1
Stop trying to turn Dungeons & Dragons into a Marvel-esque cash cow – it won’t work
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
3147 readers
1 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The concept of a well-balanced DnD really bothers me. I do not think balance should be a core design goal. The Wish spell is horribly unbalanced, and should be. I think its representation of endless possibilities and horrifying consequences is emblematic of the spirit of the game itself, rooted in the olden days of DnD, when the DM was really doing his absolute best to TPK his party in a more competitive, adversarial, board-game-esque setup.
The lack of balance in the older versions of the game had benefits. A player who wished less engagement with the game mechanics could play a fighter, where someone who wanted a larger amount could play a wizard.
Balance in and of itself is not a problem, but unless done very carefully with a lot of attention paid to how that balance is arrived at, it's just too easy to make everything feel very samey. Like a video game that becomes so well balanced that the awesome laser rifle is a perfectly balanced option against some other guys bow and arrow, making it all start to feel hollow and soulless. Like a fighting game that does not acknowledge that Green Arrow and Wonder Woman really aren't actually in the same league, to be able to fairly fight each other in an immersive way.
Starcraft and Helldivers 2 managed to arrive at a degree of balance that still feels wholesome and maintains distinction, but they're very much the exceptions to the rule. It's such a difficult thing that the vast majority of times its attempted, it results in some sort of failure. Personally, I prefer a different route, where devs simply embrace the inherent imbalance, and allow people to do broken-ass things that might be fun, and allow other options to exist that are just plain bad. I see nothing wrong with this outside of competitive, pvp style genres.
All that balance does in a pen and paper game is provide predictability for the GM. "If I hit them with X, it will take Y to overcome it using A,B, and C". That only leads to homogenization if the GM doesn't do anything meaningful with that knowledge.
Way, way too many people view this shit as "demands from the designer" rather than "tools to use for your convenience," and I super don't get it. If you want some of the players to outshine others, you can predictably boost their power level if the game is balanced.
But I guess just flexing on friends is what many people really want out of the game.
While you make fundamentally good points, I think there is a core reason that balance is important to me: DnD is a multiplayer game, not a singleplayer game.
I actually think it's fine that different classes are strong at different levels! The entire premise of Wizard is that they're a squishy who will die if they're sneezed on at level 1, who grows into a reality-warping god by level 20. Having someone that needs to be looked after at low levels and can then look after the team at high levels encourages teamwork!
The reason that I say DnD is so badly unbalanced is because once level 5 comes around? Casters very, VERY firmly become way better than non-casters for two reasons. Casters have AoE damage, and casters have utility. Non-casters have no utility, and because they also really struggle to increase AC, they can't function in any role except for single-target damage. A good level 5 caster can make the rest of the party feel really lackluster because they can do in one turn what the rest of the party needs 4 or 5 turns to do (HP and AC are much less of an issue at this point too). And this gap only gets wider and wider with every passing level, which rapidly makes it less and less fun to play a non-caster.
Once level 13 hits, anyone who isn't a full caster is completely irrelevant. That is not fun for anyone who isn't a full caster. Hell, it's SO badly broken at this level that it's almost certainly the reason why Baldur's Gate 3 only goes up to level 12- and that game already does a huge amount of buffing martials and nerfing casters. A 13th level caster can instantly beat pretty much any encounter not explicitly designed to bully them, and even then there's a good chance they find a way to solo the encounter on turn 1 anyways.
At that point, games need to have more frequent encounters without rest to deplete casters' limited resources.
But ultimately I prefer PF2E. I had a blast playing a martial monk taking a variety of actions every round, vs "attack" and "attack again".
Yes, I play a higher-level wizard who is always running out of spell slots by the end of the dungeon, casting wimpy cantrips and hiding behind the martials. As nature intended.
It's all about the DM saying no to long-resting whenever and wherever. It may seem like common sense that the players should be able to say when the party should rest. But the game doesn't work, especially at high levels, unless the DM controls and limits them.
Very true. I simply see that as a pro, and not a con, and put the onus to address the core problem of some players potentially feeling bad on the DM's shoulders, with creative solutions. I understand that is asking a whole hell of a lot, but I think its worth it.
One thing old school DnD did to address it was to give martials leadership mechanics. While the wizard could destroy an army if he wanted, he lacked mechanics for assembling and leading one well, which were given to a fighter.