Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[ad_hoc]

I agree, it just seems we just use that to ignore the most mundane of results. I'm saying take that a step further.

Put another way, unless there is significant risk of injury or a negative consequence, skills automatically succeed. When a roll does need to be made, it is only made because the challenge at hand is something a normal person cannot reasonably deal with, even if it's a DC 10.

Kinda like if you reduced the DC of all skills by 5, and then made anything that was "Easy" as now an automatic success. Essentially, you're just making skill proficiencies overpowered, although I sincerely doubt anyone can buff them to the point of being OP. Which is kinda the point.

We universally have this belief they're really limited, but there's virtually no benefit for them to be that way. Worst-case scenario, the Rogue or Bard with Expertise does things you normally would think someone twice their level would do, but...what's the harm in that? Does a Rogue being good at stealth make the game worse?

What I'm saying is that your 'step further' is actually just default 5e.

Maybe I used a poor example.

No rolling for climbing a wall. No rolling for picking a lock. No rolling for bashing in a door. Etc.

Unless there is drama happening and real consequences to be had.

[ad_hoc]

But DMs have no such guidelines when such a thing applies. One DM's trivial is another DM's need to roll is another DM's need to roll but at a higher DC, so mundanes don't get do to things reliably or at all. Spellcasters cast a spell, they never have to roll or any applicable DC is distinctly defined.

No rolling to walk across the room, but do they have to roll to climb a tree? That has never had a universal answer, in 5E.

Actually, the rules really do talk about it.

I think it is more likely that previous 3e players read into the rules stuff from 3e and then are surprised when it doesn't work well in 5e.

If you are playing with a DM that you don't vibe with no edition will save you.

A DM that calls for people to make checks for climbing trees is running a boring game in 5e or 3e. The difference is that in 3e the DM is instructed to do so while in 5e they are not. They can if they want to, but they can always do anything they want.

[Cheesegear]

Instead of focusing on magical items, I think a better solution would be to fix the skill system.

All classes and all characters can use Skills. Some classes, still cast spells.

An Elf Criminal Fighter has DEX 16 and proficiency in Sleight of Hand.
An Elf Criminal Wizard also has DEX 16 and proficiency in Sleight of Hand...And also casts spells.

Fixing the skill system does nothing because all characters are affected equally.

Medicine can raise a Frankenstein

So a Cleric can make Frakensteins, as well as casting Animate Dead?

Stealth turns people invisible

Pass Without Trace is a 2nd Level spell and now broken. You are invisible and also people can't track you. GG.

A lot of the problems go away if we just figure out how to make skills scale appropriately.

But they become even worse when you retain magic as well. As I premised; Skills are not unique to Characters. What is unique to Characters, is how high the player wants to push those skills. That's why Expertise is so valuable. That's why advantage is so valuable. That's why Reliable Talent is way better than Remarkable Athlete. Your Skills are better, the higher you have them.

This why yes, a Barbarian with 8 CHA can be proficient in Persuasion. But if there's a Bard in the same party with CHA 16 and Expertise...The Barbarian need not bother. This is one of the reasons parties have a 'face', and people choose not to participate in encounters and challenges because someone in the party already is doing all the work, because their Skill is just higher. Their contribution can be 'I Help, I s'pose.'

If you make supernatural things start happening at DC 30+, you have to make sure that the characters that already do supernatural things (e.g; Spellcasters) can't also do those things as well.

as the game will feel more rewarding for everyone once you figure out how to do so.

The game would feel even more rewarding for spellcasters. Especially spells that grant an increase or advantage to skill and ability checks. I suppose you've made Enhance Ability actually useful? Good effort?

It's not necessarily about numbers, or how effective one class's feature is compared to another's...

Yes it is. If 'something happens' at DC 25+ or 30+, characters are now actively incentivized to make sure that if they roll Stealth, they can turn invisible. They want their numbers as high as possible.

...Or, instead of throwing all my eggs into one basket, I'll just play a Wizard and cast Invisibility with no effort.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say the following. If you really want to balance things, the first step is to cut the spell lists of every class. Turn the vast majority of "utility" spells into something else entirely. They're not spells anymore, they're...incantations. Anyone can learn them (level gated), anyone can use them (subject to individual, non-class-based restrictions like "must worship a god offering <X> domain"). If they're willing to pay the price. Each one has a price; some take a long time to perform (note: avoiding the word "cast" here). Others cost treasure, in the form of consuming expensive components (no, not replaceable with gold directly). Others cost the incanter's own strength, imposing exhaustion, draining HD, putting lasting conditions on the incanter. There may be ways of reducing these costs, but they're generally non-trivial. Things like "if you perform the incantation at a place of power sacred to <deity>, the cost is reduced by <amount>". And then (as designers) put a really strong, hard line in the sand. No spell will ever be made that steps on the toes of the incantations or produces the same effects. Including wish.

With that, you've got a split in magic--spells are fast and/or cheap, but limited both in number and in power. Combat magic generally is spell-like. But all those utility effects? That's anyone's jurisdiction.

Spoiler: My working list of spells that need to be incantations

Show

note: the number in parentheses is the tier where they're accessible, added as part of my notes. I'm too lazy to strip it out for this.

Animal Messenger (1)
Dream (2)
Illusory Script (1)
Magic Mouth (1)
Sending (2)
Telepathic Bond (2)
Comprehend languages (1)/Tongues (2)
Animate Dead (2) / Create Undead (3)
Animate Objects (2)
Awaken (2)
Continual Flame (1)
Create Food and Water (2) / Creation (2*) /Fabricate (2*) / Wall of Stone (2*)
Conjure Animals (2) / Elementals (2) / Woodland Beings (2) / Celestials (3) / Fey (3) / Fiends (3)
Earthquake (4)
Floating Disk (1)
Gate (4, summon function)
Planar Binding (2) / Ally (3)
Rope Trick (1) / Tiny Hut (2) / Magnificent Mansion (3)
Simulacrum (3*)
True Polymorph (4)
Tsunami (4)
Unseen Servant (1)
Alarm (1)
Astral Projection (4)
Agury (1)
Clairvoyance (2)
Commune / Commune with Nature / Contact other plane (2)
Divination (2)
Find the Path (3)
Identify (1)
Legend Lore (2)
Locate Animals or Plants / Creature / Object (2)
Magic Aura (1)
Nondetection (2)
Programmed Illusion (3)
Scrying (2)
Silence (2)
Speak with Animals (1) / Plants (1) / Dead (2)
Zone of Truth (2)
Animal Friendship (1)
Antipathy/Sympathy (4)
Enthrall (3)
Magic Jar (3)
Mind Blank (4)
Modify Memory (2)
Mending (1)
Plant Growth (2)
Purify Food and Drink
Lesser Restoration / Greater Restoration
Revivify, Raise Dead, Resurrection, True Resurrection.
Gentle Repose
Instant Summons (3)
Forbiddance (3)
Fly (3)
Gate (4)
Phantom Steed (2)
Plane Shift (3)
Project Image (3)
Teleport Circle (2) / Teleport (3)
Transport via Plants (3)
Water Walk (2) / Breathing (2)
Arcane Lock (1)
Glyph of warding (2)
Guards and Wards (3)
Knock (1)
Private Sanctum (2)
Protection from Good and Evil (1)
Conjure X (leave the Tasha's Summon X line as spells)

[JackPhoenix]

To pick this one part out in particular.

When I DM every character who is present in a social encounter makes the Charisma check if one is called for.

They all get a chance to participate by saying something. If they don't say anything they get disadvantage to their roll. It doesn't matter how Charismatic the Bard is, if the rest of the party 'checks out' the king won't be impressed.

Yeah... I would absolutely hate to be forced into interaction after I've deliberately decided not to, and then not only being punished for my decision, but dragging the rest of the party down too.

[ad_hoc]

Yeah... I would absolutely hate to be forced into interaction after I've deliberately decided not to, and then not only being punished for my decision, but dragging the rest of the party down too.

I don't want a player like that at the table so it works for me.

Someone who doesn't want to engage in at least 1/3 of the game we're playing is not welcome to play at all.

[strangebloke]

I don't want a player like that at the table so it works for me.

Someone who doesn't want to engage in at least 1/3 of the game we're playing is not welcome to play at all.

I really don't understand this. You have a friend, you enjoy their company, they're happy to play with you, they just don't feel like engaging with the in-game social interaction. They know the rules, they aren't disruptive.

Yeah screw that guy! Not inviting him again if he's gonna be like this.

[OldTrees1]

I really don't understand this. You have a friend, you enjoy their company, they're happy to play with you, they just don't feel like engaging with the in-game social interaction. They know the rules, they aren't disruptive.

Yeah screw that guy! Not inviting him again if he's gonna be like this.

Perhaps if you recontextualize it as "These two friends realize they like different types of movies. So they watch movies separately and play board games together instead".

[JNAProductions]

I'd say the following. If you really want to balance things, the first step is to cut the spell lists of every class. Turn the vast majority of "utility" spells into something else entirely. They're not spells anymore, they're...incantations. Anyone can learn them (level gated), anyone can use them (subject to individual, non-class-based restrictions like "must worship a god offering <X> domain"). If they're willing to pay the price. Each one has a price; some take a long time to perform (note: avoiding the word "cast" here). Others cost treasure, in the form of consuming expensive components (no, not replaceable with gold directly). Others cost the incanter's own strength, imposing exhaustion, draining HD, putting lasting conditions on the incanter. There may be ways of reducing these costs, but they're generally non-trivial. Things like "if you perform the incantation at a place of power sacred to <deity>, the cost is reduced by <amount>". And then (as designers) put a really strong, hard line in the sand. No spell will ever be made that steps on the toes of the incantations or produces the same effects. Including wish.

With that, you've got a split in magic--spells are fast and/or cheap, but limited both in number and in power. Combat magic generally is spell-like. But all those utility effects? That's anyone's jurisdiction.

Spoiler: My working list of spells that need to be incantations

Show

note: the number in parentheses is the tier where they're accessible, added as part of my notes. I'm too lazy to strip it out for this.

Animal Messenger (1)
Dream (2)
Illusory Script (1)
Magic Mouth (1)
Sending (2)
Telepathic Bond (2)
Comprehend languages (1)/Tongues (2)
Animate Dead (2) / Create Undead (3)
Animate Objects (2)
Awaken (2)
Continual Flame (1)
Create Food and Water (2) / Creation (2*) /Fabricate (2*) / Wall of Stone (2*)
Conjure Animals (2) / Elementals (2) / Woodland Beings (2) / Celestials (3) / Fey (3) / Fiends (3)
Earthquake (4)
Floating Disk (1)
Gate (4, summon function)
Planar Binding (2) / Ally (3)
Rope Trick (1) / Tiny Hut (2) / Magnificent Mansion (3)
Simulacrum (3*)
True Polymorph (4)
Tsunami (4)
Unseen Servant (1)
Alarm (1)
Astral Projection (4)
Agury (1)
Clairvoyance (2)
Commune / Commune with Nature / Contact other plane (2)
Divination (2)
Find the Path (3)
Identify (1)
Legend Lore (2)
Locate Animals or Plants / Creature / Object (2)
Magic Aura (1)
Nondetection (2)
Programmed Illusion (3)
Scrying (2)
Silence (2)
Speak with Animals (1) / Plants (1) / Dead (2)
Zone of Truth (2)
Animal Friendship (1)
Antipathy/Sympathy (4)
Enthrall (3)
Magic Jar (3)
Mind Blank (4)
Modify Memory (2)
Mending (1)
Plant Growth (2)
Purify Food and Drink
Lesser Restoration / Greater Restoration
Revivify, Raise Dead, Resurrection, True Resurrection.
Gentle Repose
Instant Summons (3)
Forbiddance (3)
Fly (3)
Gate (4)
Phantom Steed (2)
Plane Shift (3)
Project Image (3)
Teleport Circle (2) / Teleport (3)
Transport via Plants (3)
Water Walk (2) / Breathing (2)
Arcane Lock (1)
Glyph of warding (2)
Guards and Wards (3)
Knock (1)
Private Sanctum (2)
Protection from Good and Evil (1)
Conjure X (leave the Tasha's Summon X line as spells)

Have you played 4E? Because that's what 4E did.

And I, for one, liked 4E, so that's not a bad thing in my eyes.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't want a player like that at the table so it works for me.

Someone who doesn't want to engage in at least 1/3 of the game we're playing is not welcome to play at all.

Must be pretty short game if not wanting to participate in one social encounter means you don't want to engage in "at least" 1/3 of the game.

[Cheesegear]

Someone who doesn't want to engage in at least 1/3 of the game we're playing is not welcome to play at all.

wat.
The Noble Bard has an audience with the local Baron. The Wizard is the party's book-guy, the Barbarian is the tough guy, and the Folk Hero Rogue has wandered off to talk with the kitchen staff.

The Bard goes over the plan. He's a Noble, he's got at least CHA 16, and he's proficient in Deception and Persuasion, with Expertise in the latter. He's got this. The Baron is 'his people.'

Just kidding, if the Barbarian and Wizard say nothing during the audience, the Bard is punished. And of course since the Rogue has disengaged the scenario to find out different information than the Bard - splitting the party is bad. But the Rogue has a plan, and this is Going Somewhere, he promises... I dunno what happens to the Rogue, since he is deliberately not following the rest of the party, even with a good reason.

I'd be wary of making absolute statements. Some people just aren't interested in the DM's story, but they play along anyway because it's better than not playing along. Until one day not playing along actually is the easier thing to do, because other players at the table can do the job better and/or more efficiently...So check out for a bit?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you played 4E? Because that's what 4E did.

And I, for one, liked 4E, so that's not a bad thing in my eyes.

That was one thing 4e did, and a good thing in my eyes. Some of the other things it did, not so much. I'm a magpie--take what I like from wherever, try to make it fit. Sometimes it works... Other times not so much.

@Cheesegear--

I firmly believe that any challenge that can be accomplished by a single person acting alone is not a suitable challenge for D&D. It's...at best a speedbump/scene-setting thing, and at worst an outright bad thing for the game. Because, fundamentally, D&D is a game about a party acting together to accomplish what one person cannot. That's an only-very-slightly-paraphrased quote from the WotC House Style Guide. If you're building scenes like that and thinking they're actual challenges, you're not using the system the way it's designed to be used. And everything suffers for it.

Instead of framing the challenge as "audience with the nobles, solved by persuading them", frame it as "get help from the dutchy/kingdom/whatever". Which involves talking to the nobles, but that's not all it involves. And it's more than just the showdown in the audience hall. It's figuring out what kind of tactics will work best, it's finding the fact that the guards are being held in reserve because of <threat>, it's showing that you're worth talking to, it's determining the true nature of the foe. All of those things are part of the challenge. And each of those things caters to different party members.

That does not mean that the challenge only involves Charisma (Persuasion) checks. And I don't understand why splitting the party in such scenes is bad? If the audience isn't the barbarian (or the wizard, or the rogue)'s scene, let them go elsewhere and do other useful things. Gathering intel. Training with the guard or the court wizard. Etc. Things that advance the goals of the party, while better fitting the individual style. They don't even have to be large scenes--the training with the guard could be a couple dice rolls (Constitution checks for drinking challenges, a few opposed attack rolls to simulate sparring) or could be an entire combat scene. The rogue's schmoozing with the kitchen help (or sneaking through the dutchess's quarters) could be as simple as a few checks and some info or it could be an extended scene. All this takes is some flexibility on the part of the DM to interleave these scenes, just like you interleave rounds of combat.

And they don't have to happen synchronously in game time either. You could play the scene out in flashbacks, where the bard is doing the talking, but as he brings up key points, you flash back to the scenes where <other party member(s)> learned those key points and play them out. Or they could be synchronous, just flipping back and forth every little bit (every few actions, every major point, etc). It works best if you leave things as cliffhangers for these mini-scenes; get things going, then "Ragnar, how're you doing against those guards?".

That takes some practice, but it's actually pretty darn simple to do. And engages everyone--it's no longer a "social scene" where everything else is on pause, but it's a combination of all three pillars simultaneously. Which is the design. Not Social vs Exploration vs Combat, but mixing the three freely. Social during combat. Combat during exploration. Exploration during combat and social. All three at the same time. Then no one's bored or has to tune things out.

In my experience, having people tune out the game means one or more of
1) they're on their phone, not paying attention. Which means they have no clue what's going on, which makes them even more disconnected. Bad.
2) they're bugging other people and being disruptive. Bad.

Games where only one person is paying attention are games that are quickly not for this world. Games where any person is only part of the game 1/N of the time are much harder to sustain than ones where people are generally part of it all the time. And produce worse results, and train people to ignore the story (because only the experts can get involved with that, and there's only room for one face/knowledge guy/etc in a party).

[strangebloke]

Perhaps if you recontextualize it as "These two friends realize they like different types of movies. So they watch movies separately and play board games together instead".

Except, everyone in this example does like the thing? Just different parts of the thing.

The better comparison would be someone who like marvel movies for the humor, while someone else like them for the spectacle, while another likes them for the romantic subplots. Obviously they can all go to the movie together and have a good time.

[Pex]

What I'm saying is that your 'step further' is actually just default 5e.

Maybe I used a poor example.

No rolling for climbing a wall. No rolling for picking a lock. No rolling for bashing in a door. Etc.

Unless there is drama happening and real consequences to be had.

Actually, the rules really do talk about it.

I think it is more likely that previous 3e players read into the rules stuff from 3e and then are surprised when it doesn't work well in 5e.

If you are playing with a DM that you don't vibe with no edition will save you.

A DM that calls for people to make checks for climbing trees is running a boring game in 5e or 3e. The difference is that in 3e the DM is instructed to do so while in 5e they are not. They can if they want to, but they can always do anything they want.

Says you, but other DMs disagree and they're not wrong either. The game did not say a PC can climb a tree or wall just because he wants to. You said that. Others DM disagree, and you poopoo their gaming style. They can easily say you're wrong, that it's not trivial to climb a tree or wall regardless of what previous editions said. They may have never played them. The game says don't roll for trivial things, but it does not say what those trivial things are. There are no benchmark examples for comparison. Naturally, even if a Thing was printed as trivial DMs may still disagree Some Other Thing is the same as it or it's harder. The game cannot possibly account for every thing imaginable nor should it, but at least when an example is given there's a ball park. A DM may say Some Other Thing is more difficult than trivial Thing, even if you disagree, but it won't be grossly more difficult given the DM is being fair, honest, good, wanting the game fun, etc.

But yes, 3E instructed the DM and that's the point, the desired Thing some of us who dislike the 5E skill system want exactly. We know the DC to climb a tree, and at some point a non-spellcaster is able to climb it without needing to roll. No DM guessing needed. No spellcaster casting Spider Climb or Levitate needed. That doesn't mean hypothetical 6E should duplicate 3E skill system exactly. Couldn't hurt to have a modified system that makes it better. Have something else. Doesn't matter. Whatever it takes so that non-spellcasters can do Things out of combat reliably just because they want to without the need for the DM to play the dreaded Mother May I or have a spell cast for them.

[Cheesegear]

I firmly believe that any challenge that can be accomplished by a single person acting alone is not a suitable challenge for D&D. It's...at best a speedbump/scene-setting thing...

Gathering information typically is scene-setting and plot-driving. Yes.
Sometimes there's no point having two people gather the same information, separately, because then the DM just repeats themselves and wastes time.

Because, fundamentally, D&D is a game about a party acting together to accomplish what one person cannot.

Disagree. D&D is about collaborative storytelling. Some people collaborate more than others, and that's okay.

If you're building scenes like that and thinking they're actual challenges...

As I said, sometimes only one person needs to do the talking. Sometimes, only person needs to cast one spell, and the 'challenge' is over. Sometimes the party will disengage and your challenge isn't worth anything because the party chose not to do it at all.

That does not mean that the challenge only involves Charisma (Persuasion) checks. And I don't understand why splitting the party in such scenes is bad?

It isn't. My scene is explicitly in regards to the point made, where people who choose not to participate in one or many scenes, are not welcome at the table. Which is weird. That's why I said the Rogue is actually trying to do something, he's just not participating with the party.

If the audience isn't the barbarian (or the wizard, or the rogue)'s scene, let them go elsewhere and do other useful things.

They can do anything they want. My point is, what if they choose not to do anything they want?

You're in the tavern. What do you do? Let's say you have...Three-Four hours game time.
'I choose to eat my dinner and go to bed.' *Gets on phone*
Alright. What does everyone else want to do?
Four players spend the next twenty minutes detailing conversations with tavern folk and using Background features and learning about NPCs. Player #5 was looking up every now and then but otherwise disengaged.

Sometimes, players just don't care. There are four other players at the table who want to do what they want to do, and the fifth player just finds it easier to just let them do it.

Gathering intel. Training with the guard or the court wizard. Etc. Things that advance the goals of the party, while better fitting the individual style.

They didn't choose to do any of those things. They chose to go with the Bard as his backup in a room full of unknown courtiers. What do you do?
What if the Bard says something dumb, and weapons are drawn, but the Barbarian and Wizard are elsewhere? They chose not to be elsewhere. They chose to watch the Bard's back, and be part of the scene, even if they don't participate.

What if something were to be said, that the Wizard or Barbarian does have input on? But weren't there to hear it and respond? What if, in the proceeding audience, the Bard gets stuck?

Anything can happen, and the proverbial Wizard and Barbarian chose to go with the Bard, and say nothing. Because the Bard didn't get stuck. The Bard didn't say anything dumb. The Noble Background combined with Expertise in Persuasion made the roll of the dice real good. You got all the information out of the Baron that you thought of for questions to ask, and then...Scene over, I guess? What's the next thing to do on the list?

They don't even have to be large scenes--the training with the guard could be a couple dice rolls (Constitution checks for drinking challenges, a few opposed attack rolls to simulate sparring) or could be an entire combat scene.

The player(s) didn't choose to do any of those things. It doesn't matter how many ideas you come up with. Because my players, aren't you. My players had infinite possibilities of what they could do. What they chose to do, was hang out with the Bard, just in case. Unfortunately for them, nothing happened.

You can do anything you want.
I choose to follow the leader. Next.

The rogue's schmoozing with the kitchen help (or sneaking through the dutchess's quarters) could be as simple as a few checks and some info or it could be an extended scene.

And that's what it was. The Rogue chose a course of action, he promised he had an idea, and that he wasn't splitting the party for no reason. Play it out, Sam.

All this takes is some flexibility on the part of the DM to interleave these scenes...

I'm not going to play my players' characters for them.
I'm not going to force them into scenes that they don't choose...Unless the fact that they didn't choose the scene is the point (e.g; An ambush).

[Pex]

I'd say the following. If you really want to balance things, the first step is to cut the spell lists of every class. Turn the vast majority of "utility" spells into something else entirely. They're not spells anymore, they're...incantations. Anyone can learn them (level gated), anyone can use them (subject to individual, non-class-based restrictions like "must worship a god offering <X> domain"). If they're willing to pay the price. Each one has a price; some take a long time to perform (note: avoiding the word "cast" here). Others cost treasure, in the form of consuming expensive components (no, not replaceable with gold directly). Others cost the incanter's own strength, imposing exhaustion, draining HD, putting lasting conditions on the incanter. There may be ways of reducing these costs, but they're generally non-trivial. Things like "if you perform the incantation at a place of power sacred to <deity>, the cost is reduced by <amount>". And then (as designers) put a really strong, hard line in the sand. No spell will ever be made that steps on the toes of the incantations or produces the same effects. Including wish.

With that, you've got a split in magic--spells are fast and/or cheap, but limited both in number and in power. Combat magic generally is spell-like. But all those utility effects? That's anyone's jurisdiction.

No to any thought of causing harm to a PC for the audacity of doing what you said he could do. No exhaustion, no loss of hit points, no loss of ability score. No nothing that makes a PC wish he never bothered to do it. Do not punish players for playing the game.

[JonBeowulf]

I completely disagree with the title - the DM's responsibility is to be fair. The DM should not favor the PCs over the NPCs/environment (or vice-versa) nor should the DM favor one PC over another.

The simplest way for balance to be achieved is for both the DM and the players to engage with each other in the game being played. The DM cannot create balance through action or willpower any more than the players can. Nerfing an optimized PC won't do it. Shining the spotlight on a PC whose player doesn't want it won't do it. Changing DCs to suit a specific PC's stats won't do it.

The DM should run the world, the PCs should interact with it, and the DM then determines the world's response to the players' decisions.

When I'm a player, I'm not playing a statblock. I'm playing a character in a story. It's not the only way to play, but that's my style.

When I'm the DM, I expect the players to play characters, but I allow them to play a statblock if that's what they want to do. But I'm quick to voice my frustration when that type of player complains that his character "sucks at <thing> so I'll just stand here while <other PC> <does thing>". Especially when his character is only slightly worse at <thing> than <other PC>. I can't wrap my head around this mentality - is it a MMO thing where players are expected to stay in their lane and do their job? IRL, we typically do <thing> even if someone else is better at it.

Where was I going with this? Oh yeah!

Balance cannot be forced upon the group. It is created through the participation of the group members.

[Waazraath]

I completely disagree with the title - the DM's responsibility is to be fair. The DM should not favor the PCs over the NPCs/environment (or vice-versa) nor should the DM favor one PC over another.

The simplest way for balance to be achieved is for both the DM and the players to engage with each other in the game being played. The DM cannot create balance through action or willpower any more than the players can. Nerfing an optimized PC won't do it. Shining the spotlight on a PC whose player doesn't want it won't do it. Changing DCs to suit a specific PC's stats won't do it.

The DM should run the world, the PCs should interact with it, and the DM then determines the world's response to the players' decisions.

...

Balance cannot be forced upon the group. It is created through the participation of the group members.

The quoted post denies the reality of the game, as well as the role of the DM. In a game where there are short rest, long rest and no rest classes, and where the DM deceides for the largest part how encounters and adventuring days look like (the 'running the world' in the post above) the DM's choices have a major impact on balance between characters. A DM that only creates adventures with 5 min adventuring days vastly improves long rest characters; a DM that only runs adventuring days with 10+ encounters makes long rest character much weaker; a DM that disturbs long rest regularly and thus hampers spell recovery disempowers casters; a DM that makes adventures where short rests are nigh impossible to get hurts monks, warlocks and BM-fighters. To name a few. And if a party has a caster that runs out of steam because adventuring days are too long / have too many encounters regularly, the DM has all the powers in the world to drop an appropriate staff, or when the fighter gets bored due to too little utility, the DM can drop some items to compensate.

The DM should facilitate everybody can have fun, and keeping an eye on balance and taking it into account when making decisions is part of that.

When I'm the DM, I expect the players to play characters, but I allow them to play a statblock if that's what they want to do. But I'm quick to voice my frustration when that type of player complains that his character "sucks at <thing> so I'll just stand here while <other PC> <does thing>". Especially when his character is only slightly worse at <thing> than <other PC>. I can't wrap my head around this mentality - is it a MMO thing where players are expected to stay in their lane and do their job? IRL, we typically do <thing> even if someone else is better at it.

I do agree with this party, but tbh I don't see the connection with the rest of the argument.

[JonBeowulf]

The quoted post denies the reality of the game, as well as the role of the DM. In a game where there are short rest, long rest and no rest classes, and where the DM deceides for the largest part how encounters and adventuring days look like (the 'running the world' in the post above) the DM's choices have a major impact on balance between characters. A DM that only creates adventures with 5 min adventuring days vastly improves long rest characters; a DM that only runs adventuring days with 10+ encounters makes long rest character much weaker; a DM that disturbs long rest regularly and thus hampers spell recovery disempowers casters; a DM that makes adventures where short rests are nigh impossible to get hurts monks, warlocks and BM-fighters. To name a few. And if a party has a caster that runs out of steam because adventuring days are too long / have too many encounters regularly, the DM has all the powers in the world to drop an appropriate staff, or when the fighter gets bored due to too little utility, the DM can drop some items to compensate.

The DM should facilitate everybody can have fun, and keeping an eye on balance and taking it into account when making decisions is part of that.

I think we agree, we're just looking at it differently and using different words. Where you say it's the DM creating balance for the group, I say it's the DM being fair among the players. Regardless of which side of the DM screen I'm on, I want the world to make sense. 5-min adventuring days, 10-encounter days, interrupted long rests, and unavailable short rests happen... and they should happen as long as it makes sense within the scope of the campaign/scenario. But none of them should be the norm unless it's been clearly explained in Session 0 so the players know what to expect and can build their PCs accordingly.

As DM, I'm not going to change what makes sense because of player choice. As a player, I lose verisimilitude when the DM simplifies something in response to player choice.

I do agree with this party, but tbh I don't see the connection with the rest of the argument.

Yeah, I kinda got sidetracked there.

[Morty]

This was touched upon in a previous thread of hypothetical 6E. In 5E a fighter and barbarian can do things out of combat. Through their background, class offering, and race they can choose skill proficiencies that make it easier for them to succeed on tasks as well as a background power. There's also the factor that not everything needs a roll or DCs are low enough proficiency isn't as needed, though there is a lack of guideline as I like to gripe about in another subject. What the fighter and barbarian lack is a class specific button power to Solve The Problem that isn't combat. (It's changing. The PsiWarrior can use his abilities out of combat.) The issue is some people want the fighter to be given a class specific power button for an out of combat thing. They are upset spellcasters get them, namely spells. Other people don't want that but are happy the fighter can do out of combat things via character non-class specific game mechanics and aren't bothered spellcasters also get class specific button powers to do out of combat things. They whole heartedly objected to the idea of a fighter being given a button power to do an out of combat thing. I told them if that's what they want they need to stop complaining fighters can't do things out of combat.

I'd be happy for a fighter to be given a class specific button power for an out of combat thing. It was also suggested that getting such a button power should not be in competition of a combat power button, i.e. choosing one at a given level means not getting the other. The character instead gets a choice from among several non-combat button powers and a choice from among several combat button powers, accepting if necessary each choice is made at a different character level.

I'm all for giving them buttons to push, as you put it, but failing that just giving them proper access to skills and making skills themselves better at actually getting things done would be fine.

[Waazraath]

I think we agree, we're just looking at it differently and using different words. Where you say it's the DM creating balance for the group, I say it's the DM being fair among the players. Regardless of which side of the DM screen I'm on, I want the world to make sense. 5-min adventuring days, 10-encounter days, interrupted long rests, and unavailable short rests happen... and they should happen as long as it makes sense within the scope of the campaign/scenario. But none of them should be the norm unless it's been clearly explained in Session 0 so the players know what to expect and can build their PCs accordingly.

As DM, I'm not going to change what makes sense because of player choice. As a player, I lose verisimilitude when the DM simplifies something in response to player choice.

Yeah, I think you are right: for me doing all those things without any of them being the norm /is/ taking care of balance, as well (often) contributing to verisimilitude (not every adventure has the same structure).

[Kane0]

No to any thought of causing harm to a PC for the audacity of doing what you said he could do. No exhaustion, no loss of hit points, no loss of ability score. No nothing that makes a PC wish he never bothered to do it. Do not punish players for playing the game.

Thats potentially missing out on a bunch of interesting choices though. I agree better used as optional extras though, like a deal with the devil (not like current warlocks, though that is a good example)

[JonBeowulf]

No to any thought of causing harm to a PC for the audacity of doing what you said he could do. No exhaustion, no loss of hit points, no loss of ability score. No nothing that makes a PC wish he never bothered to do it. Do not punish players for playing the game.

I'd be okay with the mechanic as long as the incantations were free to attain. That would let me choose when/if to use them without missing other stuff I could have gotten for free. If there's a cost associated with getting them and a cost for using them... forget it. They'll never be chosen in the first place.

[OldTrees1]

Except, everyone in this example does like the thing? Just different parts of the thing.

The better comparison would be someone who like marvel movies for the humor, while someone else like them for the spectacle, while another likes them for the romantic subplots. Obviously they can all go to the movie together and have a good time.

Maybe I am missing something, but I thought the initial example involved a conflict of mutually exclusive preferences. (Having everyone engaged in social encounter VS being able to choose to have a character that is not engaged in social encounters) This explains why I made the analogy to friends with mutually exclusive tastes in movies that still do other activities with each other.

If there was no conflict of mutually exclusive preferences, they the players could find a compatible game style to share (maybe they watch Marvel instead of DC).

[UnintensifiedFa]

Yes, the DMs responsibility is balance, in thee main ways.
1) Balance between the Players and their Adversaries, ensuring that no fight is unfair (unless the story mandates it or the players make poor choices)
2) Balance between the 3 “pillars” of gameplay. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean they are equal, but that they all show up enough to warrant preparation for them.
3) Balance between the characters and their focuses/interests. This doesn’t mean the power level of their chosen classes, but it means that all the players should have equal chance to explore their backstory/story hooks that appeal to their characters.

What the DM is not responsible for balancing is the player classes/options, that is the responsibility of the ones who have written those classes. Does this mean the DM can’t balance things? No, but it’s not his responsibility to fix the imbalances made by people who get paid a living to write DnD books.

[Xervous]

Yes, the DMs responsibility is balance, in thee main ways.
1) Balance between the Players and their Adversaries, ensuring that no fight is unfair (unless the story mandates it or the players make poor choices)

This point seems rather flimsy given we have no objective definition of fair, and ‘story mandated’ is just free license to do whatever by another name.

[UnintensifiedFa]

This point seems rather flimsy given we have no objective definition of fair, and ‘story mandated’ is just free license to do whatever by another name.

Your probably right, but my main point is that if you give the players a challenge/fight (in the form of a quest and/or random encounter) that you expect them to complete, you make it possible to beat with their current skill level.

[strangebloke]

Maybe I am missing something, but I thought the initial example involved a conflict of mutually exclusive preferences. (Having everyone engaged in social encounter VS being able to choose to have a character that is not engaged in social encounters) This explains why I made the analogy to friends with mutually exclusive tastes in movies that still do other activities with each other.

If there was no conflict of mutually exclusive preferences, they the players could find a compatible game style to share (maybe they watch Marvel instead of DC).

I just think that being so insistent on a point like "Everyone MUST BE engaged ALL the time." when its hard to find decent players anyway is a sure-fire way to burn your campaign out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just think that being so insistent on a point like "Everyone MUST BE engaged ALL the time." when its hard to find decent players anyway is a sure-fire way to burn your campaign out.

I've found that measures to help people be engaged is the way to make decent players and to keep games going. Games where people are expecting to be checked out 1/N of the time are the ones that don't last; players that spend their time checked out are rarely the paragons of player-hood. I want players to be bummed out if they have to miss (part of) a session, because they know they're going to miss out on being engaged with the world, the events, the struggles and successes of the party. If I'm going to a game where I know that 1/3 or more of the time I'm just going to be sitting on my hands, the temptation to allow other events to take precedence is much larger. Just like it's way larger if the chosen occupation of the friend group is watching sports on TV (something I have no interest in). Sure, I can find fun in talking to the friends, but the stated purpose of the gathering is actually a distraction from what I find fun.

I also want to make it clear that my personal position isn't "Everyone MUST BE engaged ALL the time"; instead it's more like "Good scenario design should produce scenarios where everyone has the opportunity (but not obligation) to be engaged in something they're interested in during each scene that will aid the party" combined with "good D&D challenges should involve multiple members of the party".

Good DMs should be responsive to the desires of their players. Finding narrative-consistent ways of allowing (not mandating, allowing) everyone to be doing something they like in as many scenes as possible is (part of) the art of good DMing. Yes, that frequently means (gasp) tailoring the scenarios to the players and their likes and dislikes. Instead of running with a pre-plotted railroad, desires and interests not considered. It means abandoning player-facing neutrality; it involves actually talking to the players and figuring out what everyone likes. And it involves compromise and willingness to bite on "hooks" on the part of the players. If each player is only thinking of themselves at all times, you don't have a party or a friend group. You have a bunch of individuals sitting in the same room[1]. And that's not what I spend so much effort trying to prepare for.

[1] or in different rooms, all connected via voice chat/VTT/whatever. Curse this internet thing for making metaphors harder.

[Man_Over_Game]

All classes and all characters can use Skills. Some classes, still cast spells.

I tried to address this earlier:

Sure, casters get skills, too, but simply giving everyone options is enough to make the angry mob dissipate. It's not necessarily about numbers, or how effective one class's feature is compared to another's, but that one subgroup of character options can do things that another can't really interact with, so it ends up feeling like half of the game can only be played by half of the classes. Even if Barbarians aren't very good at the Level 10+ meta-reality campaign stuff, it'd go a long way if they had something useful that the rest of the party leans on them for. 1/100 is a LOT more than 0/100.

So just make sure everyone can do something really, really cool at all times. Then decide if folks are still complaining or if you still have a problem after that.

See, the interesting side effect of having infinite possibilities is that you don't really get all that miffed when someone else is a little more powerful than you. If a Wizard can teleport 30 feet, you're not going to feel so bad about it if you can jump 20.

yeah this is a benefit of basic system mechanics getting stronger, it makes everything better (at the cost of making classes less unique.)

Personally I don't think you can use the skill system as it is to be a really powerful thing. Other considerations aside, skills are just fairly simple and can't be interacted with that much, which conversely would make those few options too good. You'd have to rework everything from the ground up, which would cascade into a lot of other features, and... yeah, it would be a deep-seeded rework.

I'd contest that those issues aren't new. Spells also can't be interacted with that much (before they're cast and the effects resolved), and I personally think one of the big cause of this topic is that the abilities of some classes are too unique.

What I'm saying is that your 'step further' is actually just default 5e.

Maybe I used a poor example.

No rolling for climbing a wall. No rolling for picking a lock. No rolling for bashing in a door. Etc.

Unless there is drama happening and real consequences to be had.

I agree, but that doesn't stop us from constantly applying the "Guy At The Gym" mentality to everything we do. Folks regularly think that they make the game better by asking for an Athletics check to climb a wall, when the game already has rules for climbing walls without a check.

With the way people think, we are always going to downplay how powerful Skills are, because we can tie those to things that normal people know. So I say do the opposite. Skills should represent the superhuman level of those talents. They reflect everything that you can do, dialed to 11. It's actually surprisingly hard to make skills better than they're supposed to, so there's not really an upper ceiling. There isn't a feasible way for a DM to make skills overpowered without a lot of work, and a good rule of thumb when it comes to balance: Anything that isn't overpowered is balanced.

Until someone complains that skills are too damn powerful at your table, we're probably not making skills good enough.

That doesn't even have to be much of a rules change, that's more of a philosophical one. If we don't have players who believe they should be doing superhuman things regularly, there's no point in figuring out how to give it to them. And for those that do, there's a solution.

A secondary benefit of utilizing skills is that it puts the power of change in the players' hands, instead of the DM creating a bunch of content that solves problems only they are aware of. As long as the DM is receptive to what the players want out of their skills, focusing on this part of the game means there is no wasted effort and the DM can focus on making the game better in the ways that the players value most.

Trying to make a dozen new supernatural abilities, rituals, and magic items is like creating 10 sessions worth of content for a group who isn't even aware there is a main plot they should be sticking to. Why go through all that work for something that probably won't matter?