Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9186177" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I am of the opinion that more balance is always better.I am not, however, of the opinion that every method for achieving balance is always better.The simplest way to achieve balance is uniformity: identical and unchanging things are necessarily balanced. But uniformity is a tool that must be used very carefully. Overuse results in games that are just as boring as games that have obvious degenerate solutions or dominant strategies: overly uniform games are dull because every choice is the same choice, without texture or distinction; unbalanced games are dull because every choice is a false choice, because there's always a correct answer.In 5e, as in 3e before it and arguably even 2e as well, the correct answer is always to use spells to solve as many problems as possible as long as spells are available, because spells are essentially always the best way to solve problems, and then to rest as soon as possible after spells cease to be available. This obvious dominant strategy then becomes the foundation of a GM/player arms race, with the players rewarded for every time they successfully counter the GM's attempts to force the players to not repeatedly 5MWD their problems into submission, and GMs having to resort to increasingly draconian measures to ensure compliance with the intended balancing mechanisms. This antagonistic cycle never ends, unless the players actively choose to play more poorly than they could, because the rewards are essentially always worth the effort due to how powerful, diverse, and flexible D&D magic is.Despite what some have claimed, we have never had an actually uniform game. Uniformity has existed in various forms in most editions of D&D, reaching a peak in 3e or 4e depending on exactly how you count certain elements. (IMO, 3e was more uniform because of its foolish effort to make monsters and PCs perfectly uniform in rules; others will argue 4e is more uniform because every class uses the same power schedule. Debates over the like are fruitless. Just recognizing that both included high degrees of uniformity, in different places, is all that really matters.)I am in full, complete agreement that making things too uniform, too homogenized, is bad for a game experience.I reject the claim that improving balance always means increasing uniformity. Asymmetrical balance exists. It is a challenge, to be sure; it is inherently harder than the trivial balance of uniformity. But it is the only acceptable form of balance for a TTRPG. The choices must be different, but all of such similar value that brute calculation cannot usefully guide you toward the best options.Consider: Fire spells do more damage up front, but are the most commonly resisted spell and rarely if ever have secondary effects (apart from "even more damage.") Cold spells are replete with control or defense effects, and fewer creatures resist cold. Lightning is reliable but niche; it's spells are less versatile in effect, but almost always useful against the vast majority of enemies. Acid (in BG3 anyway) is the debuffer damage type, setting enemies up for a fall and being weak but almost always useful. Etc.This is a great example of asymmetrical balance in action. In terms of raw damage, many of these types are actually very similar when you account for the risk of resistance. In other words, their compared secondary effects are the most relevant aspect, and comparing them cannot be reduced to a mere calculation, because they don't have commensurate values. Debuffing enemies and setting them up to be ripped apart by your allies could be powerful or pointless depending on the foe. Squeezing out a bit of extra damage could secure kills or barely be worthy of note. Etc. The choice becomes a matter of what the player values, not what the player mathematically calculates as the maximal choice.We can do the same thing with class design. We can have Rogues and Barbarians and Monks and Rangers that all do very nearly the same DPR, but with significantly different methods and rider effects. Asymmetrical balance: multiple distinct routes to the same end, and/or multiple routes to distinct but incommensurate ends.There is no such thing as too much asymmetrical balance. The more asymmetrical balance you offer, the more real diversity of choice the game provides, and the more depth and texture there is when engaging with those choices.Bland uniformity is garbage. Uniformity must only be used when it delivers tangible benefit, e.g. having a unified success mechanic delivers clearly beneficial results. (D&D uses a unified d20, PbtA uses a unified 2d6, etc.) In other words, uniformity is a tool, and can absolutely be overused.But asymmetrical balance literally describes the situation of making multiple good options where players must decide for themselves which good option to pick, rather than simply doing the thing that is always the best choice. More asymmetrical balance means more interesting, meaningful, non-solvable choices.The illusion of choice induced by having seven identical options is no more or less illusory than the illusion of choice induced by having one amazing option and all other options being a distant second place. Both choices are equally illusory. Asymmetrical balance eliminates the illusion. Choices matter. And making fewer illusory choices is always a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification