How important is game balance to you?

[Morrus]

Game balance can be a controversial topic. Some feel it is paramount, while others feel it is just a tool among many.

Personally, I feel that these days folks seem to view balance as the end goal, while I feel it's just part of the toolset. After all, a perfectly balanced game is this:

Everybody roll 1d6. Highest roll wins.

Fun, eh?

How do you feel about balance?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not the most important thing in the world, but it's probably in the top three goals for game design. A good RPG ruleset should: 1) accurately reflect the game world, 2) be easy and fun to play at the table, and 3) be fairly balanced with a good number of interesting choices.

Obviously, what is considered to be a good number of choices is going to vary from person to person, but the idea is to cut down on the un-interesting choices which tend to result from poor balance. The old D&D model, where your only real choice was in picking a class, was fine because the classes were different enough that your one choice really mattered. The current Pathfinder model, where 90% of the feats and a third of the classes are excluded from serious consideration because they simply can't compete, is not a model which I appreciate.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Somewhere in between Options 1 and 2. It may not be the goal, but it definitely ought to be a goal. Perfect balance is pretty much impossible to achieve, but a class, feat, spell, other such option has to (a) feel like it's strong enough to be worthwhile against most other things in the game, and (b) not be so powerful that it renders every other thing obsolete, thus presenting only the illusion of choice and making anyone else at the table feel like they're not having fun.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I consider a rough balance essential, but how to achieve it will vary from table to table

 

[Arilyn]

Game balance is all about context, and so it is pretty impossible to balance a game perfectly. I think limelight is an idea which works much better. Do all characters have a chance to shine and be cool? Are the players' gaming needs being met? Of course, you don't want obviously sub-standard choices because that's not fun, and can lead to frustration. It's one of the reasons I really appreciate FATE. Players can make what they want, be happy, and trust that it will work in the game.

The old Buffy game worked well too, and did a great job of being able to mix "super heroes" like Buffy, with characters like Xander. Both choices were viable and fun to play.

Some of the recent super hero games have tackled this issue too. How do you balance Super Man with Green Arrow? Older games said, "Don't do this." Newer ones have realized that it works, if they both get a chance to do their thing regularly. Super Man takes on the task that needs massive strength, for example, while Green Arrow is there to make that impossible shot which will bring down the alien ship. Super Man's problems and enemies tend to be more earth shaking, while Green Arrow deals with more street level problems. Obviously, Super Man is way tougher than Green Arrow, but in a well designed game, they can work together, just like in the comics.

 

[was]

..IMO, it's one of many key variables in a good game. It certainly isn't the only one, but it is an important one.

 

[Igwilly]

I consider gameplay to be the most important factor in a RPG. Setting and flavor help to direct the gameplay or make it broad. But a boring game is a boring game.
Balance is a key factor of gameplay. Not the most important, but a key one. Few things are worse than to discover that the character concept around an option won’t be possible because it will be too weak or will be banned for being too strong. If an option is in the book but should not be used, why is the option even there?
And “perfect balance” arguments are really missing the point. It’s impossible to have a perfectly balanced and developed RPG system, but we can reduce imbalance up to a point we feel it’s acceptable.
However, as fellow posters already mentioned, balance is all about the context. It may seem ridiculous to balance a “Normal” fighter against a meteor-evoking wizard, but in the right context, people will think this "normal" is Batman. The fact that Batman is such a popular character proves this point.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

What does "balanced" mean?

Does it mean "every class can contribute equally in combat."?

"Every class can contribute equally in all pillars of the game?"

"Every class is equally good in one pillar and correspondingly bad in all other pillars?"

My answer to most of them is "no, they shouldn't be balanced." Trying to make classes (or species or whatever) whatever ends up in classes that are identical except for minor things. For example, an ice mage who is identical to a fire mage except for replacing "fire" with "ice". Boring.

I like the idea of some classes being much more effective in combat than others. I'd like to see a note in game books saying, "This class is really effective in combat." and, "This class is poor in social interaction." and, "this class has excellent social skills and out-of-combat support, but is not as effective during combat."

Perhaps also, "this class can shine in combat, but you need an excellent grasp of the rules to do so. For experienced players only" as well as, "This is a good class for beginners as there are few mechanics to worry about. It might be boring for experienced players."

Along with this, some instructions in the GMing chapter, "You must include all pillars of the game equally. If your players all choose combat-effective characters, do not decrease the proportion of social and exploration encounters just because all their characters suck at them. Your players made a choice - denying them the consequences of their choice lessens the value of that choice and takes away some of their agency."

 

[kalil]

I find this poll very biased. It basically asks "do you want balance _or_ fun?". In my opinion lack of balance does not add to the fun of the gaming experience. Nor does the fact that available options are reasonably well-balanced in any way deduct from the "fun and flavour" of a game.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Balance is like money,

having it isn't everything,

not having it is.