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

[Ahnehnois]

We'll have to agree to disagree here; to me, if the ending is predetermined, everything else IS unimportant (from the standpoint of an adventure, anyhow). The ability to affect the outcome is the most frustrating aspect of railroading (IMHO). It's all about removing agency from the players.

What agency, though? If the character is fated to do something, or to have something happen to him, the player never had any agency to remove. I think that even if you give the player no control whatsoever over the outcomes their character experience, there's still a lot of interesting gaming, and that's the extreme.

That's why I gave the examples I did. Even if I decree that a PC has a terminal illness (horror) or a destiny to live amongst the fairies (fantasy), how the player deals with that immutable circumstance is still in itself quite dynamic and dramatic. I wouldn't call that railroading, but if you want to, go ahead. I'm certainly not advocating fate as the only way to go, simply a handy DM tool.

Let's say the adventure is Defend-the-Town-Against-Giants. If the DM knows that, no matter what, the adventure ends with the town successfully defended and all the giants dead, he's not allowing the pcs agency.

Well, no, he's not allowing the players control over this series events. To me, this is not railroading, because the PCs are not being deprived of the ability to make an in-character choice.

However, I think this also illustrates an unnecessarily limited view of what the outcome is. What if one of the PCs has some giant blood in him, and the session is really about him exploring his heritage and deciding what these events mean to him? Or what if some third party is watching which side the PCs take in this conflict and will then do something to or with the PCs according to their choices? The complexity of an open world makes it so that even if certain important outcomes are outside of the players' control, there is almost always something worthwhile that is.

In fact, since one of the many roles of the DM is narrator, I think it's potentially very important to devote more time to narrating parts of the fiction that do directly affect the characters and are affected by them. In that context, said giants vs village battle may be little more than a backdrop. Often, listening to the players and letting them drive the narration towards things that they care about, rather than focusing on a set scenario like the adventure above, can be very informative and satisfying. But (and this is the beauty of it) still does not take the players out of their roles.

This is very true, and where you draw the line between them very much depends upon playstyle preference. Personally, I favor a much more classic style sandbox, both as a player and a dm.

I've tried doing preplanned adventures, and I despise the idea. But I've also tried pure undirected sandbox play and found it fairly frustrating. I prefer what I refer to as "thematic improvisation", where I pick a few big important facets of the campaign and determine them myself and enforce them with a very heavy hand, and then go pretty laissez faire with everything else. But to each his own.

My point is that DMing and railroading are not the same thing. Even in a sandbox game, the players are still their characters, and the DM controls everything else. He's simply exercising his control in a different way, less focused, but also less restricted.

 

[pemerton]

Even balanced encounters are an entitlement.

I've broken this out because it is key to default 4e play that the GM, not the players, frames the encounters. This is one aspect of the game that is not under player control, and so I don't see how the notion of "entitlement" comes into play.

This is different from classic D&D, where the assumption is that if the players are skilled then they will frame the encounters, by choosing where to go and which monster(s) to target on any given expedition.

 

[the Jester]

I think it could relate to content over that is in the tables, too.

For example, given the original title of this thread, if a player playing a rogue expects that his combat abilities should be the same as those of the fighter, even though the rogue concept is not itself as pertinent to the topic, that's an entitlement.

Hmm.... okay, I see what you're saying there. I do agree it's unreasonable for a player to expect all the benefits of another class on top of his character's. It's hard to define "combat effectiveness", of course, but if the rogue feels like he ought to be able to front-line toe-to-toe with the ogres and giants... yeah, seems like he's playing the wrong class.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I'd say that one difference is that in 1e, you get the opportunity but must do the work to build that stronghold. In 4e, you just plain get your epic destiny.

This distinction exists within AD&D too. For instance, a paladin has to quest for his/her warhorse whereas a druid doesn't have to quest for his/her druidic underlings. I agree the distinction can be important in play, but I don't think that "player entitlement" is a useful way to descibe it (and I think you agree on this).

I don't think that fits my idea of "player entitlement" anyway; I'm talking about things where a player feels entitled to something that isn't explicitly on the advancement table for his class(es)- magic items/wealth by level is the perfect example, IMHO.

I can't comment on 3E, but in 4e those items are, in affect, on the advancement table. The game is crystal clear about its mechanical expectations in this respect. Inherent bonuses are just one device for completely formalinsing this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've broken this out because it is key to default 4e play that the GM, not the players, frames the encounters. This is one aspect of the game that is not under player control, and so I don't see how the notion of "entitlement" comes into play.

Players don't decide how much treasure they get either. The notion of an entitlement is precisely that the DM is the one who is doing it, but the player apparently feels a right to expect it.

t's hard to define "combat effectiveness", of course

Except in 4e, where according to some it's apparently an objective, measurable commodity.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is better to isolate them, make them optional, and explain what playstyle they serve.

I think it is possible to deal this this divide in style less contentiously.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

It isnt going to trouble me if this stuff is in the book but it is easy for me ignore.

There is nothing objectionable about this in principle. I think in practice, in D&D, it can be tricky because a feature of D&D has always been ambiguous mechanics - eg hit points, which some people regard as "metagame"/narrative, and others don't.

So breaking things out in the way you describe can be a bit of a culture change.

 

[pemerton]

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?

They got the maths wrong, in particular the damage maths.

I also think Expertise feats were part of it. My group plays without those feats and the players don't have any trouble achieving combat success.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There is nothing objectionable about this in principle. I think in practice, in D&D, it can be tricky because a feature of D&D has always been ambiguous mechanics - eg hit points, which some people regard as "metagame"/narrative, and others don't.

So breaking things out in the way you describe can be a bit of a culture change.

I agree that it would be pretty radical.

I also think that it would be a good thing. If the books said right up front what the mechanics represented, it would sure solve a lot of arguments. Of course, it would also require things like having a health system that's defensible as a pure representation of the character's...well...health, and some completely separate mechanical system or systems that addressed all the other things that hit points can be taken to represent. It would be quite an endeavor, but it would provide us with a worthwhile reason to drop $100 or whatever for a new set of books.

 

[pemerton]

What agency, though? If the character is fated to do something, or to have something happen to him, the player never had any agency to remove.

Huh? Are you talking about character or player? Whether or not the character is fated is a question about the content of the fiction. Whether or not the player is fated is a question of metaphysics.

When people talk about playe agency they are sidestepping the metaphysical question (as do most everyday discussions of human action). And they are expressing no view on the ingame fiction question (eg a player could exercise his/her agency to play a fated PC).

I also think that the polar opposite of railroading, the pure sandbox game, is quite a difficult proposition. Most people aren't going to think of anything that isn't a sandbox as a railroad; it's a spectrum rather than a dichotomy.

Even in a sandbox game, the players are still their characters, and the DM controls everything else. He's simply exercising his control in a different way, less focused, but also less restricted.

The second of these two passages shows that the first is an oversimplifcation. RPGing is not on a "spectrum" between railroad and sandbox. For instance, there are approaches to RPGing in which the GM exercises principal control over scene-framing (which is different from a sandbox) but does not execise principal control over the thematic or even literal content of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Players don't decide how much treasure they get either. The notion of an entitlement is precisely that the DM is the one who is doing it, but the player apparently feels a right to expect it.

In default 4e, players do get to choose what treasure their PCs get, and the GM places it into the fiction in accordance with a rule-determined sequence (the treasure parcel guidelines).

In that way it is closer to acquiring equipment as part of PC generation than (say) to GM treasure placement in classic D&D.