D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[FrogReaver]

So what are some examples of aesthetics that demand the player be presented with meaningless and/or non-viable choices?

What are you even talking about?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What are you even talking about?

Balance.

the must useful definition I've seen for balance is about presenting player choices that are meaningul, and viable.
The aesthetic goal of a game could easily constrain the range of choices, but shouldn't necessarily result in any of them being meaningless or worthless, by itself.

 

[FrogReaver]

Balance.

I can’t think of a single word response that would have been less helpful. Maybe d&d?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I can’t think of a single word response that would have been less helpful. Maybe d&d?

There's a quote right under it that explains what they're talking about.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's a quote right under it that explains what they're talking about.

You mean a quote I already responded to?

I don’t think your conception of aesthetic choice is nearly broad enough. You seem far too focused on one particular kind of aesthetic choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can’t think of a single word response that would have been less helpful. Maybe d&d?

To briefly review the exchange, not in a quote, so it'll carry through...

You claimed that people arguing for balance were actually arguing in bad faith for a desired aesthetic.

I responded with a definition of balance I've found helpful (presenting player choices that are meaningful and viable.), and asked how any desired aesthetic would be incompatible with that.
Because, to use balance as a stalking horse for an aesthetic, you'd have to somehow assure that all alternate aesthetics were incompatible with balance.
I don't see how any are.

Balance is, at bottom, a compromise feature that helps players in cooperative games play what they want, while all contributing. What aesthetic demands that some players be blocked from fully contributing in a cooperative game, or demands that they be given meaningless choices?

 

[FrogReaver]

To briefly review the exchange, not in a quote, so it'll carry through...

You claimed that people arguing for balance were actually arguing in bad faith for a desired aesthetic.

I think this is one disconnect. It’s not so much bad faith as it’s an absolutely essential part of any balance discussion - ‘of the 100 million ways to achieve balance which one should we pick’.

This picking always boils down to aesthetic choices because each set of options achieves balance and so balance alone cannot be the deciding factor.

I responded with a definition of balance I've found helpful, and asked how any desired aesthetic would be incompatible with that.
Because, to use balance as a stalking horse for an aesthetic, you'd have to somehow assure that all alternate aesthetics were incompatible with balance.
I don't see how any are.

This part loses me again.

If it’s something like - we can evaluate whether something is balanced independent of aesthetics then I agree! I’ve said nothing to the contrary though which adds to my confusion.

What we can’t do on balance alone is evaluate which of the 100 million balanced options should be chosen. That’s where aesthetics comes in.

Balance is, at bottom, a compromise feature that helps players in cooperative games play what they want, while all contributing.

Sure. Achieving that compromise usually also involves compromising aesthetics though.

What aesthetic demands that some players be blocked from fully contributing in a cooperative game, or demands that they be given meaningless choices?

Assuming you mean do certain aesthetic choices require a lack of balance to maintain - I think yes - but that’s completely tangential to anything I was claiming (which rested on multiple paths to balance) - thus my confusion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it’s something like - we can evaluate whether something is balanced independent of aesthetics then I agree! I’ve said nothing to the contrary though which adds to my confusion.

Yup. Balance isn't a quality that needs to be subordinated to aesthetics, nor vice-versa.
It sounded like you were claiming that balance was just being used to push an aesthetic.

Sure. Achieving that compromise usually also involves compromising aesthetics though.

Compromising among competing aesthetics, perhaps?

I'd assume that an aesthetic is advanced by presenting choices that fit that aesthetic? The more the better?
Then, presenting meaningless, non-viable, or 'trap' choices would work at cross purposes to supporting an aesthetic.

Even if an aesthetic requires two things be starkly unequal, they would still work better if balanced - they just couldn't be equally-weighted choices.
Ironically, an example of that would be something like (but better than) LAs in 3.x - you can have a race that's flatly superior to other races, but it eats into your character level.

Assuming you mean do certain aesthetic choices require a lack of balance to maintain - I think yes

If there are, then, by the same token, one of them would make a good stalking horse to push imbalance for it's own sake.
You wouldn't consider "simulationism" an aesthetic, by any chance?

 

[FrogReaver]

It sounded like you were claiming that balance was just being used to push an aesthetic.

Take 4e. Most balanced, wrong aesthetics for most. We could solve most balance issues by returning to 4e style systems. But that’s simply a non-tenable solution for aesthetic reasons.

If there are, then, by the same token, one of them would make a good stalking horse to push imbalance for it's own sake.
You wouldn't consider "simulationism" an aesthetic, by any chance?

I would! That also goes into the part where I said your conception of aesthetics wasn’t nearly broad enough (at least in relation to what I meant).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Take 4e. Most balanced, wrong aesthetics for most.

'Most' is a reach. 4e was not as badly balanced as other versions of D&D, but it still had a martial/caster gap, for instance, and a vast sea of chaff feats...
Similarly, there was a backlash of nerdrage from a vocal segment of the established fanbase.

We could solve most balance issues by returning to 4e style systems. But that’s simply a non-tenable solution for aesthetic reasons.

I'd say marketing reasons. I wouldn't go so far as calling edition war nerdrage an aesthetic.

I would! That also goes into the part where I said your conception of aesthetics wasn’t nearly broad enough (at least in relation to what I meant).

But, OK, if it's that broad, I suppose "preferring imbalance for it's own sake" or "wanting to make the DM cry" would be aesthetics.
I suppose, "the way it's always been" is a perfectly reasonable aesthetic, anyway.