Quote from: Effete on September 02, 2023, 10:05:07 PM
If you really think about it, each new version of a system is essentially an official "houserule." It's the developer looking at the rules and saying, "I think we can improve this somewhat." You expect a professional developer to make balanced changes that work on a table, but anybody that truly understands the interconnectivity of a game system can make those same changes.

Yet even balanced rules carry some subjectivity from the one who wrote it. Everyone has their own preferred method of running /playing a game, and that's really at the heart of a good houserule. That's how you can get two different people who both love one game system look at a new version and come away with completely different opinions on it. There's nothing wrong with playing a game RAW if it hits on the ways you like to have to fun. For everyone else, there's houserules.

Ah balance. It is important to distinguish between several types of balance. There is strict rules balance and then there is campaign balance. Strict game balance is represented by a game such as 4E D&D, and to a bit of a lesser extent 5E D&D. This is more strict "table" type of balance in which every player character is roughly equal to other player characters. Every class has things they are better at than others but the systems are designed to balance at an encounter level rather than a campaign level. Every ability is calculated to contribute X amount to an encounter. No real thought is given to the campaign as a whole beyond the adventuring day in most cases. In 4E when we played it, it felt like everyone was pretty much doing the same stuff using different "power sources" to do it. It felt more like a superhero game than D&D honestly. 1E AD&D had several sections in the DMG regarding campaign balance. This type of balance was for the campaign as a whole and not a per adventuring day thing. Classes felt a lot more different because not all of them were equal in combat effectiveness nor were they intended to be. Magic use in combat was an uncertain proposition. Unless you really got the drop on something there was no way of knowing if your spell would be disrupted and lost. Campaign flavor and popular fantasy tropes were also available without the need to balance by the encounter. The enchantress who charms a dull guard and has him under her spell for days, weeks, or even months is a cool campaign element but not possible when the encounter/adventuring day has to be maintained. So when speaking of balance it is important to define waht type of balance is a given house rule going for.

.
0

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 02, 2023, 11:05:53 PM
Ah balance. It is important to distinguish between several types of balance. There is strict rules balance and then there is campaign balance. Strict game balance is represented by a game such as 4E D&D, and to a bit of a lesser extent 5E D&D. This is more strict "table" type of balance in which every player character is roughly equal to other player characters. Every class has things they are better at than others but the systems are designed to balance at an encounter level rather than a campaign level. Every ability is calculated to contribute X amount to an encounter. No real thought is given to the campaign as a whole beyond the adventuring day in most cases. In 4E when we played it, it felt like everyone was pretty much doing the same stuff using different "power sources" to do it. It felt more like a superhero game than D&D honestly. 1E AD&D had several sections in the DMG regarding campaign balance. This type of balance was for the campaign as a whole and not a per adventuring day thing. Classes felt a lot more different because not all of them were equal in combat effectiveness nor were they intended to be. Magic use in combat was an uncertain proposition. Unless you really got the drop on something there was no way of knowing if your spell would be disrupted and lost. Campaign flavor and popular fantasy tropes were also available without the need to balance by the encounter. The enchantress who charms a dull guard and has him under her spell for days, weeks, or even months is a cool campaign element but not possible when the encounter/adventuring day has to be maintained. So when speaking of balance it is important to define what type of balance is a given house rule going for.

Naturally. But to even know where to start, someone needs to understand the purpose of the RAW and why they want to change it.

"Balance," however, is not quite as binary as you make it out to be. There is plenty of grey area there, a sometimes a houserule needs to address BOTH types of balance. For example, 5e strives for "character/class" balance, but there is also a degree of campaign balance implied. If you took 5e RAW and dumped it into a world where magic was strictly forbidden and anyone even suspected of being magically attuned was hunted down and summarily executed, then you are suddenly playing a very different game. IIRC, something like seven out of the ten classes use magic in some way, shape, or form. If the conceits of the campaign are now making players double-think their "go-to" strategies, then that has a knock-on effect with class balance. If the worlock can no longer just sling eldritch blasts around willy-nilly, then the class would begin to feel comparatively weaker than a fighter or rogue. The idea of having casually-accepted magic in a 5e game is almost a necessity to even play it with the intended "balance."

If you change the expectations of the campaign world, you also need to examine how this affects the individual classes. Incidentally, skill-based games don't really suffer this problem since it's much easier for a GM to arbitrate the value of any particular skill than it is to adjust class features.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 02, 2023, 03:23:12 PM
Here is my 2c:



People always had their house rules. From the moment the game was conceived. The Perrin Conventions were created in 1976 or before. Gygax used house rules (google "Gygax house rules").

I'd have a hard time writing a game exactly as written nowadays.

EDIT: I prefer to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules (in D&D). But you cannot understand the spirit if you don't understand WHY certain rules were made. And sometimes you must admit the WHY is "because the table didn't fit the page" or "because Gygax changed his mind" (sometimes mid-writing).

Also: From the 1st edition AD&D DMG... (via Diversity & Dragons):

Best post of the whole thread 

Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 02, 2023, 03:23:12 PM
Here is my 2c:



People always had their house rules. From the moment the game was conceived. The Perrin Conventions were created in 1976 or before. Gygax used house rules (google "Gygax house rules").

I'd have a hard time writing a game exactly as written nowadays.

EDIT: I prefer to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules (in D&D). But you cannot understand the spirit if you don't understand WHY certain rules were made. And sometimes you must admit the WHY is "because the table didn't fit the page" or "because Gygax changed his mind" (sometimes mid-writing).

Also: From the 1st edition AD&D DMG... (via Diversity & Dragons):

Best post of the whole thread 

Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.

Or, if you're playing Pathfinder, Paladins and Anti-Paladins do.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM

Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.

Depends on at what level of play

Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 09:54:18 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM

Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.

Depends on at what level of play

Which is another way of saying the same thing. Mages basically go from being underpowered to overpowered. There's only a very narrow sweet spot where they're at parity with casters.

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 03, 2023, 02:08:50 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 09:54:18 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM

Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.

Depends on at what level of play

Which is another way of saying the same thing.

No, it is a completely different sentence with a completely different meaning.

Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 02:51:25 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 03, 2023, 02:08:50 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 09:54:18 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM

Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.

Depends on at what level of play

Which is another way of saying the same thing.

No, it is a completely different sentence with a completely different meaning.

Well, you're half right. That's something.

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 03, 2023, 03:03:59 PM
Well, you're half right. That's something.

Get back to me after some ESL classes   

I feel I am at total liberty to house rule D&D; because the people who have owned D&D, kept changing it themselves.

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 04, 2023, 01:47:58 PM
I feel I am at total liberty to house rule D&D; because the people who have owned D&D, kept changing it themselves.

Even if they didn't, and it never officially changed, why would you feel not at liberty to change things your personal group prefers?

Rules are my bitch.

But that's why I prefer OSR games where they're a lot less rules and thus less bad rules that need changing. More often, its a rule that doesn't work for this particular campaign or setting that needs tweaking to achieve greater verisimilitude or improve setting immersion.