Balanced Game System: Imperative or Bugaboo

[Dausuul]

I think Balance is important but should be balanced against believability and flavor. To me the two extremes are 3E and 4E. The first isn't balanced enough in my opinion, the second is too balanced IMO and cuts into believability and flavor. I like some balance but with enough room to breath.

Agreed on 4E, which went rather too far IMO in the quest for game balance. If staying within D&D, I would make 1E the opposite extreme; strong flavor with weak balance. (Although the real poster child for flavor without balance is Rifts.)

3E is an odd case. It made a number of sacrifices in flavor to achieve balance; for example, you can't make legions of undead using animate dead any more, due to the hit die cap. And yet, because of changes to other parts of the system, game balance ended up farther out of whack than it was in AD&D!

That's an important thing to keep in mind: You can sacrifice flavor and not improve balance, and vice versa. The corollary is that you can often improve flavor without sacrificing balance.

 

[ValhallaGH]

System balance is nice but the essential version is not what most gamers talk about when they speak of balance.

Most gamers speak of balance as "able to get the same results with the same actions". Or maybe "all characters get equal spotlight via game mechanics."

To my mind, the essential part of game balance is that all options are equally fun, assuming that players enjoy each of the different styles equally. (Obviously, everyone has their preferred play styles, and playing to those is more fun than playing something else.) This was the failing of the 3.x Bard - he's just not as fun as the rampaging Barbarain, murderous Rogue, machine-gun Sorcerer, polar bear Druid, or all-knowing Wizard; he can be a lot of fun, but those other options are more fun, even for players that love being the know-it-all social guy.
As long as the fast-talking sneak is as much fun to play as the mighty wizard or the bulky warrior then the game is balanced. They all do different things, and use different game mechanics, but if they are equally fun* then the game has the most essential kind of balance.


*If they are all equally bad and unfun then the game is balanced but so terrible that you shouldn't bother with it. Go fly a kite, hang out at a bar, or even play a different game, instead of playing with that system.


This is a hobby about playing games. Fun is, ultimately, the only thing that matters.

 

[Umbran]

In theory, a GM can have Jimmy Olsen and Superman in the same game, and keep the players of both entertained. In practice, this can be difficult.

Game balance is a characteristic of the system that reduces the amount of work the GM has to do to keep those players happy. It is useful only insofar as it assists in that goal - if game balance gets in the way of happy players, then it isn't helpful.

I think of this as a balanced view of balance. I usually want some attempt at mechanical balance, just to keep things in check, but I don't need or want it to be a straightjacket.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not the physical skill but rather overall game system rules balance. My fault for not being more clear.

I think the word being capitalized is what threw me. The skill is Balance, the game as a whole is balanced.

That being said, I would have chosen the same poll option albeit for different reasons. Obvious imbalances drag the game down, but the pursuit of balance for its own sake is a fool's errand. Thus, my opinion is precariously perched on the line between the two positions.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I like the games I play to be well-balanced so that it is harder for one character to just plain overshadow everyone else. (And yes, I know players that will try) But getting balance is really difficult to do and I have not seen any games that are really truly balanced, though 4E comes the closest I have seen.

But pays for it by being very rigid, which has its own good and bad points.

 

[Storminator]

I want to be able to look at the level of the party and the number of PCs and build an appropriate encounter with no other information required. That means things have to be pretty well balanced.

PS

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I don't like too much balancing at rpg. I like it at starcraft. It would be great to have at any pvp without stupid gearing getting in the way of skill.

In rpg's it tend to make things less special. Magic feeling gets watered down. Nerfs happen. Gamemakers stop trusting people. Current star wars MMO forums there even was admitance that thay don't think players can pick the right talents so they don't give them to pick. Well been a while.

D&D 3.x had some good stuff. I liked that basic system was for most part well rounded and constant.

I have learned from MMO world that balancing never means giving. It's always about nerfing.

3.0. was just fine execpt for some lame magic items some boring spells and some weird (balanced crap) entrance to prestige classes. I liked items and spell at AD&D more. And ECL that was so badly executed.

When balance does serve a purpose I like, when it makes game better, encounters easy to use, character buidling faster it's in right place. When it makes me feel, "my shammy got shaft, again." it sucks.

At heart I am 3.0 girl. Despite it all it still kinda has most right.

I don't like whacky too much systems, and I think you can't put certain Rift choices into same party. But those things are group responsibility not designers.
Sometimes I want to play godly monster and I want system to allow it. Sometimes I want to make one just for fun with intent of ever playing I want system to give me urge to make characters. All kinda characters.

So good system should have componets for all kinda playing rather than limit me to some playstyle designer has deemed good for me.

 

[innerdude]

In theory, a GM can have Jimmy Olsen and Superman in the same game, and keep the players of both entertained. In practice, this can be difficult.

Game balance is a characteristic of the system that reduces the amount of work the GM has to do to keep those players happy. It is useful only insofar as it assists in that goal - if game balance gets in the way of happy players, then it isn't helpful.

I think of this as a balanced view of balance. I usually want some attempt at mechanical balance, just to keep things in check, but I don't need or want it to be a straightjacket.

Strangely, I almost never agree with a single thing that comes out of Umbran's mouth keyboard fingers, but completely agree with this definition of balance. Rules complexity/simplicity, game genre/flavor, and balance are all ultimately road markers on the way to the goal of satisfied players (GM included).

 

[Stormonu]

Balance is a gaming bugbear. Too much and you're killing creativity. Too little and you have headache PCs that overshadow other's enjoyment. Likewise, there are many ways to balance different abilities.

I feel that 4E kowtowed to the altar of balance too much, where as high-level 3E (9th and above) absolutely desecrated the altar of balance. Still, even 1E and 2E had its problems, so no edition has been perfect in this regard.

In the end, I think that while basic balance is needed, in the end DM's need the ability to adjudicate balance for their own game and that "making the game your own" needs to be encouraged, not discouraged.

 

[markkat]

Balance is usually more overrated than underrated.

I think veteran gamers usually need balance less. They usually aren't as interested in out doing one another as they are in playing a character and having fun.

Too much balance can get very boring.