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

[Dausuul]

My biggest problem with Forge-speak (though not my only one by a long shot) is that I don't believe G/N/S is a useful way to understand role-playing games. I see nothing to suggest it accurately describes the desires ("agendas" if you like) of actual players. I don't think I have ever once seen anyone say, "I'm into Gamism. I have no interest in Narrative or Simulation." It's always "I'm 60% Gamist, 30% Narrativist, 10% Simulationist." And nobody can quite agree on what's what.

As far as I'm concerned, if a roleplaying game can't deliver tactical challenges, and a good story, and a sense of reality in the fictional world, that game is a failure. I have played in campaigns that succeeded on all three counts, so I know it's possible, though it depends heavily on the GM and the players. I do believe different players have different agendas, but they do not break down neatly into Gamists, Narrativists, and Simulationists.

For a take on the subject that's got actual research backing it up, this article has a lot of fascinating stuff. In particular, this:

All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying. These 8 core values are:

• Strong Characters and Exciting Story
• Role Playing
• Complexity Increases over Time
• Requires Strategic Thinking
• Competitive
• Add on sets/New versions available
• Uses imagination
• Mentally challenging

 

[Marshall]

Marshall, I think you may have inferred a negative tone to my post that I was trying to avoid. I see 4e as very playable in a very gamist mode, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all!

Not seeing anything negative, just disagree with the direction you are headed.

ermm....yes? That's kinda my point.

Having in game definitions of what those levels mean dont define a playstyle in and of themselves. They just give the DM the tools to do his job.

ermm....yes? The 4e rules (at least the copy I have) strongly advise the DM to keep your PCs on that treadmill (although not in those terms, and I'll allow that later 4e publications may have amended that). Even to the point of simply "leveling up" or rewriting adversaries at higher level (the big advantage of that whole enemies are not PCs thing, IMO.) As you note, those 5% increments are (generally) applied to the foes as well. Mario just skips the treadmill math part. My only personal objection to the treadmill is that its a lot of math for little gain. Someone around hear suggested just skipping the 5% increments for leveling and just use HP to determine level...that seems a whole lot simpler to me.

The problem is the treadmill part. Marios style is find newer and newer ways to take something with the same abilities and go over, under, thru or around fancier and fancier walls.
4e still climbs the same staircase D&D always has, the difference is that every 5 floors you get a new tracksuit, climbing pole and pair of shoes because the stairs are taller, steeper and narrower.

I would disagree that its the only way to make levels meaningful. Even in the older editions, where levels came with different XP values, etc. gaining a level is usually a meaningful thing mechanically. The other things you mention are (to my mind) significant "value-added" propositions for keeping levels relatively balanced amongst the classes, but certainly not a requisite for meaning.

The problem is that the levels mean different thing to different classes at different times so they mean nothing to the system as a whole. Its only when you can make assumptions based on the term that it means something.

I think within the context of trying to evaluate rulesets in GNS terms (something which is a no-no, but often indulged in), saying that game X has levels, challenge ratings, or difficulty levels of the type which we are discussing is fairly indicative that game X probably is somewhat gamist, at least in comparison to a game without those things.

Whoa there! All games are Sim games!?! I know some Simulationist die-hards who would argue harshly against that point. (Although, I honestly think the Simulationist Definition is somewhat weak and people seem to be stretching it nowadays. So for some definitions that might work.)

The problem is that "simulation" is the point of every game or narrative to some extent. Its not a point in the GNS triangle, its the area in the center. The third point of the triangle is people acting out a role vs telling a story vs playing a game.

However, players knowing the challenge ratings of foes and the like would be against Simulationist play agendas, I would think. At best, the idea that all possible encounters can be numerically rated is Simulationist-neutral.

Certain foes, maybe. But for the most part PCs are going to know where they stand in comparison to opposition fairly quickly, if not on sight.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For a take on the subject that's got actual research backing it up, this article has a lot of fascinating stuff. In particular, this:

Man, whatever happened to that WotC?

 

[Dausuul]

But the fact that most of them are combat spells is kind of the point.

Just to see how it broke down, I took the list of 3rd-level wizard spells in the SRD and split them out by combat utility. Out of 42 spells, I found 20 that were primarily combat spells; 11 that had both combat and non-combat applications; and 11 that were primarily non-combat, with very limited use in battle.

The combat spells: Blink, Deep Slumber, Displacement, Fireball, Flame Arrow, Greater Magic Weapon, Halt Undead, Haste, Heroism, Hold Person, Keen Edge, Lightning Bolt, Protection from Energy, Rage, Ray of Exhaustion, Sleet Storm, Slow, Stinking Cloud, Vampiric Touch, Wind Wall.

The mixed-use spells: Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes, Fly, Invisibility Sphere, Magic Circle against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Major Image, Phantom Steed, Sepia Snake Sigil, Shrink Item, Suggestion, Summon Monster III.

The non-combat spells: Arcane Sight, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Daylight, Gaseous Form, Gentle Repose, Illusory Script, Nondetection, Secret Page, Tiny Hut, Tongues, Water Breathing.

So, if you count the mixed-use spells as half, the 3rd-level wizard list is about 60% combat-oriented. Cleric spells were a little harder to categorize, but I came up with 11 combat, 11 mixed, and 8 noncombat spells.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would call Protection from Energy mixed at least, as there are noncombat environments that cause energy damage.

The divine casters are sketchier because all those healing spells clearly pertain to combat which is the source of most hit point damage, but will frequently be cast to recover from a battle rather than during the battle.

 

[Dausuul]

I would call Protection from Energy mixed at least, as there are noncombat environments that cause energy damage.

Protection from energy provides a fixed buffer which absorbs 12 points/level of damage (capped at 120) and then ends. This makes it almost worthless against environmental damage; even 1d6 damage per round will burn through it in a couple of minutes. Resist energy is the spell for dealing with hostile environments.

Now, one can certainly imagine scenarios where protection from energy would be useful out of combat, but you could say the same about fireball. The spell is clearly meant for soaking up burst damage from things like dragon breath. Its other uses are extremely limited.

The divine casters are sketchier because all those healing spells clearly pertain to combat which is the source of most hit point damage, but will frequently be cast to recover from a battle rather than during the battle.

At 3rd level, I'd say that cure serious wounds and remove blindness/deafness should be considered combat spells, as they are almost always used to "clean up" after a fight. The rest of the "fix people up" spells I put in the mixed category.

 

[pemerton]

I think most people find they do require more rules for combat than other aspects of play

I think "require" here is a verb of taste (eg many people require salt on their egg to make it palatable) rather than of design logic.

a game that isn't necessarily about combat(or at least isn't focused on it more than other things) could contain mainly combat rules (but still might be an investigative game or something).

"About" raises difficult issues, but putting the use of that particular word to one side, I would say that if a game has mainly combat rules, but the main focus of activity in the game is something other than combat, then the game has been misdesigned.

 

[pemerton]

what is the forge I have never heard of it that I remember

It is (perhaps was - the messageboards are now shut down) a site for indie RPG design. I believe it evolved out of the Gaming Outpost.

It is probably the preeminent influence on contemporary RPG design. The most prominent Forge designer would be Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard), who appears in the acknowledgements for games ranging from Burning Wheel to Marvel Heroic Roleplaying.

Here is Mike Mearls on The Forge:

The simple truth is that few in the gaming industry put any real, useful thought into their work. The Forge is really the crucible for a lot of the real examination and exploration of the underlying structure of RPGs. Outside of the Forge, there are few other designers who think of games in a useful, interesting way. . .

It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.​

I think that Mearls was involved in the Gaming Outpost but not in The Forge.

they're...not fans of D&D and anyone who plays D&D.

I didn't know there was such an anti D&D mindset out side of religious circles...

The Forge is not anti-D&D at all. You can find plenty of discussion of D&D play on their boards. Ron Edwards, the designer who set up the site, was a player of OD&D back in the day. And Vincent Baker has written adventures for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which is a "weird fantasy" Basic D&D variant retro-clone.

The Forge is generally hostile to AD&D 2nd ed for the same reasons they are hostile to White Wolf's storyteller games, but 90s "storyteller" RPGing is hardly exhaustive of D&D or D&D players.

 

[pemerton]

In our games there would be no swimming in lava unless you had some sort of protection from fire.

OK, so you houseruled lava as a SoD-type effect rather than a source of hit point loss. I don't see what would stop you doing much the same in 4e.

 

[pemerton]

I see 4e as very playable in a very gamist mode

My query with gamist 4e is: where is the challenge? The answer as I see it (from your posts, and from many earlier and lucid posts by [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]): in playing your PC well to overcome the encounters. The point of the transparent PC and encounter build then becomes to make sure the "field of battle" is as fair as possible, so all success or failure is due to the players' skill.

Is this roughly right? If so, I see it as a fairly light gamism, because it's really not very demanding. Provided you're actually into the whole apparatus of mathematical manipulations as a passtime, I think you have to misplay pretty badly to lose.

I'm not sure "Class" is a gamist conceit, but level certainly is...at least as D&D usually has it.

<snip>

saying that game X has levels, challenge ratings, or difficulty levels of the type which we are discussing is fairly indicative that game X probably is somewhat gamist, at least in comparison to a game without those things.

I don't agree with this, though. As you correctly noted, 4e could drop the level bonus to everything and yet play just as tightly as a tactical vehicle.

The function of level in 4e, then, is to handle the unfolding of story elements: assuming that you use the monster stats as published, you start with kobolds and end with Orcus. Levelling is just not a gamist element at all, but a way of ensuring that the campaign tells the core story of D&D. (This is the link to high concept simulationism; but as you know I think it can also support a type of setting-oriented narrativism.)