What we often don't talk about, but probably should, is game balance or imbalance between the referee and their setting and the players and their character's abilities. What I am specifically referring to is the idea that the current edition of the world's most popular role-playing game and those GMs who feel it leans heavily in favor of the players frequently express an opinion that the game seems to be only getting more unbalanced as each new volume has been released, that it is all the while giving players more options and meanwhile mostly neglects the GM/referee; and finally, the negative effect this is having on the GM's "fun factor". There are a number of reasons why I think this may be a common perception. In this post I will discuss what my view of those reasons are and I will offer some insight how the problem might be addressed. As is the usual case for this old gray-head, my perspective is informed by decades of experience with a number of RPG systems including all of the previous editions of the popular game in question.
Using the currently published series of rule books, it often seems that each encounter is set up to present a very limited "challenge" to a party of adventurers which have most of their class-based resources ready at hand. The more difficult encounter seems to be designed to wear down the party's resources or perhaps cause a weakened party to experience one or more PCs to fall unconscious while entering the usually temporary game status of "dying" and its related "death saving throw" routine. The authors of the current edition have indicated that character death isn't fun and should therefore be avoided - perhaps at all costs?
The 5e dying mechanic involves a number of saving throws (each at 55% to succeed - roll 10+ on a d20) and uses the "rule of three" - three failed rolls before three successful roll will result in the player character actually dying NPCs don't usually get death saves. If the character is "stabilized" or makes the three death saving rolls, they can pop back up ready to continue the fight (unless the DM imposes optional Fatigue rules to give the previously "dying" some lasting detriment).
Rests, short (1 hour) and long (6-8 hours), will reset many of the adventuring party's resources including most class abilities (spells, etc.) and renew some or all lost hit points. As a result, resting between encounters (especially the long rest which generally resets everything) means that the party will start each encounter in a fresh state. The idea of slowly wearing the party down and depleting their resources through attrition (and resulting tension) is therefore diminished and a large part of the original game, namely resource management, is lost.
Encounters in older editions are often randomly determined (roll on a table) and can produce monster encounters that are way above the ability of the characters to comfortably handle. The idea here is for players to cleverly avoid such potentially "deadly" encounters, which often offer little to no rewards even when defeated. Combat is something for players to carefully consider rather than jump right into, meanwhile weighing the odds of loss verses gain. When players are so confident that any encounter can be dealt with by a headlong charge into combat because it is all "balanced" for them to defeat, the entire nature of the game is arguably changed.
If "balanced" encounters are determined to be the preferred style of play, there are still other considerations which can/should be addressed regarding game balance. The character races and classes found in the current PHB are often augmented by including the optional Feats and Multiclassing rules. Using these "options" will often result in player characters with even more powers than those built using only the basic mechanics. This "over-powering" is often much to the liking of players, but can cause even more encounter balancing headaches for the GM. The character options which sell players on additional books and make the publisher money also further expand the challenges for the GM - both in terms of having to purchase and read/master the new material and in terms of adjusting game challenges to be in line with the newly enhanced PCs which are being built using all the latest options. (It can result in a situation I personally have found tiresome as I try to keep up with all the latest and greatest for the game.)
Giving away too much to the players is something GMs are warned against even back in the earliest days of the hobby. (Mr. Gygax did just this quite often.) A game that players find too easy will not long hold their interest - nor the interest of a GM who feels like all their best efforts get easily rolled over by the powerful PCs. It is indeed a "balancing act" for any game to keep everyone happy. I honestly believe that players old and new want to feel challenged, and to know that they have earned their character's survival, as well as any PC rewards, and advancement.
The default setting of 5e is assumed to be the Forgotten Realms, which incidentally has morphed into a world only slightly resembling the Realms of previous editions making comparisons across editions more difficult. For those newer to the hobby than me, this presents perhaps little to ponder, I suppose, but for those GMs who have established a degree of comfort with an older and familiar setting (either the published Forgotten Realms or one of their original design) the GM may be at odds with default assumptions as they appear in the recently published sources - including rules tomes. I personally see the setting, the fictional world and all its inhabitant NPCs and monsters, as my GM's "character" or playing piece in the game. It is through control of these setting elements that the tone and story are staged, and a preferred style of play is prompted. (Having some experience with narrative or "story" games where designing the world/setting is an endeavor shared among all the players and not just the GM, I think that such a play style differs significantly enough from what I am describing here as to constitute an altogether different kind of game.)
The nature of alignment has also changed drastically through the editions so that in the current game, it seems that the concept of alignment is often given only passing attention. Originally (in Chainmail and the three little brown books) alignment consisted of grouping all creatures into three alignments, namely those who adhere to the principals of Law, Chaos or Neutrality respectively. The various creatures who inhabit the game world under this system are divided along these lines with Law seen as the closest to "good" and Chaos being associated with "evil" - although the exact nature of the moral concept of what constitutes "good and evil" are usually left to players gathering at each individual table to define for themselves. By the time that we have the Advanced rules, good and evil are an additional axis on the alignment chart, equal in weight to law and chaos, and the concept of alignment has moved to become one that involves character behavior and personality.
Under this Advanced system of alignment, GMs are encouraged to "police" the actions of characters for alignment consistency. (Along with many other aspects of the game, I much prefer alignment as it appears in the "original game" outlined in the three LBBs.) Perhaps as a reaction to practices of prior years and the Advanced editions, a more recent trend among DMs has been to move away from the use of alignment altogether, but I think this eliminates the central theme of organized conflict and factions from the game thereby resulting in a less satisfying game experience.
In the decades long history of our beloved game, the balancing of power (including that existing between GM and players) has been a frequent topic of discussion. Early versions of the world's most popular role-playing game often reflect a power structure weighted in favor of the gamemaster. In the original White Box version of the rules it is assumed that the referee/GM may be the only player with access to a copy of the complete set of rules - published and "in-house". In the Advanced 1e rules, a first attempt is made to "standardize" the game so that every table will use what is generally similar mechanics, but in this edition many of the essential rules, especially those regarding combat, are located in the Gamemasters Guide and not the Players Handbook. The Advanced 2e Players Handbook is distinctly different in this approach since it includes all essential rules (including combat) so that the rules necessary to play the game are all put into the players' hands.
In the publishing era of 2e we see the world or setting become the primary means through which the gamemaster is encouraged to shape their unique style of play. Setting takes a more active role during the publication life of this edition as can be seen in the number of classic worlds that remain popular. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Dragonlance Planescape, and even more, all serve to illustrate some of the varieties in play style that can be achieved through the use of individualized rules that are specific to one setting.
The 3rd and 4th editions encourage an even more standardized play style (along with the implication that the setting will be one of the few "official" ones published by WOTC). The default and assumed nature of "balanced" play is herein assumed to extend across all tables regardless of individual GM fiat, and includes a default availability of magic items connected to leveling -in 4e the players actually choose their character's magic items from a list as part of the reward earned during play.
Balance is frequently interpreted quite differently and is a more important concept for some players than for others. What balance ultimately rests upon is the ability of each player to enjoy the game. Few players, referees included, enjoy a game that seems heavily skewed toward a pre-ordained outcome. It is generally less fun to go through what may seem to be "the motions" of play when there is little chance of failure - or maybe no chance of success!
It is the challenge that engages a gamer. The opportunity to be surprised by the outcome and a feeling that good play and luck has paid off. It's precisely this element of wanting to know how t will turn out which can bring us back to a favored game time and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment