Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[thecasualoblivion]

Balancing the game upon DM fiat just introduces a new form of imbalance. That being that a bad DM is worse at balancing the game, and that a player who can bully the DM or is simply more intelligent/creative can get more favorable rulings than one who can not.

 

[mudbunny]

I think it is not so much bias against balance as it is a preference over the scale upon which there is balance.

4E tends to be balanced on the encounter level. 3.5, from my understanding, tends to be balanced over levels 1-20.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've been in the RPG hobby since 1977, and in that time, I've played games that were very balanced and some that were not balanced at all.

Balance isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It can become a bad thing if you start radically reshaping & reflavoring things in order to make things balanced. In 4Ed, one example of this is the structure of races- they ALL have 2 stats with +2 and no negative modifiers. This means that races that are known for strength are only marginally beefier than races known for being dexterous, and races known for dexterity are only marginally more nimble than those known for being charismatic, etc. Sorry, but it bugs me that a 350lb Minotaur, Goliath, or Dragonborn is only slightly stronger than an 80lb gnome (assuming stats are distributed identically and the only differences are from the racial mods). That's a difference in mass equivalent to a 9 year old and an NFL Nose Tackle.

On the other side of the scale you can get games like RIFTS. Personally, I don't have a problem with the game's lack of balance- there are other mechanical oddities to that game that mess it up- because the lack of balance results from accurately depicting in the mechanics what was depicted in the fluff. A Glitterboy SHOULD be much more powerful in combat than a Vagabond. However, not everyone feels the same, and running a RIFTS campaign without taking that intrinsic lack of balance into account can lead to utter disaster and hard feelings.

So, the complaint isn't about balance itself being bad, but a slavish adherence to balance at the expense of simulation/modeling, adherence to tropes or the weakening of things that had been powerful but evocative- IOW, balance at the expense of fun.

 

[Barastrondo]

I think it is not so much bias against balance as it is a preference over the scale upon which there is balance.

4E tends to be balanced on the encounter level. 3.5, from my understanding, tends to be balanced over levels 1-20.

Which is a tricky scale, unless you never start games at levels higher than 1, or allow a player to retire a character (living or dead) and bring in one of a different class. It's the same trouble with "balancing" a powerful prestige class with prerequisites that are supposed to be a drawback in the levels before you can take it. If you start your character at high enough level to take the prestige class, you haven't played through the levels where taking Toughness and Skill Focus: Profession were impacting your effectiveness. You start at the level where it pays off, which is a big net positive. This isn't just true of editions of D&D, of course; you could see this kind of disparity in the WoD games as well.

One of the interesting things about RPGs is that you can wind up sticking with a bunch of characters far longer than the events of the average novel series, and in ways to rival even long-running TV series. Balance becomes a sticking point precisely because we can spend so much time with our characters. In some cases, that may mean a cry for more of it because over 20 sessions, you've had maybe 5 where you shined and most of your buddies got 10. In others, it may mean a cry for less balance because the sessions where the entire group is disappointed with the "fair" ruling have added up.

I also figure this is why people have such hugely strong opinions about everything RPG-related, but that's kind of another theory.

 

[Dannager]

Because not everyone considers the 4e balance goal of everyone being equally competent at all things all the time desirable.

This is not a 4e "balance goal", and never has been. The goal is for all characters to be basically competent at a variety of things that allow them to participate and feel useful for the majority of the game, as well as be excellent at a handful of things that vary from character to character in which they can shine.

Could you explain exactly why you feel your perception to be the case? It's pretty clear that a Paladin, for instance, is much better at things like holding a really tough monster at bay than a Rogue, who is in turn much better at eliminating the threat posed by traps than the Paladin is. This seems obvious to me. Am I incorrect, here?

 

[Krensky]

This is not a 4e "balance goal", and never has been. The goal is for all characters to be basically competent at a variety of things that allow them to participate and feel useful for the majority of the game, as well as be excellent at a handful of things that vary from character to character in which they can shine.

I say homogenized, you say forced through very small holes under very high pressure.

Could you explain exactly why you feel your perception to be the case? It's pretty clear that a Paladin, for instance, is much better at things like holding a really tough monster at bay than a Rogue, who is in turn much better at eliminating the threat posed by traps than the Paladin is. This seems obvious to me. Am I incorrect, here?

Why should a Paladin be a tank? Why should a rogue be a trap remover? Why can't the Paladin be an embodiment of his faith's wrath? Or a mysterious grizzled old general who leads a village in over throwing the bandit king tyrannizing them? Why can't the rogue be a con artist, or a second story man, or swashbuckler who don't know anything about traps? Why do they all have to be awesome in combat? Why can't we have a courtier who can defend himself, but really doesn't do much in combat, but can manipulate the system and call in favors and speak with a silver tongue out of combat? Or a physician and scientist who, while not helpless is not a combatant, can patch anyone in the party up, identify every plant under the sun, and knows pretty much everything about everything?

 

[Greg K]

So, the complaint isn't about balance itself being bad, but a slavish adherence to balance at the expense of simulation/modeling, adherence to tropes or the weakening of things that had been powerful but evocative-

Danny, sending you an XP

 

[Ariosto]

What "game balance" are you talking about?

There's the square deal, a fair chance for each player to exercise his or her skill. Part of balancing chance factors is having them come up enough to even out, and another part is weighing them against other factors. Options can present different mixes of risk and reward, different strengths and weakness, different courses of development calling for different strategies.

Such a balance of opportunities has as its object facilitating the emergence of inequality in results among players.

That is obviously a radically different game than one in which the object is equality in results among players.

Trying to play Game B with parts designed to produce Game A, or vice-versa, can be very unsatisfying.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Good point- "balance" has many meanings.

Certainly, 4Ed races are balanced as written. Each race gets 2 attributes to which they add +2, and have no minuses. This, however, leads to the problem I mentioned before- this leveling of stat adjustments waters down the evocative nature of brutish Minotaurs and uncannily dextrous Githzerai.

Instead, those races could have been given bigger Str and Dex bonuses, respectively, at the expense of having weaker or less useful racial abilities, limitations on feats or powers, or even negative modifiers to something else. Given that 4Ed makes an effort to make every stat matter, negative stat mods have meaning and impact, so negative mods as a balancing tool make even MORE sense in 4Ed than in any previous edition of the game.

 

[Obryn]

Why should a Paladin be a tank? Why should a rogue be a trap remover? Why can't the Paladin be an embodiment of his faith's wrath? Or a mysterious grizzled old general who leads a village in over throwing the bandit king tyrannizing them? Why can't the rogue be a con artist, or a second story man, or swashbuckler who don't know anything about traps? Why do they all have to be awesome in combat? Why can't we have a courtier who can defend himself, but really doesn't do much in combat, but can manipulate the system and call in favors and speak with a silver tongue out of combat? Or a physician and scientist who, while not helpless is not a combatant, can patch anyone in the party up, identify every plant under the sun, and knows pretty much everything about everything?

In answer to all of these: The class-and-level system. It was set up to encourage archetypes and to enable quick character advancement. It has been such since the beginning, where every class gets better at combat as they get more powerful whether they like it or not.

Honestly, what you're describing is a lot more GURPS or FATE than any edition of D&D.

-O