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
Why does 5E SUCK?
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="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 6666252" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>I don't think so.</p><p></p><p>Games that heavily favor balance -- or, more precisely, heavily limit imbalance -- are universally games of competition. In those types of games, the rules exist to establish a fair contest. Sometimes they go so far to be a pure competition of only player skill that the only imbalance is who goes first (Chess, Go). They're also often zero-sum, adversarial games: you win at the cost of others losing. Even in games where co-operation is favored and balance is considered a requirement -- MMO raiding springs to mind, obviously MMO PvP is adversarial -- you're competing with other players for the same role. It's a market competition for a position in a raid rather than a direct competition.</p><p></p><p>With D&D, however, there's not really any competition inherent to the game. Now, you can certainly <em>add</em> competition and make it a contest of who is most effective in combat, but that's never the stated objective of the game. That's one you've added. I mean, what is the objective of D&D? Remember when you'd play traditional board games, and the first thing they list is something like "Objective: Eliminate all other players" or "Objective: Reach the end of the board before all other players." What would D&D say? "To have fun with friends while you roll dice and tell a story about an adventure"? Why does game balance <em>necessarily</em> lead to a better game result? Objectively? At all tables for all players?</p><p></p><p>What about the DM? Well, there's no contest with the DM. He can throw the Monster Manual at you at level 1. His role is to challenge, not to compete, and the DM can modify encounters as needed to adjust difficulty. This is why the DM vs Player mentality from late 1e and early 2e was so harmful. </p><p></p><p>What about losing in D&D? The only way you objectively lose D&D is when the game ends. You don't lose when you die. At worst, you get a new character. You never actually get eliminated from the game. Sure, you lose when you're not having fun, but since "fun" is subjective that doesn't make anything an objective requirement for the whole player base.</p><p></p><p>Look at something like, say, rogue-like video games like The Binding of Issac or FTL, where combat effectiveness ostensibly <em>is</em> the goal. Nobody is going to argue that ??? has a better start than Issac, or that the d6 isn't a ridiculous starting item, or that few ships have a better start than the Crystal B or a worse start than the Engi B. Yet people still play the other characters and ships. Or, indeed, look at any game with a difficulty setting. Obviously, you're most effective playing on Easy. So, why do people play on Hard? Sure, some people might not be able to win on anything other than Easy, but if so, why not <em>only</em> use Easy? I mean, these games could be like Spelunky, where every character is identical and there's only one difficulty setting (IIRC).</p><p></p><p>So, if the game isn't competitive, and the objective isn't to maximize combat effectiveness because even death isn't losing, and even if the objective <em>were</em> to maximize combat effectiveness there are people who don't necessarily want to do that... why is balance considered such a Holy Grail of D&D game design? It seems to me like giving people dials is equally important. Even if <em>you personally</em> want a highly balanced game, D&D is generally <em>not</em> designed for a single play style. Allowing people to choose less effective options is a requirement, then. As long as conveyance is handled correctly and accurately -- that is, things that look powerful are powerful, and things that are powerful look powerful -- then there is no problem.</p><p></p><p>So, no, I don't see a case for tight balance in D&D. I think we got very close with 4e, and I think that game suffered quite a bit because of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 6666252, member: 6777737"] I don't think so. Games that heavily favor balance -- or, more precisely, heavily limit imbalance -- are universally games of competition. In those types of games, the rules exist to establish a fair contest. Sometimes they go so far to be a pure competition of only player skill that the only imbalance is who goes first (Chess, Go). They're also often zero-sum, adversarial games: you win at the cost of others losing. Even in games where co-operation is favored and balance is considered a requirement -- MMO raiding springs to mind, obviously MMO PvP is adversarial -- you're competing with other players for the same role. It's a market competition for a position in a raid rather than a direct competition. With D&D, however, there's not really any competition inherent to the game. Now, you can certainly [I]add[/I] competition and make it a contest of who is most effective in combat, but that's never the stated objective of the game. That's one you've added. I mean, what is the objective of D&D? Remember when you'd play traditional board games, and the first thing they list is something like "Objective: Eliminate all other players" or "Objective: Reach the end of the board before all other players." What would D&D say? "To have fun with friends while you roll dice and tell a story about an adventure"? Why does game balance [I]necessarily[/I] lead to a better game result? Objectively? At all tables for all players? What about the DM? Well, there's no contest with the DM. He can throw the Monster Manual at you at level 1. His role is to challenge, not to compete, and the DM can modify encounters as needed to adjust difficulty. This is why the DM vs Player mentality from late 1e and early 2e was so harmful. What about losing in D&D? The only way you objectively lose D&D is when the game ends. You don't lose when you die. At worst, you get a new character. You never actually get eliminated from the game. Sure, you lose when you're not having fun, but since "fun" is subjective that doesn't make anything an objective requirement for the whole player base. Look at something like, say, rogue-like video games like The Binding of Issac or FTL, where combat effectiveness ostensibly [I]is[/I] the goal. Nobody is going to argue that ??? has a better start than Issac, or that the d6 isn't a ridiculous starting item, or that few ships have a better start than the Crystal B or a worse start than the Engi B. Yet people still play the other characters and ships. Or, indeed, look at any game with a difficulty setting. Obviously, you're most effective playing on Easy. So, why do people play on Hard? Sure, some people might not be able to win on anything other than Easy, but if so, why not [I]only[/I] use Easy? I mean, these games could be like Spelunky, where every character is identical and there's only one difficulty setting (IIRC). So, if the game isn't competitive, and the objective isn't to maximize combat effectiveness because even death isn't losing, and even if the objective [I]were[/I] to maximize combat effectiveness there are people who don't necessarily want to do that... why is balance considered such a Holy Grail of D&D game design? It seems to me like giving people dials is equally important. Even if [I]you personally[/I] want a highly balanced game, D&D is generally [I]not[/I] designed for a single play style. Allowing people to choose less effective options is a requirement, then. As long as conveyance is handled correctly and accurately -- that is, things that look powerful are powerful, and things that are powerful look powerful -- then there is no problem. So, no, I don't see a case for tight balance in D&D. I think we got very close with 4e, and I think that game suffered quite a bit because of it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top