D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Ratskinner]

We've discussed this before. I still don't think I follow. Why does rules proliferation push towards G or S? If the rules aren't simulationist in orientation, you can avoid S. Why must they push towards G, though? Because they create a framework that can be exploited, thereby allowing gamism to emerge as the "creeping doom"?

Yes, to some extent. I don't really think G or S has to be "creeping doom" at least maybe not "doom". (I think some of that is Mr. Edwards' own proclivities coming through, or my take on his proclivities.) I think there are meta-game design issues driving this as well.

...bear with me and I'll try to explain my thinking as best I can....

Narrativism, heck story, really doesn't need much. You just need enough to set up/drive conflicts, and generally speaking some kind of random element to bounce creativity off of, maybe a bit more depending on the author's feelings and what he's aiming at. So Universalis is 136 Pages 5.5" x 8.5", Capes is pretty small as well; about 160 pages, digest sized. In both cases, a good chunk of the pagecount are play examples and strategy discussion; for Capes, another good chunk is templates for quickly creating characters. Also in both cases, generating new material would only entail writing down descriptions/descriptors; nothing mechanical changes about the game.

The thing is...from a sales/expansion point of view...those games are done, one-offs. I suppose you could maybe sell additional "click-and-lock" templates for Capes in other genres, but at best your talking a 20-30 page pdf/genre. Can a Narrative base generate splat material? Maybe. Fiasco seems to have a zillion playsets or so, but most of them are free, and they only consist of a few pages. Apocalypse World and Dungeon World? Hard to say. There seems a squishy limit to how many classes fit well, and generating fronts is easy. Spells, maybe?

That doesn't mean that you can't have Narrative elements or support in a larger game. FATE is, perhaps, the most famous example now with Dresden Files, Legends of Anglerre, etc. demonstrating the ability for that system to support supplement generation. However, the underlying system is a vague, sloppy, Simulationist system. Depending on the aspects chosen, FATE doesn't have to be very Narrativist at all. I feel similarly about Burning Wheel, although I have less experience with it and am relying on online discussions that BW can be played very Sim and even Gamist (!?).

So, you're a publisher. You want to publish. You need to generate content for your game...which means proliferating rules. (Thus splat material outselling adventures/world material.) So, when you invent your game, you make sure to invent a game that makes proliferating rules easy....it will have fiddly bits!...and many types of fiddly bits!

Narrativism, IMO, makes fiddly bits difficult. The fiddly bits get too much like scripting, and Narration often approaches events and situations that are too open-ended and hard to write for. To illustrate this to yourself: try to make up an AEDU-like power structure for argument/social interaction rather than combat. Tough, isn't it? Worse, the results are unsatisfying or flat out weird. Notice how 4e flees the fiddly bits when you get into this territory, relegating itself to some comparatively vague skill checks in a skill challenge.* Yes, I know that "Narrativism doesn't have to be rules light.." is the mantra, but...

I no longer think this is choice on the designer's part. I'm looking at the "proof-of-concept" games out there, and I've never heard a whisper of one that handles things in a fundamentally Narrativist fashion, and yet has tons of fiddly bits. Plenty of FATEs, and BWs, which have a Narrativist bent or section tacked onto some other "big" frame, but no version of "social combat" that anywhere near approaches the level of finesse or detail that we're used to seeing for physical combat. If you know of a counter-example, I'd love to hear it.

So, you're left with Gamism or Simulationism (or nonsense, I suppose). Either one can generate or tolerate gobs of fiddly bits. Gamism can be dirt simple, but if you design the substrate well enough, you can leave room for plenty of fiddly-bit function. That's why I think the historical tendency is for Sim. It practically demands rules proliferation. Gamism requires some prep work to create a foundation that does. So, while Sim drives rules proliferation on its own, the fact the rules-proliferation is driven externally, can drive Gamism. At the level of the Table, Rules-proliferation means more ways to look for exploitations/combos to bring about the "win" or score "cool points", which is a gamist urge.

Example: Magic, the Gathering. Totally Gamist structure. Cards are rules, need to sell cards->rules/card proliferation.

Example 2: Power creep in 2e and 3e. Totally a Gamist function, driven and supported by the need for splat supplement sales. (less prominent in 3e than in 2e.)

While 4e supporters look at the explicit math in 4e as a balance-driven thing, I also see it as a defense mechanism against power creep. Having it there prevented them from "accidentally" releasing a later defender that was strictly better than the Fighter. Which is certainly a temptation when you're trying to sell books. In part, this is what made 4e so brilliant, it used a lot of gamist trappings, but actively and openly resisted gamism-creep. Unfortunately, it also managed to be a big turn-off for a lot of people.

Anyway....I guess that's it. I hope that makes some sense to someone other than me.

TL/DR:

Narrativism doesn't support fiddly bits.
Publishers need fiddly bits to support splat.
No 'N' means 'S', 'G', or nonsense.



*A weird version of 4e: Create "Melee", "Missile", and (perhaps several) "Magic" skills. Forget AEDU powers, other than maybe the flavor text. Combat could then be resolved as a skill challenge(s) all in TotM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You can't prove a negative. It's really inherently difficult to support the idea that D&D is not some kind of wildly unbalanced failure of a game that people can't play.

Hey, D&D hasn't been /that/ bad for well over a decade! Maybe even two (2e was cleaned up a bit). 3e you could play without modification (indeed, try getting it's system-master fans to put up with much modification), so it's hardly a failure, even though it was still wildly imbalanced. And 4e wasn't unbalanced at all, though it was a failure, of course.

The level of evidence required to support a claim is proportionate to how radically that claim diverges from accepted fact.

It's an accepted fact that D&D was a poorly-balanced game much given to the 5MWD, Maunty Haul campaigns and Killer DMs, and, starting with 3e, wild opitimization shinnanigans. Claims to the contrary are supported only by unverifiable anecdotal evidence provided by anonymous posters on the internet.

It is also an accepted fact that D&D has always sold well, and is the only RPG that's remotely penetrated the mainstream.

The two are not entirely un-related, but the causality, if there is any, probably isn't in the direction you might think. TSR made little attempt to improve the system during its reign, even as technically superior systems were produced by it's rivals, and it continued to be the leading RPG in commercial terms. WotC tried improving the system, and that tactic seemed to work in terms of commercial success with 3e, but failed with 4e. The most logical conclusion to draw is that D&D doesn't sell on the strength of its system.

In any case, this argument:

Given that the basic paradigm how how D&D handles magic has been around and sold well for decades and is the rpg we all came to these boards to talk about, given that the 3e rules system has been around for over a decade and is still clearly going strong, the claim that either of these approaches is fundamentally wrong or that 3e (not a spell, or even a class, but an entire system) is "broken" is an extreme one, and requires more justification than "someone on the charop boards did X" or "in my games, X always happens".

is nothing more than a standard-issue fallacious appeal to popularity. A product is selling well, therefor there is nothing wrong with it. By that logic, cigarette's can't possibly be dangerous, and McDonald's must have better hamburgers than In-N-Out...

 

[Hussar]

As I said, it's nothing about proving a negative.

Assume for a second that people are posting in good faith. They really are having an issue with balance between casters and non-casters. They point to reams of evidence where these problems lie - game changing spells, linear fighters/quadradic wizards, stat comparisons between classes, etc.

In response, I get told that I should "play smart" and these problems will all go away. Ok, fair enough. What does "play smart" mean?

*cue crickets*

And that's where the conversation stops. I get told that having a +4 stat boost item on an 8th level character is too powerful, I'm redlining the system. I get told that I should change my playstyle to this, that and the other thing, but, not really of course, because if I do the exact opposite, I still won't have problems. I get told that groups and players will have access to knowledge allowing them to pick and choose encounters without any actual evidence as to HOW this can be done when the chances of success are virtually nil. On and on and on.

It's like punching smoke. I don't really care one whit how many people have, or don't have, this problem. How does that help me? Even if I'm the only one having this problem, no one can still actually articulate any real advice on how to avoid the problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Assume for a second that people are posting in good faith. They really are having an issue with balance between casters and non-casters. They point to reams of evidence where these problems lie - game changing spells, linear fighters/quadradic wizards, stat comparisons between classes, etc.

In response, I get told that I should "play smart" and these problems will all go away. Ok, fair enough. What does "play smart" mean?

*cue crickets*

I'd think 'play smart' would mean play a caster, preferably a CoDzilla or god-wizard.

But, from the DM perspective it is absolutely possible to force balance. It's a moving target, because casters, even in 3e, start out a little weak, so you have to shift from favoring them at low levels to relentlessly harping on all their little limitations at higher level. At low level, feel free to telegraph future encounters and leave a scroll or book of just the right spell for the next day in a treasure horde. At higher levels, enemies will have anti-scrying and anti-divination measures that prevent information gathering or provide false and misleading information.

At lower levels, let the party rest whenever they want - they'll need to just heal up, anyway. At higher levels, keep on them until the casters are tapped out. Dispel their Rope Tricks and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansions, persue them into the time-distorting dimensions they retreat to for a days rest in a minute.

Don't bother with anti-magic or SR, casters have too many ways around 'em and non-casters can really be hosed by the former. Which reminds me, give out vastly powerful un-sellable magic weapons and armor for the non-casters.

That's a start.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In any case, this argument:

is nothing more than a standard-issue fallacious appeal to popularity. A product is selling well, therefor there is nothing wrong with it. By that logic, cigarette's can't possibly be dangerous, and McDonald's must have better hamburgers than In-N-Out...

If this is an appeal to popularity, what's this:

It's an accepted fact that D&D was a poorly-balanced game much given to the 5MWD, Maunty Haul campaigns and Killer DMs, and, starting with 3e, wild opitimization shinnanigans.

Other than unverifiable internet sources, who accepts this?

In any case, you've rather overstated my point. I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with it, I'm saying that the game as a whole isn't broken. It's a big step from saying "Natural Spell is broken" or even "generalist wizards are broken" to saying "3e is broken". One that I'm not willing to take so easily.

***

I don't really care one whit how many people have, or don't have, this problem. How does that help me? Even if I'm the only one having this problem, no one can still actually articulate any real advice on how to avoid the problem.

An understandable question, but also a very tough bar. My D&D works fine. It worked okay out of the book when I bought it, and works better now with years of experience and thorough houserules. Yours is probably so different, because of the complexity of the game and the diversity of its player base, that it would be pointless for me to presume that I can address your game as an expert, as I am only an expert when it comes to mine (as are we all).

One thing I've always wanted to do is to run a D&D style session freeform without rules, then gradually add the rules back in to see what effect they have. Do they resolve problems? Introduce them? I think it would be very informative to see how the fighter/caster dynamic plays out when the only rule is "do whatever is appropriate for the character".

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with it, I'm saying that the game as a whole isn't broken. It's a big step from saying "Natural Spell is broken" or even "generalist wizards are broken" to saying "3e is broken". One that I'm not willing to take so easily.

OK, that's a different subject, I suppose. How many (and how badly) broken elements does it take to break a game? A class is a much larger and more complex game element than a spell or a weapon, further complicating the analysis. And games balance or break in more than one place. Most of the balance issues with 3e are about class balance, so even they don't claim the /whole/ game is broken. Though CR isn't exactly robust, magic items can be imbalancing, and the skill system can be pretty whacked...

I suspect it wouldn't take many if they were extreme enough, and I'd probably have to consider the tier-1 classes extreme enough...

One thing I've always wanted to do is to run a D&D style session freeform without rules, then gradually add the rules back in to see what effect they have. Do they resolve problems? Introduce them? I think it would be very informative to see how the fighter/caster dynamic plays out when the only rule is "do whatever is appropriate for the character".

Expectations would probably result in the 'freeform' session working much like the with-rules session. To be valid, you'd need to try the experiment with participants both 'untainted' by expectations about D&D, /and/ skilled enough RPGers to handle free-styling - and I doubt such exist.

 

[Ahnehnois]

OK, that's a different subject, I suppose. How many (and how badly) broken elements does it take to break a game?

I don't know that any amount of individual flaws adds up to that conclusion (and I tend to think that 3e's extant flaws are either overblown or ignored). How many bad lines of dialogue, bad special effects, and bad actors does it take to make a bad movie? It depends. I don't know any perfect films, but sometimes one bad element can screw things up, while others can withstand many flaws. Given the malleable nature of an rpg, I say it's very resilient to imbalances and design mistakes.

Expectations would probably result in the 'freeform' session working much like the with-rules session. To be valid, you'd need to try the experiment with participants both 'untainted' by expectations about D&D, /and/ skilled enough RPGers to handle free-styling - and I doubt such exist.

I think even with experienced players, you'd learn something (not the same things you'd learn with novices necessarily). I would expect it to significantly resemble a session with rules because we're trained to think using those rules, but I think people can think outside of that box if given the opportunity.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, Ahn, I do largely agree with you that 3e isn't horribly broken. I'm not going to say that it is. 3e works very well, particularly within the "sweet spot" range of levels from about 3rd to 10th. However, that being said, it's also very, very easy for casters to get out of hand and change the nature of the game in ways that non-casters simply cannot.

Think of it this way. If you had a completely non-magical group - all non-casters - how different would you have to make an 18th level adventure from a 5th level one to still challenge those characters? Any terrain challenges still apply - it's not like fighters gain fly or teleport. Long distance travel is still an option. Mystery based adventures are virtually unchanged.

Now, use a standard party - cleric, wizard, fighter, thief. The two adventures have to be entirely different. Terrain issues are ignored because either of the casters can just fly/teleport/whatever the entire party past. Mysteries become a joke as the casters can throw spells at the mystery until they resolve it. Long distance travel/exploration is not even possible anymore.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Everything else is just an adjunct to the casting system. The casters fundamentally change the nature of the game simply by existing.

I remember having a really eye opening experience in 4e. We were in a scenario where our 8th (ish) level characters had to track down a traitor amongst the citizens of a small castle we were protecting from an invading force. My first reaction once we identified the problem was to turn to the casters and get them to solve the problem. Because, honestly, in 3e, that's what you'd do. Zone of Truth, Detect Evil, Know Alignment, etc. We always would have a few scrolls of those floating around for just these occasions. But, this was 4e. We had to engage in the game world to find the traitor because there were no end run spells. They just don't exist for 4e characters.

It was a real eye opener and probably the point where I really decided that I liked 4e more than 3e. I still wish 4e combat was a smidgeon shorter and less involved, and there are other areas I'd like to see improvement on 4e. But, reining in casters and making them on par with non-casters was the best thing they did to the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's the problem in a nutshell. Everything else is just an adjunct to the casting system. The casters fundamentally change the nature of the game simply by existing.

Oh, absolutely. That's what makes them fun. That's what makes you feel like you're playing a wizard, when you can bend the laws of nature to your will. I would hope that magic would fundamentally change the nature of the game by existing; as I would hope that any FRPG would be different than a historical simulation.

Think of it this way. If you had a completely non-magical group - all non-casters - how different would you have to make an 18th level adventure from a 5th level one to still challenge those characters? Any terrain challenges still apply - it's not like fighters gain fly or teleport. Long distance travel is still an option. Mystery based adventures are virtually unchanged.

Now, use a standard party - cleric, wizard, fighter, thief. The two adventures have to be entirely different. Terrain issues are ignored because either of the casters can just fly/teleport/whatever the entire party past. Mysteries become a joke as the casters can throw spells at the mystery until they resolve it. Long distance travel/exploration is not even possible anymore.

I guess I'm just not seeing where that's a problem. If my PCs have to walk, the adventure is what happens while they're walking. If they can fly or teleport, it's what happens when they get there. If they kill an enemy with an SoD, the enemy is dead. If they solve a mystery in five minutes with a divination, that's fine. Just move on to the next thing.

I can see where this would be problematic for people who run published adventures or plan heavily. To me, this was simply incentive to learn how to improvise. The adventure isn't whatever I plan; it's whatever happens at the table. It's not like I'll ever run out of ideas on how to challenge the players. If your point is that spellcasters destroy plans, that much is true.

Is an 18th level party of 3 fighters and a barbarian the same as a party of fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard? Certainly not. And the latter is more powerful, and probably should be, because it's a balanced team. The same way a character can be well or poorly designed, so can a party.

If you're trying to use the CR system, and you find that party 1 can't handle their CR, while party 2 handles higher-level creatures easily, that's evidence that the CR system is broken (which it or any other similar system definitely is), not because of some fixable design flaw but because the entire notion of standardized challenges is foolish. RPGs are open-ended.

In practice, most of the world-breaking things those casters can do are countered. Cheesy spell combos can usually be countered by enemy casters, who in world have every reason to do so. I think most DMs assume that the King's chambers aren't accessible by teleportation for one reason or another. Incredible feats attract attention. If you start abusing reality, some dragon/deity/etc. is going to take notice, regardless of what class you are. Rule #1 of D&D: There's always someone more powerful than you.

Whee things would become a problem is largely if the fighter types feel useless, but IME this doesn't happen. Sure they can't duplicate that whole teleport thing or raise their fallen comrades or control minds (some exceptions to that last one), but that's not why they played a fighter. The casters' best spells usually benefit the whole group, and I don't see a lot of fighter players complaining that the wizard saved them some leg work or that the cleric healed him. If anything, casting utility spells is sort of a chore. And magic items can patch a lot of things. So the question is, when the fighter player gets his chance to attack a monster, does he get totally overshadowed by some cheesed out summoned beast or preempted by some magical attack, and IMC he doesn't. I figure if a monster is high level, it's probably pretty smart and pretty well-equipped. It probably has counters for all kinds of magical things. It probably thinks it can just take the fighter on in melee though, and the fighter's job is to prove it wrong, and (possibly with some buffs and definitely with a fantastic magic sword), the fighter derives pleasure from doing that.

One of my players still uses the name of an early fighter character as his message board name, a character that he played from lower mid levels up to high epic, alongside a druid, a sorcerer, and a psion (among others). Before I started houseruling, and before I was very experienced as a DM. And that character worked, even in the midst of a druid with a crazy overpowered 3.0 pet, a borderline abusive seer, and a sorcerer who ascended to deityhood and continued to participate in the game. Eventually, that fighter killed an unbelievably powerful epic dragon and ascended to minor deity status himself.

Somehow, it just works.

***

3e works very well, particularly within the "sweet spot" range of levels from about 3rd to 10th.

I think that's a point where a lot of people will agree; that the game plays best in those low middle levels. There might be disagreement as to when it drops off and how badly, but I think it's pretty well recognized that characters actually being able to cast Wish is a niche style of game. I don't see that as such a bad thing though. Every game will have a sweet spot, and that's not a small one.

We were in a scenario where our 8th (ish) level characters had to track down a traitor amongst the citizens of a small castle we were protecting from an invading force. My first reaction once we identified the problem was to turn to the casters and get them to solve the problem. Because, honestly, in 3e, that's what you'd do. Zone of Truth, Detect Evil, Know Alignment, etc. We always would have a few scrolls of those floating around for just these occasions. But, this was 4e. We had to engage in the game world to find the traitor because there were no end run spells. They just don't exist for 4e characters.

If I understand correctly, certain elements you found game-breaking were simply removed. Personally, I despise alignment, and am not as down on 4e's take on wizards as I am on its takes on fighters or on healing (though I dislike all of the above), but as a whole I hope you can see where removing character abilities and character types that you might find unbalanced (and which might very well be in some cases) poses problems for others. What about people who like Zone of Truth?

Wouldn't it just be better to modularize things and put teleport/polymorph/[other reality bending spell of choice] with a ""high magic" tag or something for groups who do want to go there?

 

[Nytmare]

I figure if a monster is high level, it's probably pretty smart and pretty well-equipped. It probably has counters for all kinds of magical things. It probably thinks it can just take the fighter on in melee though, and the fighter's job is to prove it wrong, and (possibly with some buffs and definitely with a fantastic magic sword), the fighter derives pleasure from doing that.

I don't understand how you don't see the incongruity in that. The monsters are powerful and smart enough that they have counters in place for all the not-overpowered spell casters you know; but they're imprudent and foolish enough to walk right up to the fighter who, like every other fighter you've seen, is somehow perfectly assembled to wreak them from head to toe?

You say that the problem doesn't exist, but admit that the problem is what you enjoy about having high powered spellcasters? The casters "best" spells aren't the ones that help the group, they're the ones that make anyone in the group who isn't a spellcaster superfluous.