Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Raven Crowking]

So to your perspective, is the bias against game balance rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players? I was sort of coming at it from the perspective of "not necessarily," but I admit as a non-competitive type it's only theory from the outside.

Part of the reason people play these games is so that they can feel able to change the world, even if it is just a fantasy construct world.

To be meaningful (IMHO), changing the world requires that (1) the outcome is not preordained, and (2) the change one strives for is one that suits the changer. These two reasons are part of why I sandbox-GM.

It isn't that one player is out to "get" the other ones; it is that each player strives to leave his mark upon the campaign milieu, and each strives to make it better reflect his tastes. Often, this means that players are working together for a common goal. But this is because the goal is a common one; it does not mean that they are shoe-horned into accepting a goal so that the game is cooperative.

Going back to another thread, if one player likes mounted characters, another likes urban adventure, and a third likes dungeons, all three are in competition to have the group follow adventures that they like. It might mean that they split parties, creating one to follow each type of adventure, and trading which parties are used each session. It might mean that they negotiate. They may resolve their conflict however they like, but are almost always better off if they do so cooperatively.

Figuring out how to cooperate, in this case, is one of the challenges of the game. It is also, I note, one of the things a person can take away from the game and apply to his own life.

Players compete against the campaign milieu. They compete against each other for what limited resources the group has (barring, of course, APs that prevent the players from choosing what sort of adventures to choose, treasure parcels that ensure that the optimum treasure is always gained, and rules that do away with resource management).

In a recent game, I had one group hire another PC (whose player was present, and ran his other PC briefly) to appraise and detect magic their treasure. The other PC charged 5% of the total take. Some of the group considered murdering him instead of paying him. Everyone had fun.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not sure that lessons learned from competitive games can always be applied to what are theoretically cooperative games.

That is the point, I think. It certainly was my own point in an earlier post. One misses it if one has the parochial assumption that "theoretically" all RPGs should be a certain way.

In D&D in particular, a lot of square pegs people keep trying to pound into round holes were actually designed to fit square holes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's another thing: Remember how, upthread, I mentioned that cooperative games like Secret Door and Bus Depot Diner only give the illusion of having separate turns?

Well, since the 3.x era, and certainly in the 4e era, I have seen increasing incidence of some players telling other players what to do on "their" turns. From threads on EN World -- where players have complained about other PC builds not being efficient enough -- I suspect that there are groups out there, right now, where even having separate characters is really an illusion. The operative unit has become, as with Bus Depot Diner, the team.

Certainly not a universal truth, but something to be aware of.


RC

 

[Nifft]

The operative unit has become, as with Bus Depot Diner, the team.

Certainly not a universal truth, but something to be aware of.

This is something I've been saying for quite some time in the CharOp forums: the smallest unit of battle is no longer the PC, it is the party.

The most important optimization question is no longer: "What will your DM allow you to get away with?"

The most important optimization question is now: "Who else is in your party?"

Cheers, -- N

 

[Imaro]

So to your perspective, is the bias against game balance rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players? I was sort of coming at it from the perspective of "not necessarily," but I admit as a non-competitive type it's only theory from the outside.

I can't speak for RC but I honestly don't think the bias against game balance is totally rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players, though I do think many people are drawn to games (not necessarily talking about rpg's here) in which some measure of competition takes place and is measured with concrete indicators.

One possibility is that there are actually people who enjoy the mini-game of creating better characters (the same way some enjoy the mini-game of grid-tactics). They enjoy finding combinations, powers, etc. to construct the character they enjoy.

However I think for many it is also born of a dislike of the "game" in an rpg super-ceding tropes, imagination, archetypes, genre conventions and so on that the game is supposedly based upon. I think this is especially particular to D&D because it is billed as the premier fantasy roleplaying game. The problem is that one expects that this game would allow you to play the numerous tropes you've read in most generic fantasy... but in the most recent editions...game balance, moreso than anything else, dictates that you cannot... at least without jumping through numerous hoops.

As a counter example... In Exalted I can play a character with any trope, archetype or convention that would reasonably fit within the established world of Creation. Will everything be balanced?? Nope, but you will be able to play the character you imagine. For a more class based game we can look at Warhammer FRPG (2e), or Blue Rose. Both arguably class-based systems that accomodate a wide variety of their genre's tropes, conventions and archetypes in very different ways. Are they balanced... No. But again, you can play the character you imagine more readily.

As far as D&D specifically, I think in 3.0 and 3.5 we were moving towards a class based system with the freedom in character creation to design the character you wanted to within the tropes of most fantasy, and with Star Wars Saga edition (talent trees, feats, classes and skills)... I really thought WotC was on this track and had it nearly perfected. In my mind 4e was going to be the culmination of the evolutionary path D&D seemed to be on... only it wasn't.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's still tied into levels, though. Your Level 1 character can't have a +18 skill check on something, even with a Skill Focus feat.

Highly skilled characters must be high-level, per the mechanics. Along with that increase in level comes an increase in HPs, saving throws, and combat skill.

Mind you - I actually run a d20 variant that emphasizes skills (Call of Cthulhu d20), so I kinda know of what I speak. My solution is to basically ignore those rules for NPCs, and it works great. But if I can ignore the rules to get what I want in a d20 game, it's disingenuous to say that I can't also ignore the rules in a 4e game.

-O

it is just that in my games someone with a +5 bonus is fairly competent and with a +10 bonus (easy for an expert lvl2) is an expert.

And suddenly it works

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The most important optimization question is now: "Who else is in your party?"

This, for me, makes combat way more fun. Developing reliable tactics with your teammates like the proverbial Fast-ball Special or making some combination up on the fly feels good. It is also evocative of a well-oiled team of combat veterans.

This is fine when everyone at the table is on board. Of course, all it takes is one blowhard or one person who takes it way more seriously than everyone else to screw it up for everyone, so there are no free lunches. Personally, in this case, I'm willing to take the good with the bad.

Building a character that does something optimally in isolation bores me, and it's fundamentally no different than filling out my talent tree and gear list in WoW. Building a character that will generate interesting emergent properties as part of a team... that will keep me entertained for a long time, especially since it also includes a social element. I have to anticipate what others are likely to do with their characters and create organic synergies that also fit my character's predilections. I also have to not be a jerk if my expectations are violated.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I think that's a great idea, myself. I remember someone talking about how suboptimal choices in 3e like Toughness were intended to make players feel clever and rewarded for making the choice not to take them, which struck me as kind of a dodgy philosophy (if it's true at all; I can't remember the source). Players shouldn't feel good for dodging traps in the rulebook, they should feel good for dodging traps in the dungeon.

The source was none other than Monte Cook. Here's the citation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t like the party as the smallest unit. It should be the player. Everyone should be able to pull its weight in combat. Even in a 1 vs 1. Of course, the defender has nothing to defend and the leader has nothing to lead. But at least everyone should be competent enough to hold its own in a fight. (Having low AC doesn´t mean you are screwed by default)

It is just needed that a pary functions better than each part. But a party that crumbles as soon as a certain person is missing is in a bad tactical situation.

@chosing a game that better serves your needs: I find D&D very satisfying for nearly all kind of games. The only thing preventing it from beeing very good for urban settings was the easy access of low level divination spells which were too useful n 3rd edition. You really couldn´t do anything bad without an undetectable alignment ring.

You really don´t need much for good roleplaying. It is just important that rules don´t get in the way of fun. And a very unbalanced game does. Be it in or out od combat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

timmy cards can become real winners if used in the proper combination.