Game Balance - A Study in Imperfection (forked)

[Nifft]

With varied class XP/advancement charts and other mechanics, 1Ed and 2Ed functionally embraced the the model of balance over time. Low level Warrior types ruled, but after a certain point, it was all about the spellcasters.

3Ed/3.5Ed was similar in this, but unified the XP/advancement charts and attempted to expand the "sweet spot"- but ultimately, how much you think it succeeded depends upon your experiences.

4Ed is easily the most balanced version of the game that has ever existed. At each given level, the designers took great pains to ensure that no class outshines the others. The concept of "balance over time" has been completely ditched.

It might be an interesting discussion (for another thread) to look at how the idea of "balance" has evolved across D&D editions, from "balanced over the course of a 20-level campaign" (in early editions) to "balanced over the course of a session" (more recent editions).

In both cases, there were sacrifices.

Shall I compare game balance to a summer's day?
It is stickier, and more prone to death by mosquito.

So, when last we left our intrepid adventurers, we were going on about how this "balance" thing had all sorts of repercussions... but like the poor, balance has always been with us, invisibly doing a lot of heavy lifting and then getting lynched for looking at flavor's girlfriend wrong.

I propose we examine what this "balance" thing has meant over the years. It seems to me that some kind of "balance" has been one of D&D's guiding principles forever, but the specific brand of "balance" has changed considerably in each edition.

Note: it turns out I'm no expert on early editions, so please feel free to jump in and correct me when I'm off base. (Many of my memories of early editions have been replaced by sound clips of Minsc and Boo.) Thanks in advance.

- - -

[h2]Ye Olde Edition Balance[/h2]

"Amortized Pwnage" - The idea here is that all PCs receive a similar amount of ZOMG PWN moments, but only if you count them over the scope of a whole campaign from levels 1 - 10 (or whatever your "name level" was). At low levels, fighter-types got lots of ZOMG PWN moments every session, while caster-types had time to feed their pet Tamagotchi(tm). However, once per day, even a caster type got to pull out his ZOMG PWN stick and cast a game-changer like sleep.

At higher levels, the casters could claim most of the ZOMG PWN moments, but fighter-types still had some magic-resistant niche opponents (like golems, drow, and nilbogs). (Note the word "niche" here. It'll be back later.)

Another form of balance, which would stick with D&D up until 3.5e, is the idea of balance via in-game choice restrictions, particularly restrictions on conduct. Paladins are the central class member here, but even Rangers and Druids had restrictions on their roleplay options IIRC. I'm going to call this "Balance by DM Fiat", because alignment and code-of-conduct have been such hot button issues that you're not likely to get a better answer than "talk to your DM".

I'm also going to lump most of the balancing restrictions on spellcasters into this DM Fiat category, since many DMs seem to have deigned to ignore them entirely. 3.0/3.5e were an interesting blend of fiat and non-fiat restrictions: some stayed, some went away, and the ones that stayed were subject to frequent "fixes". 4e has moved away from this mechanic entirely, except where it hasn't.

"Balance by Retardation" - This deserves its own category, since it reared its ugly head in 3e as well. The idea was that if your class was more awesome, that was balanced by your PC rising in level more slowly. The assumption here is that you always want to be higher level, but it's a flawed assumption, because a 7th level Thief wasn't better at stabbing than a 5th level Fighter, IIRC. This idea of balance led to parties of PCs with mixed character levels, which was normally okay, except when they were hit by effects that cared about level. Then suddenly the Thief is the only guy standing, while everyone who was under 6th level is dead forever thanks to a death spell, and it takes me forever to carry off and sell all their gear.

"Balance by You Didn't Say You Looked Up" - The final kind of game balance, which might more charitably be called "Balance by Puzzle", was that there were plenty of situations which would kill your PC no matter what you had in terms of level, stats, magic items, or anything else on your character sheet. You have 18 Str / 18 Dex / 18 Con, and you stick your hand in the stone mouth? Great, now your PC has no hand. This is "balance" in that all character choices are equally useless: it is the player being tested, not the character.

Mazes may fall into that latter category. In retrospect, holy crap was it not fun to have to map stuff as a player. But I was young, and time was cheap back then.

Actually, I lied. The final kind of balance was "Balance by Randomly Screw You". This included random encounters, which penalized classes that needed regular rest, but also things like System Shock for transmutation magic, and spells like reincarnation.

- - -

[h2]Enter 3e[/h2]

It seemed like Balance by Retardation was on the chopping block, but it came back rather quickly in the form of Level Adjustment, and was formalized over the course of development of 3.5e. With "LA Buyoff" in Unearthed Arcana, the rules once more supported a party where, even if each member had the same # of XP, they could be of significantly different ECL.

3e also seemed to be doing away with Balance by DM Fiat -- especially for spellcasters. (Paladins remained screwed.) Removing the DM Fiat rules for spellcasters, though, opened them up to myriad abuses*. For example, in early editions, spell preparation time was considerable, and increased exponentially along side exponentially increasing spell slots -- inducing vulnerability to "randomly screw you"-style balance, and occasionally time pressure. Another capricious re-balancing: System Shock fell by the wayside in this edition, but Druids kept their "randomly screw you" lookup table for reincarnation.

It seems to me that 3e also instituted (in a formal sense) "Balance by Niche", by which I mean there were certain situations that demanded a Rogue (like a trap with a DC over 20), and others which strongly indicated the Rogue's player ought to invest in a GameBoy(tm) (like a dungeon full of Constructs, Plants, Oozes, and Undead).

- - -

And now I'm tired. I'll be back tomorrow with my thoughts on 3e vs. 4e conceptions of balance.

Cheers, -- N

*) alternately: "... opened them up to a plethora of abuses".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just to be clear, is this a discussion on balance in D&D or is it a discussion of balance in RPGs in general.

If its the latter, don't forget "Balance? We don't need no STEEENKEEENG Balance!" (games like RIFTS) and "Balance via equal resources" (point-based games like HERO, GURPS or M&M).

 

[FireLance]

There are actually a couple of other types of old-edition style balance that could be mentioned:

Balance by Rarity: A combination of random character generation and race and class ability score minimums ensured that certain classes and races were rarer than others. Paladins were the poster child for this type of balance (minimum 17 Charisma) but you couldn't choose to play an elf or dwarf if certain of your ability scores were too low, either.

This balance by rarity also applied to other aspects of the game, including magic user spells learned and treasure. Part of the reason why certain "game breaking" spells and items did not cause widespread problems was because, by the rules, they would only show up rarely in any particular game.

Frequent character death (and the need to start again as a 1st-level character) is also an aspect of this sort of balance as it made high-level characters (and their attendant balance problems) rarer.

Balance by Risk: Related to, but not exactly the same as, "Balance by Randomly Screw You". Certain more powerful options (spells, magic items and especially artifacts) had inherent risks or downsides that made players hesitate before choosing to use them. In my view, this is possibly the hallmark of old school balance: the player chooses the level of risk he is comfortable with and reaps the resulting rewards and consequences. Greater risk brings greater danger, but also greater reward. Even the choice of what class to choose can be considered a subset of this type of balance: pick a fighter, who had high survivability and utility at low levels, but was less powerful at high levels, or play a magic user, and reap the rewards of world-breaking power at high levels, if you survive to reach them?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Good essay about balance: http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/balance-types.html

The Fetishizing Balance essay linked near the top of that one is also a good read.

 

[Lanefan]

There are actually a couple of other types of old-edition style balance that could be mentioned:

Balance by Rarity: A combination of random character generation and race and class ability score minimums ensured that certain classes and races were rarer than others. Paladins were the poster child for this type of balance (minimum 17 Charisma) but you couldn't choose to play an elf or dwarf if certain of your ability scores were too low, either.

This balance by rarity also applied to other aspects of the game, including magic user spells learned and treasure. Part of the reason why certain "game breaking" spells and items did not cause widespread problems was because, by the rules, they would only show up rarely in any particular game.

This last bit ties into Balance By DM Fiat as well, in that with the PCs essentially unable to make their own magic items the DM had much more control over what tinker toys the party had access to. Ditto spells.

Balance by Risk: Related to, but not exactly the same as, "Balance by Randomly Screw You". Certain more powerful options (spells, magic items and especially artifacts) had inherent risks or downsides that made players hesitate before choosing to use them. In my view, this is possibly the hallmark of old school balance: the player chooses the level of risk he is comfortable with and reaps the resulting rewards and consequences. Greater risk brings greater danger, but also greater reward.

Teleport and Polymorph Other are the poster-child spells here.

With Teleport, even if you knew exactly where you were going there was a risk of screwing it up...and by screwing it up I mean arriving 10' down in solid rock, forever dead. That risk became greater if you weren't quite sure where you were going. Remove that risk and the spell is instantly broken.

With Poly. Other, the target had to make a system shock roll on each change (to whatever, and back to normal). Failure means death. Remove that risk (and 3e did) and the spell is instantly broken no matter how many errata and "fixes" get issued, as you can now safely cast it on your allies and turn them into monsters. The safe polymorph was Polymorph Self, but you could only cast that on yourself and you basically retained your own combat skills - it was a utility spell, e.g. turn self into a bird, fly around and figure out where the hell you are.

Lanefan

 

[Victim]

There are actually a couple of other types of old-edition style balance that could be mentioned:

Balance by Rarity: A combination of random character generation and race and class ability score minimums ensured that certain classes and races were rarer than others. Paladins were the poster child for this type of balance (minimum 17 Charisma) but you couldn't choose to play an elf or dwarf if certain of your ability scores were too low, either.

This balance by rarity also applied to other aspects of the game, including magic user spells learned and treasure. Part of the reason why certain "game breaking" spells and items did not cause widespread problems was because, by the rules, they would only show up rarely in any particular game.

Frequent character death (and the need to start again as a 1st-level character) is also an aspect of this sort of balance as it made high-level characters (and their attendant balance problems) rarer.

OTOH, Balance by Rarity also leads into Imbalance by Positive Feedback. Someone rolls better stats - which are an advantage - and then qualifies for a better class/race set up to get a second advantage out of the first one. Two for the price of one. And then such stat advantages make it more likely that the character survive where a weaker one would fall, so there are improved chances of getting levels and/or treasure.

Frequent character death (and the need to start again as a 1st-level character) is also an aspect of this sort of balance as it made high-level characters (and their attendant balance problems) rarer.

Frequent character death also works strongly against balance over a whole campaign, since it becomes highly unlikely any given character will see a different period of the campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

Frequent character death also works strongly against balance over a whole campaign, since it becomes highly unlikely any given character will see a different period of the campaign.

But the *player* in theory will, and get to try all sorts of various different character classes/races/whatever during that time. And some characters do survive for the long haul; not always the high-stat ones either, says he who ran the numbers a while back for our games and found just this.

That said, frequent character (but not party) death does add to the imbalance in a way I have yet to defeat: the surviving characters get wealthier by looting their dead allies and plowing said loot into party treasury.

Lan-"adventuring parties are the most resilient things ever invented"-efan

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That said, frequent character (but not party) death does add to the imbalance in a way I have yet to defeat: the surviving characters get wealthier by looting their dead allies and plowing said loot into party treasury.

Lan-"adventuring parties are the most resilient things ever invented"-efan

That's rather simple. Treat the dead PCs like they're...people. They may be dead, but they might have families who expect to inherit that loot. There could be funeral costs. Maybe if they rob from the dead anyway, a ghost of the fallen PC haunts them or some curse afflicts them...

In any case, DM controls treasure output. If the party plays keepsies with the slain PC's gear, just throw them up against monsters that drop no treasure until you feel their wealth has been properly balanced (obviously, factor in the rest of the party's sudden wealth gain and the upcoming gp drought when telling the player of the deceased PC how much gear his new PC can start with so he isn't screwed over). Heck, be blatant about it, don't even try to disguise your intentions. Tell them flat out why they're not going to be fighting any dragons or NPCs with class levels (or other things that give tons of loot) for the next 10 sessions at least, until they realize trying to game the system like that is just paddling upstream.

 

[Victim]

That said, frequent character (but not party) death does add to the imbalance in a way I have yet to defeat: the surviving characters get wealthier by looting their dead allies and plowing said loot into party treasury.

Lan-"adventuring parties are the most resilient things ever invented"-efan

Yeah, we've noticed that problem too. Depending on how mercenary the party is, some of the obvious solutions like wills aren't necessarily going to be respected.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I always did like "Balance by Rarity" for spells.