Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7907609" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It has a perfectly cromulent definition, people are just rather bull-headed about which one they advocate. Mine isn't complicated to say, but is inherently contextual to apply: "A balanced game reliably meets the expectations, and produces the play experience, for which it was designed." Optionally, if you want it to be a well-balanced game, you can insert a "without needing intervention" at the end (meaning the most natural and straightforward application of the rules consistently produces those results). There is, of course, a squishy term in there--"reliably"--but that's just a matter of setting the acceptable spread of results, equivalent to picking your p-value before you start a statistical analysis. (Often it will be that exact thing, because TTRPGs, and D&D versions specifically, almost always use some source of randomness to generate unexpected outcomes, and thus the game's behavior is inherently a statistical spread to begin with.)In order for this definition of balance to be useful, you have to:(a) Decide what you want the game to do (set well-defined goals)(b) Decide what play experience you want to produce (determine specific objectives within those goals)and (c) Set your desired level of reliability/consistency (how rigorous you want those goals to be).Very few TTRPG designers ever bother with (b) or (c), and far too many don't really bother with the first beyond platitudes and jargon. Many players react with open hostility and vitriol if you suggest (b) or (c), and similarly rarely go beyond empty non-answers for (a).My definition is more basal than that. Any game--indeed, anything that can be designed at all--will meet my definition. Because that is what design is: creating a something (doesn't even need to be a physical product!) that produces the desired results with sufficient consistency. Your rebuke of something like "combat roles" is getting too far in; you are not asking "what is balance?" but rather "what kind of game should D&D be?" This is a vitally important question, to be sure--and one that both designers and fans consistently stick their heads into the sand about and pretend that "whatever you want it to be" is not just a valid answer but the valid answer (when it is quite obvious that D&D is not nearly that flexible).TBH, I only skimmed the earlier stuff before posting, so I've now gone back and read your page one post. Gotta say, not too much of a fan--I absolutely agree that non-combat must be balanced differently than combat, and by necessity is probably a broader spread of results, but I disagree that balance exclusively applies to the combat sphere. See my definition above for what I consider the only useful definition of "balance" in a game design context.That was the point, yes.Just be careful that it doesn't come back around to bite you. I have had this happen to me.Honestly, I don't get the appeal of intentional self-sabotage like "Int 8 Wizard" or "Cha 8 Warlock" or whatever. It has no correlation with better roleplay or improved engagement. A Dragonborn Wizard whose highest stats are Str and Cha? Sure, no problem, you can still get 12-14 Int using PB. You'll be weak in certain key areas (likely AC and HP, since having mid-high Str, Cha, and Int means few points for Dex and Con), but it could be an interesting "battlemage" type, and it's definitely not what a typical opponent would expect--you could either lean into the battle stuff with War Magic/Bladesinging, or you could lean more into the tricksy-ness side of it with something like Illusionist. (Having mediocre Int means you won't be very good at the illusions, but I'm trying to work with at least something like the description.)</blockquote>

Verification