D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

billd91 said:

But what degree of balance is required? 3e is certainly not devoid of balance, but is it balanced enough for you? Is it possible to quantify it? If you have a choice between games that you perceive to have different levels of balance, do you expect to be able to have more fun with one than the other? Or will other factors likely be more important?

Click to expand...

That would depend. For a one off not too much. For a long running campaign a lot more. More for gamist games than for narrativist games. Well just as much really though I think in these games the balance is less dependent on mechanical considerations.

I will not go near games that I can see egregious imbalances their rules though I often can't tell by reading rules I have to see how things fall out in play.
I have played Arcanis & WFRP3 this year. Though Arcanis has issues with balance I am drawn in by the setting & by the interesting & novel systems. The balance it not too terrible mostly it's too much chaff which does not break the game.
I can't really figure out how to even play WFRP by its RAW so once again its the setting & lovely production values FFG apply to everything they produce. I am running that game with an aim of not really letting the players intereact with the system too much its all story. For the Arcanis we had a gentleman's agreement not to push things too far & for that game our powergamiest player was DMing so it was not stressed. He did sulk about how rubbish all our characters were though.

So I can live with poor balance if I am enthusiastic enough about a setting or interesting system (which rehashed 2/3/4e is not). I played (ran) 2e which I think is dreadful because of how good Al Quadim & Planescape were (& Baldur's Gate.)

The thing is for me & D&D is that I have only ever played it at its most gamey - it totally fails for me as a simulation. Games qua games require the most robust balance.

Or was it a rhetorical question?

Herschel said:

The important distinction being Gygax wanted balance but had no idea how to actually achieve it.

Click to expand...

Nah, that's . Gygax had a firm understanding of balance. It may not have been the sterile 4E balance you prefer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't balanced for his campaign and for D&D in general. If he wanted to write a game where the bonuses to your damage and attacks mattered more than the die roll, then I think he could have.

Neonchameleon said:

In this case you're focussing on half the conversation.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Please, in the future, don't tell me what I'm focusing on (or not focusing on), what I'm missing, what I don't understand, or the like. Thank you.

Neonchameleon said:

The pro-4e posters are as far as I can tell all in favour of balance in pretty much the way you are. What is being dealt with with the pro-transparency is a side issue - that there are specific times under which you can decide that balance isn't important. And one of the necessary conditions for this (note: necessary but not sufficient) is that you must be transparent about it.

Click to expand...

That was my assumption before this conversation, and what you're saying makes sense. I've just seen a couple people define balance as my "transparency" and that really threw me off (because they aren't the same to me). Again, though, what you're saying makes sense, and I would've imagined that people valued something closer to my definition. Here's a couple posts that made me make the post I did:

TwinBahamut said:

Balance basically means that the game is fundamentally fair and honest. If the players make a choice, then the game shouldn't suddenly reveal that choice to be more powerful or less powerful than advertised.

Click to expand...

The Choice said:

But in the meta, the game as a system, if I have a choice between ability A and ability B, there should be some clear signals that ability A just doesn't work. That's a part of what balance is about.

Click to expand...

Raith5 said:

For me "balance" is about creating rules which enable a transparent and equal starting point for different classes

Click to expand...

Now, don't get me wrong, there's "that's part of what balance is" and also "transparent and equal" thrown in there. So, that's not all of what balance is to these posters. But it's part of it. And to me, it's just not. Transparency might be important, but not as important as balance. And it's certainly not necessary to have a balanced game, in my opinion.

As far as your take, Neonchameleon, these posts don't strike me as "transparency as a side issue." They seem clear enough that "transparency is integral to a balanced game." I just found that pretty striking, and it was interesting to me. As always, play what you like

SKyOdin said:

What games have you been playing?

Click to expand...

D&D (Second and Third Editions), Pathfinder, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Munchkin, MunchkinQuest, and others.

Since I think there is a pretty good possibility that all of your gaming experience comes from playing fundamentally unbalanced games and you just got used to putting in a lot of effort to make them work. Good balance is something that is woefully rare in this hobby.

Click to expand...

I recognize that "fundamentally unbalanced," "good balance," "woefully rare," and that bit about me having to put in "a lot of effort" are your opinions, and I respectfully disagree.

Balance shouldn't require a lot of sacrifice and work on the part of the end-user to come into existence.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "should," but I think that it does - I'm of the opinion that no system can produce parity between all options all the time, particularly since this thread has amply demonstrated that there's no consensus on what "balance" is defined as.

I'd imagine that most gamers would say that chess is a very balanced game. Yet I once read an example where one person (jokingly) postulated that chess was, in fact, an unbalanced game. After all, the system didn't account for disparities in player skill, and as you lost pieces your options shrank, meaning that it was possible for one player (who had less pieces) to have less options than the other player...how "balanced" is that?

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

My experience with 4E suggests otherwise. Balance is created in the game rules, and the group can spend its energy on stuff other than complicated house rule to have their fun.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you came up with "complicated house rules," since I never mentioned that.

When I said that balance is something the GM and players have to work to achieve and keep focused, I wasn't referring to changing the game rules. I was referring to everyone having different input at different times, in different situations, via different actions, with the GM keeping those things flowing smoothly so that everyone has a chance to shine.

Most people, after all, seem to find that a game is "balanced" when they're having fun and "unbalanced" when they're not.

Alzrius said:

D&D (Second and Third Editions), Pathfinder, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Munchkin, MunchkinQuest, and others.

Click to expand...

Okay, your RPG gaming experience does consist primarily of really heavily unbalanced d20 system games. I am pretty confident now that you have never really played enough truly balanced games to be able to see how much of a difference balance makes.

I recognize that "fundamentally unbalanced," "good balance," "woefully rare," and that bit about me having to put in "a lot of effort" are your opinions, and I respectfully disagree.

Click to expand...

Balance (or the lack, thereof) is something that can be clearly demonstrated. By now, the sheer amount of evidence that D&D 3E (and by extension Pathfinder) is hideously unbalanced.

Determining whether a game is balanced is rather simple actually: just let loose a horde of min-maxers on the system and watch to see how badly they break the game. If they can break it, they will. The balanced and unbalanced parts of the game will make themselves known. This process is generally called playtesting.

As such, whether or not a game is balanced is a matter of fact that can be backed up by evidence, not mere opinion.

I don't know about "should," but I think that it does - I'm of the opinion that no system can produce parity between all options all the time, particularly since this thread has amply demonstrated that there's no consensus on what "balance" is defined as.

Click to expand...

What is the basis for this opinion? All opinions can be backed up with argument and evidence. Merely citing your personal experience with a handful of game systems is hardly convincing.

If you believe in your opinion, prove that it has meaning.

I'd imagine that most gamers would say that chess is a very balanced game. Yet I once read an example where one person (jokingly) postulated that chess was, in fact, an unbalanced game. After all, the system didn't account for disparities in player skill, and as you lost pieces your options shrank, meaning that it was possible for one player (who had less pieces) to have less options than the other player...how "balanced" is that?

Click to expand...

That person is joking. Balance just means that player skill has meaning. The better the balance, the more player skill matters.

Please don't tell me you are being serious here, since it is a rather ridiculous statement your are paraphrasing. It is obviously a joke.

SKyOdin said:

Okay, your RPG gaming experience does consist primarily of really heavily unbalanced d20 system games. I am pretty confident now that you have never really played enough truly balanced games to be able to see how much of a difference balance makes.

Click to expand...

Just thought I'd repeat this to highlight its absurdity.

Balance (or the lack, thereof) is something that can be clearly demonstrated. By now, the sheer amount of evidence that D&D 3E (and by extension Pathfinder) is hideously unbalanced.

Determining whether a game is balanced is rather simple actually: just let loose a horde of min-maxers on the system and watch to see how badly they break the game. If they can break it, they will. The balanced and unbalanced parts of the game will make themselves known. This process is generally called playtesting.

As such, whether or not a game is balanced is a matter of fact that can be backed up by evidence, not mere opinion.

Click to expand...

I have yet to actually see anyone present evidence to this effect. Even without it, I find the conclusion difficult to support. Are you suggesting that other games (perhaps 4e) are not subject to the same abuses? Put me in your 4e game and I'll break it. Or any game, if I've got a mind to. (Luckily, I don't).

If by "unbalanced" you mean "breakable by a horde of min/maxers", you are describing virtually any game.

Describing balance by referring to malcontents who seek imbalance is like describing the safety of driving a car by citing drunk driving statistics. It's like describing the difficulty of the SATs based only on the results of people who take amphetamines to study, or like describing the effects of prescription opioids by talking only about people who abuse them. It presents a piece of truth (that some people can break the game), but ignores much larger and more meaningful truths (that breaking the game is not easy and that most people don't even try to do it regardless and that DMs can easily fix rules abuses). Thus, this argument is quite misleading.

billd91 said:

Citation? Isn't it also possible that he wanted to achieve balance and thought he had come close enough to it for D&D's purposes?

Click to expand...

Citation that Gygax wanted balance? Or that he hadn't achieved it?

He's on record on the ENWorld boards as saying that the Weapon Specialisation, Barbarian, and Cavalier in Unearthed Arcana were all attempts to balance the fighter with the casters. And also on record as saying that the casters were more powerful despite this (I can dig up the first link but didn't bookmark the second). Note that UA was put out in 1985 - or a long time after AD&D.

P1NBACK said:

Nah, that's . Gygax had a firm understanding of balance. It may not have been the sterile 4E balance you prefer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't balanced for his campaign and for D&D in general. If he wanted to write a game where the bonuses to your damage and attacks mattered more than the die roll, then I think he could have.

Click to expand...

And with that result AD&D balance kicks 3.X balance hard. Gygax went for the form of balance 4e doesn't have - non-overlapping magesteria. Or in English, the fighter is far and away the best at fighting. With weapon specialisation no one else comes close. And the wizard is the best caster - clerics don't come close. The problem classes are the thief and the monk. But it took Weapon Specialisation and a whole lot of tinkering to make 1e balance work even out to about 9th level.

And part of the reason AD&D fighters are underpowered is that Rob Kuntz was an awesomely skilled player, with his fighter Robilar.

Ahnehnois said:

Just thought I'd repeat this to highlight its absurdity.

Click to expand...

What is so absurd? 3E D&D was horridly imbalanced with classes that simply didn't work, Pathfinder is loaded with design traps, and from what I heard, BESM isn't very well balanced itself.

I have yet to actually see anyone present evidence to this effect. Even without it, I find the conclusion difficult to support.

Click to expand...

Did you miss the Druid example from a few pages ago?

As another example, the Truenamer class in 3E's Tome of Magic literally doesn't work. The class is so busted that it isn't even playable. Someone who liked the concept would be walking a true trap if they tried to play the class without paying close attention.

In a less extreme example, there are some pretty nasty differences in ability score dependance between 3E classes. A Wizard can get by using nothing but Intelligence. A Paladin has to dump stats into Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma in order to use its core abilities. Considering that it isn't possible to have four good stats normally, right off the bat a Paladin is at a disadvantage compared to a Wizard.

And, yeah, the old 3E Char Op forums got bored of creating infinite power combos and started looking for nigh-infinite power combos to mix things up.

Are you suggesting that other games (perhaps 4e) are not subject to the same abuses? Put me in your 4e game and I'll break it. Or any game, if I've got a mind to. (Luckily, I don't).

If by "unbalanced" you mean "breakable by a horde of min/maxers", you are describing virtually any game.

Click to expand...

I mean exactly that. A balanced game cannot be min/maxed. Min/maxing is mostly a game design problem. If the variance between minimum and maximum power in a game is extremely limited, then an optimizer cannot eek out an advantage, and the problem disappears. This is one of the many fundamental advantages of game balance.

And yeah, go ahead and list some of the min/max builds in 4E. They exist, but the amount you gain from doing so is much less than in 3E.

Describing balance by referring to malcontents who seek imbalance is like describing the safety of driving a car by citing drunk driving statistics. It's like describing the difficulty of the SATs based only on the results of people who take amphetamines to study, or like describing the effects of prescription opioids by talking only about people who abuse them.

Click to expand...

...

...



Ooookaaaaay.....


Did you really compare min/maxing in a game to drunk driving related deaths and drug abuse? I'm not touching that.

It presents a piece of truth (that some people can break the game), but ignores much larger and more meaningful truths (that breaking the game is not easy and that most people don't even try to do it regardless and that DMs can easily fix rules abuses). Thus, this argument is quite misleading.

Click to expand...

Actually, min/maxing is stupidly easy. This is the internet age. All someone has to do is Google up one of the myriad high-powered builds created by people in a place such as the various official and unofficial Character optimization forums. I've only played Pathfinder once, for example, but I bet I could track down five broken builds for it in twenty minutes.

SKyOdin said:

What is so absurd?

Click to expand...

That:

3E D&D was horridly imbalanced with classes that simply didn't work, Pathfinder is loaded with design traps, and from what I heard, BESM isn't very well balanced itself.

Click to expand...

Did you miss the Druid example from a few pages ago?

Click to expand...

I didn't. I saw evidence of some combination of poor DMing and overzealous players.

As another example, the Truenamer class in 3E's Tome of Magic literally doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Ah, one class in a supplement "doesn't work". Even if that's true, it's hardly an indictment of the system. Truenaming itself is an alternate ruleset.

In a less extreme example, there are some pretty nasty differences in ability score dependance between 3E classes.

Click to expand...

This is actually true (gold star!). It's not really evidence that the game is as a whole is unbalanced though.

And, yeah, the old 3E Char Op forums got bored of creating infinite power combos and started looking for nigh-infinite power combos to mix things up.

I mean exactly that. A balanced game cannot be min/maxed. Min/maxing is mostly a game design problem. If the variance between minimum and maximum power in a game is extremely limited, then an optimizer cannot eek out an advantage, and the problem disappears. This is one of the many fundamental advantages of game balance.

...

Actually, min/maxing is stupidly easy. This is the internet age. All someone has to do is Google up one of the myriad high-powered builds created by people in a place such as the various official and unofficial Character optimization forums. I've only played Pathfinder once, for example, but I bet I could track down five broken builds for it in twenty minutes.[/

Click to expand...

See, here's the problem. That extreme charop board min/maxing is not playing the game. It's D&D's version of cheating. Antisocial behavior and its effects are not products of the game system, nor should the system be designed around trying to prevent abuse. Abuse and balance are unrelated concepts.

Saying that a balanced rpg is cannot be min/maxed is roughly equivalent to saying that in a balanced football game it is impossible to try and injure opposing players. The rules aren't responsible for bad behavior.

If anything, an rpg system that can't be abused isn't much of an rpg. The question is how does it play when people actually use the rules as intended and interpret them reasonably.

Ahnehnois said:

If anything, an rpg system that can't be abused isn't much of an rpg. The question is how does it play when people actually use the rules as intended and interpret them reasonably.

Click to expand...

You know, comments like this, and some I have seen from you earlier, make it sound like you want min-maxing in D&D. It sounds like you see the ability to create a character that is stronger than the character player by another player as a virtue of the system.

I find that ludicrous.

Isn't the point of D&D being to be able to create any character you want? Why should any PC be better than any other PC of the same level?