D&D 5E Encounter Balance holds back 5E

[jayoungr]

The game is what the game was designed as, which can only be derived from the books and what we know from the developers. Your personal homebrew and calvinball don't count for that.

Also: Wow, Calvinball, really? You're making a lot of assumptions based on the fact that I said each table can decide things for themselves. For the record, I barely even use house rules. I'm deriving from the books every bit as much as you are.

The balance of resources is fundamental to how everything in D&D works, whether a given table pushes the limits or not at any given time. That it is a flexible sliding scale that can be unconsciously plugged into is part of how fundamental it is.

I think you're using a different definition of fundamental than I am. All you're saying is that there's coherent system in (a part of) the rules, which I don't disagree with. I just wouldn't use the word fundamental to describe that situation.

 

[jayoungr]

It isn't, and nobody you've spoken to has implied that.

Dude, you straight-up accused me of playing Calvinball instead of 5E just because I said not everyone may see things the way you do.

I'm starting to get hot under the collar, so I'm going to take a break from this thread for a bit.

 

[Parmandur]

Also: Wow, Calvinball, really? You're making a lot of assumptions based on the fact that I said each table can decide things for themselves. For the record, I barely even use house rules. I'm deriving from the books every bit as much as you are.


I think you're using a different definition of fundamental than I am. All you're saying is that it's part of a coherent system in a part of the rules, which I don't disagree with. I just wouldn't use the word fundamental to describe that situation.

It is fundamental in that it is "a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based." Everything produced for 5E D&D has relied on the resource management game as the (maximal) basis for product design and play. Certainly many tables (like Matt Mercer kf Critical Role) aren't going to use the maximal setting all the time...but non-envelope pushing games still work because of the design work based in (base, fundament) the resource attrition game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How about rephrase the thread title: “the belief that encounters can and should be “balanced” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) is holding back peoples’ D&D games”.

 

[Shardstone]

How about rephrase the thread title: “the belief that encounters can and should be “balanced” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) is holding back peoples’ D&D games”.

This is probably a more accurate title for my thesis.

 

[Emberashh]

Dude, you straight-up accused me of playing Calvinball instead of 5E just because I said not everyone may see things the way you do.

I didn't accuse you of anything. You kept insisting on using your tables take on the game as indicative of what 5e is, and as you're talking about resource management not mattering, that leads to the conclusion that you're not really playing the game as designed. There's two names for that, and I gave them.

If you feel offended, you should evaluate why, because neither one is a bad thing, and one shouldn't jump the gun and assume the worst of what people say.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden


Like, the fact that my entire post is just saying that embracing softer balance makes for a more varied and engaging game as opposed to having only a bad attempt at hard balance and you are trying to tell me that this is me painting balance as EVIL?

I'm just so appalled you came in here and tried SO DAMN HARD to paint me as someone calling your preferences """""evil""""" and that you hyperbolized my post to this extent before you actually engaged with it. I can't believe it. I don't even know how you can do that and feel proud in your stance, because it's such a blatant mischaracterization of what I wrote.

When you define something I care about rather a lot as inherently horrible and destructive, I'm going to respond rather poorly.

If you are willing to relent on the definition given in the OP, then sure. It did not, even slightly, come across as an attempt to soften an argument. Rather the opposite. It came across as intentionally putting out a "don't even bother to respond if you like anything about balance" disclaimer right out the gate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is probably a more accurate title for my thesis.

Then a meaningful discussion is possible...but the brief summary of my position is "then you are attacking a level 0 Straw Golem that is what happens when people use a well-made system lazily, not an actual flaw of game balance." Because it's right there in the words used: the belief is the problem, not the system.

 

[Shardstone]

When you define something I care about rather a lot as inherently horrible and destructive, I'm going to respond rather poorly.

If you are willing to relent on the definition given in the OP, then sure. It did not, even slightly, come across as an attempt to soften an argument. Rather the opposite. It came across as intentionally putting out a "don't even bother to respond if you like anything about balance" disclaimer right out the gate.

Inherently horrible and destructive? Check the chip on your shoulder and leave your biases at the door.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're twisting my words waaay out of context. What I said (and what I stick by) is that every table gets to decide how much they care about resource management.


The gameplay varies so much from group to group that you just can't make a universal blanket statement like that. It's a flexible system.

I really didn't think "Different people play D&D differently" was a controversial statement.

You have to actively work to ignore resource management in D&D though. Like ignore rests and spellcasting beyond cantrips.