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

[S'mon]

I very much agree that PSF, while an interesting and effective way to use the 4e rule set, was not the style of play initially imagined, nor explicitly presented in the rule books (though I think there were implicit hints).

Yeah, I think that's right. It took me years to work it out, with the benefit of having read
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. My first attempt to run 4e 2009-2011 attempted to
shoehorn it into a Gygaxian Naturalism type style, and that worked very poorly.

I don't think the 4e designers understood what 4e was good at.
Certainly the HPE adventures are terrible, and seem to show a complete lack of
understanding - although Dungeon 155's Heathen was a rather good example of what 4e can do, if you cut out a couple fights - framing a 4e adventure around a classic work of literature like
Heart of Darkness is a clever way to play to its strengths, as long as scene resolution
stays open as with the climactic meeting with Kurtz/Jaryn. But there was a lot more 'Keep on the Shadowfell' than 'Heathen' published by WoTC.

3e had its own problems with the game being poorly suited to the assumed 1e style
dungeon-delving, but they tended to centre around class balance and only to emerge in
play after several levels. The disjunct between 4e's assumed and optimum play styles hits
you right away if you try to follow the DMG's adventure-construction advice and example (Kobold Hall).

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you're wondering what the crux of this issue that we keep going around in circles about, here it is.

As a player, I can roleplay pretty well, and take responsibility for getting what I'm looking for out of a game outside of numbers, or powers, or anything on the character sheet. Playing a lot of games other than D&D taught me this, as did just growing up.

At the same time, I very much do keep track of the mechanical aspects to what my character can contribute to the game and how the rules support what I want to do with them. That's the "game" part of RPG. That's not wrong.

If the game doesn't support what I want to do, and I must rely on the kindness of the GM, that's fine, as long as all of the other characters are in the same boat. The Amber Diceless roleplay game is very much like this.

However, if there's a character who gets spelled out specific rules for how they can be awesome all the time, and my character only gets to do that when I convince the GM that I'm playing correctly, that, in my opinion is a bad ruleset. It's also a bad ruleset when I get to be awesome only as often as the Angel Summoner lets me (that's a BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner reference for ya').

I don't expect people to agree with this assessment, but if you don't and simply don't understand how anyone could be a good player and feel this way, you will never be able to get to a conclusion with discussions like this. You'll keep arguing around in circles because both sides are right, they just see things from mutually exclusive positions.

It's not that I don't understand that perspective, it's that I think the expectations you're outlining are unrealistic. If you're playing a roleplaying game and your expectations are centered around your mechanical effectiveness, there's something wrong, regardless of whether those expectations are met.

If we were playing a modern rpg, we would never expect that a doctor character have the same mechanical usefulness as the hospital janitor. In fact, we wouldn't even expect that every doctor be the same. That doesn't stop some people from wanting to play the janitor. But in D&D, we already have unrealistic and very harsh strictures forcing everyone to essentially play professional adventurers of roughly equal effectiveness. That this isn't more than enough to satisfy those expectations on account of some relatively trivial and nuanced (and entirely justifiable) variations between character types is pretty mind-boggling to me.

That, and the other problem would be if you don't understand that you're only a few relatively small playstyle differences away from a scenario where the "Angel Summoner" is a cute distraction for the badass dude with the sword.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, this is also typically true for your group. I've never played in a group (or at least only rarely played) that only had one DM. So, for me, that's the outlier. Virtually every group I've played in since I was ten years old has included multiple DM's, with everyone taking turns running games.

So, in the groups that I've participated in, the groups have been very aware of the mechanics and not simply concerned with their own character.

I'd hazard a guess that the typical group dynamic involves significant inequalities in domains such as experience, ambition, and leadership. Most of the people I've played with have tried DMing, but most of them prefer roleplaying because they aren't DMs by nature. Hard to know from reading ENWorld, since this is a mostly DMs forum.

 

[Ratskinner]

It's not that I don't understand that perspective, it's that I think the expectations you're outlining are unrealistic. If you're playing a roleplaying game and your expectations are centered around your mechanical effectiveness, there's something wrong, regardless of whether those expectations are met.

When talking about D&D, maybe. However, when talking in terms of all rpgs/settings, I think that's less true. Mostly because expectations on what "effectiveness" might mean. I think its perfectly reasonable for someone playing a Leverage game to expect that all the characters will contribute in relatively equal portion to the typical "job" (although certainly some variance amongst jobs would occur.) Fate, and plenty of other games, basically assign equal mechanical performance, because those mechanics deal with things at the story level, not at the "reality" level of the fictional universe. That may not sound like much, but long-time D&Ders typically find the jump to Fate difficult because of it. It does also change the way the game plays and what experiences you'd get out of playing a scenario.

One of the big problems for D&D here is that people are expecting a lot of different things out of it. If you view it as a series of Dungeon Crawls, then I think its sensible to say that the different classes should act more like the Leverage crew. If you view it as some kind of fantasy world exploration engine (as, I think @Ahnenois does from his posts)...then this makes less sense. Still other people view it as an engine for generating their own fantasy stories...a purpose for which I think its actually poorly suited.

If we were playing a modern rpg, we would never expect that a doctor character have the same mechanical usefulness as the hospital janitor.

Of course not. The Doctor wasted all that time in school learning while the Janitor learned all he needed to know about dealing with ancient eldritch horrors from his uncle.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When talking about D&D, maybe. However, when talking in terms of all rpgs/settings, I think that's less true. Mostly because expectations on what "effectiveness" might mean. I think its perfectly reasonable for someone playing a Leverage game to expect that all the characters will contribute in relatively equal portion to the typical "job" (although certainly some variance amongst jobs would occur.) Fate, and plenty of other games, basically assign equal mechanical performance, because those mechanics deal with things at the story level, not at the "reality" level of the fictional universe. That may not sound like much, but long-time D&Ders typically find the jump to Fate difficult because of it. It does also change the way the game plays and what experiences you'd get out of playing a scenario.

I don't disagree with that. However, I think it would be unreasonable to read a D&D book and come to the same expectations. I don't see anywhere in there where it suggests that the premise of all players having equal in-game utility and effectiveness regardless of what they choose to play is promised, or even suggested. If the game promised that and failed to deliver, it would be bad. But to me, it delivers more than it promises in this domain, not less.

Of course not. The Doctor wasted all that time in school learning while the Janitor learned all he needed to know about dealing with ancient eldritch horrors from his uncle.

Not unlike some characters I've made.

 

[Imaro]

The height of the effect being the early 1990s is obviously a reference to Vampire and similar RPGs.

I don't think Edwards is worried about the influence of White Plume Mountain on protagonism: not much deformed story there!

I'm not speaking of the (correctly or incorrectly) assumed "height" of the effect Edwards is speaking to, I am looking at the actual words he wrote. It was a statement on protagonism... and I think Edwards very much intended to include early editions of D&D in his statement, especially since until 4e D&D did not provide the type of guaranteed protagonism (which I tend to associate with various low-level safety nets) Edwards is advocating for... In fact I have seen you argue along similar lines when discussing your disappointment in old school D&D not providing the type of "story" it hints at in it's opening fiction... was it Moldvay? You seem to be presenting your interpretation of his meaning, and of course trying to cast it in the most favorable light (though a state of brain damage and comparisons of child abuse are still idiotic things to tie to anyone's particular choice in game or playstyle.) as fact when his words make it clear he was speaking to D&D among other rpg's.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't disagree with that. However, I think it would be unreasonable to read a D&D book and come to the same expectations. I don't see anywhere in there where it suggests that the premise of all players having equal in-game utility and effectiveness regardless of what they choose to play is promised, or even suggested. If the game promised that and failed to deliver, it would be bad. But to me, it delivers more than it promises in this domain, not less.

I don't have all my books handy, but I think that that actually varies a lot between incarnations of the game, if you include introductory text, class overviews, etc. The idea that everyone contributes fairly equally is not exactly new, and I seem to recall some versions of the game promoting it vaguely. The more recent editions, to my memory, seem to imply or assume the idea, if not explicitly cite it. 3e, for instance, counts all Character class levels as the same and stacking for determining challenge ratings and the like. Doing that seems to imply that the designers were expecting all the classes to be equally effective. Now, if you mean, a prospective player reading the PHB and evaluating the classes mechanical effectiveness based on that alone...I dunno. I think it'd be very hard for that player to judge, even in 4e.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't have all my books handy, but I think that that actually varies a lot between incarnations of the game, if you include introductory text, class overviews, etc. The idea that everyone contributes fairly equally is not exactly new, and I seem to recall some versions of the game promoting it vaguely. The more recent editions, to my memory, seem to imply or assume the idea, if not explicitly cite it. 3e, for instance, counts all Character class levels as the same and stacking for determining challenge ratings and the like. Doing that seems to imply that the designers were expecting all the classes to be equally effective. Now, if you mean, a prospective player reading the PHB and evaluating the classes mechanical effectiveness based on that alone...I dunno. I think it'd be very hard for that player to judge, even in 4e.

CRs are in the DMG. A player that only reads the PHB is unaware of them. Heck, even the XP charts aren't in the PHB. So, to go back to when I said balance is a DM thing...

 

[S'mon]

I'm not speaking of the (correctly or incorrectly) assumed "height" of the effect Edwards is speaking to, I am looking at the actual words he wrote. It was a statement on protagonism... and I think Edwards very much intended to include early editions of D&D in his statement, especially since until 4e D&D did not provide the type of guaranteed protagonism (which I tend to associate with various low-level safety nets) Edwards is advocating for... In fact I have seen you argue along similar lines when discussing your disappointment in old school D&D not providing the type of "story" it hints at in it's opening fiction... was it Moldvay? You seem to be presenting your interpretation of his meaning, and of course trying to cast it in the most favorable light (though a state of brain damage and comparisons of child abuse are still idiotic things to tie to anyone's particular choice in game or playstyle.) as fact when his words make it clear he was speaking to D&D among other rpg's.

No, Edwards calls old pre-2e D&D a game aimed at "step on up Gamism" and is ok with that. It's 2e AD&D incoherence he hates - using a Gamist engine but drifting it towards simulation & dramatism.

This reminds me of the guys on therpgsite conflating Forgeists with White Wolfers as "storygamers", even though the Forge's "Story Now" was specifically a reaction against WW style "Story Already Written" Railroading. The Forgeist agenda is very hostile to something like Paizo Adventure Paths, but is fine with pure Gamist play, which is how it characterises Tomb of Horrors and suchlike Gygaxian stuff.

Edit: As for Moldvay, the problem is that it's a Gamist game that does not allow for the creation of the dragon-slaying scene described in the intro. It could have done that by being Dramatist in design - intended to create something like a story - or through the possibility of good Gamist play (Combat As War, maybe?) resulting in that scene. But it doesn't do either. You can only get to that scene by the GM not using the rules provided re dragon hp, sword damage etc.

 

[Imaro]

No, Edwards calls old pre-2e D&D a game aimed at "step on up Gamism" and is ok with that. It's 2e AD&D incoherence he hates - using a Gamist engine but drifting it towards simulation & dramatism.

We aren't talking about Edwards philosophy, we are talking about who he was referencing with his original "brain damage" comment. I provided a direct quote and he clearly references games from the 70's... so what games are being referenced if not old school D&D and it's ilk??

This reminds me of the guys on therpgsite conflating Forgeists with White Wolfers as "storygamers", even though the Forge's "Story Now" was specifically a reaction against WW style "Story Already Written" Railroading. The Forgeist agenda is very hostile to something like Paizo Adventure Paths, but is fine with pure Gamist play, which is how it characterises Tomb of Horrors and suchlike Gygaxian stuff.

Again what games from the 70's is he referencing then?

Edit: As for Moldvay, the problem is that it's a Gamist game that does not allow for the creation of the dragon-slaying scene described in the intro. It could have done that by being Dramatist in design - intended to create something like a story - or through the possibility of good Gamist play (Combat As War, maybe?) resulting in that scene. But it doesn't do either. You can only get to that scene by the GM not using the rules provided re dragon hp, sword damage etc.

So expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against... am I wrong here?