I hate game balance!

[LordDamax]

So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.

And heres the deal.

I HATE GAME BALANCE!

I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.

And the reason I hate 4E is game balance. It is SO balanced, they spent so much time ensuring that everything is equal, no one class has any leg up on any other class, or even a perceived leg up, so that everyone would be equal.

Know what happens when EVERYONE is special? Yeah, you got it.

I have a 4 year old who will soon be wanting to play soccer or little leauge, and it sickens me that theres not a single league around here for him to play in where at the end of the season EVERYONE gets a trophy. You're all winners! No one is a loser! YOU are special!

Oh, wait, I am digressing, we're talking about a game...

When everyone's special, what makes you so damn special? Everyone wants to feel needed. Everyone wants to be special. How awesome is it for the rogue to be able to disarm the trap that's a party roadblock? How awesome is it to be the fighter and you're the only one that can hit the dragon? What about the mage who's capable of teleporting the party across the chasm? The priest who can raise the dead?

Now, in 4E, you're all special! Everyone can cast spells, um, rituals! Everyone gets a XXX power at YYY level! And they all pretty much do the same thing... damage this guy and get this effect! Rangers dont track anymore, mages cannot phantasmal killer anything anymore, and bards, well, bards ARENT anymore

I dunno. I've always been a fan of defined class roles. I've also been a fan of being able to blur and bend those roles if need be. And above all else, I've been a fan of a character being able to do somethign NO ONE else can. If that means the mage is all-powerful at 18th level, then so be it.

I'm a network admin and I make decent money. I'm not a millionaire, and I wish I were. I'm sure the poor schlub mopping the floor at the hoagie shack near me wishes he made my kind of money. We're not all equal. I cannot drive a race car, play a guitar, or do quantum physics. Maybe you cannot reprogram a router like I can.

Its that DIFFERENCE in things that make it great.

Something about how all the classes feel so damn similar to me... it irks me. Everyone is special. Everyone can kick ass.

And mechanically, what you're capable of accomplishing in the game, is pretty much the same as what I can.

I now invite the 4E lovers here to tell me that my opinion is wrong. Show me why game balance is necessary, because, as you know better than I do, my opinion is not correct!

 

[Propagandroid]

I blogged about this before 4e was released, and was saddened to see the problem only get worse.

 

[Cadfan]

I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.

This is still the case.

That's... about all the refutation your post requires.

But I can go beyond that. You seem to view the above quote as an example of a system which hasn't got balance. Actually, its an example of a system which DOES have balance. Each character has areas in which they excel, and areas in which they fall behind. Fortunately, its even the method of balance chosen by 4th edition! How convenient for you! Now you can embrace the game and be happy, instead of repeating lines from The Incredibles which, in the movie, made even less sense than your use of them did.

 

[Storminator]

I recently played in a one shot game where everyone had radically different skills. Some players were forensics specialists. Some were computer experts. I played the guy with the gun. None of the PCs could touch the others at their specialty.

The scenario was designed so that every player got some spot light time. Everyone got to use their skills.

I spent the first hour of the four hour game sitting and waiting for my skills to be relevant. During hour 3, everyone else got to sit around and watch me kill things. Oh someone else took a shot, but please, they didn't help me kill things faster any more than I helped them solve the mystery.

Now some people may like a game where everyone spends most of the time doing nothing, but I'd rather have my PC be relevant at least half the time.

PS

 

[redcard]

Why do people think everyone can cast rituals?

The section on Rituals says outright that you MUST have the ritual caster feat to cast it.. and if you don't, you must have the scroll/etc. It also says some rituals are not available in some worlds. And more rituals will be published which you might not choose to use.

For example, it's highly doubtful my GM will allow Raise Dead to be in any form.. or if he does, it'll just be in scroll form.

 

[Wormwood]

I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.

In other words, you . . . love . . . game balance?

 

[Cadfan]

Why do people think everyone can cast rituals?

Its called "willful exaggeration."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I want to agree, but I can't.

In 3E, I loathed attempts at balance, because to my mind, balance and simulationism don't mix, and 3E was clearly trying to mix them. The only "balance" you can find in a simulationist game is be assigning everything points costs, imho.

In 4E, however, the paradigm is quite different. It's a pure gamist game, the simulationism almost completely banished. So I can see how balance is necessary.

Still, I wouldn't BLAME balance. Balance happened because the decision was to put gameplay elements before all else. Blame the designers for that if you like, but it's not balance's fault. If they'd put gameplay elements first and neglected balanced, we'd be in an even bigger mess.

 

[rowport]

...I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.
...

I am confused by your post. AFAIK, your examples here *are* about game balance! You posit the classic rock/paper/scissors scenerio, where under the right conditions a certain class excels, so all are balanced as a whole.

Personally, I think this is a good thing, 4e or other game. Otherwise, players would all gravitate towards the most powerful option.

 

[buzz]

So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.

Did you ever consider actually playing the game?