Fun vs balance [poll]

[Sacrosanct]

"Fun isn't balanced" and "Balance isn't fun". Okay.

Never said that.

D&D has never been balanced: Magic-Users/Wizards suck at low level but become demigods at mid-high level. But it's the most popular RPG on ground. People champion Apocalypse World but it has XP and Advancement to improve a PC just like D&D. Maybe define what you mean by "balanced" and "fun"? Then people can participate?

First post:

Of course balance can be fun, because fun is subjective and different for everyone. What I'm referring to, and hoped to convey with my example above, is something that is fun for you, but you can't/won't do it for balancing restrictions. How willing are you to throw balance out of the window if something seems fun to do but doesn't fit within those balancing guidelines. Kind of along the lines of "Class A can't do those cool things unless you give all classes cool extra things." vs "Go ahead and do that cool thing, even if it means that character can do something others can't."

Maybe try reading the OP first?

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Fun isn't balanced" and "Balance isn't fun". Okay.

D&D has never been balanced: Magic-Users/Wizards suck at low level but become demigods at mid-high level. But it's the most popular RPG on ground.

I think there's an unstated assumption in this that D&D is popular because of its imbalance rather than despite it. I don't think that's well founded.

 

[Pedantic]

I think there's an unstated assumption in this that D&D is popular because of its imbalance rather than despite it. I don't think that's well founded.

That's a well solidly poisoned by 4e discourse. It gets reified as the balanced edition and unpopular, therefore...

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a well solidly poisoned by 4e discourse. It gets reified as the balanced edition and unpopular, therefore...

Frankly, I think using the popularity of D&D to argue for, well, anything is dubious, because there are so many moving parts in its success that trying to untangle them is impossible. If someone wants to make that argument in the RPG field, start with something other than D&D. But, of course, that requires people to actually be aware of enough other games and not consider them irrelevant out the gate, so...

 

[aramis erak]

I sometimes think there are two different things people are talking about with balance, is characters, and with the encounters. Though usually with players it about each other's characters ime.

More, really, not just two.
Balanced screen time - IE, everyone has something to contribute mechanically.
Balanced power - everyone's equally dangerous mechanically
Balanced encounters - a clear means of ensuring surivable encounters
Balanced difficulties - things stay the same difficulty with increasing competence.

D&D has a limited form of Balanced Difficulties in most editions, but only as part of balanced encounters - most especially the random encounter tables. BECMI and Cyclopedia, as well as AD&D 2, include an ideal that an encounter with total HD = 4 PC party's average level... AC loosely corresponds (inversely in pre-3E) to HD, and damages tend to go up with level/HD, so the to-hit needed for a level-based encounter should generally hover about the same point.

D&D hasn't done that with non-combat, but Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 both have, and are not the only ones; Romance of the Perilous Land does so, too. (My sim-fixed mind has HUGE issues with this mostly because its net effect is to make that in which the PC is not skilled harder as the PC levels up.

 

[Fenris-77]

That's a useful set of distinctions. When I, or most people, talk about OSR games not being concerned with balance we are specifically talking about encounter balance (although some of those games also have class balance issues, but that's another topic). That OSR zeitgeist proffers thoughtful problem solving and discretion over any assurance of encounter balance. Some people love it, some people don't, it's a thing.

 

[dragoner]

More, really, not just two.
Balanced screen time - IE, everyone has something to contribute mechanically.
Balanced power - everyone's equally dangerous mechanically
Balanced encounters - a clear means of ensuring surivable encounters
Balanced difficulties - things stay the same difficulty with increasing competence.

D&D has a limited form of Balanced Difficulties in most editions, but only as part of balanced encounters - most especially the random encounter tables. BECMI and Cyclopedia, as well as AD&D 2, include an ideal that an encounter with total HD = 4 PC party's average level... AC loosely corresponds (inversely in pre-3E) to HD, and damages tend to go up with level/HD, so the to-hit needed for a level-based encounter should generally hover about the same point.

D&D hasn't done that with non-combat, but Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 both have, and are not the only ones; Romance of the Perilous Land does so, too. (My sim-fixed mind has HUGE issues with this mostly because its net effect is to make that in which the PC is not skilled harder as the PC levels up.

Balance in encounters often feels like training wheels for GM's, because TPK's are often game enders; which helps the publisher because you want people to keep playing your game. Unequal charaters seems to lead to whining mostly, though I have noticed that the most vocal, or best player, whatever their character is mechanically, they are doing the most. I usually try to give everyone equal time in the spotlight, though I notice not everyone wants it, and its not my place to force them out of their comfort zone.

 

[aramis erak]

That's a well solidly poisoned by 4e discourse. It gets reified as the balanced edition and unpopular, therefore...

4E rightly gets lambasted for not feeling like other editions to most.
That it's balanced for class power, and has balanced encounters, and it also encourages balanced screentime... yeah, that's a huge difference from other editions.

But it unfairly gets lambastated as having sold poorly. It didn't. If it had been a poor seller, there would have been no PHB3 and DMG2. It sold plenty, but not to existing fans of D&D brands, instead largely to new-to-D&D fans.

This isn't the first time such a new edition brings new blood while peeving the old guard...
Traveller... CT→MT→TNE→T4... each new edition got only a small conversion of players, but grabbed many new ones.
Hero System 5e→6e
Rolemaster Classic → RMSS - such a strong break that they're trying to ge everyone to migrate to RMU...
WFRP 1e →2E→3e→4e... each has built new fans, while alienating old fans.


Looks like Pathfinder 1e→2e is going that way, too...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Looks like Pathfinder 1e→2e is going that way, too...

Its more that PF2e already bifurcated its fandom at the point it was published. People who really did seriously want the D&D3e style experience--with all the things that implies--were not going to appreciate some elements of PF2e which went out of its way to address some of the problem areas that permitted some of those elements. People who liked PF1e despite those elements, or simply avoided it because they didn't feel more need of the warts of 3e were more receptive.

Or were you referring to the, effectively, 2.5 nature of what's coming out soon? If so, most of the objections to that seems to me about Pathfinder shedding some D&D ip to be able to leave the OGL behind by people who are fond of it.

 

[Yora]

I do not believe in such a thing as balance in RPGs.
The mechanics of the game have to be plausible for the fiction of the campaign and produce enjoyable gameplay. That's really the only things that matter.