What's The Deal With Balance?

[Silver Moon]

PC balance ensures that no one character thoroughly and blatantly hogs the spotlight, gets all the glory, and receives the majority of playing time. This is, to me, far more important, since everyone deserves their fair share.

Well said.
I'm running into this problem now in one of my campaigns, where two of the characters are now starting to dominate the game and some of the other players have started to complain. One other thing that having an unbalanced party does is make it all the more harder for characters to join the story.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Interesting topic. On a related note, I would be curious to see how various DMs go about balancing a campaign. Are you willing to actively boost a character if it is below par

Not really. After a point, it becomes the DM designing the PC.

help a player who has designed a poor character (and may be compounding that with poor play)?

Yes.

In other words, are you willing to actively work towards balance between different PCs? Or do you prefer a formal approach? Everyone plays by thesame rules and the rules themselves are balanced?

A relatively balanced rule system. If there are problems in the rules, and they're not too big, I can deal with them with house rules. There's only so much effort I'll put into it, before I switch systems. (I jumped from DnD to D20 Modern partially due to such an issue.)

Are there classes that you feel are out of balance?

Yes, and not only that, some concepts (like light fighters) are, by the rules, wimps. (DnD rules, that is.)

If a campaign is set in a dungeon, do you work to give the Druid a chance? If the campaign is fast pace, what about Wizards who need to study? Etc.

Yes. That's something I expect a DM to deal with, rather than rules, since campaigns clearly differ from each other. (What do you mean by "wizards need to study"? It's only fair to give the whole party a full night's rest most nights.)

 

[Tyrrell]

It is important to give all of the players an important role to play. Balance helps with this but on a per session basis I've typically had more fun with Ars Magica (which is deliberately unbalanced) than D&D (which makes a significant effort to provide balance).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

We all secretly await the Chosen one who will bring balance to D&D.

I value balance, such that each PC has a more or less equal potential for fun and group contribution, and rules to the game that make the game worth playing -- where outcomes are not pre-determined, and there are many choices, but none so clearly optimal as to be always taken, or clearly sub-optimal as to be never taken. 3E has achieved that pretty well. If enough people can come here to EN World and argue both sides of an issue as to what is over- or under-powered, without clear consensus, the rules have done their job. Beyond that is all in the application of the DM.

 

[helium3]

Interesting topic. On a related note, I would be curious to see how various DMs go about balancing a campaign. Are you willing to actively boost a character if it is below par, help a player who has designed a poor character (and may be compounding that with poor play)? In other words, are you willing to actively work towards balance between different PCs? Or do you prefer a formal approach? Everyone plays by thesame rules and the rules themselves are balanced? What the players make of it then is their responsibility? Are there classes that you feel are out of balance? And how much are you willing to use storyline to help a character? If a campaign is set in a dungeon, do you work to give the Druid a chance? If the campaign is fast pace, what about Wizards who need to study? Etc. It is one thing to say that balance is important, and quite another to achieve it. I hope this is more of a follow up than a derail, but I would like to see other DMs thoughts on the actual issues that go into trying to maintain balance, espcially between PCs.

It's an interesting question. It's unlikely that I would actively work to make a character more or less powerful if I thought player to player balance was out of whack. From my experience, in any given gaming group at least one player will complain about active intervention on the part of the DM for some reason. What I do try to do is create adventures that play to the strengths of the weaker characters and make the powers of the stronger characters less relevant. Obviously, I don't do this all the time or the players with the more powerful characters would get upset. If challenged (and I've never been challenged on this before) I would simply explain what I'm doing and refer to rule zero. Since I haven't been challenged before, I don't know what happens after that. I'd like to think that the various players would see the wisdom of my decision and leave it at that. But who knows, roleplayers can be a temperamental bunch.

I handle player vs. monster balance somewhat differently. Since I have ultimate responsibility for the difficulty of encounters, I try to employ an approach wherebye there is a vanishingly small chance that a party could accidentally blunder into an encounter where the opponents are far more powerful than the players. I try not to make assumptions about how party members will behave in these types of situations and I make sure that players have lot's of intelligence about how dangerous an area might be if they think about going into it. So, if there's a cave nearbye with a very powerful dragon in it, I make sure that the characters are given that information. If they then decide to attack the dragon, I don't feel bad if they die. Other than that, I pretty much try to stick with the CR system and my own judgement. I don't throw really nasty stuff against the party unless they willfully go into an area where they know there are some tough monsters.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Interesting topic. On a related note, I would be curious to see how various DMs go about balancing a campaign. Are you willing to actively boost a character if it is below par, help a player who has designed a poor character (and may be compounding that with poor play)? In other words, are you willing to actively work towards balance between different PCs?

Characters who are less powerful than others in my games will get a boost. Sometimes by magical item, sometimes with a special power. For example the sorcerer who took a level of rogue didn't get 3rd level spells until 7th level, when a wizard would normally get 4th. I gave him a rod that lets him act as if he has another spell on his known list. A very powerful item for a sorcerer, but it isn't overpowered for his character. I'm also going to give him the power to use sudden metamagic without the feats soon. That should bring him around where the others are in power.

None of the rules say I should do this, but it is a sub-par build for roleplaying reasons. I'm not going to penalize him for that.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't see balance through the rules as a huge big deal. With its niche protection, balance in D&D cannot be achieved solely though the rules, no matter how good they are. A character will shine in the situation for which he is specialized. The rogue with good sneak skills will be the star in a stealth situation, the fighter will shine in combat, and the rogue or bard with social skills will be the focus in interacting with NPCs.

Play balance, as opposed to rules-based balance can be achieved by the DM’s adhering to two simple rules:

1) Challenges should be arranged so that every player has some time in the spotlight within his specialty

2) Every player should be able to contribute meaningfully to overcoming each challenge, even though other player may have more influence in overcoming the challenge

 

[Steverooo]

Interesting topic. On a related note, I would be curious to see how various DMs go about balancing a campaign. Are you willing to actively boost a character if it is below par, help a player who has designed a poor character (and may be compounding that with poor play)?

I have always tried to balance treasures given to the party with an eye towards evening things out, a bit... Low-level treasures are poor weapons. Maybe a +1 Dagger, or 1D12 +1 Arrows. Other items are potions, or scrolls. While a potion may go to anyone, a scroll will go to one of only a few PCs (Cleric/Paladin, Sorcerer/Wizard, Druid/Ranger, and in two of those cases, the Paladin or Ranger won't be able to use most of them)! This is a bit harder, in D&D, because Fighters are proficient with almost EVERY weapon, except the Exotics. While a 1e +2 Scimitar would always go to the Druid (since no one else could use it), this is no longer true.

In any case, by using class and race restrictions, the Arcane/Divine divide, I can manipulate party power, to some extent, merely by pre-planning party treasure. I can leave the Fighter a +1 Spiked Chain, and a Ranger/Druid a Staff of the Woodlands, which while little more powerful, is much more interesting, and useful!

As for "poorly designed characters", I'd say that that happens less often than many think. I've been accused of mine being that way! If I see one that I think is that way, I'll talk to the player, but let them decide. Suggestions and advice are free and easy, but it's their character!

Poor play usually comes from unfamiliarity with the rules, or stubborn PCs/players... I suggest and advise, then regretfully kill off PCs. Usually, after a few "outs", players will either learn, or leave. Someone around here has a sig that says "When players play the Stupid card, I play the Roll Up A New Character card." Another's sig says "If players don't go out of their way to keep their characters alive, why should I?" Personally, I try to keep PC deaths to a minimum, and use other punishments, instead (getting thrown in prison, etc.)

In other words, are you willing to actively work towards balance between different PCs? Or do you prefer a formal approach? Everyone plays by the same rules and the rules themselves are balanced?

A bit of both... a balanced approach!

What the players make of it then is their responsibility? Are there classes that you feel are out of balance?

Yes. I think Sorcerers need a boost. I give every class a boost, of some sort.

And how much are you willing to use storyline to help a character? If a campaign is set in a dungeon, do you work to give the Druid a chance? If the campaign is fast pace, what about Wizards who need to study? Etc. It is one thing to say that balance is important, and quite another to achieve it. I hope this is more of a follow up than a derail, but I would like to see other DMs thoughts on the actual issues that go into trying to maintain balance, espcially between PCs.

I use story rewards, and penalties. Murder the town mayor, and become a criminal. Bounty-Hunters will eventually come looking for you, if you remain in the area. Save the town from certain doom, and you will be rewarded... but you'll also be able to get a free drink when you're dirt poor from some old farmer who remembers, and can crash is the hayloft and have a bowl of turnip stew, when you've got no place else to stay, and no funds to spend. If you turned the Widow-Crafter's daughter from stone to flesh after slaying the Medusa, whatever she makes (say, leatherwork) may be yours for the asking, if she has it in the shop.

If I know that party X is going down into dungeon Y, the challenges and rewards will be made for them, assuming I wrote the dungeon. Even if not, the treasures will be!

I won't always give the party a full night's sleep. Sometimes, logic dictates otherwise. Besides, it can be fun for high-level PCs to have to go without their spells, or weapons, or magic, or whatever, just as a new KIND of challenge! No spells allows the Cleric and Druid to use their weapon skills, allowing the Fighters to shine. No weapons allows the Monks and Druids with Wild Shape to. No magic nerfs a lot of things (Supernatural abilities included). All good tests for higher-level PCs.

Also, "Story Rewards" includes all of those special abilities that PCs pick up along the way, anyhow... My 8th-level PC can become a large cat twice a day, and has some other "Specials", that he earned through adventuring. Inserting these types of abilities into adventures (especially where they won't often be found) can be used to reward the party or parties that find them...

Incidentally, I tend to over-endow my scenarios with treasure, as I usually find that most of my groups don't FIND a lot of it, due to not searching, or searching all the wrong places, then giving up, and NOT searching the right one! (For instance, I once had a PC search everything in a room except for the two footstools... He was so thorough, that he even carefully examined the top of the table for impressions left by a pen! Naturally, the Magical Treasure-box was HIDDEN IN THE FOOTSTOOL, and he searched everything BUT it!) So, a clever PC with good search, who takes the time and "Takes 20" can clean up, in my dungeon, but this is complicated by my asking him "Okay, where are you searching? Are you guys helping him? Okay, you're standing guard? Where are your PCs? Who's searching where, this round?" After they leave, I like to tell them what all they missed (without allowing them to go back). I don't tell them where it was, of course!

 

[WayneLigon]

I know balance isn't important, because I do without it just fine--the important thing is a group of players who see eye to eye on just what sort of game they want to be playing. Actually, I've found that the attempt to "balance" a system is what most encourages players to exploit imbalances, but that's a whole nother conversation.

So what sort of game are you playing, how is it unbalanced and why is that not a problem for anyone? If you're doing an 'all court intrigue, all the time' game and some of the characters are (for instance) vastly different levels but since the focus is not on fighting or skill use or magic then it's not all that unbalancing, I could see that. But such a campaign falls into the category of 'special exception' when the vast majority of D&D games are more High-Fantasy focused. Are you doing this same kind of special exception game, or something totally different.

 

[mythusmage]

Balance? I say its asparagus and I say the hell with it.

You're not playing on a game board trying to achieve some victory goal, you're playing some poor shlub living in an imaginary world trying to achieve some goal. Of course you're going to get into situations where things get hairy. Of course you're going to be dealing with people who are better, and worse than you. And often it'll be the same person, depending on the exact abilities.

In any session you're going to have challenges. How you fare depends on how you handle those challenges. Some will be very easy. Some will be very hard. How you fare in any case will depend on how you handle the situation. Play it dumb and that easy challenge can whoomp your ass. Play it smart and you might actually beat the hard challenge.

Of course, knowing when to run away helps a lot. And this applies to the PCs as well as the opposition.

Where the players are concerned. Let people participate as much as they want to. Not everybody wants to be the lead. Some people are quite happy staying in the background with only a moment or two in the limelight. Don't force people to take a larger role than they're comfortable with.

And if one player takes a leadership role, watch and see what the other players do. They're cool with it, let it be. They're not, tell them to address their concerns to the player in question. It's an in party matter and needs to be dealt with in party.

(Of course, if the dominating player proves to be unreasonable and shows no sign of changing, he'd be better off in another group.)

Challenge, accomplishment, swag, and an enjoyable time; that's what players are usually looking for. But you don't need to 'win' to have a good time. Sometimes getting your butt kicked in a good game can be much more enjoyable than getting everything and the kitchen sink in a bad one.