Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of balance we can talk about in RPGs:

(1) encounter balance

(2) player option balance

We've already been going over (1) so I will talk about it first. We're a demographic inured to video games. We easily understand why encounter balance is a good thing. In your standard video game, I have to do X to get to Y to get to Z. If X is impossible, I will never get to Z. X should therefore be tailored to my abilities at that point. That's not to say that X is easy, just that it isn't impossible.

So why would this be a bad thing or at least an unnecessary thing in RPGs, specifically table top RPGs? Let's look at another video game: in Skyrim, you can walk in any direction you like. If you walk in a certain direction, you can run into giants. At lower levels, you don't stand any chance against them in a straight forward fight. So you learn to go around them. This creates the feeling that Skyrim is a living world that exists autonomously from your gameplay.

The same is true -- but to a much broader degree -- in table top RPGs. The great thing about table top RPGs is that you can do pretty much whatever you like. You aren't bound by content that someone else, like a video game design studio, has already prepared for you. You can in a much more real sense "walk in any direction." Encounter balance restrains this freedom: any direction a first level character walks, she will ideally only find encounters appropriate to her level. That in turn leads to a certain tendency to railroading.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about absolutes. A game that cares about encounter balance does not have to be played as railroad, not by any means. But design perspective matters. An adventuring party is far more likely to come across a sleeping red dragon using AD&D than using 4E.

 Alpharius wrote:
3.0+ seem far too rigid to be enjoyable for me, so, yeah, different strokes and all that I suppose.

"Balance" in a wargame seems attainable, if perhaps difficult (impossible?) to achieve.

"Balance" in a RPG seems like an odd goal to be reaching for...

I'm a pretty shy, passive person in real life. Even so, I don't find RPGs where my character is useless to be fun. "Balance" in the context of an RPG is (in my opinion) primarily between characters, with a secondary aspect of giving GMs tools to balance encounters, opponents, etc. to make sure they're not overwhelming. How this works really depends on the game: some (The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, from what I've heard) have actual mechanics for handling different power levels of characters by making the lower-powered special in other ways. D&D's primary measure of power is the Level, but levels (in most editions) are not equal across classes: the LFQW problem. A 12th level Fighter (who gets a bunch of sword attacks) is generally less powerful than a 12th level mage (who has 5th level spells and can rewrite reality).

So if I'm playing a fighter-type, I feel I should be somewhat useful across the whole range of levels. Same if I'm playing a wizard, cleric, etc. 3.5 has a huge 'metagame' where making a non-caster is considered so non-optimal. My group never noticed this (but we never fully converted to 3.5) because we rarely got above level 12 or so and tended to not have time and resources for stuff like magic item creation, purchasing of magic items, etc.

I feel this is also why 4th (for example) encouraged the party to have similar levels. A character even 1-2 levels behind in that system is going to feel a lot less useful due to having less powers, a point or two less bonus on most rolls, etc. 3rd had this issue: 2nd could have it, but 1st/2nds XP progression is such that it's easy to get to one level off the group's, albeit a bit harder to fully catch up. (Basically, if you're playing a 1st level character with a 5th-6th level group in 1st edition, a large fight might net you a couple thousand XP, allowing you to 'ding!' at least once.)

If I'm not able to contribute effectively I have two broad options: 1. I can try to improvise or play support. This can be fun, if the GM allows it. Alternatively, 2. I can sit around, make my ineffective attack, and fiddle around on my phone because I don't feel any real need to be there.

Tools to balance encounters are helpful, but I wish they were labeled as guidelines more than anything else, as some GMs don't seem to understand that they're often based off rough estimations of monster powers, assumptions of player abilities that may be incorrect, or just plain bad math. The systems in 3rd, 4th, and others are meant to get the GM in the ballpark when planning an encounter, and the GM needs to design with that in mind.

Still, having encounter balance tool is a great aid to GMs that are trying to challenge players and want to avoid situations that are either too easy or too difficult.

I think it's just important that if things are not balanced in that way, that it is stated at the outset. It's not unfair to not that people have expectations and may be disappointed if those expectations aren't met. There's a responsibility on the creator to communicate intent.

Manchu, i think we overlapped on our comments, but a few points I'd like to address:

As to encounter balance:

 Manchu wrote:

So why would this be a bad thing or at least an unnecessary thing in RPGs, specifically table top RPGs? Let's look at another video game: in Skyrim, you can walk in any direction you like. If you walk in a certain direction, you can run into giants. At lower levels, you don't stand any chance against them in a straight forward fight. So you learn to go around them. This creates the feeling that Skyrim is a living world that exists autonomously from your gameplay.

The same is true -- but to a much broader degree -- in table top RPGs. The great thing about table top RPGs is that you can do pretty much whatever you like. You aren't bound by content that someone else, like a video game design studio, has already prepared for you. You can in a much more real sense "walk in any direction." Encounter balance restrains this freedom: any direction a first level character walks, she will ideally only find encounters appropriate to her level. That in turn leads to a certain tendency to railroading.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about absolutes. A game that cares about encounter balance does not have to be played as railroad, not by any means. But design perspective matters. An adventuring party is far more likely to come across a sleeping red dragon using AD&D than using 4E.

I think one of the earlier games in the Skyrim series got a lot of poor reviews because it auto-scaled to the player, actually: If you went into the obligatory Noob Dungeon at a high level you'd find that the usual Rats and Spiders were now ridiculously high-level rats that could probably drag entire horses away. But I digress...

I feel like, personally, a good GM shouldn't 'auto-balance' but should always seek to challenge players within the constraints of the setting. So if the players insist on heading off to the Giant Lands they should get some 'warnings' by encounters that are above their power level, but only slightly so, so as to be tough and challenging but not overly deadly. Systems like Challenge Rating are tools and tools can be used properly or improperly.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it's just important that if things are not balanced in that way, that it is stated at the outset.

Note your assumption: the rule is balance should be a high-priority design goal whereas the exception is disregarding balance. Older editions of D&D did not come with warnings that adventurers on dangerous quests might get in over their heads. I guess it must have been self-evident.

 Balance wrote:
So if the players insist on heading off to the Giant Lands they should get some 'warnings' by encounters that are above their power level, but only slightly so, so as to be tough and challenging but not overly deadly.

I generally disagree. Put it another way, if a player insists that her character jumps into lava ... the result is, all other things being equal, her character will burn to death. As a DM and as a player, I don't think "soft balls" are fun in D&D. Consequences make choices meaningful and meaningfulness is where I find my fun with RPGs.

That said, as a DM I strongly believe in giving the players the necessary information to make informed choices to the extent they decide to pursue that information. In my games, players would not just stumble into an impossible situation. They could, however, insist on rushing headlong into it.

I guess that's where a lot of the 'design bias towards entitlement' comes from in later editions of D&D?

 Alpharius wrote:
that's where

What are you referring to?

I feel there is a serious difference between "going into the dangerous places' and 'jumping into lava.' The former is the kind fo thing adventurer-types do, while the latter is the kind of thing suicidal people do.

Admittedly, these two categories can and do overlap.

I feel that a certain amount of warnings and gentle pushes to players does make sense. Players are making decisions based off imperfect interpretation and shouldn't be punished for misinterpreting a misspoken phrase from the GM.

Also, it encourages going along with the plot without out-and-out railroading. If I know that the GM won't punish me for going the wrong way, I know it's fine to explore in the direction that it was indicated that the Golden Idol of Plot Importance is rumored to be in, even if that's Giant Country.

Not providing some nudges, to me, encourages PCs to take the safe options, like staying home and avoiding high-risk jobs like adventuring.

That's a major feature of tabletop RPGs to me: a great GM can make the party feel like they're on the edge of dying and then let them escape to recover. I haven't seen a computerized RPG that can really do this yet, despite recent advancements.

 Balance wrote:
I feel there is a serious difference between "going into the dangerous places' and 'jumping into lava.' The former is the kind fo thing adventurer-types do, while the latter is the kind of thing suicidal people do.

Admittedly, these two categories can and do overlap.

I feel that a certain amount of warnings and gentle pushes to players does make sense. Players are making decisions based off imperfect interpretation and shouldn't be punished for misinterpreting a misspoken phrase from the GM.

Also, it encourages going along with the plot without out-and-out railroading. If I know that the GM won't punish me for going the wrong way, I know it's fine to explore in the direction that it was indicated that the Golden Idol of Plot Importance is rumored to be in, even if that's Giant Country.

Not providing some nudges, to me, encourages PCs to take the safe options, like staying home and avoiding high-risk jobs like adventuring.

That's a major feature of tabletop RPGs to me: a great GM can make the party feel like they're on the edge of dying and then let them escape to recover. I haven't seen a computerized RPG that can really do this yet, despite recent advancements.

This is fairly close to a lot of my feelings. I can count on my fingers the number of times I've seen PCs do outright suicidal things, despite the GM providing proper telegraphing opportunities.In my experience if a PCs walk into 95%+ failure chance situation it's usually due to a failure on the GMs part.

Even then, most interesting and engaging outcomes of these events when they do happen have been the ones where the GM uses it as an opportunity to cause a plot twist or complication with a bit more meat on its bones than a straight up character death.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
that's where

What are you referring to?

Er, yeah, sorry!

I was referring to this:

Older editions of D&D did not come with warnings that adventurers on dangerous quests might get in over their heads. I guess it must have been self-evident.

My point about balance is not about balance between GM and players, that is up to the GM to decide, primarily (though good GMs should be open to input from players.)

My point is about balance within the party. If that is skewed, people should know about it, so that people who value "mechanical efficiency" or whatever you want to call it, can make an informed choice, and people who are more interested in roleplaying whatever concept they want can make their choices.

 Balance wrote:
I feel there is a serious difference between "going into the dangerous places' and 'jumping into lava.'

Depends on what you mean by dangerous. Do you mean "could get hurt" or do you mean "could die"? I've got nothing to say about "adventures" where getting hurt is the worst that could happen, except that they're just not for me.

Now, I think a proper adventure entails the real possibility of death. That can mean a lot of things, I realize, but for the purposes of this conversation what I really mean is where there are no mechanical guard rails ensuring that IF your character sheet is good enough (and for some people this just means "is consistent with the rules") THEN every party member (a) gets to be just as effective as every other party member and (b) will survive the adventure.

I hasten to add that players can come through what I consider a dangerous adventure without losing even a single hit point. It's a matter of thoughtful planning, creativity, and yes a bit of luck on the dice. In other words, it's a matter of roleplaying. Not to say you couldn't roleplay in a suicidal way, jumping into a pool of lava ... or going into a dark hole full of monsters and just presumptuously expecting to meet'n'defeat everything head on, which should be just as suicidal.

Consequence is the key.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
If I know that the GM won't punish me for going the wrong way

I think this a good example of the space between our perspectives. In my game, there is no "wrong way" to go. As a DM, I am here to narrate the consequences of the player's choices not to preordain which direction is correct and which is incorrect.

"Railroady" seems to be another (perhaps unfortunate) descriptor for many modern "RPGs"...

Yeah, because in the Good Old Days nobody ever railroaded.
*rolls eyes*

Most DMs/GMs have an idea now, but I think it happens more now than before - purely anecdotally, of course.

No need to take it personally or lob insults, right?

 Alpharius wrote:
"Railroady" seems to be another (perhaps unfortunate) descriptor for many modern "RPGs"...

There is a huge gap between railroading and acting as a curator of the narrative, rather than as a simple combination random number generator/rules arbitrator.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, because in the Good Old Days nobody ever railroaded.

Railroading probably always happened, sure, but maybe also for different reasons. One reason a DM railroads that is totally independent from any rule set is that she just wants to tell her story and god forbid anyone get in the way. However - I do think there are mechanics that create a tendency to a railroading style not only of DMing but also of playing, i.e., a tendency for players to assume they should be and even are "on the train," as it were. I've tried to outline that theory above.

 Chongara wrote:
than as a simple combination random number generator/rules arbitrator

No one is advocating that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
My point is about balance within the party.

Sure, and I acknowledge the distinction:

 Manchu wrote:
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of balance we can talk about in RPGs:

(1) encounter balance

(2) player option balance

I just wanted to address your point from the perspective of (1) because you're making the exact same assumption even though you were talking about (2); that is, it's okay to assume balance is the (i.e, normative) design priority such that any other approach needs to come with a WARNING label. I'm just trying to show how deeply ingrained you are (and not just you, also most of the people actively posting ITT) in a certain point of view. Again, my intention is not prove that your point of view is wrong. I just want to show that there is at least one other, equally valid point of view -- namely, one that does not assume any kind of "balance" as a design priority.

I will get around to posting about (2) above, just having a busy day and I want to do it justice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You found us! Now roll for insight.

Hello, my name is Evan Newton, and I am the Producer for Codename: Morningstar.

We are a small group of artists, designers, and engineers who have the honor of building a powerful set of digital tools, in partnership with Wizards of the Coast, for the fifth edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Tabletop Roleplaying Game®.

So what exactly is Codename: Morningstar?

Codename: Morningstar is an integrated toolset and rules knowledgebase for Dungeon Masters and players. It combines rules, character sheets, and adventures together into a clean interface that allows fast and easy management of a face-to-face game. But, to be honest, that’s not all it will offer.

Here are just a few of a large list of features we’re developing:

A powerful and customizable character sheet
Fast, guided, character creation
Adventure management and tracking as a DM
Party communications between players
Simple rules search, bookmarking, and annotations
Online or offline play
In addition, I’m excited to share that (once the tool launches) all the latest D&D adventures and content will be available to download as they are released, simultaneously with the physical versions.

Our goal with this toolset is to make it simple and powerful. As huge fans ourselves, we want Codename: Morningstar to be as flexible as possible while preserving the essence of the D&D® tabletop roleplaying experience. We can’t wait to let you play with it.

However, the truth is, we need your help. In order for us to bring you the best companion to your game, we need your thoughts and suggestions. How do you play? If you had the chance to design a digital tool for fifth edition, what would you want?

Let us know what you think through Twitter and Facebook. I’ve got more updates coming up very soon, including an FAQ and information on how to sign up for our Beta program. For now, let’s dream about how to reinvent tabletop gaming.

From here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
5E Starter Set spell lists:

,

Already posted above, along with weapons.

 Triton wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But why the presumption that classes should be balanced to begin with? This is quite a modern development and I think it has to do with the idea that every character has a right to 20+ levels.

Well, I like balance.

Even if you leave out the balance argument, though, I hope we can agree to say that designing the game so that the wizard eventually becomes a better fighter than the fighter is just plain wrong.

4th Edition gave fighters parity and utility. They were way more fun to play, to me, than 5th Edition fighters will be.

It also meant that DM's could balance around the party, rather then individuals.

I know the DM's who played 3.5 had to figure out massive ways to fight good wizards, CoDzilla and the like. To the point where it became less DM gives challenges the party, to DM needs to fight the wizard in an artificial manner so that he doesn't break the game accidentally.

Having to deal with a specific set in 4E was easy, having to deal with an entire set in 3.5 where you could teleport to the bad guys room (Anti teleport walls all over) buffed to the max beforehand, fire off SoD spells till he dies, and then if he dies he has a clone prepared beforehand or if he gets hurt contingency will return him back.

Then if you wanted to try and quell that beforehand, you had to force artificial limitations on them beforehand, which is still the DM having to specifically fight the magic user in question...

It became less deal with these players, then quell the magic users who actually knew grease could help you instantly kill fire giants in plate armor.

I really, really hope that the return to Quadratic/Linear isn't there to say the least.

I think "balance" is a red herring. I don't look at balance so much as I look at relative utility. In D&D 3.x, a fighter actually went down in relative utility as he leveled up, whereas a wizard continued to grow in relative utility. A wizard can eventually also take over the fighter's "beating gak to death with murder implements" portfolio. I think that's bad design, and I don't think it's mitigated by saying that the game wasn't designed to be played at X level or whatever else. If the company responsible for the game published material to support characters at X level, it's designed to support characters at X level.

What I was most positive on with 4E was its obvious effort to keep everybody relevant - not necessarily balanced, but relevant - in a way that previous editions never did.

I'm in the minority on that. That's okay. A lot of people like wizards eventually becoming Fantasy Jesus. I don't, and since 5th seems to be turning back in that direction, I'm fairly 'meh' on it.

Though we'll see what they do with paladins. I'm an atheist with a flexible moral code, but damn if I don't love me some playing 3.x-style paladins.

 Triton wrote:
I think "balance" is a red herring.

Just like Communism!

Starter Set comes with hex map!

I do love me some old school hex maps!

Good news then! More value for the money.

How big is that map by the way?

What is this, a character sheet for ants?

Unnamed pregens! Good choice!

Is pretre's post completely blank for anyone else?

 Ahtman wrote:
Is pretre's post completely blank for anyone else?

It links to a facebook pic, so that is probably the issue.