My Current Final Answer to Caster/Martial Disparity

[Man_Over_Game]

Fair enough - moving away from D&D, I made a "system-agnostic" point (or at least, one that I thought was system-agnostic) and I'm not sure if you saw it Cluedrew. I'll quote it here as a refresher:



The short version of the above is "do you think it's possible to balance casters with martials, even if they have different capabilities, by giving the former drawbacks that the latter doesn't possess?" (The specific example - the mage being able to pick a lock in seconds by talking to it - can be swapped out if needed.)

I think the answer could be "Yes", if the weaknesses and strengths in all aspects of play (Social, Exploration, Combat, Creativity, Consistency, etc) were provided in a way that were impossible to misunderstand.

Some players don't care that all a Fighter does is the Attack button. Some players don't care that Fighters don't do all the cool things Wizards do, or even do the boring things as well.

It becomes a problem when a player who does care about those things either doesn't know about them or doesn't have a means of fixing them. Players are allowed to make bad decisions, as long as they know what was a good decision and why.

-----------------------------

The reason this is complicated is because we're describing balance between different methods of play, and saying someone's Role Playing should "counter" another player's Strategy Gaming is kinda stupid.

----------------------

So I see effectively two solutions to "balance":

1: Make every choice have equal weight in all styles of play (the Beast Mastery power lets you talk to beasts and beastfolk, lets you summon a beast in combat, and lets you use your summoned beast to help you with two skills they can reasonably assist with).

2: Make every choice reflect on what style of play it focuses on, as well as the potential relevance of that option in those playstyles (gaining extra languages may not be very useful in a campaign where everyone speaks a common language, but it may be valuable for an unassuming spy).

The second option may sound like common sense, but it does draw a level of professionalism from the developer. That is, they understand the strengths and weaknesses of their game and its options, rather than letting the players figure it out for themselves. If a developer doesn't feel comfortable doing that, then maybe they should make content they can be confident about.

[Cluedrew]

To Psyren: At a high level that is kind of how all balancing works is it not? Give things different capabilities, limitations and drawbacks. So I guess my answer would be yes. The two wrinkles in this are A) making sure they are actually balanced and B) making sure they are fun to play. And neither of those are simple problems to untangle. What with the fuzzy definition of balance, balancing already be a hard issue and different people like different things.

The last one has also come up with a lot in this thread as well. I guess the best way would be to give characters mechanical themes so you can use the mechanics you like. Then you have to make them align with the flavour descriptions for communication and on it goes.

At the high level view that is all I have to say. I could comment on different balancing options you presented. Sure why not:

• Limited Uses: Could work, especially in conjunction with some of the other choices. This gets a bit weird if the limited option is more powerful than the unlimited one which within a character makes sense but here could lead to the specialist turning to the generalist when they have failed.
• Global Limited Pool: I think this is the early D&D model - maybe without guessing what you will need before hand - which apparently worked but a lot of people didn't like it anyways. … I'm trying to think of something intelligent to say but I don't know if it is significantly different than the last one.
• Side Effects: I like this one more as part of a larger pattern of people can do things outside of their wheelhouse but just not as well (and not just 10% chance of success). The thief can stealthily pick locks. The wizard makes a loud sound and maybe uses up some of there resources. The barbarian can also open the door with a loud sound, but then can't close it again afterwards.

[prabe]

I think the answer could be "Yes", if the weaknesses and strengths in all aspects of play (Social, Exploration, Combat, Creativity, Consistency, etc) were provided in a way that were impossible to misunderstand.

I don't disagree with the principle (or with the other substance here), but I don't know that it's possible to write a rule so clearly that someone, somewhere, won't misunderstand it. ;-) That doesn't mean it's not worth the effort; just means you need to keep your expectations realistic.

[Zarrgon]

I wouldn't say that. In fact, I don't think I've ever met someone who would say that.

Well, guess you could try and meet more people.

Having one participant who's preferences are absolute definitely seems like a good way to make everyone happy. I can't imagine anyone feeling frustrated by a game where there was someone who got to overrule any decision they made.

Ok?

If they meant for Monks to be proficient with unarmed strikes, why aren't they? It turns out the editing for RPGs is not super great.

Yea and the creative ideas, and the writing and...well, everything. The thing is they will always be people are imperfect, so the game will be imperfect.

I agree. A good DM would use the tools the system provides -- like Forbiddence -- to ensure that the base isn't defenseless. But if he missed something, he would accept that, just as a good player would accept that making a stupid tactical decision might lead to an outcome they don't like. Throwing a tantrum doesn't magically become okay when you switch sides of the DM screen.

Throughout the vastness of D&D there are a lot more ways to effect teleport then just that one spell. And then their are custom DM creations too.

So sure you want the DM to jump through a hoop or two to make you feel better, but that does not really change the outcome. All the DM needs is the system mastery and skill to find and use whatever they want.

Sure, a bad DM might miss something, but then that is why they are a bad DM afterall.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't disagree with the principle (or with the other substance here), but I don't know that it's possible to write a rule so clearly that someone, somewhere, won't misunderstand it. ;-) That doesn't mean it's not worth the effort; just means you need to keep your expectations realistic.

It wouldn't have to be too much writing. The key note is providing the player just enough information to understand the consequences of their actions.

We do this in video games using consistent, simple feedback.

For example, a power that invokes sentience into your weapon could be listed as:

Combat: xxx++
Social: x+++
Exploration: +

Where each 'x' represents its bare minimum impact at face value, and each '+' represents its potential based on other synergistic options the player can choose or how the player's actions/choices can influence the power's use.


Something like "Gain 3 languages" doesn't do anything in combat if there aren't mechanics to use it in combat, and it doesn't do anything in an exploration scenario for the same reason. It can be valuable in a social environment, but that's only relevant if the campaign has an emphasis on social gameplay.

With something like this, all you'd need to know is what kind of game you expect your table to be playing. With knowing the expected results of that option for every aspect of play, and what kind of game the players expect to be playing, a player can make an educated decision about their actions.

If they choose to be bad in combat, that's a choice they know they chose.

[Tanarii]

Something like "Gain 3 languages" doesn't do anything in combat if there aren't mechanics to use it in combat, and it doesn't do anything in an exploration scenario for the same reason. It can be valuable in a social environment, but that's only relevant if the campaign has an emphasis on social gameplay.

If the DM and players can't find a way to use language in combat or exploration without mechanics that's not the game's problem.

[Pex]

What about my example? The subsystem has two abilities: "burn" which drains your pool (presumably for a big effect), and "channel" which gets weaker as your pool empties. That is elsewhere but they are still tied together.

On D&D's Quality: How good D&D is in general doesn't matter. At most we could ague if a game that is like D&D but doesn't have caster/martial disparity would be better, but even that is kind of an aside to the topic which is how one would fix it if you wanted to (that is what step 0 is for).

Already answered. You must have missed it. I'm ok with it because it is its own resource pool that doesn't otherwise hurt the character. It reminds me of the Psionic Die mechanic of a recent Unearthed Arcana.

[Man_Over_Game]

If the DM and players can't find a way to use language in combat or exploration without mechanics that's not the game's problem.

Maybe not the game's fault, but it is the game's problem.

You perfect the formula beforehand so that there is as little room for error as possible when things come up that you didn't plan for.

I just watched an automated quadropter play tennis with a guy on YouTube. If we can make a math formula that can do that, it's not so far-fetched that we can figure out a way to make irrelevant features a thing of the past.

It's not up to the guy playing tennis to figure it out, either. That's not his job.

[NigelWalmsley]

Well, guess you could try and meet more people.

Yes, clearly the reason your claims seem unsupported is because I haven't meant the vast body of people who hate TTRPGs despite playing them, not because they are nonsense.

Yea and the creative ideas, and the writing and...well, everything. The thing is they will always be people are imperfect, so the game will be imperfect.

Again, the doesn't mean the perfect should be the enemy of the good. The game will never have perfect rules. That's not an excuse to ignore the problems with the rules that do exist.

So sure you want the DM to jump through a hoop or two to make you feel better, but that does not really change the outcome. All the DM needs is the system mastery and skill to find and use whatever they want.

Requiring the DM to use defined tools does change the outcome. It allows the PCs to make informed decisions. Forbiddence has specific, defined effects. You can plan around it and make reasonable choices. "It's a high energy area lol" does not. That's the difference between good DMing and bad DMing.

[Xervous]

Requiring the DM to use defined tools does change the outcome. It allows the PCs to make informed decisions. Forbiddence has specific, defined effects. You can plan around it and make reasonable choices. "It's a high energy area lol" does not. That's the difference between good DMing and bad DMing.

If recent 5e discussions about climbing trees are anything to go off of there is a great deal of potential benefit in having defined baselines to reference. Rules and mechanics are needed to a point to define what the system/setting wants to be. If a system has only so few facets it’s more a collection of broad strokes that loosely guide freeform play. Player understandings and expectations cannot exist without experiences, whether that being a GM training the players through examples and events in the course of play or each player being able to draw from rulebooks to establish the baseline for setting and system expectations.

An agreed baseline must exist for system features and choices to be compared. In absence of such a concrete foundation (the given descriptions of 2e and company have such absences) there quite literally is a void of content capable of being assessed for balance in that given section of the system. If various 2e and AD&D resolution mechanics boil down to ‘ask your GM’ that is in no way balanced or unbalanced, it’s simply fiat.

[Tanarii]

Maybe not the game's fault, but it is the game's problem.

You perfect the formula beforehand so that there is as little room for error as possible when things come up that you didn't plan for.

I just watched an automated quadropter play tennis with a guy on YouTube. If we can make a math formula that can do that, it's not so far-fetched that we can figure out a way to make irrelevant features a thing of the past.

It's not up to the guy playing tennis to figure it out, either. That's not his job.

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

Being able to communicate or receive information has it's own value. Including in combat and exploration. It already is a 'mechanic'.

[Psyren]

I think the answer could be "Yes", if the weaknesses and strengths in all aspects of play (Social, Exploration, Combat, Creativity, Consistency, etc) were provided in a way that were impossible to misunderstand.

Some players don't care that all a Fighter does is the Attack button. Some players don't care that Fighters don't do all the cool things Wizards do, or even do the boring things as well.

It becomes a problem when a player who does care about those things either doesn't know about them or doesn't have a means of fixing them. Players are allowed to make bad decisions, as long as they know what was a good decision and why.

I agree with this, but I also think that some of these "bad decisions" are pretty intuitive. For example, wanting to be a sneaky character and choosing to play a Barbarian or Paladin would be a bad decision in most game systems, but it's one that even players unfamiliar with those systems are unlikely to make. Could that likelihood be improved further if the devs included a "DON'T PLAY A PALADIN IF YOU...WANT TO BE SNEAKY" section? Probably, but when you're trying to cram as much useful information into your rulebook as possible, sometimes (re)stating the obvious has to get cut.

Concerning your "aspects of play" - I'm only familiar with the first three pillars, are you drawing from a list somewhere?

-----------------------------

The reason this is complicated is because we're describing balance between different methods of play, and saying someone's Role Playing should "counter" another player's Strategy Gaming is kinda stupid.

----------------------

Maybe it's because my coffee hasn't been absorbed yet but I'm not sure I'm parsing this one correctly. In the example I gave (a wizard and a rogue overcoming locked doors), neither character is using "roleplaying" to solve the problem, it's all mechanical.

So I see effectively two solutions to "balance":

1: Make every choice have equal weight in all styles of play (the Beast Mastery power lets you talk to beasts and beastfolk, lets you summon a beast in combat, and lets you use your summoned beast to help you with two skills they can reasonably assist with).

2: Make every choice reflect on what style of play it focuses on, as well as the potential relevance of that option in those playstyles (gaining extra languages may not be very useful in a campaign where everyone speaks a common language, but it may be valuable for an unassuming spy).

The second option may sound like common sense, but it does draw a level of professionalism from the developer. That is, they understand the strengths and weaknesses of their game and its options, rather than letting the players figure it out for themselves. If a developer doesn't feel comfortable doing that, then maybe they should make content they can be confident about.

I think a good synonym for "choice" in this context is "sphere" so I'll use them interchangeably here.

1) The issue I have with #1 is that it breaks down when the choice doesn't plausibly have equal weight to every problem. Your example of Beast Mastery does, because it's a sphere that can include varied concepts/approaches like summoning and control of animals, which are pretty intuitively toolbox sorts of powers that can easily have utility and combat applications. But something like, say, Fire is more limited in application. You could solve that by broadening "Fire" to "Energy" and say it lets you talk to elementals and boosts skills like acrobatics and athletics by charging your limbs with energy or something, but now you've actually passed Beast Mastery because Energy can do most of what it can do but also plausibly cover things like blasting, battlefield control, and teleportation/rapid movement. Striking that balance of plausibility is the hardest part of this for me.

2) Similar to the above problem, for this to work you need to have choices that all focus on different things - the moment you have one that covers more than the others, or that does something unique while also doing something another choice can do, "balance" has been lost. But if you remove abilities from a sphere that people expect to be there, your game feels anemic.

[Zarrgon]

Again, the doesn't mean the perfect should be the enemy of the good. The game will never have perfect rules. That's not an excuse to ignore the problems with the rules that do exist.

The published game written by other will never have perfect rules for you. But you can take their base ideas and make a perfect game for you.

Requiring the DM to use defined tools does change the outcome. It allows the PCs to make informed decisions. Forbiddence has specific, defined effects. You can plan around it and make reasonable choices. "It's a high energy area lol" does not. That's the difference between good DMing and bad DMing.

You are saying you like a binary game with only two choices or options. And that is fine. Many others like myself prefer the open and endless choices and options where anything can and might happen.

I don't want players doing a dull robotic game: "ok, we know the bad guys places has the official spell Forbidance cast on it and nothing else, so lets plan our attack".

I want the players doing the amazing game of wonder; "Ok, the bad guys place might be protected by anything, so we will just have to use our wilts and plan an attack"

See it's two huge different styles of game play. (neither is right or wrong BTW)

I agree with this, but I also think that some of these "bad decisions" are pretty intuitive. For example, wanting to be a sneaky character and choosing to play a Barbarian or Paladin would be a bad decision in most game systems, but it's one that even players unfamiliar with those systems are unlikely to make. Could that likelihood be improved further if the devs included a "DON'T PLAY A PALADIN IF YOU...WANT TO BE SNEAKY" section? Probably, but when you're trying to cram as much useful information into your rulebook as possible, sometimes (re)stating the obvious has to get cut.

I'd also note that D&D has always tried to keep the core of the game as generic as possible.

You can make a sneaky barbarian or paladin in D&D. You can even make a great character and have a ton of fun with that character. Now sure if you play by the numbers, the sneaky barbarian or paladin might only have like half the numbers of the super optimized demi god of sneak character........but for a LOT of players that won't matter as they are not playing the numbers game anyway.

Though a lot of other games have this as a trap as only the Sneak class can take the sneak skill or things like that.


And, again, this also has the game play style problem:

Encounter: sleeping monster in front of a door on the side of a mountian

Spellcaster: turns invisible/silent/whatever magic, gives the DM a high five and they both dance around the table singing how awesome magic is.

Over optimized demi god: Needs to roll good, but they will likely make it. Dm will grumble 'whatever'.

The sneaky paladin or barbarian: with their low sneak unlikely to beat the direct roll vs the DC. The player wonders if they can do or try something and the DM screams them down and says the only way past is by taking the one single only path so just roll, fail and have your character die already. The player complains and the DM just says "martial suck!"

[Cluedrew]

Already answered. You must have missed it. I'm ok with it because it is its own resource pool that doesn't otherwise hurt the character. It reminds me of the Psionic Die mechanic of a recent Unearthed Arcana.

I think I did I just didn't realize what you were saying. So by "worse off elsewhere" you mean something outside of the subsystem?

[Tanarii]

I think I did I just didn't realize what you were saying. So by "worse off elsewhere" you mean something outside of the subsystem?

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it ..."

[Psyren]

I'd also note that D&D has always tried to keep the core of the game as generic as possible.

You can make a sneaky barbarian or paladin in D&D. You can even make a great character and have a ton of fun with that character. Now sure if you play by the numbers, the sneaky barbarian or paladin might only have like half the numbers of the super optimized demi god of sneak character........but for a LOT of players that won't matter as they are not playing the numbers game anyway.

Though a lot of other games have this as a trap as only the Sneak class can take the sneak skill or things like that.

Note that by "bad decision" I don't mean that the paladin is incapable of sneaking, rather that making him a good sneak will involve some system mastery and most of his class features (including chassis, armor etc) are unlikely to help with that. In some systems like D&D, he can still invest in things like race, trait/background, magic gear, consumables, unintuitive tactics (like removing and stowing his plate) etc. to maximize his chances, but it's still not a synergistic strategy for him (generally speaking.)

And, again, this also has the game play style problem:

Encounter: sleeping monster in front of a door on the side of a mountian

Spellcaster: turns invisible/silent/whatever magic, gives the DM a high five and they both dance around the table singing how awesome magic is.

Over optimized demi god: Needs to roll good, but they will likely make it. Dm will grumble 'whatever'.

The sneaky paladin or barbarian: with their low sneak unlikely to beat the direct roll vs the DC. The player wonders if they can do or try something and the DM screams them down and says the only way past is by taking the one single only path so just roll, fail and have your character die already. The player complains and the DM just says "martial suck!"

But here is where "balance" becomes complicated. Because that paladin may not be able to sneak past the monster, but a more paladin-y thing to do anyway might be to wake it up and calmly convince it to let him through. Or (and the barbarian can share this approach) scare it off without having to fight it at all. And even if those fail and they have to fight the monster head-on, they have a better chance of winning a head-to-head fight than a sneakier class might anyway. In other words, the player who insists on being a sneaky paladin may not be able to use that skill to solve the problem, but it doesn't mean their class is incapable of solving the problem at all - ergo, it's not a problem with the game system.

(Now of course, the GM could have calibrated that encounter so that stealth is the only option that makes survival possible - but I wouldn't characterize that as a system problem either, rather it would be the GM allowing one and only one solution and making that solution be something their player(s) couldn't build for.

[Man_Over_Game]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

Being able to communicate or receive information has it's own value. Including in combat and exploration. It already is a 'mechanic'.

Put another way, a player does not decide what the rules on his attack are, or the value of those mechanics. The game does.

The same thing could be said about things like Language, or Persuasion-esc skills, but often don't. The value of those relevant features and actions are often decided by the DM, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it should be given guidance on what those values are by the book.

For example:

Player can choose between Weapon Feat and Social Feat.

Weapon Feat gives +5 damage.

Social Feat gives +3 languages.

All players at the table understand the value of the +5 damage, as it's pretty quantifiable. However, guidance should be provided to allow the +3 languages to be worth roughly the same amount of value as +5 damage.

This could be as simple as "Pay close attention to your players' investments, and cater your gameplay to include all of them", which sounds like common sense to an experienced DM, but it's how well a new DM does it that determines how good the game/book is.

I know that 5e doesn't really cover this (that is, determining the value of non-number-based investments), which means a lot considering it's the biggest TTRPG right now.

I agree with this, but I also think that some of these "bad decisions" are pretty intuitive. For example, wanting to be a sneaky character and choosing to play a Barbarian or Paladin would be a bad decision in most game systems, but it's one that even players unfamiliar with those systems are unlikely to make. Could that likelihood be improved further if the devs included a "DON'T PLAY A PALADIN IF YOU...WANT TO BE SNEAKY" section? Probably, but when you're trying to cram as much useful information into your rulebook as possible, sometimes (re)stating the obvious has to get cut.

Concerning your "aspects of play" - I'm only familiar with the first three pillars, are you drawing from a list somewhere?



Maybe it's because my coffee hasn't been absorbed yet but I'm not sure I'm parsing this one correctly. In the example I gave (a wizard and a rogue overcoming locked doors), neither character is using "roleplaying" to solve the problem, it's all mechanical.



I think a good synonym for "choice" in this context is "sphere" so I'll use them interchangeably here.

1) The issue I have with #1 is that it breaks down when the choice doesn't plausibly have equal weight to every problem. Your example of Beast Mastery does, because it's a sphere that can include varied concepts/approaches like summoning and control of animals, which are pretty intuitively toolbox sorts of powers that can easily have utility and combat applications. But something like, say, Fire is more limited in application. You could solve that by broadening "Fire" to "Energy" and say it lets you talk to elementals and boosts skills like acrobatics and athletics by charging your limbs with energy or something, but now you've actually passed Beast Mastery because Energy can do most of what it can do but also plausibly cover things like blasting, battlefield control, and teleportation/rapid movement. Striking that balance of plausibility is the hardest part of this for me.

You can get around that by having generic pools to choose from for when a concept doesn't have a matching social/combat mechanic that fits.

For example, someone can pick between Phalanx Mastery or Beast Mastery.

Phalanx Mastery has some cool mechanics involving swapping between using a shield or a spear. However, for the non-combat side of things, it has you pick from the list of Veteran skills, which include things like being able to recognize military tactics, weaknesses and origins, or like having extreme levels of awareness that allow you to hear an incoming ambush, an invisible predator, or a secret conversation in a hidden room.

In your example of Fire, it could have you pick an Arcana skill, which includes things like detecting magic (even inactive magic in casters), being able to speak to creatures of magical origin, or being able to send out their Astral Projection to scout about.

In the opposite direction, someone might choose a specialization that allows them to infuse psionic power in their words to manipulate others into obeying them, which is a non-combat power (forced to be so due to various non-aggression clauses in the effect), but it allows you to pick from various Manipulator combat feats to compensate, which includes things like commanding an ally to strike an enemy adjacent to you, revealing (causing) a weakness in an enemy's defense against certain conditions, or distracting an enemy so that their attack either misses or opens up room for a counterattack if they were already going to miss.


So the formula would basically be:

Unique Combat Feature + Unique Noncombat Feature, whenever possible.
If having two unique features is too restrictive on the narrative or mechanics (such as trying to make Fire a noncombat feature), then swap one of the Unique Features with a Generic Feature of the same type (Combat vs. Noncombat) and one of the General narrative types. Which could just be something like "Veteran", "Arcana", "Expert", "Manipulator", etc.

---------------------------

That isn't saying that everything will be 100% balanced against anything else, but comparing all combat features to all combat features, and all noncombat features to all noncombat features, will help point out any major outliers and inconsistencies that you'd run into by organizing things based on theme rather than function.

For reference, casters in DnD use spell slots, while Martials use attacks, but spell slots don't compare to Attacks very well, which leads into a lot of inconsistencies across multiple versions of DnD. We tried to balance the two by making one side use limited resources while the other uses unlimited resources, but that's just another set of variables that we have no idea how valuable they are or how they compare until after the session is over.

Keep all narratives balanced around the same exact mechanics as the "core", and then develop trends as you specialize. For example, Magic might have more limited resources and burst potential than a Martial, but that should be something you specialize into rather than something automatically decided for you. The default should have a mage be somewhat similar to a martial, with the primary differences being who you can talk to, rather than how.

[Xervous]

The existence of predefined standards such as forbiddance does not inherently mandate that no other means of magical protection exist. If I were to encounter such a nonstandard barrier with the system having a solid foundation I would catch on pretty quick to this situation being different, exceptional, worthy of note... While it is indeed a feat of pulling something out of the GM’s donkey the standards set by the system let the players filter out the standard concepts into their appropriate response bins without extended exposition and handholding.

Wander to the other end with few standards and no preexisting knowledge of the GM or the campaign. Towards the deep end you find Calvinball (far too many exceptions such that there is no norm) and all manner of bad GM stories that might be coloring opinions. But even in the moderate cases you have players who are much more dependent on the GM for everything. With no assumed standards you have what the GM gives you, which in the absence of at least a moderate primer, means your character stumbles about ignorant of how the world works, deprived of typical knowledge that would drive common sense decisions or otherwise color role playing choices and motivations. At least until five sessions in a tidbit drifts up that invalidates your whole character concept either mechanically or by a swift, brutal stroke of lore. Overall has the chance to decrease player engagement when not enough of the world appears consistent or is otherwise presented with a reference point of normality.

An agreed upon system provides the group the means to offload some of the teaching and information delivery burden from the GM. Some GMs like to ramble on for the better part of the session painting grandiose scenes of elegant parades featuring a diverse cast of NPCs. That’s not quite the game for me. As a GM I understand that my group is here to engage with the combat minigame, the lore, the NPCs, and each other as they further their characters based on the colorful motivations that brought the cast together. Standardized rules and examples are less time I have to spend explaining minutiae and more time I can just say X and the majority of players can go ‘ahh, gotcha’ before launching into a thirty minute RP debate instead of that time getting chewed up by a series of questions that read off like ‘water is wet’ factoids. This is also while clarifying unrelated tangents because someone missed X detail and thought there was a glaring lore inconsistency addressed by a commonly known (in setting) detail whose write up fits on a postage stamp.

[Tanarii]

Put another way, a player does not decide what the rules on his attack are, or the value of those mechanics. The game does.

The same thing could be said about things like Language, or Persuasion-esc skills, but often don't. The value of those relevant features and actions are often decided by the DM, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it should be given guidance on what those values are by the book.

For example:

Player can choose between Weapon Feat and Social Feat.

Weapon Feat gives +5 damage.

Social Feat gives +3 languages.

All players at the table understand the value of the +5 damage, as it's pretty quantifiable. However, guidance should be provided to allow the +3 languages to be worth roughly the same amount of value as +5 damage.

This could be as simple as "Pay close attention to your players' investments, and cater your gameplay to include all of them", which sounds like common sense to an experienced DM, but it's how well a new DM does it that determines how good the game/book is.

I know that 5e doesn't really cover this (that is, determining the value of non-number-based investments), which means a lot considering it's the biggest TTRPG right now.

That's because the value is not easily quantifiable. It all depends on how skillfully it is used, and there are an incredible number of ways it can be used.

Of course, I suppose that's true for damage as well, and we mostly accept X way to resolve an attack for N total damage and you're down and dying (or whatever) as an abstract and often insanely oversimplified mechanic. I mean, they could always go down the exalted route and allow verbal "attacks". Or mutant zero/forbidden lands, where you demand something and make a roll, and if you succeed they either name their price in return or attack you. Or bluff/feint maneuvers. Or have a "solve ancient languages puzzle" TN to roll against.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's because the value is not easily quantifiable. It all depends on how skillfully it is used, and there are an incredible number of ways it can be used.

Sure, but if the developers can't do that, then they shouldn't expect their fanbase to figure it out instead. And if nobody can figure it out, then don't have a system where you can compare numbers to non-numbers.

Don't have an instance where you have to choose between better talking or better damage.

Everyone gets a damage feature, everyone gets a talking feature. Now I can compare my apple with your apple, and my orange with your orange, rather than trying to figure out how many of my apples is worth your orange.

[NigelWalmsley]

An agreed baseline must exist for system features and choices to be compared. In absence of such a concrete foundation (the given descriptions of 2e and company have such absences) there quite literally is a void of content capable of being assessed for balance in that given section of the system. If various 2e and AD&D resolution mechanics boil down to ‘ask your GM’ that is in no way balanced or unbalanced, it’s simply fiat.

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with "make some stuff up" per se. But it's not a feature or an argument for any particular system. In a real sense, it's an argument against a system. If I have to make up an answer when a player asks me a question, that means the rules I'm using don't cover the things I want them to cover (before anyone asks: no, that doesn't make them worthless, it just makes them flawed).

The published game written by other will never have perfect rules for you. But you can take their base ideas and make a perfect game for you.

Actually, you can't do that either, because the time you spend designing a set of rules is time you don't spend on other stuff, and it means your gaming experience isn't portable. I would much rather have a set of rules that is 80% of what I want that I can buy and use than one that is 100% of what I want that I have to write myself. That's why I, and so many others, buy TTRPGs rather than homebrewing everything.

I want the players doing the amazing game of wonder; "Ok, the bad guys place might be protected by anything, so we will just have to use our wilts and plan an attack"

You understand that's nonsense, right? You can't plan for "anything". If anything can happen, your choices are meaningless. If the enemy has specific, defined defenses that you can understand and engage with, you can make a plan to defeat them. If the enemy has "anything", all you can do is declare actions without any ability to understand if those actions are smart or not. You can't roleplay, you can't plan, you can't do anything. What you are asking for is that we take the rules that allow us to craft interesting stories and replace them with "guess hat number I'm thinking of".

The existence of predefined standards such as forbiddance does not inherently mandate that no other means of magical protection exist.

Also, nothing stops the rest of the game from defining other stuff.

But even in the moderate cases you have players who are much more dependent on the GM for everything. With no assumed standards you have what the GM gives you, which in the absence of at least a moderate primer, means your character stumbles about ignorant of how the world works, deprived of typical knowledge that would drive common sense decisions or otherwise color role playing choices and motivations.

Exactly. This is the thing I think people don't get. Making stuff up doesn't allow more creativity, it allows less. If you make something up, it doesn't have any defined interactions, and it doesn't relate to anything. There's no ability for a player to say "hey, the guard skulls are undead, I can use Hide From Undead to sneak past them" or "hey, the cliffs are rough enough that I can expect to climb them, I bet I can sneak in that way". Instead, you're stuck asking questions until you figure out what solution (or solutions) your DM thought of. The value of rules is that they allow you to abstract problems and solutions.

Now, rules light games do exist. And they can be fun. But the key thing that makes them different from this style of DMing is that they invest authorial power in the PCs. They give you resources and mechanics that allow you to say "tactic X is a solution to problem Y". That means you're no longer stuck relying on the DM's idea of what the solution should be, and can actually be creative. But you will note that's not what Zarragon is asking for, because he's very explicit about the idea that only the DM should be making decisions.

Some GMs like to ramble on for the better part of the session painting grandiose scenes of elegant parades featuring a diverse cast of NPCs.

One of the hard things about DMing is understanding when you are doing things for the players versus when you are doing things for yourself. The classic example of this is a setting history that starts with "a hundred thousand years ago" when you're running people through a reskinned Sunless Citadel. Setting detail is going, but it needs to be presented in a way that is relevant to the PCs.

Standardized rules and examples are less time I have to spend explaining minutiae and more time I can just say X and the majority of players can go ‘ahh, gotcha’ before launching into a thirty minute RP debate instead of that time getting chewed up by a series of questions that read off like ‘water is wet’ factoids.

I just want to emphasize this. The rules are not the interesting part of the game. They're not even the interesting mechanical part of the game. Which is why the ranting about "perfect rules" is missing the point. I don't need the rules to be perfect, I need them to be good enough that I'm not pulled out of the experience by dumb nonsense.

[Pex]

I think I did I just didn't realize what you were saying. So by "worse off elsewhere" you mean something outside of the subsystem?

Yes. Where the subsystem only exists for the purpose of fueling the use of an ability, place the limitations there. Don't use vital statistics of a character as a means of paying for the use of the ability.

That's speaking generically and can be vague. For example, 5E paladins casts spells using spell slots. However, their smites, which are a separate thing, are paid for using spell slots. Is that punishment? I can say I'm not thrilled with that cost and have expressed so 6 years ago when I was about to play a 5E paladin for the first time. I know it's 6 years because that's when the campaign I'm playing the paladin started, though we're in a Virus Apocalypse break. I'm still not happy about the cost, but is it "punishment"? I say no because the paladin is not closer to death for smiting. He doesn't lose hit points. He's not more vulnerable to attacks, magic, or other dangers. He doesn't suffer a penalty to do other things nor lose the ability to do anything since he's not losing* turns or actions.

"Vital" is what's key. It's a punishment when the cost to do something brings the character closer to death (loss of hit points, vulnerability) or discourages the player from playing the game (minus numbers to things unrelated to the ability or can't do anything). As I conceded, there can be degrees. A hypothetical -1 to dexterity checks for a round is a punishment, but it's not discouraging as -5 to dexterity checks or disadvantage to all ability checks.

*There's a difference between spending an action to do something and losing an action. Spending an action is the resource allocation. In 5E you spend an Action to cast a spell. Rogues can spend a Bonus Action to hide. Losing an action is an action being taken away from you. You are forbidden to use it. It didn't pay for anything to be used. It's just gone. For example, in 5E if the spellcaster loses concentration on Haste the target loses a turn. That's punishment. I hate 5E Haste.

[KineticDiplomat]

So, regarding “resources versus punishment”

1. There is currently a clear and obvious caster/martial imbalance in many systems, including D&D.

2. Those systems are already attempting to use resource constraints to balance.

3. Self evidently, resource constraints in those systems are insufficient to actually balance casters and martial.

4. The systems stated so far that approach balance tend to have “punishments” as people are calling them or severe limitations.

5. If resource constraints clearly don’t balance - and by D&Ds glaring issue that’s a given - and “punishments” and constraints do, then when you argue for resource constrained balance, you are really arguing for no balance. Just leave casters OP.

[Zarrgon]

Actually, you can't do that either, because the time you spend designing a set of rules is time you don't spend on other stuff, and it means your gaming experience isn't portable. I would much rather have a set of rules that is 80% of what I want that I can buy and use than one that is 100% of what I want that I have to write myself. That's why I, and so many others, buy TTRPGs rather than homebrewing everything.

You can do it, it is easy: just set aside some time and don't do "other stuff". You and some others do just pick up a book and are fine to go and play the game. Many of the rest of us don't do that: we make are own stuff to add to the game. There is even a whole subfourm here for it called: Homebrew.

You understand that's nonsense, right? You can't plan for "anything". If anything can happen, your choices are meaningless. If the enemy has specific, defined defenses that you can understand and engage with, you can make a plan to defeat them. If the enemy has "anything", all you can do is declare actions without any ability to understand if those actions are smart or not. You can't roleplay, you can't plan, you can't do anything. What you are asking for is that we take the rules that allow us to craft interesting stories and replace them with "guess hat number I'm thinking of".

It's not nonsense, your just not the type of person who gets it, but the rest of us call this "real life simulation". You just like the simple game: the enemy has Defense x5 and Defense X8, so then you will use Attack x5 and Defense x8. It's what you see in a lot of video games: to kill the ice giant you must use the fire sword: the end.

The real life simulation is a lot of a guessing game for both sides......but you do get that that is fun for many people.

Exactly. This is the thing I think people don't get. Making stuff up doesn't allow more creativity, it allows less. If you make something up, it doesn't have any defined interactions, and it doesn't relate to anything. There's no ability for a player to say "hey, the guard skulls are undead, I can use Hide From Undead to sneak past them" or "hey, the cliffs are rough enough that I can expect to climb them, I bet I can sneak in that way". Instead, you're stuck asking questions until you figure out what solution (or solutions) your DM thought of. The value of rules is that they allow you to abstract problems and solutions.

I'm not sure why you automatically say that any and all created content has "defined interactions" and does not "relate to anything". Is this true for officially published books too? Or do you give them a free pass: anything published by Them is right and good, but anything made by anyone else is bad and wrong.

But you will note that's not what Zarragon is asking for, because he's very explicit about the idea that only the DM should be making decisions.

Doubt I typed that.....

One of the hard things about DMing is understanding when you are doing things for the players versus when you are doing things for yourself. The classic example of this is a setting history that starts with "a hundred thousand years ago" when you're running people through a reskinned Sunless Citadel. Setting detail is going, but it needs to be presented in a way that is relevant to the PCs.

Your classic example sure makes no sense: A DM can't make a history for a campaign? I guess your fine with "oh the humans live over there and the elves live over there and the orcs are down there" types of campaign details....but a lot of people want a lot more then that.

I just want to emphasize this. The rules are not the interesting part of the game. They're not even the interesting mechanical part of the game. Which is why the ranting about "perfect rules" is missing the point. I don't need the rules to be perfect, I need them to be good enough that I'm not pulled out of the experience by dumb nonsense.

Well, to each his own, as what you call "dumb nonsense" is the greatest part of the game to many people.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

3. Self evidently, resource constraints in those systems are insufficient to actually balance casters and martial.

The key point in your syllogism is that resource constraints in those systems don't reduce the disparity, but that doesn't mean other resource constraints couldn't, either on the caster side or the martial side. You just have to think bigger than most existing suggestions do.

On the caster side, one can imagine hypothetical (and hyperbolic) classes like, say, a "True Vancian Wizard" class that can memorize a grand total of 4-6 spells at a time even at 20th level and has to learn all spells from found scrolls and spellbooks without gaining any at level-up, or a "True Specialist Wizard" class that can only learn spells from a single school (which cannot be Conjuration or Transmutation). In either of those cases, the wizard is using the same resource system but is vastly more constrained than the standard D&D wizard, and the 1e Magic-User (for the former) and the 3e Warmage (for the latter) show that the wizard and fighter are much closer together in power level in those conditions.

On the martial side, you'll notice that ToB classes are closer to casters despite the fact they have added resource restrictions relative to most martial classes, because by adding restrictions to maneuvers (they're a class-limited resource and not something any class can use, and a usage-limited resource via the ready/refresh system) they're allowed to be more powerful than feats, which are usable every round all day every day and are balanced as such.

So you can totally balance caster types and martial types using only resource constraints without any sort of punishment mechanics as long as you get rid of axioms like "fighters must not have a resource system" or "a single wizard must be able to cast spells from most schools" or the like; the problem is that the fighter side generally refuses to let go of the Guy At The Gym Fallacy and so any attempts to move both sets of classes toward a happy medium ends with things much closer to the current fighter than to the current wizard, and that just makes everyone lose.

[Pex]

The key point in your syllogism is that resource constraints in those systems don't reduce the disparity, but that doesn't mean other resource constraints couldn't, either on the caster side or the martial side. You just have to think bigger than most existing suggestions do.

On the caster side, one can imagine hypothetical (and hyperbolic) classes like, say, a "True Vancian Wizard" class that can memorize a grand total of 4-6 spells at a time even at 20th level and has to learn all spells from found scrolls and spellbooks without gaining any at level-up, or a "True Specialist Wizard" class that can only learn spells from a single school (which cannot be Conjuration or Transmutation). In either of those cases, the wizard is using the same resource system but is vastly more constrained than the standard D&D wizard, and the 1e Magic-User (for the former) and the 3e Warmage (for the latter) show that the wizard and fighter are much closer together in power level in those conditions.

On the martial side, you'll notice that ToB classes are closer to casters despite the fact they have added resource restrictions relative to most martial classes, because by adding restrictions to maneuvers (they're a class-limited resource and not something any class can use, and a usage-limited resource via the ready/refresh system) they're allowed to be more powerful than feats, which are usable every round all day every day and are balanced as such.

So you can totally balance caster types and martial types using only resource constraints without any sort of punishment mechanics as long as you get rid of axioms like "fighters must not have a resource system" or "a single wizard must be able to cast spells from most schools" or the like; the problem is that the fighter side generally refuses to let go of the Guy At The Gym Fallacy and so any attempts to move both sets of classes toward a happy medium ends with things much closer to the current fighter than to the current wizard, and that just makes everyone lose.

I agree with this assessment.

[Psyren]

I agree that resources are a useful balancing lever, even if D&D hasn't been great at using them that way (at least, not until 5e.) Limited ammunition on its own isn't enough to materially reduce the gap between casters and martials, but it's a start.

@MOG: I'm already starting to see the cracks appear in your example. I can clearly see the tie between Phalanx Mastery and military tactics, or spotting an ambush. But eavesdropping on a remote conversation doesn't have anything to do with a "phalanx" for me. And the more outlandish the ability the worse the cracks become; do they have to be inside of or adjacent to the hidden room? What if it's across the hall? Down one floor? Down three? In the building next door? One city over? Anywhere on the same plane? Magic can plausibly solve for all of those, but trying to explain to someone how a non-magic "phalanx" sphere does the same thing feels arbitrary and silly.

[BlacKnight]

The key point in your syllogism is that resource constraints in those systems don't reduce the disparity, but that doesn't mean other resource constraints couldn't, either on the caster side or the martial side. You just have to think bigger than most existing suggestions do.

On the caster side, one can imagine hypothetical (and hyperbolic) classes like, say, a "True Vancian Wizard" class that can memorize a grand total of 4-6 spells at a time even at 20th level and has to learn all spells from found scrolls and spellbooks without gaining any at level-up, or a "True Specialist Wizard" class that can only learn spells from a single school (which cannot be Conjuration or Transmutation). In either of those cases, the wizard is using the same resource system but is vastly more constrained than the standard D&D wizard, and the 1e Magic-User (for the former) and the 3e Warmage (for the latter) show that the wizard and fighter are much closer together in power level in those conditions.

The 1e Magic User can memorize douzens of spells at level 20 and can learn them by gaining levels. It isn't balanced at all with the fighter.

Specialized casters can work, but generalist ones are way harder to balance.
You hypothetical wizard with only 6 spells could work in a dungeon-crawling session with no preparation, but in a sandbox campaign where the PCs do what they want when they want... not really.
And even in the dungeon-crawling session it would be like building a specialized wizard.

To balance a generalist wizard, while keeping the generalist part, there are two ways: reduce the power of spells or increase the price of spells.
Reducing the number of spells just makes it a specialist wizard, or doesn't work if preparation is possible.

On the martial side, you'll notice that ToB classes are closer to casters despite the fact they have added resource restrictions relative to most martial classes, because by adding restrictions to maneuvers (they're a class-limited resource and not something any class can use, and a usage-limited resource via the ready/refresh system) they're allowed to be more powerful than feats, which are usable every round all day every day and are balanced as such.

So you can totally balance caster types and martial types using only resource constraints without any sort of punishment mechanics as long as you get rid of axioms like "fighters must not have a resource system" or "a single wizard must be able to cast spells from most schools" or the like; the problem is that the fighter side generally refuses to let go of the Guy At The Gym Fallacy and so any attempts to move both sets of classes toward a happy medium ends with things much closer to the current fighter than to the current wizard, and that just makes everyone lose.

ToB classes aren't on the level of full casters anyway, because they lack the variety of tools the latter have.
You can make other classes that are on the same level, but then they would just be copies of each other, because the Tier 1 classes can do basically everything so there's no niche left to be filled.
Honestly in a D&D framework it would be better to just scrap the full casters and replace them with specialists.
Generalists go against the overall design of having a team of adventurers, each with its role, and are either too weak (bard) or too powerful (wizard).

[Willie the Duck]

So you can totally balance caster types and martial types using only resource constraints without any sort of punishment mechanics as long as you get rid of axioms like "fighters must not have a resource system" or "a single wizard must be able to cast spells from most schools" or the like; the problem is that the fighter side generally refuses to let go of the Guy At The Gym Fallacy and so any attempts to move both sets of classes toward a happy medium ends with things much closer to the current fighter than to the current wizard, and that just makes everyone lose.

I don't think there is a 'side' which is more to blame than the other. People* want to have fighters that are fairly straightforward to use and fits to some mental idea of 'realistic.' Other or the same people also want magic users which have a wide selection of spells which have generally world-changing (or at least party-specific world changing) consequences. They also want the two to be balanced. And, yes, as a general rule, they are aware of the contradictory nature of those impulses.
*Some people, significant enough to shape whether a given edition is a success or not.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think there is a 'side' which is more to blame than the other. People* want to have fighters that are fairly straightforward to use and fits to some mental idea of 'realistic.' Other or the same people also want magic users which have a wide selection of spells which have generally world-changing (or at least party-specific world changing) consequences. They also want the two to be balanced. And, yes, as a general rule, they are aware of the contradictory nature of those impulses.
*Some people, significant enough to shape whether a given edition is a success or not.

And that contradiction is where a lot of these discussions fall apart, in my experience -- there are those who find that contradiction a "world breaker", and those who express outright scathing disdain for that reaction.