It’s all about balance.
Greywulf had an excellent post up at his Lair today. He offers up some of his thoughts on 4E, and how he sees some of the emerging trends.
Here are a some of the main points he makes:
- Game balance should be secondary to enjoyment of the game.
- 4E is combat-heavy, and has little to offer in the way of role playing.
- Because 4E is combat heavy, the classes have all been adjusted to be balanced in combat.
I agree completely that game balance is secondary. I’d even go as far as to say that game balance is, in some ways, an illusion. D&D isn’t a perfect system, mathematically, and it never will be. In my group especially, I don’t worry about game balance because we’re all friends. No one is going to be jealous of another player because of character abilities.
I don’t, however, agree with the other two points. On the first point, I’ll offer you the comment I left over a the lair:
I’m intrigued by what you’re saying here about 4E being so heavy on combat. To me, Keep on the Shadowfell was impressive the way that it handled the NPC interactions during the “interlude” stages. For the first time in a while, I felt like I really knew the NPCs, and could role-play them effectively without having to re-create them in my own head.
True, Shadowfell was a bit encounter-heavy, but no more so than Demonweb Pits.
So, my experience was totally different that Greywulf’s. Which one of us is right, or most reflects how 4E will be? Hell if I know. Time will tell. But here’s the thing: I believe, firmly, that a rule set can’t encourage good role-playing. That’s up to the people playing the game. A complex ruleset can get in the way of good roleplaying, as can one with social “skill checks” like in 3E. But, like with 3E, there are ways around that.
As to the question of the classes being more closely matched in combat ability, I think what Greywulf and others are seeing is simply rules convergence. This is the idea, very present in 4E, that the classes ought to play in a similar fashion, even if their abilities are vastly different. In other words, differences in classes matter most in flavor, not in mechanics.
I like this. In fact, here’s the other part of what I said at the Lair:
In fact, I’m of a mind that the rules convergence may well prove to be the smartest thing D&D ever did. Think about it: my friend who’s only ever played a paladin because he understands the mechanic can now play anything he wants. That’s a boon to many folks, especially newcomers to the game.
So, what do you all think? Really, there are 2 questions here. First, how important is game balance, if at all? Second, is rules convergence a good thing?
photo credit: SuperFantastic
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
D&D is and will always be a combat engine. That you can role play with it is a great bonus.
I say and I will repeat that you need absolutely no rules for role play! None!
If you wish to Roleplay in D&D go nuts! And you don’t need to do any combat or gain XPs as roleplaying needs no power mechanics…
(and here’s a little secret from the DMG, all physical and social obstacles can be scaled to the exact level of the party, regardless of what the obstacle is)
I find tirade against balance tiring because I’ve seen players bored to tears and get frustrated that thier cool character concept was not up to par with the others in fights.
While others were having fun slaying stuff (that’s what the game is about) they were frustrated to miss, lose turns o, screwed by magic resistance, Immunities, save or dies….
Greywulf’s argument that the Fellowship of the ring was based on a unbalanced party is so wrong because if it was a game, everyone would want to play Aragorn, Gimili or Gandalf… no one would want to play the Hobbits.
Novels are not good models for enjoyable RPGS…. if the game is about combat, classes need to be balanced to give all types of players the same chances in combat…
If you use D&D for other things than combat, WHY THE HELL does it matter to you if classes are balanced?
It’s like people are crying for the right not to have fun and impose this on others. It just blows my freaking mind!
With all due respect for Greywulf!
The Chatty DMs last blog post..Afterschool Tropes Special: The Campaign as a British TV Series
@Chatty -
I’ll avoid the whole D&D as a combat system vs. D&D as an RPG question for now. Too much fuel for folks like Harry who said the other day the he left D&D, never to return, because it no longer offered enough role playing opportunities
Here’s the thing on balance, in general:
I’m agnostic about it. It’s nice to have, but it isn’t going to ruin my group if it’s not there.
Is it a good thing for new and/or younger players? Of course. It’s good for some older players, too.
But I don’t think that the rules convergence was as much about balance as it was playability and ease of use.
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
Way cool with me mate.
That being said, Harry and I are looking for vastly different things in our role playing experiences.
For examples, I can’t stand how World of Darkness games are presented. Never had, never will. Playing d20 WoD is the only concession I was able to do toward the franchise.
Harry obviously prefers that type of game, I’m way cool with that.
The Chatty DMs last blog post..Afterschool Tropes Special: The Campaign as a British TV Series
Considering the long article I wrote on balance recently, you can probably guess how I feel.
A point raised in both his post in yours is that there are some systems that work GREAT imbalanced. If that’s the game you want, play that game. But D&D has never been that game. It’s been the game that balances (heh heh) the role-playing and the game, and it’s always been about killing monsters. Decrying that is like saying there’s not enough trivia in Monopoly. It can certainly be changed in your group, but that’s not what the core game is about.
Dave T. Games last blog post..EXCLUSIVE Preview: 2 Pages from the 4e PHB
Lol! All respect taken. CDM
First adventures for any new system have to be taken with a pinch of salt, and Shadowfell is no exception. It’s a showcase of what’s to come and as is stands it’s not a bad little romp. Sure, it’s unlikely to win any prizes but it does the job, highlighting the changes to the system and easing new players into the game. I’ve no beef about Shadowfell at all, really.
I wish the same could be said of the Core Rules though. They’re a mess, both in terms of layout, and game design. That’s a rant for another time though.
The thing is that I’ve played games where the party is (by D&D’s definition) widely unbalanced. We’ve run entire M&M campaigns where the Hero Team covers the spectrum of powers from street-level ex-boxers to Superman-level, and beyond – and they’ve all had a role to play in the adventures. Balanced? Nope! But sure as heck fun!
A difference in the power-level of a character’s ability is best handled to the GM’s ability to make sure that each players gets time in the spotlight. It doesn’t matter whether the character is a blind cripple or a stalwart paladin – they should each have a chance to shine. 4e D&D does nothing to permit characters with anything less than perfect teeth.
When it comes to convergence, I’m far from convinced. If that’s seen as a “feature”, why not just have one single uber-character class and let the players describe their own game-effects however the heck they want? Who needs classes at all if they’re all the same anyhow?
@CDM: It’s true, you don’t need rules to role-play, but good rules enhance the experience, aid immersion and give a framework to the whole game. Bad rules do the opposite – they hinder the game, interrupt the flow of the session and generally make the whole thing break down.
If you’ve got a character that’s sub-par in combat, give him something else to do while the rest are holding back the horde. Maybe they’ve got to disarm the trap while the hobgoblins are attacking, figure out the arcane codex in a race against time, or whatever. If that doesn’t work, let ‘em change character or multi-class. There’s no shortage of options without letting Balance become all-consuming.
When it comes to the new Edition of D&D, it boils down to this: if you want to play a Fantasy-based game with miniatures, get into Warhammer Fantasy Battles instead. The figures are cheaper and don’t come in random packs
Oh, and if 4e D&D was a great game, I’d be shouting it from the rooftops. It’s not, so I see nothing wrong with being negative about it. I was hopeful it was going to be better than this. Silly me. Ah well.
Balance? What balance…OH! The fact that now all characters are carbon copies of each other? SO I can play a rogue who does and average of X damage per round and moves enemies a number of squares this way…or a fighter that ALSO does X damage and pushes foes that way a number of squares.
My group burned keep on yhe shadowfell in effigy after playing through it. Not only was the production quality issues dead-on, it just wasn’t fun. The 4E ruleset truly seems like an attempt to dredge the middle schools of america for more players. Is this bad? No. HOWEVER, This could have just as easily been done by a much less divisive and less expensive extensive marketing campaign.
I’m not a big design buff like some of the awesome bloggers I follow here and elsewhere. I tend to game based on the enjoyment level of the group. 3.5 and the upcoming pathfinder are the direction we are headed. Having obtained an early digital copy of the 4E core set (for this year : / ) I am as uninterested as can be.
The rules have been written according to the lowest common denominator in our hobby. I felt the whole time we were playing, that it was like candyland with swords and spells. Where was the complexity? OH! That’s right, it was in the whole “moving squares thing.”
Don’t want it, don’t need it. Complex rules are neccessary when playing an alternate reality simulator of the fantasy/ sci-fi variety…not cartoony/video gamey stuff cranked out for the consumption of people who incessantly whine about being bored waiting 5 minutes for their turn, or not being able to hang on the front lines with their Ranger2/Rogue2/Sorceror2/Bard2/ninja2/Dread pirate1
Bad players, and GM’s make bad games…the rest is simply an arbitrary ruleset that once it becomes “balanced” becomes boring.
Donny: Thanks for being so insulting. It’s one thing to say you prefer an “alternate reality simulator”, it’s yet another to insult those of us with different tastes as being the “lowest common denominator” and being like “middle-schoolers”.
Dave T. Games last blog post..EXCLUSIVE Preview: 2 Pages from the 4e PHB
Aight, aight, aight. Couple things:
I don’t edit, delete, or moderate nonspam comments. Say what you like.
I do ask for civility. We can have rational disagreements without moving into name-calling and denigrating one another. It’s a useful debate tactic, but I’m not about debate.
I’m about conversation. Take Chatty and Wulf, for example. They’re handling their disagreement well. Keep that pattern, boys, and we’ll all be happy.
Thus speaks the elder statesman.
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
And where did “I actually “insult” anyone? I offered an opinion, that is all.
An insult would have been more like “Anyone who plays this game is an ADD riddled middle schooler.”
I offer apologies if you feel insulted. If it helps, I have felt insulted by 4E since the early design started trickling out. If it’s you cup of tea, then drink up…guess I’m more of a coffee guy is all.
@ Wulf – I get what you’re saying about Warhammer. I just disagree. I have always added my own role-playing elements to my D&D games. The thing is this: I like the D&D settings, I like the brand, I like the fiction, and I like the adventure ideas. I am agnostic about mechanics, unless they get in the way.
For me, mechanics have only gotten in the way when I tried to play Shadowrun 2E or GURPS. I don’t see it happening here, though it could, I’m sure.
Haven’t looked at the core books yet. Tempted, but can’t bring myself to do it.
@ Chatty – I think I like Harry’s kind of game. I just want it in a Fantasy setting – THE fantasy setting. So, I choose to play D&D, using the mechanics and flavor as-is, and adding as much role-playing as I possibly can. That’s why I’m more or less indifferent to mechanics.
@Dave – I don’t disagree with you, to one degree or another, about a need for balance in many groups. See above; I’m indifferent to the balance question.
To some degree, though the balance is an illusion. The moment you put one person in charge of both a participant in the contest (monsters and NPCs) and offer him God-like power over the game, balance goes out the window.
On top of that, even Monte says that CR is just as much art as it is science. Professor Randy Nichols, (shekaka67, who comments and posts here) will tell you that you really can’t write a mathematical formula for a D&D encounter. Why? Players have too many options rolling around in their creative little minds. You design your rules, hoping that a good number of players will act the same way.
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
@ Donny – There’s a difference between having a rational disagreement about the things you don’t like about a product, or don’t agree with in a person and having an emotional reaction and using insulting and angry language about a product that might be near and dear to someone’s heart.
In other words, you can say “The way the classes all share a mechanic stinks because it takes away any reason you might have had to play a specific class.”
What you can’t say (and be taken seriously here) is “The classes are all dumb and only monkeys with almond for brains would want to play it.”
Clear enough, yes?
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
Oh, and I’ll add something else.
With the Rebranding I’m announcing tomorrow, I am moving the blog away from a narrow DnD focus. I’m going to open it up to RPGs in general, with an emphasis on DnD. That includes all flavors, OD&D on up.
(speaking of which, and I’ll ask this again later in a post… I’m interested in having a weekly feature of an OD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, 3E, Pathfinder and even WoD blog post. I’d need a volunteer for each of those areas who would be willing to post once a week. I can’t pay anything, of course, but it would be great exposure for your blog and maybe add some credibility.
Email me if you’re interested in becoming part of something much bigger than what we have right here and now. Bob at dndreviews dot com.
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
Looking forward to seeing that dear Bob.
Although I’ll pass for the guest posting for the time being.
I have filled my semi-regular, free guest posting spots with Roleplaying Tips and Critical Hits… the next ones will need to be paid posts.
But count on my for periodic links!
The Chatty DMs last blog post..Afterschool Tropes Special: The Campaign as a British TV Series
@DM – understood.
You make an excellent point though. Are we really gaining anything by narrowing the focus of character design by giving static choices?
One of the greatest strengths (and weaknesses) of 3.X was the feats system. Anyone can do nearly anything in terms of individual character design. It was possible to have three fighters in the same party who where mechanically unique. Add the awesomeness that is (or was) prestige classes, and you could play 20 fighter characters in a row and have each character be completely different from all the others.
High level game balance was IMO the only real issue with the game. After about, oh, 15th level the game just grinds to a halt.
I just don’t feel homogenization is the key to solving this problem. It just becomes about damage types at this point, since mechanically, every PC is “balanced” out against the others.
@Donny –
I don’t know that the rules conversion solves the problem of high level gaming – I think they’ve done other things to accomplish that goal. The tiers, for instance, may be a cog in that particular machine.
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
@Donny:
For what it’s worth, the list of powers that each class gets per level, i.e. at least 5 per class, per category (Daily, at-will and encounter) will grow longer as supplements will be published.
I made a cleric and the different choices made me feel I could build different flavours of Clerics
Feats are also present and combine with powers to flesh them out even more.
While I concede that mechanically some classes have similar powers (rangers and rogues feel similar)… the customization that will rise from players playing might alleviate what you refer to.
I’ll revert on Sunday when I,ll have DMed a few hours of it.
The Chatty DMs last blog post..Afterschool Tropes Special: The Campaign as a British TV Series
“To some degree, though the balance is an illusion. The moment you put one person in charge of both a participant in the contest (monsters and NPCs) and offer him God-like power over the game, balance goes out the window.”
Well, I’m not even considering the GM in an equation. Exactly the thing that you state is the reason I advocate for some semblance of balance: “No one is going to be jealous of another player because of character abilities.”
In nearly every group I’ve been in, there’s been a case where one class/feat selection/combo/what have you has overshadowed another player, and that is just plain not fun. (It’s not a jealousy issue, it’s a frustration/feeling important issue.) It can get to the extent where someone is so good at designing their character that several other characters are useless by comparison. Then the GM is given the choice of either uplifting the other characters (and all the work that entails) or downgrading that character (and that’s not a fun conversation either.) Essentially, the game at that point is expecting it to fix it for you.
But you’re right, at some level, balance is an illusion in a game as complex as D&D. (And 4E is still plenty complex in game design terms.) However, the more elegant and simple a system is, the greater chance you have of attaining balance or something close to it.
Dave T. Games last blog post..EXCLUSIVE Preview: 2 Pages from the 4e PHB
@Dave – My situation is somewhat unique, I recognize that. I may not have the luxury of always playing with guys in their 30s and 40s who have been friends, literally, for a decade or more. In my group, that balance isn’t as important.
But I like where you’re at here, Dave. “The more elegant and simple a system is, the greater chance you have of attaining balance.” The facts behind that statement are the same facts behind this statement: “4E is dumbed down and uses the lowest common denominator to make all the classes the same.”
It’s all about perspective and preference.
The DMs last blog post..Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
@ Dave
Good point. Munchkin gamers will ALWAYS kill a system. And the “ultimate character build” will always own a non ultimate one. I have a player that always takes High LA templates at character creation…EVERY time. She completely rocks out until 5th or 6th level before being passed up by the party, and left in the dust. Her personal favorite is the 1/2 celestial/ 1/2 dragon combo. I stopped allowing it for the reason that she was always ecstatic, stealing the spotlight for the first few levels – then complaining about getting robbed in later game. She just never got it.
You’re right though, Balance goes out the window as soon as people get involved, that is why role-playing is so important, it helps a lot to smooth out the worst spots – while allowing non stat centric characters to occasionally shine.
You’re right. Munchkins will always find a way in. The problem is the 4e makes everyone a Munchkin.
Want kewl powerz?
Want to kick some dragon ass, even at first level?
Hey, want to BE a dragon at first level?
Then play 4th Edition D&D, the Munchkin role-playing game!
Me? Bitter? Ok, maybe just a little………..
@Greywulf – lol! That made me guffaw! BE a dragon…
I’m still not convinced the scale is any different than before. What I mean is that, yes, 1st level characters are tougher. But, so are Kobolds. I assume that will scale, in play, up to dragons and beyond.
to quote you:” But here’s the thing: I believe, firmly, that a rule set can’t encourage good role-playing. That’s up to the people playing the game.”
Wholeheartedly agree, and I’ve been saying similar things for years. I know of no system that is good or bad for RP, only players who choose to do so and players who do not.
I got my copy of the PHB/DMG/MM already, and from what I see, this edition will be no different. The players in my group that are Heavy RP types will continue, and those that prefer to RP a little and let dice or the DM decide will continue to do that.
As far as Munchkinism, well, if you don’t let them into your party, it isn’t a problem, no matter how the system is “balanced”. My group may be atypical, be we regularly have players taht “munchkinned” one character in one game nerf their character in the next one because they want to RP something specific.
Interesting breakdown…
I took the time to thumb through the new rules at one of the local hobby shops this weekend (I had already pre-ordered the boxed set from Amazon being unable to pass up the savings).
I think to some degree they wanted to change the premise of D&D – and in some ways they wanted to get back to the “roots” – at least with rules that enforce the original “theme” of D&D.
1> The characters are heroic. Or at least proto-heroes. This means from the get go they’re able to kick-butt and take names compared to your run of the mill peasant. As this fits with about 90% of most people’s expectations of play it’s a good choice to build rules which support it.
2> Combat centric rules. Combat is widely viewed as the “fun” part of the game by a lot of people. Rules which make it exciting and fast(er) paced will enhance everybody’s experience of the game.
3> Balance or the illusion of balance is critical for some players – especially new players. Along with the focus on combat that has resulted in making all classes able to dish it out a little better than their 3E ancestors. The reason for that choice is clear. You can almost _always_ count on there being a fight in the game. As opposed to making character choice, and power selection a complete gamble on something that may (probably) not occur during the course of a gaming session (and ending up feeling screwed because of it) – they made sure you’d be able to contribute and not just have to sit there mutely while everyone else played the game.
For me some of the key take aways that are important to evaluate are things like – OK so you’re unhappy they don’t have rapiers. Well they didn’t have those back in 1st edition either. And frankly things like that are more of a setting choice; the rules as presented are attempting to be something fairly generic and yet original (oxymoron – yes). Meaning they don’t want to jam too many setting choices down your throat – but need to present something original enough that it appears to be unique intellectual property.
My verdict on 4E is still out – haven’t yet rolled some D20 in-game for it. But overall it seems like an interesting step – making it a little easier for the less-hardcore gamer to get involved and have fun. I’m finding the rules maintain a little edge in complexity over the rock-scissors-paper level of mechanic I found in WoW – so that’s welcome. But compared to the rules explosion of 3E /3.5E and where it got to in short order… Some pruning to a more agile rules basis may not be a bad thing.
I’ve been reading, and stopping reading, 4e commentary on forums and blogs for a while now. I say reading because it’s everywhere, and it’s interesting. I say stopping, because I generally get depressed about a half-dozen posts or so in.
Firstly, every time someone says it’s good, half a dozen people stand up and slam them down. Then when someone says it’s bad, half a dozen people stand up and argue that it’s so good, the person is clearly an idiot.
Having poked around with 4e, I’m convinced that it has some BRILLIANT parts, and some rather crusty parts. Instead of the childish Pros: It’s mechanically nice Cons: It’s unfluffy lists, I’d like to mention a few things that I’ve picked up:
Pros:
1) They’ve streamlined combat. ZOMG, THANK YOU WOTC. Combat is now fastfastfast, and this does make a massive difference. Admittedly, they limited options, but this is a GOOD thing. The number of times I’ve had arcane characters’ players going ‘umm… this turn I’ll… wait, I need to check up what this spell does… um…’, it’s truly great to have a limited set of options.
2) They’ve standardized a lot of things, and not just for combat. Non-combat things that players want to do used to be owned by a combination of rogues and wizards. If you had a party of combat types (imagine four fighters, with normal fighter builds), it was just a waste of time to do anything BUT fight. Now with rituals and a reasonably easy way to use them, all you need is one person in a party with an appropriate feat.
3) A focus on the coolness of individuals. Maybe it’s just my group, but they seem to loathe sharing the spotlight – and 4e encourages having the spotlight burning bright for a moment, then passing it on. Happy player (I use (speaks in funny tone of voice *LANCE OF FAITH*!!), happy group because the spotlight is passed on quickly.
Cons:
1) A loss of individual flavour in mechanics. One of the things that I’m always divided on is the wisdom of things like wizards with spell-lists while fighters go ‘I hit it with my longsword’. It results in not just lack of balance, but effectively playing two different games. One is ‘apply sharp steel to medulla oblongata until it ceases to move’, which is boring, the other is ’select from a vast range of abilities an appropriate one for the encounter, then unleash holy/arcane hell, OR buff OR utility to get away OR summon because they outnumber us OR…’, which at least gives players choices. With 4e, you’ve lost a lot of ‘flavour mechanics’, which sometimes I liked, sometimes I didn’t
2) It does feel a little limited, but I’m holding out until the range of 4e books available matches the range of 3/3.5e. Given the effect the DMG2 and PHB2 (3.5e) books had (forgetting the rest), I think when the next book or two come out, they might resolve a lot of the issues people have.
3) The books deal with definitive statements of things poorly. It took me twenty minutes of flipping around to figure out what [W] meant – it should be mentioned at least a few more times, just because it’s so core to the system.
I probably have more, but given this is a comment (I think I’ll copy/paste this into a blog entry at some point
), I’ll leave it to that.
Joheniuss last blog post..Online Quizzes for the Geeky
I have to say, I think original basic DnD may be the best system of DnD for role players. 4E is defn the best for combat players.
The rule books are quite poorly written. A dozen more cold readers would have helped immensely. Some of the things like the aforementioned [w] confusion are inexcusable. Looking through board postings shows up many more places where a few extra words would have clarified things enormously.
The simplification of Saves, and spells is an excellent idea however. Kobolds with 20+ HP slows down combat, but simplified spells speeds things up. Mob generation overall is much easier for the DM now which rocks.
A thought I had last night is – why do magic items have pluses? Why not just cool extra effects? Because the higher level monsters are designed with the assumption that you’ll have +X weapons by level Y, they have defenses to match. Why not just leave the defenses down a little, drop the + on weapons and armor, and save all the math? If the DM fails to pass out the right magic equip each level, the whole XP/encounter charts go off.
It’s the effects on the items that are the fun part anyway. You know there is a preset progression of pluses set in the DMG, so it’s not really exciting when you get the +2 sword on cue. Finding out what the power flavour is, however, can be exciting.
My guess is items just historically have pluses. Can anyone think of a good mechanic reason why they need them still – I think even the whole DR/resistance thing is dropped right? No more +3 need to hit 15th level demons or whatever?
There may well be reasons, I just can’t think of and good ones off hand.
I just stumbled onto this thread, and I have no idea whether or not anybody’s still posting. I just wanted to throw my two cents in, though.
I’ve played seven dwarf fighters in the past 9 campaigns. That’s right…seven. Everybody I play with wants to be the “cool” character…nobody wants to be the walking wall that just absorbs damage all day. So…when 4e came out, I got the great opportunity to play….dwarf fighter number 8. Say what you will about the rules convergence, I for one was ecstatic to do something other than “full round attack” thirty times in a day. The fighter has died, due to choices that matched his character in game. He was killed by a boss that he tried to solo to keep his friends from being hurt by.
Now that the fighter’s gone, I’ve created a Warlord, and started him at lvl 8 to match the party. I never thought I’d say this, but I have so much fun pouring over the battle mat, staring at miniatures, actually coming up with battle tactics in my head to make the entire party more effective, and use my own abilities to help them in the best ways possible. And yes, having a good group of role players makes the out of battle parts very entertaining, just with the way we interact with each other, and with other people. So, for everybody that gets discouraged by the never ending tide of negative comments…try it for yourself. You won’t know until you play it, honestly.