D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Ahnehnois]

I've done splitting the party myself and that does work to some extent. It can be very difficult to manage two stories at once though.

It is hard. "Intercutting" is a skill that a DM has to develop in addition to the existing ones. But I see it happen all the time where people are left out for a while for non-mechanical reasons. Maybe a bunch of elf PCs start speaking in elven to some elf leader and the one human has to sit on his hands. Or the game goes to a halt while one PC goes off and explores his family backstory. Maybe there are two passages and the players simply violate one of the cardinal rules of movies and split up. It is something to be done carefully, but I don't see it as a violation of some players' bill of rights for those that are not involved.

To me, it is not radically different to say that for some halfling rogue to say "eh, I didn't sneak up on them this battle, so I'll go off and hide somewhere, call me when it's over".

Of course with PCs that have very specialized roles you're probably going to bescrewed if you run into trouble.

And thrilled whenever your specialty comes into play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It might not need to be one of those things, but in D&D combat ought to be one of those things. In D&D (as opposed to e.g. Fate) combat is a matter of life and death - and I'd rather not have one of my characters taken out in something they had to sit out and that took three die rolls.

The problem with this assumption is that many of those scenes will generally take longer than five minutes of table time.

D&D combat does not need to be more than a few die rolls over the course of about 5 minutes. Not every fight is fatal, when you account for the difficulty of the overall adventure -- the encounter with the two goblins who harass the party is as vital as the encounter with the Goblin King and his 12 high priests of evil, because the resource attrition in the former affects the difficulty of the latter. There is variable intensity, and encounters can be dismissed quickly if the party wants to try that (the wizard fireballs them all, or the thief finds a secret passage that bypasses the encounter, or the fighter intimidates the leader and routes the whole group).

I don't want to spend a lot of time on most combats in D&D. So if someone sucks at them for a minute or two, it's not a big deal. Because combat need not be the point, it can just be a few quick die rolls and we can all move on. It's one moment in a broader adventure.

I don't understand that strict an approach to it. For one thing, it essentially mandates that you don't split the party.

You can still split the party, you just need to be able to swap back and forth.

But for another, it's not how most group activities work. In any team sport, people spend time on the bench. In theater, people wait backstage while others are performing. I don't understand why in D&D it's supposedly not OK that some people simply sit out for a while for various reasons.

You are expected to sit out for a while in D&D -- when other people are taking their own actions. In a group of 5 people who all take the same amount of time doing things, 4/5 of your time is spent watching other people do stuff. The issue is when you cannot take your own action in turn as well, because then you're just not really playing the game, you're watching other people play the game. Which, you know, a good game and good friends it might not be a major problem, but the game should be designed to be played more than designed to be watched.

Bench time and backstage time is fine, but if all I have is one line and all I do is touch the ball once a season, you might forgive me if I don't exactly make time every week, putting aside other activities and responsibilities, for about a year, to volunteer to mostly watch other people play D&D. No one is paid to play, there's nothing at stake, why would I sign up for that?

 

[The Human Target]

I don't think characters having a minimum basic competency in all the main aspects of the game in any way diminishes the thrill of the moments your character gets to shine.

 

[Wyckedemus]

And no class will be completely worthless in exploration and interaction. They all can seek information, and make suggestions and decisions, even if only half the group is relied upon for the actual serious die rolls.

The game encourages the DM not to ask for die rolls unless necessary, and to reward good ideas. If the magic pearl is in the dungpile, and the fighter says "I put on gloves and search the dungpile in case the monster ate it, then no "Search check" is needed. Reward that character with success!

The current interaction rules allow the player and the NPCs to have conversations (via roleplay, not dice-rolling) where they can learn about the NPC's traits, Ideals, Flaws, Bonds, and use that knowledge to affect the interaction in ways that do not require dice-rolling or special abilities.

These pillars are encouraged to be mechanics light so everyone can contribute with role-playing and problem-solving.

... in my opinion.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

And no class will be completely worthless in exploration and interaction. They all can seek information, and make suggestions and decisions, even if only half the group is relied upon for the actual serious die rolls.

The game encourages the DM not to ask for die rolls unless necessary, and to reward good ideas. If the magic pearl is in the dungpile, and the fighter says "I put on gloves and search the dungpile in case the monster ate it, then no "Search check" is needed. Reward that character with success!

The current interaction rules allow the player and the NPCs to have conversations (via roleplay, not dice-rolling) where they can learn about the NPC's traits, Ideals, Flaws, Bonds, and use that knowledge to affect the interaction in ways that do not require dice-rolling or special abilities.

These pillars are encouraged to be mechanics light so everyone can contribute with role-playing and problem-solving.

... in my opinion.

This is how we used to play back in 1st and 2nd edition.

 

[The Human Target]

So then should combat also be rules light and not take up 80 plus percent of the rules like in all the editions?

Which is fine, but changes the balance from mechanics to player skill.

Balance is still seemingly strived for in that set up though.

 

[Wyckedemus]

So then should combat also be rules light and not take up 80 plus percent of the rules like in all the editions?

Which is fine, but changes the balance from mechanics to player skill.

Balance is still seemingly strived for in that set up though.

Combat is already rules light compared to 3rd and 4th edition. But I believe the current level of simplicity/complexity is really fun in combat.

To use a Pillars of the Game analogy, to me the 3 Pillars are the same height, and support the same tabletop equally. It's just that the combat pillar has a larger circumference. It can stand on its own if a group cares only about hack and slash. But the other pillars are sturdy enough to support great Interaction and Exploration options when other groups lean heavily on those table edges.

... in my opinion.

(edit: spelling and added a word to clarify a point.)

 

[The Human Target]

I mean I think were on a similar train of thought.

But I think this thread really isn't much about 5e itself and what it does or doesn't have, so I'm kinda talking more in general at this point.

 

[n00bdragon]

D&D combat does not need to be more than a few die rolls over the course of about 5 minutes. Not every fight is fatal, when you account for the difficulty of the overall adventure -- the encounter with the two goblins who harass the party is as vital as the encounter with the Goblin King and his 12 high priests of evil, because the resource attrition in the former affects the difficulty of the latter. There is variable intensity, and encounters can be dismissed quickly if the party wants to try that (the wizard fireballs them all, or the thief finds a secret passage that bypasses the encounter, or the fighter intimidates the leader and routes the whole group).

I don't want to spend a lot of time on most combats in D&D. So if someone sucks at them for a minute or two, it's not a big deal. Because combat need not be the point, it can just be a few quick die rolls and we can all move on. It's one moment in a broader adventure.

I'm not sure if I'm really understanding your point here. Are you saying that the climactic battle with the goblin king should take just as long as the three-roll fight with Goblin #1 and Goblin #2?

 

[Wyckedemus]

I'm not sure if I'm really understanding your point here. Are you saying that the climactic battle with the goblin king should take just as long as the three-roll fight with Goblin #1 and Goblin #2?

I think Kamikaze Midget is correct in that the game is working pretty well right now, but I disagree with his assumption/assertion that there is a "bench" that people *have* to sit on. There is no bench unless a player chooses to make one.

The classes are all built with a basic function of being able to contribute to combat, and the rules do support non-die-rolling contributions to both interaction and exploration. My recent posts show how they can and will have fun in combat, and exploration, and interaction, even if they don't want to be "spec'd" for particular pillars.

... in my opinion.