Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9163749" data-attributes="member: 42582">If &quot;good quality&quot; means a good game play experience, then I don't think this is true in general. As I posted upthread, there is a widespread approach to D&amp;D play in which the GM is the dominant determinant of the play experience, and the mechanics/maths of the game are secondary at best.When D&amp;D is played in that fashion, mechanical balance is not necessary for good play.Sure. As I posted upthread,But the maths in the OP does not show that the mechanical imbalance in 5e D&amp;D is bonkers enough to undermine the descriptors on the PC sheet.This is an empirical prediction. The evidence is that there are many 5e players who do not feel that the game is unfair. And I think the reason for that is pretty clear - it's because they are not playing at tables where the maths of the game is the main determinant of outcomes. They are playing at tables where the GM is the main determinant of outcomes.I've neither played nor GMed even a moment of 5e D&amp;D. And I don't anticipate doing so in the future. I'm not carrying a torch for 5e. If anyone asked me for advice on how to get a great D&amp;D experience, I'd recommend either 4e D&amp;D (if you want to see D&amp;D's promise of class-and-race-based heroic fantasy fully realised), or Torchbearer (if you want to see D&amp;D's promise of class-and-race based gritty dungeoncrawling fantasy fully realised).But I don't see what it adds to the discourse about 5e to try and argue that its mathematical imbalance is a sign of bad design. It's a sign of mathematical imbalance, and that seems enough to make the point. There are ways that the mathematical imbalance can be reduced. Some of those ways might be overall improvements to the game. But the only way to make that second judgement is to have regard to the other constraints on the game's design - and once that is done, it already follows that we must reject any straightforward equation of mathematical imbalance and poor design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9163749, member: 42582"] If "good quality" means [I]a good game play experience[/I], then I don't think this is true in general. As I posted upthread, there is a widespread approach to D&D play in which [I]the GM[/I] is the dominant determinant of the play experience, and the mechanics/maths of the game are secondary at best. When D&D is played in that fashion, mechanical balance is not necessary for good play. Sure. As I posted upthread, [indent][/indent] But the maths in the OP does not show that the mechanical imbalance in 5e D&D is bonkers enough to undermine the descriptors on the PC sheet. This is an empirical prediction. The evidence is that there are many 5e players who do not feel that the game is unfair. And I think the reason for that is pretty clear - it's because they are not playing at tables where the maths of the game is the main determinant of outcomes. They are playing at tables where the GM is the main determinant of outcomes. I've neither played nor GMed even a moment of 5e D&D. And I don't anticipate doing so in the future. I'm not carrying a torch for 5e. If anyone asked me for advice on how to get a great D&D experience, I'd recommend either 4e D&D (if you want to see D&D's promise of class-and-race-based heroic fantasy fully realised), or Torchbearer (if you want to see D&D's promise of class-and-race based gritty dungeoncrawling fantasy fully realised). But I don't see what it adds to the discourse about 5e to try and argue that its mathematical imbalance is a sign of bad design. It's a sign of [I]mathematical imbalance[/I], and that seems enough to make the point. There are ways that the mathematical imbalance can be reduced. Some of those ways might be overall improvements to the game. But the only way to make that second judgement is to have regard to the other constraints on the game's design - and once that is done, it already follows that we must reject any straightforward equation of [I]mathematical imbalance[/I] and [I]poor design[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification