes on the same exp level chart, and like, 5e BA, 4e put all characters on the same basic level progression as far as d20 bonuses were concerned. Where it really mattered tho, was resources, and for the first 2 years, at least, all classes had a rough parity in unlimited, n/day and n/encounter resources. 4e avoided making class choice meaningless only at a very high price in development effort (and retaining some asymmetry!). Each class had hundreds of unique powers - the fighter and wizard, each had more powers than 5e has spells, in total. And Source radically differentiated sorts of powers, the wizards <em>spells </em>were implement powers that attacked no-AC defenses, the fighters' <em>exploits</em>, weapon powers, that mostly attacked AC, and so forth...</p><p>But, arguably, even 4e had a deeply asymmetrical aspect in formalized Roles, that differentiated classes within a Source, as well - ironically, it wasn't anything new, D&D had always had distinct duties for the "Big 4" - fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and thief - it had just never managed to make them more or less equally important before.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 9157021, member: 996"] The definition of balance I've encountered that I've found the most useful, goes something like this: a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both [I]viable [/I]and [I]meaningful[/I]. I'm afraid that sort of balance would tend to present a lot of less viable to non-viable choices, depending on context. D&D has certainly tried for balancing that way a lot over the decades, and has consistently failed. You can look back over D&D discussions, and find the Martial/Caster Gap, LFQW, 5MWD, and Fighter SUX discussions longer than there's been an internet. ;) The danger here is that choices will turn out to be less meaningful. If you all ultimately [I]just [/I]degrade the big bad's hp at the same rate, what difference does it make who is playing what? D&D only really tried something that might have been classed as symmetric balance once, in 4e. Like 3e, 4e put all classes on the same exp level chart, and like, 5e BA, 4e put all characters on the same basic level progression as far as d20 bonuses were concerned. Where it really mattered tho, was resources, and for the first 2 years, at least, all classes had a rough parity in unlimited, n/day and n/encounter resources. 4e avoided making class choice meaningless only at a very high price in development effort (and retaining some asymmetry!). Each class had hundreds of unique powers - the fighter and wizard, each had more powers than 5e has spells, in total. And Source radically differentiated sorts of powers, the wizards [I]spells [/I]were implement powers that attacked no-AC defenses, the fighters' [I]exploits[/I], weapon powers, that mostly attacked AC, and so forth... But, arguably, even 4e had a deeply asymmetrical aspect in formalized Roles, that differentiated classes within a Source, as well - ironically, it wasn't anything new, D&D had always had distinct duties for the "Big 4" - fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and thief - it had just never managed to make them more or less equally important before. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Symmetric Balance vs Asymmetric Balance.
Top