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

[Manbearcat]

Have very little time so let so this is going to be a meandering, shallow breakdown. First, let me say that I was using "toys et al" to take a vague stab at framing potential definitional uses of folks who use the term as a pejorative. (a) I don't use it but (b) if forced to, I would frame it as "default campaign legitimacy as protagonists". I think this is key and there are a few facets to making this key.

Consider the term "Monty Haul". This term hasn't found its way into 4e play. Why? Its because magic items (or alternate advancement bonuses) specifically, and other "extra-class" resources generally, are effectively PC-build side resources that are assumed in order to keep the encounter challenge math (especially the noncombat challenge math with skill bonuses vs scaling DCs) functional. GMs aren't going to throw out "math perturbing" (in prior editions this might be termed as "campaign disruptive") items/parcels that unbound the challenge math (which is meant to be predictable GM-side...so you can make a TPK challenge if you want and you know it will be in TPK territory...rather than by accident).

4e assumes the PCs have campaign legitimacy. They assume that the gameplay situations/challenges/backdrop that the GM composes frames them as protagonists in an Epic Fantasy/Big Damn Hero story. That fictional positioning is default. You can certainly perturb it backwards and make them meager adventurers or "murderhobos" trying to scratch and claw out a living while not getting ganked. But the game certainly does default to/presuppose that.

More to the point, children want toys because...well..."I WANT TOYS" or because "HE/SHE HAS TOYS I WANT THEM TO". The mere existence of the toys or the fact that someone else has them "entitles" them to having toys. My friends and I make a joke a lot about contemporary American behavior that really bothers me and I've developed a quip when I see it in action "I'M AMERICAN AND IN AMERICA WE GET WHAT WE WE WANT AND WE WANT IT NOW, OK." It is a very childlike response/aspiration with a dearth of awareness as to potential insidiuos 2nd and 3rd order consequences (on their own lives and on cultural trajectory) to such a paradigm. I want it. I don't care about anything else. Give it to me. And now. They are ends sought unto themselves.

This isn't the case in 4e. The awareness and consideration for 2nd and 3rd order implication is central. In fact, it is the point. These things become means as physical constructs meant to legitimize PC role in the world (fictional positioning as big damn hero and protagonists that should be shaping campaign trajectory), while simultaneously (and this is key) being metaphyiscal constructs as acute considerations for equilibrating challenge math.

There is no "earning" Big Damn Hero status as this is the default thematics baked into the system (it is the premise) in the same way that there is no "earning" spellcasting as a Wizard (and all the fictional positioning that goes with it) or being a Dog (an gun-toting avenger/paladin that deals with demonic influence in the towns...punishing, enforcing, bringing to justice et al) in Dogs in the Vineyard. Folks who play Wizards aren't entitled (as spellcasters) and Dogs aren't entitled (as gun-toting religious avengers/paladins) because they chose to play the game. It doesn't make life easier for you. You don't get it just because you want it and you want it NOW. When you say "yeah, I'll play", you've done all the "earning" required. Now it is time to test your mettle as a big damn hero and see where your story goes (if it goes at all). You may die just as before but everyone will be Big Damn Heroes and everyone will have (roughly) equal footing in establishing those roots in the campaign while the GM will challenge that premise with predictable challenge math.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Whenever I read complaints about player entitlement, that's not what I see the problem as. The problem I see is one of DM entitlement. That the DM thinks that their setting should be theirs and inviolate, and that roleplaying isn't a team game with them as a member of the team. And that the DM doesn't believe that the input of additional people into their setting will, or even can make it more awesome (in my experience it almost always does). It's not the player who's entitled for thinking that their contribution should be valued. It's the DM who's entitled for thinking that only their contribution to the setting should be valued.

As a DM, I try as much as I can to develop my setting with player input. In fact, I want players to have as much input as myself in the creation of things such as the history of the world, races that inhabit it, important places and interesting conflicts, as well as the kind of stuff they'll want their characters involved in. As a player, I look forward to the same things, and I admit to get a bit frustrated when the DM shows no interest in working cooperatively in the way described above. But this is before the game starts.

Once the game starts, both as a DM and as a player, I want players to be focused in facing challenges and solving conflicts based solely in the way their characters would do, through their abilities and skills.

I know some great story games that work pretty well the other way around, but in my opinion, mechanics of narrative control are not a D&D thing. Things like "come and get it" detract from my D&D experience not because they represent player entitlement, but because they cannot be logically explained as character actions, but only as shared narrative control. To use the power, you must go out of character and think about how you, as a player, wants the story to develop.

It's not about player entitlement or DM entitlement. It's a playing style thing that describes me both as a player and as a DM. I don't want to be the player using "come and get it" as much as I don't want to be the DM running a game where it's used. I want character-driven games. I want players doing things because that's what their characters would do, not because that's the direction they want the story to go.

Much like Ahnehnois (at least to the extension that I think I understood the comment), I've found that not being able to say what happens next, unless my character (not me!) has a real in-game choice to make based in how he would be able to affect the situation, helps me build stories that are more unpredictable, but that are also more fun to be in.

I have no problem with people doing the opposite and effectively using the D&D engine to play a story game, I just believe that the market is full of better tools for the job, and I don't want the game to move in that direction. To be honest, not even 4E, the one where people seem to concentrate the arguments about "player entitlement" is a good tool for story games. In regard to player empowerment and shared fiction building, there's not a single thing that 4E can do that Dungeon World can't do better, in my opinion.

Cheers,

 

[Neonchameleon]

Consider the term "Monty Haul". This term hasn't found its way into 4e play. Why? Its because magic items (or alternate advancement bonuses) specifically, and other "extra-class" resources generally, are effectively PC-build side resources that are assumed in order to keep the encounter challenge math (especially the noncombat challenge math with skill bonuses vs scaling DCs) functional.

Monte Haul hasn't made it as a term into 4e because it was a problem based round a very specific playstyle and hasn't truly been relevant to most groups for a long time. 4e just put the final nails in the coffin.

In a lot of very old D&D groups you were expected to take your character from game to game with different people GMing different games. And magic items are power. For games like this, if one DM is giving out ten times the loot everyone else is then PCs who've been used in games with that DM have a vast advantage over those who haven't - and enough to disrupt every other DMs game. This is why Monte Haul DMs were so reviled - they were seriously disrupting games where they weren't even present, which makes them a step worse even than Kender and direct jerks at the table. The dislike of Monte Haul DMs that continued into 2e and even 3e was a legacy issue - people knew they were bad even if the reason they were really bad for a universe was no longer pressing.

Once the game starts, both as a DM and as a player, I want players to be focused in facing challenges and solving conflicts based solely in the way their characters would do, through their abilities and skills.

Indeed. But in order to be able to do this effectively I need to be able to write scraps of the setting even after character creation - there are things I'd expect to know. And if I expect to know them I need to be able to establish rather than have to ask the GM.

Things like "come and get it" detract from my D&D experience not because they represent player entitlement, but because they cannot be logically explained as character actions, but only as shared narrative control. To use the power, you must go out of character and think about how you, as a player, wants the story to develop.

Last time we checked, there were about half a dozen powers in the whole of 4e that were remotely like CAGI (and one of them was Warrior's Urging a.k.a. Improved CAGI). Using such a rare power even if it is a poster-child is not a good argument.

It's not about player entitlement or DM entitlement. It's a playing style thing that describes me both as a player and as a DM. I don't want to be the player using "come and get it" as much as I don't want to be the DM running a game where it's used.

Fine. Ban it. Also ban Warrior's Urging (Fighter 23), Provoke Overextension (Warlord 7), Tide of Blood (I think) (Rogue 15), and Rearrange the Battlefield (I think) (Warlord 16?). There may be one or two more. But beyond that you're done. There are almost no other powers you need to ban. If the entire argument boils down to "There are half a dozen very easily identifiable powers in the whole of 4e that cause this problem I don't like", as it does, the issue you and many others spend kilobytes of typing on is trivial. 4e can survive the loss of six powers. Hell, it can probably survive the loss of six hundred without causing serious problems. And I don't think I've run more than about two campaigns where I haven't banned things on thematic grounds.

Much like Ahnehnois (at least to the extension that I think I understood the comment), I've found that not being able to say what happens next, unless my character (not me!) has a real in-game choice to make based in how he would be able to affect the situation, helps me build stories that are more unpredictable, but that are also more fun to be in.

And I find that without some way of being able to direct some of what happens next I cannot immerse in the mind of a competent character. One who can look at a room and spot a dozen different opportunities that the average person wouldn't because they don't have that level of expertise.

In regard to player empowerment and shared fiction building, there's not a single thing that 4E can do that Dungeon World can't do better, in my opinion.

Then your opinion is objectively wrong. There are things 4e can do for player empowerment and shared fiction building that Dungeon World doesn't. Whether they are worth doing is a different story entirely - if we look at learning styles, I'm a kinaesthetic learner. 4e with its narrative language including moves, shifts, pulls, pushes, and slides is in this respect vastly superior in terms of shared fiction building and showing me how characters move to any other RPG I am aware of. 4e also with its AEDU structure does not have the problem common to all other editions of D&D where fighters are unfeeling, untiring robots who are exactly as effective offensively at all points of a fight and don't take a short break to catch their breath or pace themselves and hold back for desperate situations. In Dungeon World I have no mechanical way of terrorising PCs by harrying them and not giving them time to take a rest and recover their breath. In 4e as something to do once in a while, harrying PCs gets them very very scared - and desperate to take a breather in the way they should be.

Now whether these things are worth doing given the overhead they cost in terms of rules is an open question and all I can say is that tastes vary. Both 4e and Dungeon World are excellent games. But to say there's nothing that one can do better than the other is equally ridiculous both ways even if you restrict it to shared storytelling.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it is possible to deal this this divide in style less contentiously. It is starting to seem like one of the major dividing lines of style, and those kinds off divisions have always existed in the hobby, just in different forms. I first became aware of the this idea of the player having an impact on the setting external to his character, probably during the first few years of 3E, when i saw stuff like wish lists. Then I started seeing games that had mechanics (beyond say things like luck points) that g ave the players more control of the scene. Now personally, this has always conflicted a bit with my own style of pkay. I am fine with it in small doses i think, but i do remember when I first encountered wishlists, they they just were not how i wanted to play the game. But that said, it doesn't hurt me if others use wishlists. I think what is important is for companies like wotc to be aware of the distinction in style around such mechanics and advice, and then frame it in a way that people can easily incorporate it or ignore it. The 2E approach to skills is a good example of this. Playstyles often fractured around how to apporach skills, so they gave three distinct options, and two were pretty well fleshed out. A lot of people forget that NWPs were entirely optional in the second edition player's handbook because it recieved so much space. Pehaps they could do something similar here. An optional section on player empowerment mechanics or narrative mechanics and things in that vein. It isnt going to trouble me if this stuff is in the book but it is easy for me ignore.

 

[billd91]

Pehaps they could do something similar here. An optional section on player empowerment mechanics or narrative mechanics and things in that vein. It isnt going to trouble me if this stuff is in the book but it is easy for me ignore.

I don't know. I just never found there needed to be any mechanics to allow player empowerment, optional or not. What you needed was a group that wanted play in ways that allowed that kind of input. Adding mechanics strikes me as being only a minor tweak because if the group isn't inclined to promote player empowerment, then whatever mechanic is added will be the hard limit of player empowerment rather than really add the spirit of empowerment to the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know. I just never found there needed to be any mechanics to allow player empowerment, optional or not. What you needed was a group that wanted play in ways that allowed that kind of input. Adding mechanics strikes me as being only a minor tweak because if the group isn't inclined to promote player empowerment, then whatever mechanic is added will be the hard limit of player empowerment rather than really add the spirit of empowerment to the game.

i don't need them or use them myself. My point is, it isnt going to hurt me to include optional rules to accomodate folks who might want that. It is also helpful because it makes things less muddled. Right now both sides are vying for inclusion or exclusion of these things, and i think it is at times leading to murkiness, where you have bits of them in the game but not a lot it is unclear why they are there I think it is better to isolate them, make them optional, and explain what playstyle they serve. It took me a few years of encountering these things here and there to understand why they bothered me (and countless debates at the table as i was slowly getting a handle on what they were). A single paragraph explaining what they are, and some pages of optional material, would have saved me osme headaches and clarified what it was i was running into. I don't know. It is just a thought. I am not committed to to it 100%. But interested in finding a way to discuss this where it isn't seen as a zero sum game and we are not at each other's throats because we like to play the game (a game we all share a passion for) differently.

 

[Imaro]

Have very little time so let so this is going to be a meandering, shallow breakdown. First, let me say that I was using "toys et al" to take a vague stab at framing potential definitional uses of folks who use the term as a pejorative. (a) I don't use it but (b) if forced to, I would frame it as "default campaign legitimacy as protagonists". I think this is key and there are a few facets to making this key.

Consider the term "Monty Haul". This term hasn't found its way into 4e play. Why? Its because magic items (or alternate advancement bonuses) specifically, and other "extra-class" resources generally, are effectively PC-build side resources that are assumed in order to keep the encounter challenge math (especially the noncombat challenge math with skill bonuses vs scaling DCs) functional. GMs aren't going to throw out "math perturbing" (in prior editions this might be termed as "campaign disruptive") items/parcels that unbound the challenge math (which is meant to be predictable GM-side...so you can make a TPK challenge if you want and you know it will be in TPK territory...rather than by accident).

I'm curious if you consider the numerous problems people had as far as legitimately challenging their PC's once they got in paragon and epic levels a form of "Monty Haul-ism"? Now traditionally a "Monty Haul" campaign has been when a DM handed out too much treasure and well pretty much the PC's became too powerful. Do you believe the rules can do this as well (if they place themselves in charge of this aspect as opposed to the DM?), and if not what do you think is the primary cause of so many people finding that they had to drastically exceed the game's encounter guidelines in order to offer any type of challenge to their players in these levels? I can kind of understand epic levels since I consider thos a special case (though I do think the math and expectations should still hold up)... but in paragon level should there be this type of disparity?

 

[Mistwell]

As I mentioned above, I think this is because you are using a mechanically heavy system to run a waking dream/immersive experience for the players. If you are unhappy with the state of affairs (and I understand you may not be) I suggest using a lighter system...

I agree. He should try 5e out. it's a mechanically much lighter system and caters better to immersive play.

 

[Imaro]

Indeed. But in order to be able to do this effectively I need to be able to write scraps of the setting even after character creation - there are things I'd expect to know. And if I expect to know them I need to be able to establish rather than have to ask the GM.

Could you further elaborate on why you need to be able to establish rather than have to ask the GM? I'm not seeing how this is necessary since even 4e has skills for knowledge checks and so on...

And I find that without some way of being able to direct some of what happens next I cannot immerse in the mind of a competent character. One who can look at a room and spot a dozen different opportunities that the average person wouldn't because they don't have that level of expertise.

Well no one can argue what helps you immerse yourself but I am trying to understand your reasoning here... I feel like this is what skill rolls are for... I want to assess an NPC or multiple NPC's I roll insight and the DM tells me about them... Again you framed the ability to create things as a need and I am trying to understand why that is... or do you mean just a personal need, as in it being a subjective need?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Indeed. But in order to be able to do this effectively I need to be able to write scraps of the setting even after character creation - there are things I'd expect to know. And if I expect to know them I need to be able to establish rather than have to ask the GM.

In this case, it's not cooperative. As much as we share world building, someone needs to have the final word about what is and what isn't allowed into the game. There are some good story games where you bid for authority, but D&D is not one of them, it doesn't even have mechanics for that. If you're not playing alone, and I'm pretty sure you're not, everything you conceive for this imaginary world should only be incorporated if everybody agrees that it's a good addition. The DM is the final arbiter on this regard not because of entitlement, but because the rules say someone needs to have the authority. You could have a game where that authority is given to someone else, but one more time, this is not the case with D&D.

Last time we checked, there were about half a dozen powers in the whole of 4e that were remotely like CAGI (and one of them was Warrior's Urging a.k.a. Improved CAGI). Using such a rare power even if it is a poster-child is not a good argument.

"Come and get it" is, indeed, the poster-child to this discussion, but only because it rewrites the fiction in the most absurd ways. In fact, the majority of the martial encounter and daily powers will have players asking the definitive AEDU question: shouldn't I be able to do that more often?

The first answer is complicated: no, you cannot do it because you tap into reserves of inner endurance to do that. It's complicated because that same character will tap into those same reserves to use other powers, so they're probably far away from being depleted.

The second answer is fine: no, you cannot do it because that's a player resource of narrative control. By using this power, you get to tell the exact moment where the enemy lowers his guard and you strike for additional damage, but the amount of narrative control you're entitled to is limited.

While I have no problems with the second answer, I believe D&D can do better without it. As always, it's my opinion about what makes for a good D&D game, and in no way represents what I believe everybody should be playing. In fact, it's not even the reason why I moved away from 4E in favor of other D&D flavors.

And I find that without some way of being able to direct some of what happens next I cannot immerse in the mind of a competent character. One who can look at a room and spot a dozen different opportunities that the average person wouldn't because they don't have that level of expertise.

And I'm perfectly fine with that. If this is improves your experience, that's how you should be playing. For myself, I prefer to play an unpredictable game where some characters are completely incompetent for the most various tasks, including fighting anything. I've found that thinking about ways to make failure interesting and relevant improves my experience more than assuring basic general competence for characters.

4e with its narrative language including moves, shifts, pulls, pushes, and slides is in this respect vastly superior in terms of shared fiction building and showing me how characters move to any other RPG I am aware of.

I fail to see how this improve a story game. Can you develop on this?

4e also with its AEDU structure does not have the problem common to all other editions of D&D where fighters are unfeeling, untiring robots who are exactly as effective offensively at all points of a fight and don't take a short break to catch their breath or pace themselves and hold back for desperate situations. In Dungeon World I have no mechanical way of terrorising PCs by harrying them and not giving them time to take a rest and recover their breath. In 4e as something to do once in a while, harrying PCs gets them very very scared - and desperate to take a breather in the way they should be.

While I was talking specifically about the matter of player empowerment, I see your point. I agree that 4E creates those moments, but I believe it's an artificial construct of its own rules. I mean, it's only this way because of encounter powers and healing surges. In fact, the players want a break, not the characters. A fighter who spends all his encounters and dailies but who can still keep swinging his sword all day long with only at-wills is really tired? How is he different from a 3E fighter?

In other games with the same general construction, characters don't stop to catch their breath because there's nothing to gain from it. On this regard, Torchbearer does it better, in my opinion, because characters don't stop to regain useful resources, they stop as a matter of life and death. It's the rules, not the players, telling the characters at which point they're too tired, hungry, thirsty or injured to go on.

Now whether these things are worth doing given the overhead they cost in terms of rules is an open question and all I can say is that tastes vary. Both 4e and Dungeon World are excellent games. But to say there's nothing that one can do better than the other is equally ridiculous both ways even if you restrict it to shared storytelling.

We'll agree to disagree in that matter. While 4E does a lot of things better than DW, I don't believe any of those things is related to be played as a story game.

Cheers,