Quote from: HaffrungWell, there seem to be some people working on 4E who believe unbalanced encounters = bad design. I have to assume they got that idea from a widespread sentiment among people who play D&D these days.

Really? I thought they were saying that a system that doesn't allow you to balance encounters easily = bad design, which is another thing altogether.

Quote from: HaffrungWell, there seem to be some people working on 4E who believe unbalanced encounters = bad design. I have to assume they got that idea from a widespread sentiment among people who play D&D these days.

Yeah - I get what Drew is saying.  I also agree with the belief that there's a fairly widespread undercurrent of unbalanced (encounters) = bad design. So it could be that people who have solid, long term groups are less exposed.

But, IMHO, the latter (unbalanced encounters=bad design) is winning out...bit by bit. And I do believe that part of that comes from:

• video game influences - in which a player tends to progress by beating things roughly equal to, or below, the players ability, combined with,
• the balance guidelines/tools in the DMG.

Neither of which is meant as an insult or shot - just and opinion that these things are influencing the design, IMHO.

Quote from: DrewReally? I thought they were saying that a system that doesn't allow you to balance encounters easily = bad design, which is another thing altogether.

Well, this is part of my point - the unintended consequences of that view EDIT: instantiated in the rules the way it is.  I think you're right to a certain extent about the underlying intention.  But when the players are using those balance guidelines to claim "unfair" - and it may or may not be a significant problem, but certainly one I've seen often enough to notice - you slowly get that equation changed in a broader context.

I like there to be an element of tension in a dungeon crawl.  That means there must be some things that are "scary" to the players (for fear of losing their character / the game).  

When the hobbit is screwing around and "accidentally" drops something down a well -- and the party hears something coming to get them... I think that works a lot better if the group is thinking "oh !@#$, let's get the hell out of here!" rather than simply preparing for their next well balanced encounter.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, this is part of my point - the unintended consequences of that view.  I think you're right to a certain extent about the underlying intention.  But when the players are using those balance guidelines to claim "unfair" - and it may or may not be a significant problem, but certainly one I've seen often enough to notice - you slowly get that equation changed in a broader context.

I can certainly see it becoming a problem amongst juvenile gamers whom play D&D only, but when viewed in the broader context of gaming as a whole then I don't think it's that serious at all. Like I said, clear communication is key.

Also, anyone who's enjoyed WFRP, RQ, Storyteller or any of the numerous games that don't make balance an issue will feel quite at home being out of their depth once in a while.

It's an interesting point though, and warrants further investigation. Is there such a thing as 'D&D culture?' What are it's general traditions and taboos about stuff like this? Does early gaming experience play a formative role in one's subsequent expectations? To what extent do the rules influence this? How does exposure to a variety of systems change one's outlook?

Someone ought to do a study (that isn't market research) on the subject.

A perfect time for the RQ-swine to step in. (That's me.)

I'm thinking that balance has become a big issue in D&D partly because, of all games, it's one of the easiest to unbalance. That is, what's peanuts to a 6th-level party is instadeath to a group of 1st-level characters. Compare, say, RQ or GURPS: the distribution of threat levels isn't nearly as spread out.

Put another way, what's "balanced" in D&D terms, for a given party, still probably includes a range from "pretty easy" to "it's not worth it", yet if you look into the MM (at least for 1e), the total range is something like "laughable" to "unthinkable".

Quote from: DrewIt's an interesting point though, and warrants further investigation. Is there such a thing as 'D&D culture?'

Most definitely. There are hordes of people - the vast majority - who play D&D and have no interest in any other RPG.

QuoteWhat are it's general traditions and taboos about stuff like this?

Players: "The GM wouldn't give us anything we couldn't handle. This thing may look tougher than us, but we can beat it, no sweat!"

GM: "The designers must have wanted me to pay sharp attention to balance. Look how much of the game is built around it! Messing with the rules screws things up, I know that from bitter experience, so I'd better build my encounters properly."

QuoteDoes early gaming experience play a formative role in one's subsequent expectations?

Yes! Trying to wean ex-D&Ders from attacking a Tiger tank with a Colt 1911A .45 calibre pistol is my life's work.

QuoteTo what extent do the rules influence this?

If it's in the rules, it's fair game. D&D 3E is much more difficult to houserule than older editions due to its tightly structured design. Older D&D and AD&D players are far more cavalier about rules.

QuoteHow does exposure to a variety of systems effect change one's outlook?

It eventually changes one. It generally takes a paradigm shift, though.

QuoteSomeone ought to do a study (that isn't market research) on the subject.

I've spent almost 30 years studying gamers. Does that count?

-clash

I'd much rather have the tools available and ignore them, than not have the tools available and need them.

I don't rely exclusively on CR - in many cases it's way off.  I think, though, that CR/EL are very useful for me when designing an adventure, and extremely useful for a new DM just starting out.  I know I paid close attention to them when I started running 3e.

I use them like I used the XP values pre-3e.  If something's worth a lot of XP, it's a tougher fight.  If something has a high CR, it's a tougher fight.  No difference, really.

Naturally, I don't insist everything's balanced and I wouldn't game with players who did.  Saying that players will clamor for proper EL's is an empty argument.  I can't ever see a player saying, "Hey, that's an EL11 encounter and we're only 8th level!  You're being unfair!"  And, should that happen, I'd call that a player problem, not a system problem.

CR and EL may be flawed tools - but they're still tools, which I can use or disregard whenever I feel like it.

-O

Quote from: flyingmiceI've spent almost 30 years studying gamers. Does that count?

Heh. I've been gaming for 26 years now, and my observations have yielded substantially different answers to some of those you gave above.

That's why it'd be useful to have a big, formal piece of research done on the subject. There's so much conflicting anecdotal evidence and bogus received wisdom that it's almost impossible to determine what it's really like out there without making sweeping generalisations. Ideally I'd like to see a study that drew on the answers of at least 10 000 respondents. Maybe then we'd start to get a clearer picture of how these things manifest, if at all.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm thinking that balance has become a big issue in D&D partly because, of all games, it's one of the easiest to unbalance. That is, what's peanuts to a 6th-level party is instadeath to a group of 1st-level characters. Compare, say, RQ or GURPS: the distribution of threat levels isn't nearly as spread out.

Put another way, what's "balanced" in D&D terms, for a given party, still probably includes a range from "pretty easy" to "it's not worth it", yet if you look into the MM (at least for 1e), the total range is something like "laughable" to "unthinkable".

I think this is of considerable importance when considering the necessity of balance in a fast, upward scaling game like D&D.

Quote from: StuartI like there to be an element of tension in a dungeon crawl.  That means there must be some things that are "scary" to the players (for fear of losing their character / the game).  

When the hobbit is screwing around and "accidentally" drops something down a well -- and the party hears something coming to get them... I think that works a lot better if the group is thinking "oh !@#$, let's get the hell out of here!" rather than simply preparing for their next well balanced encounter.

A-freakin'-MEN!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat kind of discussion gets to me. As a GM and as a player. The fairness thing, wtf.

I insist on the right of my PC to be treated neither fairly nor unfairly, because a) life ain't either fair or unfair so why should Bodaks be?; b) no such thing as an "encounter", there is only ever a SITUATION, out of which "encounters" emerge contingently, shaped by way too many factors for the GM to compute; for which reason c) the balancedness of an encounter is an improbably felicitous outcome, it's far more likely the deck will be stacked against one party or the other.

In short:

Fairness is a non-issue (a sacred cow). Encounter is a meaningless abstraction. Balance is a happy coincidence.

Thank you for your time. You may now lock this thread.

That's the way it should be.

It's funny, though, how the OP in that thread I linked actually explained why the encounter turned out the way it did, how the players stupidly left the well uncovered, etc., but he's being accused of "player rape" or something equally stupid and over-the-top.  And to top it off, considerations of balance is not even why he started the thread....

The funniest thing, however, are the number of folks who are crying "but there are RULES for balancing encounters!"  Which, I guess, goes to reinforce James Skach's awesome post above about player entitlement.

Sorry, there's lots I want to say about this thread, but I'm having trouble getting past "fair".

Quote from: jrientsI can't help but think that over-elaborate chargen sequences feed into that spaz's sense of entitlement.  When it takes a long time to build a proper PC I can't help but think that killing that character will be a tremendous pain in the ass.

We ran into that in our RM2 game last year on both sides of the screen.  Lots of time to build a character, but they can be cut down by a roll of 66 on the crit table.  It is a bit of a penis shrinker to see all that work go down the drain.

The Traveller campaign I ran soon after that was just as lethal, but since we could gen up new characters in 10 minutes or so, nobody complained.

Quote from: DrewThat's why it'd be useful to have a big, formal piece of research done on the subject. There's so much conflicting anecdotal evidence and bogus received wisdom that it's almost impossible to determine what it's really like out there without making sweeping generalisations. Ideally I'd like to see a study that drew on the answers of at least 10 000 respondents. Maybe then we'd start to get a clearer picture of how these things manifest, if at all.

While we don't have any formal research on player attitudes towards risk and balance in D&D, we do have a fairly large company with lots of resources that periodically revises the game. It's reasonable to assume they make these revisions based on a pretty good sense of what their customers say they want. Judging by the mechanics that end up being incorporated and revised in the game, it's pretty clear that a lot of players want the game to be governed more by carefully calibrated rules and by transparent, clockwork mechanisms than by DM judgement. It's also pretty clear that PC death is much less common today than it was 20 years ago. To me, that spells player entitlement, and anxiety about risk and 'fairness'.