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

[JNAProductions]

That's an entirely artificial definition, designed to put separation where there isn't such a thing.

The only thing that exists is rules as played at any table. "Official" content has no greater weight; printed rules are not privileged. RAW is not some binding contract, and never claims to be. The reverse is very much the case. That's what "rulings over rules" means--that rulings are all that matter. The printed text is one source for tables to decide on the real rules. But not a special one with extra weight or binding force. There are only rulings about specific cases. The source of those is irrelevant once you sit down at the table and play. Which is the only thing that matters.

Edit: in fact, even the act of deciding whether a given piece of text applies (or what rule to apply more generally) is a ruling. Rulings are fundamentally the application of rules (from whatever source) to the game. The source is utterly irrelevant once you've started playing.

If I say "I made a ruling that we'd be using the Cloner," I'd get a lot of weird looks. Because that's not what the words mean.
If I say "As homebrew, when my player decided they'd shoot an arrow with a rope attached at a semi-solid patch of dirt higher up the cliffside, I told them they'd be targeting AC of 16 to try to get it lodged well in there," I'd also get a lot of weird looks. Because that's not what the words mean.

Rulings might be in the similar "Rule Zero" camp of homebrew and houserules, but they are NOT the same thing. And conflating them doesn't help get your point across.

[OldTrees1]

Wrong

Changing the printed rules, requires DM and/or player permission. That's actually how you know that printed rules are privileged.

Eh, the printed rules also need GM and/or player permission. I think it is better to describe it as inertia and the amount of time/effort burden is placed on the GM. We could also mention the sliding scale of assumed permission, however I don't think it would be helpful.

[Pex]

Mother May I is fundamental to any sort of DM-based game. Or any game without fixed options (ie anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden). It's Mother May I all the way down, from the get go. There's no escaping it. The core of TTRPGs is free-form roleplay. Rules act as a scaffolding around that to assist tables in doing common things easier, not as some sort of contract to be obeyed. 5e just recognizes it and builds around it. 4e and 3e tried to pretend it could be shoved off into a corner. And in doing so made huge messes.

PF, at its height, is tiny compared to 5e. It basically pulled in all the 3e players...and stopped there. 5e has brought in tons of new players and kept them in the hobby

Rulings and DM involvement is core to 5e. Wanting that to change is like criticizing peanut brittle by saying "it'd be great if it didn't have peanuts in it". Changing that core would mean rewriting the system from ground up. And I'd bet that it'd not be nearly as popular.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. The DM cannot just willy nilly say what goes. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. The rules define what a character can do. The 5E rules define a lot. They specify how an attack roll is made and the modifier number a player adds. The rules specify how to cast spells, the effects of those spells, and the exact numbers involved on how to defend against a spell. The game goes into heavy detail on how things work in combat. The DM cannot just arbitrarily say Fireball only does 2d6 damage in a 5 ft radius using a 4th level spell slot. He can by pedantry, but that's not how the game works. When it comes to combat 5E is not Mother May I. Out of combat, that's where it is. You love that aspect. Others don't.

And not all changes are fixes for issues. There are lots of things I've changed not because I thought they didn't work, but because I liked a different way better. Being able to separate the two is necessary. In fact, I can't really think of anything that I've changed because it was actually non-functional or causing issues. Most changes were aesthetic in nature or to tune things toward my preferred style a bit better. But it works as written, as long as you play within the expected and supported regime. I don't blame pitchforks for being bad soup spoons, after all.

The existence of issues does not imply that fixes are necessary (at a global level) and the existence of changes does not imply that there are issues. That's 100% of my point. And I'm sick and tired of people claiming otherwise and attacking people who don't see the issues or who dislike the proposed fixes as somehow being sycophants or polyannas.

The people making those complaints are allowed to discuss them to persuade those on the fence to choose their side. The people making those complaints are allowed to discuss them for the sake of discussing them. The people making those complaints are allowed to discuss them to persuade the game developers to change their mind and not do in hypothetical 6E what they're complaining about in 5E. They may succeed, they may not succeed, but they do not have to shut up about it.

[Kymme]

Bad news. The system CAN'T fix this, because even if this was fixed..... something else would be broken.

There is no balance, balance is a unicorn. There is no mathematical model that will make all games balanced, because some one will find a way to break it when it gets exposed to the world.

The DM, with the ability to set the DCs, choosing enemy actors, enemy actions, create the obstacles, social issues, and the tone of the game IS the system of balance.

I believe that it is within the capabilities of D&D's system to solve this problem, because there are other tabletop roleplaying game systems that have solved it. You don't have to look much further than something like ICON, or Dungeon World, or Mouseguard to find them.

[Sneak Dog]

Mother May I is fundamental to any sort of DM-based game. Or any game without fixed options (ie anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden). It's Mother May I all the way down, from the get go. There's no escaping it. The core of TTRPGs is free-form roleplay. Rules act as a scaffolding around that to assist tables in doing common things easier, not as some sort of contract to be obeyed. 5e just recognizes it and builds around it. 4e and 3e tried to pretend it could be shoved off into a corner. And in doing so made huge messes.

PF, at its height, is tiny compared to 5e. It basically pulled in all the 3e players...and stopped there. 5e has brought in tons of new players and kept them in the hobby

Rulings and DM involvement is core to 5e. Wanting that to change is like criticizing peanut brittle by saying "it'd be great if it didn't have peanuts in it". Changing that core would mean rewriting the system from ground up. And I'd bet that it'd not be nearly as popular.

So, I tried out 5e with a GM not very experienced with 5e. Wanted to play a strong barbarian, see if non-casters were any interesting to play yet. Ran into two issues:
- Compared to pretty much anything, I wasn't very strong. Just slightly stronger.
- If I wanted to play a strong barbarian, I should've played bard. Would've been a lot stronger between expertise, jack of all trades, inspiration and enhance ability.
Yeah, that killed my enjoyment pretty fast. Just from the ruleset too.

The strength tests I was making weren't causing very impressive effects for a fifth level barbarian either. They didn't align with my expectations. Which is disappointing. And that was caused by the system not setting any concrete expectations, and the GM not knowing the system well enough to set any either. Killed my willingness to go play a strong barbarian as a bard too, for good measure.
This is also because bounded accuracy applies to skill checks, which is the ruleset again. A 15th level barbarian capable of going toe to toe with dragons, still makes strength checks within the bounds of a 5th level barbarian. I had nothing to look forward to.

5e has neat things in it, and its combat balance is amazing. But boy is its balance terrible outside of it.

Bad news. The system CAN'T fix this, because even if this was fixed..... something else would be broken.

There is no balance, balance is a unicorn. There is no mathematical model that will make all games balanced, because some one will find a way to break it when it gets exposed to the world.

The DM, with the ability to set the DCs, choosing enemy actors, enemy actions, create the obstacles, social issues, and the tone of the game IS the system of balance.

If a game is too unbalanced, players will not enjoy it. Depends on the type of player and everything, but still. Now perfect balance isn't exactly desirable, and there'll always be a table where the totem barbarian's ability to see details up to a mile away is the most overpowered thing ever, but throwing the concept of balance out of the window is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And a GM cannot bear a heavy responsibility of balancing the system. Because they have to learn the system first, and if their players aren't enjoying the learning process, they'll quit (or more commonly ask for a different system, probably whatever they were playing previously).
A GM without players is not a GM. It's a writer.

[Waazraath]

So, I tried out 5e with a GM not very experienced with 5e. Wanted to play a strong barbarian, see if non-casters were any interesting to play yet. Ran into two issues:
- Compared to pretty much anything, I wasn't very strong. Just slightly stronger.
- If I wanted to play a strong barbarian, I should've played bard. Would've been a lot stronger between expertise, jack of all trades, inspiration and enhance ability.
Yeah, that killed my enjoyment pretty fast. Just from the ruleset too.

I'm not sure I'm following all this... I mean, you want a strong barbarian, assuming point buy or standard arrray, you'll start with a str 16 or 17 barbarian. By all means (like carrying capacity, strength checks) you are a strong character in comparision to all other lvl 1 characters that didn't maximize strength (including bards). When you rage, you get advantage, vasty outperforming every other character, even those who maximized strength like fighters and paladins. Your level 18 and 20 abilities vastly increas your strength checks.

Expertise is only relevant as far as we are talking about strength (athletics) checks. Usually, bards and rogues (those with expertise) have str as a dump stat, so you will still have just as high, or higher, checks in str (athletics) as those, and you a give yourself advantage to outperform them. I don't know if they were available when you made your barbarian, but as it is now you can just grab a feat for expertise (athletics) if this is important.

As for grappling, you get a lot stronger than a bard at level 5, when you get extra attack. And you overestimate bards a bit - jack of all trades is nice, but doesn't work with proficiency (or expertise), enhance ability is strong but a level 2 spell slot and spell choice is a significant resource.

A barbarian that rages, maxes str and picks athletics as skill can grapple any large creature and have a fair chance of winning. How is that not feeling strong? I understand that this is how something feels, and for you it obviously doesn't feel this way, I'm not trying to convince you or anytyhing, but I just don't understand how this doesn't feel as a strong barbarian, while a bard would have.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure I'm following all this...

1) In 5E the difference between incompetent and competent can be easily overshadowed by the d20.
2) One can easily see the Bards ability check bonuses go above curve and thus make the difference between incompetent and competent Bard be a bit less overshadowed by the d20. You will note I did not mention the Rage because that was expending in combat.

3) Finally, ignoring the constant ludonarrative dissonance described above, the Strength checks they were making out of combat were not feeling "impressive". They were not feeling like level appropriate out of combat features. They did not match the narrative expercations the Player had for a 5th level character (and they could see the problem get even worse by 15th).

So they could play a 5th level Bard with
Strength Check 1d20+4+1(Bard Jack of All Trades)
Strength (Athletics) 1d20+4+3+3(Bard Expertise)
However even then they expected to face both of the ludonarrative dissonance problems described above.



And unfortunately, I agree. If I don't have Expertise I assume I will fail the ability check before I hear the DC. If I have Expertise then I assume I will eventually upgrade a Tier 1 out of combat feature to a Tier 2 out of combat feature around 20th level. I even considered Reliable Talent to be my Rogue's Capstone because it helped so much.

[Xervous]

1) In 5E the difference between incompetent and competent can be easily overshadowed by the d20.

If randomness is such a strong factor can one character really be said to be competent when compared to the other?

Competent - having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully. I don’t see anything about fate in there.

Does the 5e definition of competent line up with players’ expectations for competent?

[OldTrees1]

If randomness is such a strong factor can one character really be said to be competent when compared to the other?

Competent - having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully. I don’t see anything about fate in there.

Does the 5e definition of competent line up with players’ expectations for competent?

That is a better way of putting it. 5E has ludonarrative dissonance regarding ability checks and competence.

[ad_hoc]

I think part of what PhoenixPhyre is saying is that criticism here is both hyperbolic and offered as objective truth.

People say 'many' and 'most' feel a certain way or have certain issues. When the reality is that when it comes to these complaints it is actually 'some' and 'few' who do.

Keep in mind that there are 10s of millions of 5e players. Message board posters are on the fringe of the player base and this is a fringe message board among message boards.

People here also make declarations with authority. One poster described themself as a 'doctor' of the game and referred to others outside of the board as 'newbies' or 'casuals'.

This is an echo chamber and as D&D is not designed to be a competitive game. There are no objective metrics to define who is 'good' at the game.

No matter how much math you can throw around.

Better I think to define what kind of playstyle the community here likes and to come up with ways to approach and alter the game that better fit into that playstyle.

The game isn't wrong just because you don't like it.

[OldTrees1]

@ad_hoc

And that is exactly why it is so important to allow the open discussion of criticism. Individuals cross pollinate ideas between various groups. Being able to voice criticism and have open discussion allows people to understand each other's pain points and learn about their own pain points. As the player base as a whole better understands their criticism, they can better understand what they want from a product, what changes they might make themselves, and what feedback to present to the company.

It is also exactly why it is so important to not dismiss a consumer's criticism of the product merely because you are not affected. If you like an aspect of something it does not mean that everyone that dislikes that aspect is wrong for disliking that aspect. Or worse claim they are wrong about them disliking it.

It is also worth noting that the open discussion of criticism can find ways that improve the game as a whole. Criticism and changes are not inherently one-size-fits-none. The more open discussion across the entire player base, the better the player base understands each other, and thus the better changes can be proposed.

[ad_hoc]

@ad_hoc

And that is exactly why it is so important to allow the open discussion of criticism. Individuals cross pollinate ideas between various groups. Being able to voice criticism and have open discussion allows people to understand each other's pain points and learn about their own pain points. As the player base as a whole better understands their criticism, they can better understand what they want from a product, what changes they might make themselves, and what feedback to present to the company.

It is also exactly why it is so important to not dismiss a consumer's criticism of the product merely because you are not affected. If you like an aspect of something it does not mean that everyone that dislikes that aspect is wrong for disliking that aspect. Or worse claim they are wrong about them disliking it.

It is also worth noting that the open discussion of criticism can find ways that improve the game as a whole. Criticism and changes are not inherently one-size-fits-none. The more open discussion across the entire player base, the better the player base understands each other, and thus the better changes can be proposed.

How do you propose to have a discussion across the entire player base? The vast majority don't want to talk and don't care about understanding each other.

What does 'improving the game as a whole' mean to you?

This message board reaches .00001% of players. Do you think having conversations on here have any impact on the player base in general?

What I'm saying is stop thinking in terms of influencing and changing the game as a whole. Instead recognize that what you like is on the fringe and not within the basic design goals and philosophy of the game and come together with like minded people here to make changes to the game for you. Stop trying to make changes for everyone because everyone else doesn't want your changes.

[OldTrees1]

How do you propose to have a discussion across the entire player base? The vast majority don't want to talk and don't care about understanding each other.

You added a word. Open discussion across the entire player base + People cross pollinating ideas/discussions/topics between groups => The player base growing to understand itself better.

How do you know the vast majority don't want to talk about their hobby amongst themselves?

What does 'improving the game as a whole' mean to you?

"Improving" = Positive change
"the game" = D&D in this case
"as a whole" = taking everything into account

This does not mean a strictly superior change.

I am not going to guarantee every discussion thread will discover some way to improve the game as a whole, but that open discussion is more likely to find those good ideas than censoring everyone into ivory towers where they only have their own feedback to listen to.

This message board reaches .00001% of players. Do you think having conversations on here have any impact on the player base in general?

Yes, but that indirect impact is trivial. Discussion in any sections of the player base impact that part of the player base. Some member of that player base are parts of other partitions of the player base. Discussions about good ideas or common issues tend to travel further.

What I'm saying is stop thinking in terms of influencing and changing the game as a whole. Instead recognize that what you like is on the fringe and not within the basic design goals and philosophy of the game and come together with like minded people here to make changes to the game for you. Stop trying to make changes for everyone because everyone else doesn't want your changes.

Are you asking people to stop having open discussion about their criticism?
Yes: Why? Seriously examine why.
No: Then I see no conflict with what I said.

Those open discussions are great places of finding like and differently minded individuals. I got a better understanding of why some players like amnesiac wizards in a discussion about me wanting more interesting higher-level level-appropriate at-will features for 3E warriors. The exposure to other like minded individuals helped me understand what I wanted better. The exposure to differently minded individuals helped separate my game design preferences from my personal playstyle preferences because I value those other players also having their values satisfied. Those discussions also exposed me to some mechanical innovations, or the merits of existing innovations that let me understand how some configurations better satisfy more players.

[ad_hoc]

You added a word. Open discussion across the entire player base + People cross pollinating ideas/discussions/topics between groups => The player base growing to understand itself better.

How do you know the vast majority don't want to talk about their hobby amongst themselves?

But how do you propose to have this discussions across the entire player base? How are you going to reach and engage with 10s of millions of people?

They talk among themselves sure. But not to others. If they did we would hear them. That's what talking is.

"Improving" = Positive change
"the game" = D&D in this case
"as a whole" = taking everything into account

Okay, but what is a positive change taking everything into account? How do you know that making a change you will like is what everyone else will like? Or maybe you should accept that most people like most of the game the way it is. That's why they play it and introduce it to new people. There are far more 5e players now that started with 5e than those who started with previous editions.

This does not mean a strictly superior change.

I am not going to guarantee every discussion thread will discover some way to improve the game as a whole, but that open discussion is more likely to find those good ideas than censoring everyone into ivory towers where they only have their own feedback to listen to.

Or is it more likely to find bad ideas that most people won't like because we're in an echo chamber? Maybe the best thing to do instead of trying to find a change that will benefit the entire player base is to find a change that will benefit the people having the discussion.

Yes, but that indirect impact is trivial. Discussion in any sections of the player base impact that part of the player base. Some member of that player base are parts of other partitions of the player base. Discussions about good ideas or common issues tend to travel further.

I have no idea what this means.

Are you asking people to stop having open discussion about their criticism?
Yes: Why? Seriously examine why.
No: Then I see no conflict with what I said.

I'm saying that people should have better goals. Don't try to improve the game for everyone.

People here start with the assumption that the game is broken and then try to fix it.

This is the wrong way to go about it.

Instead figure out what about your playstyle, approach, and understanding of the game doesn't work for you. And then change that for you to better fit what you want.

You will be much more productive and successful.

[JNAProductions]

You can improve something that isn't broken.

[OldTrees1]

But how do you propose to have this discussions across the entire player base? How are you going to reach and engage with 10s of millions of people?

They talk among themselves sure. But not to others. If they did we would hear them. That's what talking is.

Step 1: Have people feel free to have open discussions
Step 2: Have people feel free to be part of multiple groups / communities within the player base (forum, LGS, gaming group, family, friends)
Step 3: There is no need for a step 3. The discussions are already happening.

I hope you are aware that some members of this very discussion are also in other communities and have discussions in those other communities. The cross pollination already happens.

Okay, but what is a positive change taking everything into account? How do you know that making a change you will like is what everyone else will like? Or maybe you should accept that most people like most of the game the way it is. That's why they play it and introduce it to new people. There are far more 5e players now that started with 5e than those who started with previous editions.

This sounds like a collection of non sequiturs.

However, as someone that like most of the game the way that it is, I too have critiques. I think that it can still be improved. I don't like when someone tries to stifle that open discussion.

Or is it more likely to find bad ideas that most people won't like because we're in an echo chamber? Maybe the best thing to do instead of trying to find a change that will benefit the entire player base is to find a change that will benefit the people having the discussion.

This is why light bulbs don't exist. It is okay if bad ideas outnumber the good ideas. It is okay for the community to generate 1000+ bad ideas for every good idea (and that is being really pessimistic).

You might want to review the list of benefits I described. Finding changes the people having the discussion can make that will benefit themselves is one of the benefits I listed.

I have no idea what this means.

People discuss among themselves and people exist in multiple groups. What was discussed in group A might be cross pollenated into group B by person XYZ. Discussions about common issues tend to travel further. Good ideas tend to travel further.*

* There are other factors that impact the distance and velocity that ideas/concepts travel.

I'm saying that people should have better goals. Don't try to improve the game for everyone.

People here start with the assumption that the game is broken and then try to fix it.

This is the wrong way to go about it.

Instead figure out what about your playstyle, approach, and understanding of the game doesn't work for you. And then change that for you to better fit what you want.

You will be much more productive and successful.

When someone in a group discusses a pain point they have with the product, they can have multiple goals. I agree with most of what you are saying. The only part I disagree with is IF you are saying "SHUT UP!" then I am saying "I disagree, they should not shut up."

Open discussions about criticism are places where people can (quoting you directly)

figure out what about your playstyle, approach, and understanding of the game doesn't work for you. And then change that for you to better fit what you want.

Also PS:
You might be assuming people here assume the game is less functional than they actually assume it is. Some see a pain point and want to improve on something that is not broken. For example adding a Myconoid PC race.

[Easy e]

ICON, or Dungeon World, or Mouseguard to find them.

Then tell me more.....

I have played Wargames for over two decades, and heard the same claims literally countless times. What most people really mean when they say "X is balanced" is that "I Like the way X does it better". That does not make it balanced.

And a GM cannot bear a heavy responsibility of balancing the system. Because they have to learn the system first, and if their players aren't enjoying the learning process, they'll quit

Do you have to learn the system to have a good game? What if you made internally consistent judgements based on the shared reality of the game world you were playing in?

However "balance is impossible" is not the end of the dialogue. It is one of the premises.

I completely agree with this. In the end "balance" is just another matter of taste.

Therefore, you can tell me your tastes all you want, but that is not Objective reality.

[ad_hoc]

When someone in a group discusses a pain point they have with the product, they can have multiple goals. I agree with most of what you are saying. The only part I disagree with is IF you are saying "SHUT UP!" then I am saying "I disagree, they should not shut up."

Not saying that.

Just suggesting to:

Define your goals and make them ones that benefit you.

Don't poison the well by starting off with 'the game is broken' and then addressing everything through that framing. Instead recognize that the game is great and works very well for most people. It is not wrong to have parts of the game you don't like. Just identify what it is that you enjoy differently than most people and use that framing to change the game more to your liking.

The vast majority of the stuff people complain about here are things that are only problems because of how they play. Don't assume the designers are bad at their job. Assume they made a good game, just one that isn't specifically for you. Finding out why the rule is there will make it easier to find a change that works for you.

In other words people bang their head against the wall because they don't understand why the rules are what they are. Then they spend their time on a fix that won't have the effect they want because the core of their issue lies elsewhere.

It's like repairing a car engine and not replenishing the oil. The engine was broken but the problem wasn't the broken engine, it was that it had no oil. If you fix the source of the problem (no oil) then you don't need to keep fixing the broken engines you keep getting.

Also PS:
You might be assuming people here assume the game is less functional than they actually assume it is. Some see a pain point and want to improve on something that is not broken. For example adding a Myconoid PC race.

People go on and on about things that are fundamental to the game like making rulings and the entire ability check system. In the former it is said that the game is a scam and in the latter that it doesn't work.

Someone here said that the game isn't a cooperative storytelling game when it is exactly described as that on the first page of the PHB. If you don't start by knowing what the goals of the game/rules are then you're going to have trouble changing them later on.

[Kymme]

Someone here said that the game isn't a cooperative storytelling game when it is exactly described as that on the first page of the PHB. If you don't start by knowing what the goals of the game/rules are then you're going to have trouble changing them later on.

I'd caution against trusting a foreword penned by Mike Mearls, of all people.

Just as a point of clarity here. IMO, for a game to be a 'cooperative storytelling game' it needs to have mechanics and rules to facilitate cooperative storytelling. Things like player authorship, shared worldbuilding. The first chapter of the PHB introduces rules like Specific Beats General and Advantage/Disadvantage, rather than any cooperative storytelling rules. It does this because it's a decently designed tactical skirmish game, with complicated character generation and advancement, not a game for heroic fantasy storytelling. A game can obfuscate its actual purpose and ideal usage.

I can sell a chess set with 'The Exciting Game of Courtly Intrigue' printed on the box, but that doesn't make it a game about courtly intrigue.

I don't think D&D is a bad game. I think that when people use it to play fantasy heroes going on epic quests of high drama and personal growth, they're putting the game through a stress test: testing the robustness of the game's design by pushing it beyond the limits of its normal operation. It's no wonder people run into problems like interparty balance, honestly.

[OldTrees1]

Not saying that.

Then we probably agree on the rest. The only difference is framing and priors.

For instance we agree that it is a good/great game. However your prior for the possibility it can be improved is much more pessimistic than my prior for the possibility it can be improved. Likewise your prior for the number of common issues is much lower than my prior for the number of common issues. It is okay that we have different priors for those assumptions.

Just suggesting to:

Define your goals and make them ones that benefit you.

If someone is making a thread, they already did this.

Don't poison the well by starting off with 'the game is broken' and then addressing everything through that framing. Instead recognize that the game is great and works very well for most people. It is not wrong to have parts of the game you don't like. Just identify what it is that you enjoy differently than most people and use that framing to change the game more to your liking.

Be careful to avoid poisoning the spring when you avoid poisoning the well.
1) I think there is a miscommunication about the word "broken". I have hinted at that miscommunication. However let me be explicit, rarely does the use of that word actually do the poison you worry about.
2) Arrogance is dangerous, but so is assuming every idea you have is wrong. It is better to state your experience / preferences and listen to the experience/preferences of others rather than assume that your issue is a unique issue. Some issues might be common issues. Other issues are rare or even unique issues. I suggest humility rather that silence. I suggest empathy rather than arrogance. Recognize the game is good, but pain points might be able to be improved. Recognize you personally wanting a change is not the same as everyone wanting a change but neither it is the same as everyone hating the change.

Don't poison the well. Don't poison the spring.

The vast majority of the stuff people complain about here are things that are only problems because of how they play. Don't assume the designers are bad at their job. Assume they made a good game, just one that isn't specifically for you. Finding out why the rule is there will make it easier to find a change that works for you.


In other words people bang their head against the wall because they don't understand why the rules are what they are. Then they spend their time on a fix that won't have the effect they want because the core of their issue lies elsewhere.

Good advice, although sometimes learning about the design does reveal an improvement. Humility but not silence is the goldilocks zone.

People go on and on about things that are fundamental to the game like making rulings and the entire ability check system. In the former it is said that the game is a scam and in the latter that it doesn't work.

Someone here said that the game isn't a cooperative storytelling game when it is exactly described as that on the first page of the PHB. If you don't start by knowing what the goals of the game/rules are then you're going to have trouble changing them later on.

These claims all make more sense after you empathize with the individuals making them. Especially that last one (because their usage of the term is different from your/my usage). I recommend humility and empathy rather than promoting assuming the design is perfect. This mirrors your suggestion that the critic learn about the design before assuming it is flawed. The framing is a bit different but the intent behind the advice is the same.

Just as a point of clarity here. IMO, for a game to be a 'cooperative storytelling game' it needs to have mechanics and rules to facilitate cooperative storytelling.

Oh the other hand, IMO, for a game to be "cooperative storytelling" it has to produce a story and have more than 1 participant with agency. This is a different is definitions which leads to a semantic difference (my label would apply in cases your label would not) rather than a true disagreement.

[Pex]

Not saying that.

Just suggesting to:

Define your goals and make them ones that benefit you.

Don't poison the well by starting off with 'the game is broken' and then addressing everything through that framing. Instead recognize that the game is great and works very well for most people. It is not wrong to have parts of the game you don't like. Just identify what it is that you enjoy differently than most people and use that framing to change the game more to your liking.

The vast majority of the stuff people complain about here are things that are only problems because of how they play. Don't assume the designers are bad at their job. Assume they made a good game, just one that isn't specifically for you. Finding out why the rule is there will make it easier to find a change that works for you.

In other words people bang their head against the wall because they don't understand why the rules are what they are. Then they spend their time on a fix that won't have the effect they want because the core of their issue lies elsewhere.

It's like repairing a car engine and not replenishing the oil. The engine was broken but the problem wasn't the broken engine, it was that it had no oil. If you fix the source of the problem (no oil) then you don't need to keep fixing the broken engines you keep getting.



People go on and on about things that are fundamental to the game like making rulings and the entire ability check system. In the former it is said that the game is a scam and in the latter that it doesn't work.

Someone here said that the game isn't a cooperative storytelling game when it is exactly described as that on the first page of the PHB. If you don't start by knowing what the goals of the game/rules are then you're going to have trouble changing them later on.

No. People can flat out say the designers should not have done what they did. You can disagree, but no, people do not have to applaud your point of view before they state their grievance.

[ad_hoc]

I'd caution against trusting a foreword penned by Mike Mearls, of all people.

Just as a point of clarity here. IMO, for a game to be a 'cooperative storytelling game' it needs to have mechanics and rules to facilitate cooperative storytelling. Things like player authorship, shared worldbuilding. The first chapter of the PHB introduces rules like Specific Beats General and Advantage/Disadvantage, rather than any cooperative storytelling rules. It does this because it's a decently designed tactical skirmish game, with complicated character generation and advancement, not a game for heroic fantasy storytelling. A game can obfuscate its actual purpose and ideal usage.

I can sell a chess set with 'The Exciting Game of Courtly Intrigue' printed on the box, but that doesn't make it a game about courtly intrigue.

I don't think D&D is a bad game. I think that when people use it to play fantasy heroes going on epic quests of high drama and personal growth, they're putting the game through a stress test: testing the robustness of the game's design by pushing it beyond the limits of its normal operation. It's no wonder people run into problems like interparty balance, honestly.

Case in point right here.

No. People can flat out say the designers should not have done what they did. You can disagree, but no, people do not have to applaud your point of view before they state their grievance.

They can they're just both wrong (in all but minor cases) and not helping themselves.

[Kymme]

Case in point right here.

It's funny, I'm actually agreeing with you:

The vast majority of the stuff people complain about here are things that are only problems because of how they play. Don't assume the designers are bad at their job. Assume they made a good game, just one that isn't specifically for you. Finding out why the rule is there will make it easier to find a change that works for you.

D&D's rules were made to facilitate a tactical skirmishing wargame, exploring places, getting into random encounters, plodding through dungeons, killing monsters and taking their stuff. People (here and elsewhere) complain because they have trouble getting it to run dramatic high fantasy adventures - something D&D has never really been designed to do. I think a lot of people here and elsewhere would have more positive experiences if they just assumed the designers made a good game, just one that isn't specifically for them, then went out to find games that are suited to the things they want to play and run.

Or what, are your arguments only sound when you're the one making them?

[Pex]

They can they're just both wrong (in all but minor cases) and not helping themselves.

Not wrong, just disagree with you. It's all opinion.

[Mr. Wonderful]

It's no wonder people run into problems like interparty balance, honestly.

I think this sums up a lot of the criticism. Some people consider "interparty balance" a desirable thing, which I'm going to assume means a rough parity between different character builds. I don't believe anyone expects that to be exact and its understood that some builds can be stronger in one of the three pillars than others, but taken as a whole some folks in this thread believe they should be roughly equal, or at least not too unequal.

My point of view is that RPG are team games. "Interparty balance" is less desirable to me than being in a party who uses teamwork to overcome the challenges presented by the DM's scenario. Sometimes that means one character shines over another. And sometimes the 5th level Wizard casts Fly on the Barbarian to win the encounter.

This forum is full of character optimization threads and I love them. But there aren't many party optimization threads - its simply too broad a topic and can't possibly cover everything the DM can present. And that is where the DM's responsibility is - balance. By providing a rich complexity of encounters and interactions and encouraging everyone to participate, regardless of how "optimized" they may be in any one situation.

[JNAProductions]

And, if we go to 3rd edition of D&D, the balance can be so bad that a party is not needed.
A single 10th level Wizard, built and played to a high degree of optimization, can obviate the need for an entire party of more martial characters of the same level.

Notably, while I can certainly agree that an experienced 3E DM should set a general expectation for power level, it’s not their responsibility to fix the game. It’s EVERYONE’S job to meet the balance point, whether that point is “Monk is the best” or “Chain-gate Solars”.

[OldTrees1]

I think this sums up a lot of the criticism. Some people consider "interparty balance" a desirable thing, which I'm going to assume means a rough parity between different character builds. I don't believe anyone expects that to be exact and its understood that some builds can be stronger in one of the three pillars than others, but taken as a whole some folks in this thread believe they should be roughly equal, or at least not too unequal.

My point of view is that RPG are team games. "Interparty balance" is less desirable to me than being in a party who uses teamwork to overcome the challenges presented by the DM's scenario. Sometimes that means one character shines over another. And sometimes the 5th level Wizard casts Fly on the Barbarian to win the encounter.

Good example. Here is a short summary of some of the lessons learned from conversations on that example topic.

Open discussion on the topic of interparty balance with respect to pillars has provided some useful insights:
0) Some want some kind of interparty balance with respect to pillars
1) Some don't care about that balance
2) Some actually want severe imbalance. (Something I learned from the open discussion of critiques)
3) These preferences are independent of whether the player views RPGs as team games.
4) Those that want balance don't want it to be exact, and there is a concept of a toleration range.
5) Those that want balance might have non overlapping toleration ranges.
6) A game can have accommodate multiple non overlapping toleration ranges by having a larger toleration range and having enough variety within each non comparable for groups to find options within their smaller toleration ranges.
7) The same solution for accommodating groups with different toleration ranges also works to provide those that want imbalance with the ability to have imbalance.
8) The solution that works for a game's design is a different and more nuanced solution than the design that works as a homebrew patch for each group.

This forum is full of character optimization threads and I love them. But there aren't many party optimization threads - its simply too broad a topic and can't possibly cover everything the DM can present. And that is where the DM's responsibility is - balance. By providing a rich complexity of encounters and interactions and encouraging everyone to participate, regardless of how "optimized" they may be in any one situation.

I believe there is 1 thread (about do parties have dedicated healers). However I would not consider that an ideal example of a party optimization thread. The ideal example of a character optimization thread is about optimizing the mechanics to match the character concept. Those threads are rare but there are a few recently. The ideal example of a party optimization thread, would be something like my group's session 0s. The reduced frequency of party optimization threads might be due to those conversations having a different primary location.

I also agree that the DM is one of those responsible for part of the end result of everyone participating. However I would note that if a DM has a criticism of 5E (say they observe the implementation 5E ability check system contributing to players being discouraged from participating) that criticism can happen independently of the DM doing their part to help get everyone participating. This is the whole "blame is not conserved" concept where someone can criticize something while taking responsibility to address the issue themselves.

So if I understand it correctly, your criticism boils down to "I don't see the other part of the healthy behavior, but maybe it happens outside my view, so I want to talk about its importance just in case it is not happening". A helpful double check of a sort.

[KorvinStarmast]

The other players ranged from 7 to 10. And were actually pretty good. As serious and capable as some of my theoretically adult players.

As a theoretically adult player, I wonder what I can learn from them.

You can't paint the entire forum with such a derogatory blanket statement.

The truth hurts, I guess. What edition of D&D was active when the Optimization section of GiTP was born? (And let's give some 3.x optimizers credit for creating a go to resource for many players, and IIRC, offering also a platform for 4e players ... and that momentum carried forward into this edition).

Okay I'm just gonna stop you for a second there. Doesn't it feel a little presumptuous to claim that this forum isn't representative of the D&D community?

Are you aware of the logical flaw in what you just did?

There are 10s of millions of 5e players that started hobby gaming with 5e.

5e message boards are a fringe part of the player base and this one in particular is on the fringe of message boards.

Mike Mearls in 2014 when commenting on the 5e playtest said that one thing they found out is that message boards are not at all representative of the player base. And this was back in 2014 when all the D&D players were from previous editions.

Interesting to note.

The explosion of popularity is due in some part to how much 5e embraces and encourages a healthy and supportive social atmosphere. It's one aspect that held back previous editions from breaking into the mainstream.

At the very beginning of the PHB it states that D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. That informs the design principles and subsequently the rules and mechanics.

And a little luck, I suspect.

The casual use of statements such as "it's not broken if some can fix it is a fallacy" and other absolutely disparaging remarks towards anyone who has the temerity to state that they don't think <forum zeitgeist "flaw"> is a flaw makes it clear that no, these forums tend to treat their subjective opinions as objective facts.

I've had a negative reaction to the "it's broken' rubbish here and at another site that is based on the attitude embedded in that position. It's also used as a dismissal of "x" in too many cases.

That the rules are a toolkit

Which is also expressed in the original three books from 1974. If I can dig it out, I'll get a quote from Gary, circa 2002, ENworld interview, where he describes how little he consulted the rules (and his fellow early DMs likewise) when he ran games. I ran across it last night while looking up something else.

I'll name it. 'The Oberoni Fallacy".

Which is a load of bollocks.
It's core flawed, and false, assumption is that the rules define the game. That paradigm isn't what D&D is all about, and never has been. (Kuntz made some interesting comments on this in his book about Dave Arneson, but I'm getting a bit off topic here)

RPGs were a new and paradigm breaking game form when they came out. A few of the major differences were (1) the game didn't have a start and end point (2) winning and losing weren't really on the table (3) the rules only got you started. They didn't take you end to end. A few years into that, TSR started adding the tag line "Products of your imagination" to their little logo, a point that keeps going over the heads of folks who ignorantly chirp out Oberoni Fallacy as though it has any meaning.

As Dave Wesley once noted about wargaming with miniatures, and the role play he folded into his games that fused the Diplomacy play style, play to find out, all based on historical warfare from Napoleonic era wargame campaigns, was that the tension between balance, playability, and realism is never ending. Finding the sweetspot is very difficult. (As was already known about miniatures war games). They required effort and a never ending source of tinkering, but all of those games had an interface between the rules and the players: the referee. (D&D's referee began with that name but the name is now DM). His own Braunstein games required no small amount of tinkering for them to work.

One of the things that Phoenix has dead right, time and again, in these discussions is the rules as your tool box model. It's been true since the beginning. I will try to express that somewhat differently, and in my own words:

The relationship (or maybe the interface?) between the rules, the DM, and the players is dynamic rather than static. (I am only about 80 percent there on this word phrase, I may need to tweak it to get it to fit better). see what I did there?

And they, which is RPGs in general, have kept evolving. (Well, in the Forge's case, mutating).
Which takes us to some games where a rules centric play style is a better fit, but that's off topic for the 5e forum and better suited to the general roleplaying forum.

[strangebloke]

I think that the validity of invoking the rule zero fallacy depends on context. The oberoni or rule zero fallacy comes up in conversations about the worth of a game system as a whole, for example:

"3.5 is a messed up edition, so many terrible design choices."
"It's great! You can just houserule the dumb parts."
Well, sure, but that's the oberoni fallacy. The fact you need so many houserules indicates that the edition as it was first printed had serious problems."

This was what was going on with OP's initial statement, though he's clarified it since. He was saying that critiques of the system were invalid because the DM's job is to fix these issues. While it may be true that the DM should try to fix these issues, the fact that the DM needs to address these issues is itself an agreement that these issues are real. If the books were to be reprinted, it would be best to avoid these issues.

Where the rule zero fallacy doesn't apply is when people are just having a different of opinion about what a game needs.

"I am really bothered this game doesn't have robust social encounter rules"
"The rules we have work fine for my game."

The two players here are just disagreeing about what the game needs. No logical fallacy in sight.

[KorvinStarmast]

No logical fallacy in sight.

Primarily because it's not an on or off switch.

There being some holes or soft spots in the rules, to where it's (as a body of work) 88% good, or 77% good, or 92 % good, all fit within the parameters 'playable and coherent" as well as "good enough" (And 5e certainly meets that 80% solution at the very least, my Rotten Tomatoes style rating puts it in the low 90's high 80's score - biggest short falls are gaps in "how to DM if you are a new DM" as the most disappointing omission, the other disappointment being using 90 words when 60 would do in so many cases ...).

With a CRPG, on the other hand, that level of 'rule' (actually, game code) being in a state of disconnect kills it.