Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Nifft]

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.

Very much agree. It's a good thing if the game gets you interested in everyone else's actions.

- - -

Anyway, the few times I've seen "anti-balance bias" on this board, the situation has usually been:

Dude A: Hey guys check out my cool idea!

Forum Opinion: That would unbalance the game.

Dude A: DARN YOU GAME BALANCE! How dare you exist to oppose my cool idea!

In this way, dude A either becomes an arch-villain petting a fluffy white cat, or he accepts that good ideas can take non-trivial work to implement. For me, the game balance argument was a no-brainer, because I'm allergic to cats.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Barastrondo]

Players compete against the campaign milieu.

Interesting. I see players coming into conflict with a game's setting and the residents therein, but a competition.... well, the image that springs to mind is of some of those DMs we all used to know bragging about their kill counts to one another. I don't tend to think of PVE (to borrow from video game design terminology) as a competition because there's no real meaningful win condition for the environment, but it's an interesting perspective.

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).

That's something I see as a play style as more of a universal condition of the player (to clarify, because some groups evolve policies for sharing as evenly as possible even in resource-management RPGs rather than treating it as competition), but it's an interesting perspective. I do appreciate the clarification.

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

Huh, how about that. Thanks for the cite! Nice to know my memory isn't fading too bad just yet.

 

[billd91]

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

Indeed. A lot of people on the internet make a hullaballoo, all full of self-righteous fury, about how some options in 3e are "traps". But whether or not those choices are sub-optimal tends to depend on the context. They can be very useful from the DM's perspective when statting up NPC or creatures. They can be useful in one-shot modules with pre-gen characters or short-term characters.

That's always been true about certain aspects of game balance from 1e through 3e as well. Context context context.

 

[WayneLigon]

Life's not balanced.

What's more, dramatic fiction (an intermediate step between life and rpgs) is also not balanced.

Life is usually balanced over the long haul by making it extremely hard for most PC's (compared to D&D) to up stats, gain skill points, or attain wealth. Cheating tends to get you shot at. Also, only maybe one in ten million is a PC-class-grade person.

Fiction is balanced because there's an author there making sure his character only realizes at the last second that he can simply reverse his fire magic to draw heat instead of produce it, thus freezing the cold-vulnerable bad guy. The author's character is totally incapable of back-talking to the author and saying 'Any dumbass knows heat flows in directions; it should be child's play for me to reverse this spell', thus negating the entire novel.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, this may not be a popular opinion, but some people just aren't temperamentally suited to discussions of game balance. This doesn't explain everyone, but there are certain people... I general, if someone connects "game balance" with "loss of wonder" then they fall into this category. I don't believe they'd actually be happier with an unbalanced game, but I do believe that they'd be happier with a game where they'd never seen behind the scenes.

Basically, if what you're looking for in a game is a sense of enchantment, you aren't going to be happy with the game after a long discussion of exactly which Great Wizards of Oz are really men behind curtains.

Excellent observation, Cadfan.

Dare I take it a step farther and suggest the sense of enchantment has been sacrificed on the altar of balance (both real and perceived), along with some other things?

If 5e does nothing else of use, if it can bring back some sort of sense of enchantment I'll count it a success.

Lanefan

 

[BryonD]

"Game balance" means different things to different people.

I think I'm safe using the context of the OP's other posts...
But, yeah, good call and I'm guilty as charged.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Balance is something that the players have to bring to the table along with intelligence and imagination. The game itself can make attempts to pre-package balance but it will fail on some level because the balance needs vary so much from group to group. The game itself should focus on whatever it is supposede to be about and let the people playing tweak the balance to taste. No matter how good the intentions there will be too much or too little balance for someone.

 

[LostSoul]

I think game balance is about having multiple choices when faced with a problem and there is no clear optimal solution. If there is a clear optimal solution the game isn't balanced.

If the mechanics of the game make it much easier to achieve my goals (whatever they are) if I play a PC with raw size and strength, playing a minotaur who outweighs humans by 200+ pounds is an obvious optimal solution.

Looking it like that, generating encounters/loot/DCs based on PC level isn't about game balance, it's about removing the consequences of the player's choices.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not saying that all RPGs are cooperative games. I do know, though, that I much prefer the ones that are. For one, my wife far prefers cooperation to competition, so I get to play with her more if the group is working together to achieve mutual awesomeness instead of competing for personal aggrandizement.

Not meant to be a reply necessary to you specifically, but to the vibe in general: cooperation doesn't mean "everyone pulls their weight. In combat." It can mean a lot of other things too. To me, cooperation means, "everyone works to accomodate the character concepts that the other players are interested in. Within reason."

Frequently, in my groups, we have the dumbest, most incompetent bunch of nincompoops ever to set out in search of adventure. Can you imagine an entire party made up of Cugel the "Clever" wannabes? I can. I've seen it over and over again. It works because we all cooperate to have a good time laughing at the hijinks of our ridiculous characters.

I'd say that a person who gets their panties in a wad about someone not "pulling their weight" in combat in a cooperative game is someone who, by my book, doesn't understand the first thing about playing a cooperative game. Because at that point they're demanding that I engage the game in a way that they enjoy but which I do not. And it's the demanding aspect of the disparity that makes it uncooperative. We can work something out if there's playstyle differences... maybe... but don't start getting on my case because I don't enjoy the same things about the game that you do, and then have the stones to tell me that the whole point is that it's a cooperative game.

 

[Nifft]

I'd say that a person who gets their panties in a wad about someone not "pulling their weight" in combat in a cooperative game is someone who, by my book, doesn't understand the first thing about playing a cooperative game.

It's really the same thing as the guy who has sand in his crevice about "but it's what my character would do!" -- when that thing is obnoxious to other players, like stealing from party members, or trying to do comedy in a hardball combat-centric adventure.

Both come down to: know your group, make your compromises up-front, make sure they're playing a game you want to play, and don't try to use social blackmail during the game to guilt other people into tolerating your anti-social behavior.

"11: Thou Shalt Fit In", -- N