D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[Micah Sweet]

Classes are one example. They're a big one, in D&D.


The theoretically unrestricted possibilities of a TTRPG are a very real appeal. But they don not cause the system, itself, to become infinite, imponderable, or immune from reasonable evaluation.


As I mentioned, above, improving balance by removing an option is possible, when that option is invalidating multiple other options, but replacing the offending option with a balanced one will necessarily be a greater improvement in balance.

Balance isn't about restricting options, it's about maximizing real options.

Verisimilitude is arguably about restricting options - someone wants to play a certain concept, you object that it will ruin your verisimilitude.


Verisimilitude can be placed in conflict with anything at any time, since it is subjective and arbitrary, by the very definition you game, of 'making since' in spite of fantastic elements.

In other words, you judge what you think makes sense, and then arbitrarily excuse some of those things as fantastic, while demanding other be removed.


Well, 4e was a reasonably balanced game, and over 2 years, presented 23 classes, 2 of which were arguably sub-par, but still usable.

5e is a decidedly imbalanced game, and, over 10 years, has presented 13 classes, 6 of which are on an entirely different plane of sheer power and versatility from the others.

And then, there was 3.5 ....

Balance seems to actually be about pushing the agenda of whatever side of the magic or not-magic debate you prefer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Balance seems to actually be about pushing the agenda of whatever side of the magic or not-magic debate you prefer.

Balance is the functional compromise position. (there's a couple of magic/not-magic debates, like, should should fighters have supernatural powers, or whatever... that's independent of balance, you could give fighters supernatural powers while keeping them inferior, you could give them 'merely' superhuman powers and balance them.)

The pitfall of arguing for balance, itself, is that you get these weird 'compromise' solutions between the reasonable compromise and the unreasonable extreme.

 

[Alzrius]

I mean, table weighted to give fighters lots of items they need, and deny magic-users.
Net result, fighter many items, magic-users a few.
That's mean to 'balance the game'
The implication would be, net of items, the magic-user was ahead.

But, it's like, it was 1979, it was one of multiple ways EGG tried to balance the classes, some of which were just ...odd... and, most of which have been entirely abandoned, without actually replacing them with anything else.

I'm not sure I'd necessarily say that it's to "give fighters what they need" per se; the text calls out potions, scrolls, arms, and armor as being plentiful. Most of those can be used by thieves and clerics (and the relevant sub-classes) as well as fighters; even the scrolls have protection scrolls on the table, which as I recall anyone can use.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure I'd necessarily say that it's to "give fighters what they need" per se; the text calls out potions, scrolls, arms, and armor as being plentiful. Most of those can be used by thieves and clerics (and the relevant sub-classes) as well as fighters; even the scrolls have protection scrolls on the table, which as I recall anyone can use.

Yup. Thieves had it even worse, and Clerics were a dreadfully unpopular, yet vital, class that tended to have it's spellpower siphoned off by healing, was probably the reasoning.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, table weighted to give fighters lots of items they need, and deny magic-users.
Net result, fighter many items, magic-users a few.
That's mean to 'balance the game'
The implication would be, net of items, the magic-user was ahead.

But, it's like, it was 1979, it was one of multiple ways EGG tried to balance the classes, some of which were just ...odd... and, most of which have been entirely abandoned, without actually replacing them with anything else.

But you're not net of items. Give your PCs magic items people!

 

[Tony Vargas]

But you're not net of items. Give your PCs magic items people!

well, in 5e, the idea was supposedly going to be that magic items weren't assumed, they'd make you 'just better' - I feel like they've backed off that one, a bit

(I'm trying to think of a 1e balancing factor that 5e retained....)

 

[Micah Sweet]

well, in 5e, the idea was supposedly going to be that magic items weren't assumed, they'd make you 'just better' - I feel like they've backed off that one, a bit

(I'm trying to think of a 1e balancing factor that 5e retained....)

5e screwed up there. Not the first time.

 

[Alzrius]

Yup. Thieves had it even worse, and Clerics were a dreadfully unpopular, yet vital, class that tended to have it's spellpower siphoned off by healing, was probably the reasoning.

I'm trying to find a quote now (and can't seem to locate it) regarding how the wizard having a wand or a staff was the equivalent of a fighter having a magic sword; the implication being that both were...not necessarily required per se, but that the wizard wasn't supposed to blow all of their magic during the course of an adventure, but would rely a lot on having a repeatable magic weapon in a manner not dissimilar to the fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There were staves and there were staves.
Staff of Striking, sure, analogous to a sword.

Chance of a +3 or better sword in one go, about 2%
Chance of an MU staff, 0.03%

Now wands were more likely and at 100 charges... whoa

I mean, 1e tried

 

[Clint_L]

Can we please stop trying to make every thread about fighters? It's really, really tiresome.

Please?