D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Incenjucar]

So the thing that "player entitlement" refers to is... story agency?

It's true that railroading someone into is a lot easier than dynamic play, but it's also a lot playing in a JRPG or reading someone else's book. There's absolutely nothing about D&D that requires you to determine the destiny of the PCs.

 

[Imaro]

So the thing that "player entitlement" refers to is... story agency?

It's true that railroading someone into is a lot easier than dynamic play, but it's also a lot playing in a JRPG or reading someone else's book. There's absolutely nothing about D&D that requires you to determine the destiny of the PCs.

I didn't get anything about railroading from @Ahnehnois post (of course if I'm wrong he's welcome to correct me)... there's been a stark line between player and DM duties in previous editions and it didn't lead to the DM railroading the PC's... unless he chose to DM in that style. I'm curious... what exactly about that hard divide leads you to believe it will result inherently in railroading?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

So the thing that "player entitlement" refers to is... story agency?

It's true that railroading someone into is a lot easier than dynamic play, but it's also a lot playing in a JRPG or reading someone else's book. There's absolutely nothing about D&D that requires you to determine the destiny of the PCs.

When I run a game, it's the dice and the pc's actions that choose their destiny.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I didn't get anything about railroading from @Ahnehnois post (of course if I'm wrong he's welcome to correct me)...

No. I hate railroading. Even in the lengthy examples I gave about predestined fates for certain PCs, most of their actual play experiences were improvisational and emergent and frankly often defied my expectations. Railroading is not the same thing as DMing. Typically I go into a session knowing a few things that won't happen, but not much idea of what will happen. All the final decisions are defintionally mine, but since I am capable of listening, players will likely have an influence on them. As will dice on some occasions.

If anything, the idea of having four characters of the four basic classes of the same level and having them all contribute to combats in defined and predictable and equal ways, and having them advance strictly through combat encounters of predefined difficulty, and having all their choices be based on known information and produce predictable results (that is, "balance") sounds more like a railroad to me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There's absolutely nothing about D&D that requires you to determine the destiny of the PCs.

No. But there's nothing that forbids it either.

There's also nothing about D&D that requires you to balance characters of different classes in any particular way.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If anything, the idea of having four characters of the four basic classes of the same level and having them all contribute to combats in defined and predictable and equal ways, and having them advance strictly through combat encounters of predefined difficulty, and having all their choices be based on known information and produce predictable results (that is, "balance") sounds more like a railroad to me.

This is something that's been bothering me for a good while now, and my players actually prefer linear story plots.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is something that's been bothering me for a good while now, and my players actually prefer linear story plots.

Well, linear doesn't mean railroad. But I hope it's bothersome. It bothers me.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Me too.

(Also, JC - Happy New Year! I haven't seen you around here for a while.)

Thanks, you too.

I've been reading threads about as much as normal, I just haven't seen anything worth commenting on, really. Nothing new, or really interesting, in my mind. So I've been staying out of it and skimming more. I'm hoping things will get interesting again -and I'm sure they will- but the big topics don't interest me that much right now.

 

[pemerton]

Well GMs whether "lifer" or not still want the group to have a certain level of fun through "entitlement rewards', these could be narrative rewards (titles, honours..etc) or mechanical rewards (items, abilities...etc).

I don't think this is the sort of "player entitlement" that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was referring to.

For instance, in default 4e the gaining by PCs of items and abilities is on a fairly tight schedule, as is the base level for determining encounter difficulty - both are tied to level gain.

By "player entitlement" I think Manbearcat was talking about the capacity of players to shape the campaign.

there's been a stark line between player and DM duties in previous editions

There's a stark line between player and GM duties in games like 4e, HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP (one of the Cortex games to which Ahnehnois referred) but I'm pretty sure these generally count as "player entitlement" games for those who use that terminology.

I think metagaming is definitionally outside of the game. Any in-game application of out-of-game considerations is outside the bounds of the game. It's not a moral imperative, simply the box we've drawn.

<snip>

To me a strict in-character stance is part of the social contract of D&D, something that is both explicit in the rules, and implicit in the understanding of anyone I've ever met in the community.

What rules do you have in mind? For instance, Gygax's advice to players in the closing pages (before the Appendices) of his PHB clearly involves metagaming in-game application of out-of-game considerations and thinking beyone an in-character stance. So what you describe as the "D&D social contract" clearly isn't part of the social contract for classic D&D.

There is stuff closer to what you are saying in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB.

I don't remember such stuff in the 3rd ed PHB, but it's a long time since I've read it. Given that metagame powers are inherent to 4e D&D, I hardly think no-metagaming can be part of the 4e social contract.

I think this is another case where you are generalising your own experience in a way that both the rules texts, over the history of the game, and others' players experiences, do not support.

 

[Marshall]

So, laying down some ground rules again for clarity, I think metagaming is definitionally outside of the game. Any in-game application of out-of-game considerations is outside the bounds of the game. It's not a moral imperative, simply the box we've drawn. Using out of character knowledge in a D&D session is like using your hands to hit a soccer ball. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it is outside of the rules of the game.

You have a weird definition of metagame. Metagame means game elements that dont interact with the fiction and that the characters arent aware of.

If you want to do that, play another sport, say handball. Likewise, if a player wants to do something other than inhabit his character, play something else, like Cortex+. To me a strict in-character stance is part of the social contract of D&D, something that is both explicit in the rules, and implicit in the understanding of anyone I've ever met in the community. One thing I've noticed is that I use the term "playing D&D" to refer to any game that has an all-powerful DM and players who are purely responsible for the psychology of their characters, including non-fantasy, non-d20 games.

Honestly, I'd say if you have players who like to sit around and occasionally contribute bit parts to the story you as the DM are telling, YOU need to find another game and leave D&D to the people who want to play D&D.

Example: in the current game I'm running (CoC, which is not D&D but does fall under that broad envelope I described above of carrying the same social contract), I've got three characters, one budding schoolteacher, one disabled soldier trying to make a new career in psychology, and one doctor loaded to the teeth with spells. Balanced? Not remotely. One character gets a terminal diagnosis, one gets a mysterious voice in his head that no one else can hear, and the third is ostensibly supposed to come in and fix one or both of these things. Fair? Not remotely. Equal opportunity for all players to contribute? No. One spends her time doped up in a hospital, the other is the protagonist, and the other character doesn't exist until they call on him as a last resort after almost two full sessions. Characters' choices determining the outcome of their actions? Nope. Not remotely. But are we experiencing what it's like to get cancer? Are we playing out the emotional horrors? Are we intrigued by the supernatural elements? Are we eagerly awaiting the final outcome? Yes, absolutely. This game can't happen with the player entitlement crowd (AFAICT).

But that's not D&D you say. And yet, I'm taken back to a D&D game I ran a couple of years ago. Characters: one largely non-combatant druid, one evoker trying to open a magic shop, and one ranger working as a courier. Balanced? I doubt it. (The ranger pretty much dominated mechanically). And before the game, I decided that at the climax of the campaign, one character would be a McGuffin, another character would have to sacrifice his life for all eternity to save said McGuffin, and the third would fulfill an ancient prophecy and transcend to fairy land. Fair? Nope. Players in control of their characters' outcomes? Nope. But nonetheless, it all worked, they all enjoyed it, and every session was full of new and unexpected things. Again, I seem to have violated some of those rights billed above.

This is awful and the antithesis of a decent RPG. This is an author telling a story, nothing more. That your players seemed(to you) to enjoy it doesnt in least bit make it a good game. The fact that you had one of the supposed players sit out and watch 2 sessions should be a clue to you as a ref that you're doing something wrong.

To me, the notion of player entitlement places a stranglehold on the DM, asking him to both run an entire world but also to cater to the player characters because they are special snowflakes. Balance, not just between classes, but balanced encounters, balanced character abilities, balanced spotlight time, etc. is a symptom of a disease that prevents the DM from exploring a full range of story possibilities, many of which will stomp all over the rights implicit above. I'm not a fan.

You seem to have this fantasy notion that equality of outcome is the only goal of balance. (I'm not sure its even a goal of balance)
The number one goal is equality of opportunity.

Not only do I think that a black and white distinction between DM and player is the norm, I also think it always will be, because empowering the players creates gray areas over who is responsible for what. The only way to avoid these gray areas is to give one person ultimate authority over everything, and then let him decide how he wants to exercise or delegate that authority. I also think a fundamentally "unbalanced" approach that treats things that are different in reality (or in fiction) as also being different in the game, is always going to be the norm. The two go hand in hand.

Bovine excrement. Then delete all the spells in the PHB and just let the Wizard player say "I want to do this" and have to listen to the DM say "No, thats not realistic" or "Thats overpowered that your 18th level character can do 12d6 fire damage in a 40' diameter sphere at long range save for 1/2"
Empowering the players means that the players can expect their characters to perform at the level they have achieved regardless of the whims of the tyrannical DM.

This isn't to say that another game that doesn't have that assumption is bad. Just fundamentally different. If the DM isn't responsible for everything, than players being empowered doesn't detract from his efforts. I like the idea of experimenting in those realms on occasion. I'd do it more often if I could sell the players on it. To me, pure in-character roleplaying is always going to be soccer, the sport of the world, and metagame/storygaming/indie gaming/etc. is always going to be handball, an alternative, niche option. I don't think taking D&D into the storygaming realm makes any more sense than association football letting the field players use their hands now and then. If you're going to do player entitlement, build a new game for it. If you want to say 4e is that game, go ahead, though I suspect there's better out there (looking forward to the metagame-laced Firefly rpg coming out myself).

What roleplaying? You are describing passive acceptance of the story going by at the DMs discretion and the players reading along their parts of the script. At best, they can ad-lib a few lines, but the story is going where the DM wants it to no matter what.