The Problem of Balance (and how to get rid of it)

[Imaro]

It's a trope of games to be balanced.

Some games... others not so much. In the end I think it's a trope of games to be fun, which is subjective and thus why there are so many different games.

I think this is true, but I feel it's best handled by DM judgment/ad-hoc rulings, not the rule system. I'm all for letting a character do things well outside the scope of the rules when it makes dramatic sense/seems fun to, but that doesn't imply that a deliberately unbalanced system is a smart design choice.

Whether it's a smart design choice or not depends on what is trying to be achieved by the game. Balance in and of itself is no better or worse than imbalance dependent upon what the participants of the game consider fun. Again nWoD is quite an enjoyable and IMO well designed (for it's purpose) game, yet I don't think it has "balance" as an imperative.

At some point the game has to be game. Where that point is, however, is open to some debate

Balance has nothing to do with whether something is a game or not... it's a preference in design, pure and simple and has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether something is a game or not. You seem to be trying to claim it is inherently better for a game to be balanced when in actuality... it's not.

 

[Imaro]

And what if a GM is not good enough to do this?

Uhm... the same thing that happens if he can't design an enjoyable encounter based purely around combat, or an enjoyable skill challenge... I mean what is so hard about looking at your players sheets, seeing what they have raised the highest and creating challenges with those skills in mind (or even just asking them about their interests)?

To have them all involved It's basically the same as creating a 4e skill challenge, where combat can also take place... It's just like in the movies where one person is fighting off enemies, another is diffusing a ticking bomb and a third is keeping the surveillance team busy by conning them, all at the same time. I guess maybe I'm not understanding the question... good enough to do what exactly?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I guess maybe I'm not understanding the question... good enough to do what exactly?

Well the way you and so many other people who say the exact same thing make it seem is that the GM has to already be a master of doing this juggling of challenges, or you assume that everyone who tries becoming a GM will eventually be able to learn. But not everyone is going to be as competent figuring out how to challenge multiple times the guy whose specialty is "rare fabrics". Some people have a limit as to how many different ways they can think a thing can be used.

Balanced systems exist to minimize the existence of one-use abilities/skills/traits for the sake of those who cannot handle them.

 

[GlaziusF]

Can the concept of "beastmaster" be done in 4e... certainly, will that concept necessarily play or feel like the archetype one has read about, seen on tv, etc... not necessarily, why? Because it wouldn't be balanced.

Well, there's balance and then there's balance. One of the things 4E tries to do is balance DM attention per player.

I mean, if I can glance down at my laptop and finish up an entire excursion in Diablo by the time your beastmaster has finished resolving the actions of his wolf pack, 5 horses, pouch full of ferrets, and summoned swarm of honeybees, there's a problem.

 

[yesnomu]

I don't necessarily see this as a problem, especially in systems where these "single-player games" are resolved quickly and with a minimum of rolls (unlike hacking in Shadowrun or Cyberpunk). If I choose an area of expertise... I made a conscious choice because I want to shine... not depend on someone else at that point.

Sure, quick rolls where some characters are better than others I don't have a problem with. It's things like entire fights are decided by the spellcasters' first rounds, or a dungeon of traps that only the Rogue is equipped to disarm, that bother me.

Shouldn't any DM cater their campaign to their players (perhaps this is what should be taught to new DM's as in the long run it will create a better play experience for all involved as opposed to a one size fits all mentality)... I mean honestly in any system where the characters have at least a minimum of relevant choices in character creation... there will be variability and thus the GM has to take into account that variability. As far as "telling the story they want to tell"... I don't think a GM should be striving for this, He should be letting the PC's create the type of story they want to create by using the characters they enjoy playing.

Of course the GM needs to cater to players, but this should be as easy as possible-- you don't want to force every session to have an Eigen Plot just so the poorly-balanced character can work. Ideally, a new GM could just throw together some cool ideas they have, and have it work out reasonably balanced. A better GM will always give the players a better experience, but the game system should make it as easy as possible.

Plus, the lazie--um, more time-pressed GMs will often run published adventures, which run much more smoothly if everyone is able to contribute.

I think this only applies when trying to balance around one specific aspect of a game. I mean the generalist is not suppose to be as good at combat as the master warrior, but if your game is balanced only around combat you run into a big problem here... since no other yardsticks of measurement are considered... The funny thing is that in doing this (balancing around one specific thing) you have no choice but to limit and focus the game on that aspect as opposed to others.

Huh? I'm talking about 3.5's system here, the Bard and the Druid. They were both supposed to be generalists, but the Druid could do everything well (simultaneously!) and the Bard couldn't do anything well. They're a perfect example of why generalists are extremely hard to get right in a class-based game, both in and out-of-combat. Specialization is easier to design, and leads to stronger teamwork to cover weaknesses (see my TF2 example earlier).

I'm curious how one "shines" when everyone is equal? I mean IMO, that's booring... especially, again, when your players aren't all focused on combat. Another thing is that sometimes adversity is fun to overcome... in other words, some of the fun of the game is actually figuring a way to be active in a situation where one may be at a disadvantage.

See before, everyone contributes in different ways. Sometimes there's a pit the Fighter's strong enough to jump across easily and tie a rope down, sometimes there're ancient runes the Wizard can cast Comprehend Languages and read, sometimes there's a nasty trap the Ranger spots and the Rogue disarms.

I'm curious, why is your definition of "balance" centered around combat? Let me ask you a question... In 4e why do certain classes like the Fighter (3 skills) get way less skills than say the Rogue (6 skills)... I mean is this "balanced", especially since one can gain XP for using skills. Honestly if the classes are balanced in combat, why the giant disparity in what they can do outside of combat?

Lanefan was discussing "round-to-round" balance, and I was answering likewise. In combat, the different roles contribute to success in different ways.

Fighters get fewer skills because fighters have always gotten fewer skills. Roughly, the more HP you get, the fewer skills. I don't like it personally, and I think out-of-combat balance needs to be worked on. Generally, though, all characters in a party will have some skills they excel at, which helps everyone shine at different points. See the noncombat examples above.

 

[Imaro]

Well the way you and so many other people who say the exact same thing make it seem is that the GM has to already be a master of doing this juggling of challenges, or you assume that everyone who tries becoming a GM will eventually be able to learn. But not everyone is going to be as competent figuring out how to challenge multiple times the guy whose specialty is "rare fabrics". Some people have a limit as to how many different ways they can think a thing can be used.

Balanced systems exist to minimize the existence of one-use abilities/skills/traits for the sake of those who cannot handle them.

Emphasis mine... I see what you did there, go with something totally absurd to try and make your point. Imo, your general statement is no different to saying... hey some of us will never learn to make interesting and tactically challenging combats... How does the balance help this in anyway... balance can't impart creativity or imagination

In the end if you want to get better... You practice, experiment, go on the internet and ask for advice, etc. Also I doubt one specific skill will be the only one this character has ever raised throughout the whole game over 20/30 levels. Your situation as presented is really absurd. You focus on the skill(s) the player is most interested in... not the skill. Same as every challenge wouldn't be conquerable by using acrobatics... all the time.

I mean honestly, I'll bite on rare fabrics... here's a few.

In the middle of a fight, in a burning room, you realize the curtains are made of a rare fire resistant fabric.

The witness claims that a Hobgoblin killed the Cleric of the village, yet you find a small piece of fabric clutched in the dead clerics hand made from a rare fabric only the most blessed in his own order wear.

The ancient Jungle dwellers of Amn present you with three sheets of cloth, one is for burial, one is for you to wrap upon your shoulders and one is to be presented to their king. You realize that the first sheet of cloth is associated with a rare fabric known for it's connection to the dead...etc.

The beggar hands you he crumpled parchment, and as you take it from him you notice his gloves are made from a rare fabric, many wealthy nobles wear called {insert rare fabric}. Perhaps he is no beggar after all


In the end, something like this shouldn't happen in every adventure session... but this along with the DM/GM using the character's other skills to draw from, results in PC's being able to use the skills they are interested in to impact the game and resolve conflicts. Though it also falls on the PC to suggest uses of the skills as well... They can ask if a fabric is rare or unusual... and as a good DM/GM, say yes is usually the motto

 

[Badwe]

I have to disagree completely with the premise of this thread. The concept of balance as a hindrance is completely idiosyncratic, and held aloft only by the promise of "Well, I won't break the system."

As other posters have pointed out, lack of balance STIFLES creativity because it creates character build options that, because they are subpar, will almost never be taken. Further more, the possibility of total corner case specialization, propped up by a DM concocting scenarios where the player's obscure abilities are FINALLY giving their time to shine sounds like a nightmare to play! If my druid can only do half of their skills, the good half, in the woods, why would i ever leave? And what does the rest of the party get to do while i play my hordes of summoned and trained animals? I could be taking 10 or more actions while the fighter waits desperately for their chance to make a single full round attack.

I will agree that an overemphasis on balance can limit options, but that is also bad design because it demonstrates a lack of ability to explore new and untapped design space. And really all that has been proposed in the absence of a system with balance is that it becomes the DM's job to carefully maintain and juggle balance, concocting scenarios to both keep some players afloat and prevent unbalanced characters from getting out of control. You know, that sounds like a lot of work that a DM wouldn't even NEED to do if they started with a system that was already balanced.

Why would I want to start a system that, from the outset, promised me that i would have to do more work just to create a sense of balance? Not only that, but then at any given point, I risk losing the fun of my players. Either I failed to create a scenario that favors one player's overspecialization, or I find myself having to come down on a strong player, and he can't shake the feeling that i'm just creating encounter after encounter to thwart him. Frankly, he might be right, in that the other players with their weaker, specialized builds, have succeeded in foiling themselves.

Yes, D&D is a fantasy game, but don't forget the GAME part. A game requires that interesting, MEANINGFUL decisions can be made by EVERY player on a regular basis. Balance enables this by making more decisions comperable at any given time.

 

[Imaro]

Well, there's balance and then there's balance. One of the things 4E tries to do is balance DM attention per player.

I mean, if I can glance down at my laptop and finish up an entire excursion in Diablo by the time your beastmaster has finished resolving the actions of his wolf pack, 5 horses, pouch full of ferrets, and summoned swarm of honeybees, there's a problem.

That's great, but again there's balance and there's balance... one animal that can only act if you choose not to seems to have gone too far, at least for me, towards balance and away from feel or tropes. Again, as I stated earlier balance is a preference thing not something that can objectively be proven to be better where a game is concerned.

 

[Imaro]

I have to disagree completely with the premise of this thread. The concept of balance as a hindrance is completely idiosyncratic, and held aloft only by the promise of "Well, I won't break the system."

As other posters have pointed out, lack of balance STIFLES creativity because it creates character build options that, because they are subpar, will almost never be taken. Further more, the possibility of total corner case specialization, propped up by a DM concocting scenarios where the player's obscure abilities are FINALLY giving their time to shine sounds like a nightmare to play! If my druid can only do half of their skills, the good half, in the woods, why would i ever leave? And what does the rest of the party get to do while i play my hordes of summoned and trained animals? I could be taking 10 or more actions while the fighter waits desperately for their chance to make a single full round attack.

I will agree that an overemphasis on balance can limit options, but that is also bad design because it demonstrates a lack of ability to explore new and untapped design space. And really all that has been proposed in the absence of a system with balance is that it becomes the DM's job to carefully maintain and juggle balance, concocting scenarios to both keep some players afloat and prevent unbalanced characters from getting out of control. You know, that sounds like a lot of work that a DM wouldn't even NEED to do if they started with a system that was already balanced.

Why would I want to start a system that, from the outset, promised me that i would have to do more work just to create a sense of balance? Not only that, but then at any given point, I risk losing the fun of my players. Either I failed to create a scenario that favors one player's overspecialization, or I find myself having to come down on a strong player, and he can't shake the feeling that i'm just creating encounter after encounter to thwart him. Frankly, he might be right, in that the other players with their weaker, specialized builds, have succeeded in foiling themselves.

Yes, D&D is a fantasy game, but don't forget the GAME part. A game requires that interesting, MEANINGFUL decisions can be made by EVERY player on a regular basis. Balance enables this by making more decisions comperable at any given time.

So basically you prefer balance... yet this in no way is necessary for interesting, meaningful, decisions to be made within a game. I mean aiding another, depending on what is happening in the game, can be a meaningful and interesting decision dependant upon the circumstances of the game.

In fact I would argue that the peculiar nature of rpg's, in which one is allowed to think and perform outside of a box (the established rules system), would mean that one always has the possibility of making meaningful decisions, that may or may not be covered by the rules. In the end I believe your argument is more based upon having a good GM/DM who offers opportunities to make those choices for each player than any rules set. I mean using my at-will (once my daily and encounter powers are gone) every round isn't a particularly interesting or meaningful decision on a flat featureless battlefield while fighting one solo. But it's part of the "balance" of the game. Of course if the DM/GM puts some work into it, (like with any game system), it could become interesting and meaningful.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I see what you did there, go with something totally absurd to try and make your point. Imo, your general statement is no different to saying... hey some of us will never learn to make interesting and tactically challenging combats... How does the balance help this in anyway... balance can't impart creativity or imagination :confused
........................................
Also I doubt one specific skill will be the only one this character has ever raised throughout the whole game over 20/30 levels. Your situation as presented is really absurd. You focus on the skill(s) the player is most interested in... not the skill. Same as every challenge wouldn't be conquerable by using acrobatics... all the time.

But it can ease the need to keep the systems balanced.

The point of the absurd example is that the player has spent points on one skill that some GMs are going to have a hard time figuring out how to challenge enough times to make it mechanically worth the purchase. The idea of balance is to attempt to eliminate any choices that are either costed more than their amount of usefulness would suggest, or are costed less than their amount of usefulness would suggest.

In the end if you want to get better... You practice, experiment, go on the internet and ask for advice, etc.

It doesn't hurt to have a backup in case none of that works.

In the end, something like this shouldn't happen in every adventure session... but this along with the DM/GM using the character's other skills to draw from, results in PC's being able to use the skills they are interested in to impact the game and resolve conflicts. Though it also falls on the PC to suggest uses of the skills as well... They can ask if a fabric is rare or unusual... and as a good DM/GM, say yes is usually the motto

You make the point both here and above that the character should have multiple skills to draw from. Multiple options. But that's one of the things the balance argument is striving for: the idea that any given PC has multiple options they can draw upon so they are not sitting on the sidelines because of their mechanics. Again, the point of the absurd example is that the skill has only application and figuring out how to apply that application enough times to make the skill's purchase worth giving up what other options could be purchased may be beyond some GMs.