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

[Mercurius]

This is semi-forked (sporked?) from the Worst 4th Ed Class thread, in which one of the poll options is "None, all are awesome and balanced." It reminded me of an ongoing mild irk with D&D and role-playing games in general: that everything must be "balanced"--in particular the fact that all races and classes must be equally powerful. While I can understand this on a practical level, the "fantasy traditionalist" in me has never liked it, especially if you take a fantasy world like Middle-earth into account, where in 4E (and other forms of D&D, not to mention other RPGS) a starting hobbit thief and a Noldor wizard apprentice would somehow be roughly equal. Or think of the 3E version of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time: the only way to make Rand and other channelers more powerful was to increase their level; yet in the stories, even from the beginning Rand was more dangerous than most seasoned warriors.

There is one game that consciously--even deliberately--bucks this sacred cow of gaming, and that game is the wonderful Talislanta, in which archetypes (race+class combos) vary widely in power, the idea being to pick something that you want to play based on the idea of it, rather than on how powerful it is. In a sense Talislanta gets around min-maxing by completely eschewing the necessity to min-max: by not trying to balance everything out, min-maxing is unnecessary because it is obvious. You just play what sounds intriguing on the conceptual level ("role"), not the tactical level ("roll").

Ars Magica also comes to mind, but you're supposed to play a Mage; Companions are pretty powerful, but not on par with Magi. And in some sense Ars Magica presents the perfect example for this discussion, because it is very "classic" fantasy: Magi are more powerful than warriors and other professions, but much more rare.

So that little poll option started a short and quick idea tree in which the following inquiry came up: How could one eschew game balance while still using 4ed rules and the "D&D feel", albeit necessarily modified? In other words, what if wizards were ridiculously powerful, more powerful than any other class (but also more vulnerable)? And, perhaps most importantly, how could you encourage people to play non-wizards when D&D is so built around dungeon-crawling, levelling up, and treasure accumulation?

To put it another way, how could you take "game balance"--in terms of classes and races--out of 4E, but still keep it D&D, and still make it enjoyable and playable?

 

[FireLance]

To put it another way, how could you take "game balance"--in terms of classes and races--out of 4E, but still keep it D&D, and still make it enjoyable and playable?

I think you would need find ways for even the mechanically weakest class or race to always be able to make a unique contribution. This may mean enforcing niche protection very strongly, so that no single character (or combination of characters) can completely overlap another character's specialty. This (IMO) was one of the ways that the thief class remained viable pre-3e: there were some in-game challenges for which having a thief in the party was all but required.

This will probably require the DM to put more effort into planning adventures so that they include challenges that give every character a chance to shine (and think of ways to keep the adventure going if that character is not present). For this reason, I believe that balance in an RPG is there to help the DM as much as it is there to keep the players fairly content with their characters relative to those of the other players.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Balance works from a conceptual standpoint, if you take one thing into consideration. The power level of a given individual isn't based on what they do, but their level.

Why can't spellcasters be a bigger percentage of high level individuals? Their lives are certainly less dangerous than those of people who get hit with swords for a living. Its a fantasy archetype that these arcanists steal power, or gain power through years of isolated research. They also tend to have minions for cannon fodder. These are not life threatening pastimes.

This also brings into the fact that spellcaster PCs tend to achieve great power at a far younger age than their literary counterparts. I explain this by the fact that most archmages gain their power over a long period of time through study, while PCs throw themselves into the fire and learn in the field. Learning in the field is far more dangerous, but teaches you more in a shorter period of time.

 

[FireLance]

One other possibility is to allow the players to play more than one character. I'm thinking back to various CRPGs where a single player runs an entire party of characters. Due to niche protection, I wanted to have a thief in the party to deal with traps, but I didn't mind the fact that it was less useful in other circumstances (such as combat) because I was also running the fighter, the cleric and the wizard.

 

[thedungeondelver]

To put it another way, how could you take "game balance"--in terms of classes and races--out of 4E, but still keep it D&D, and still make it enjoyable and playable?

Reintroduce different XP charts for different classes. Take away some "special abilities" that seek to level the playing field (like how now magic-users are always effective in every combat through certain amped up magic abilities). Bring back things like dwarves having the ability to detect stonework traps, new construction, and that sort of thing. Make buying skills outside of your class prohibitively expensive (5:1 seems like a good start). Distribute XP unevenly between characters.

Just a few off-the-cuff thoughts.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

I believe this is less an issue of game balance and more an issue of status equalization. It's all about which kid has the better toys in the sandbox. If you can figure out how to give each player equal status, then it won't matter how mechanically effective their characters are. The problem is mechanical effectiveness and optimization is precisely what many players base status on in the first place.

Personally I'm cool with playing a Watson or Pancho as long as the game and player actions don't render my character irrelevant.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Hmm.. I've been getting tired of "balance" getting in the way of flavor and character concept, myself, for some time now.

It used to be, if you had the shape of something in your mind, you could scrape together the pieces to make it work.

Now "what works" seems to have become very very narrow. No room for mold-breakers, and no hope of survival for those who buck "powerful" for the chance at "nifty".

 

[yesnomu]

Why is balance in a game a bad thing? In fantasy literature, the characters don't have to share a spotlight. In a game, everyone ought to feel roughly equally important and useful to the success of a group. They don't all have to be equally useful all the time, (the rogue will always be a better negotiator than the fighter), but most should be equally useful most of the time.

I think Team Fortress 2 is the best example of this: each of the nine classes fulfills a different role within the group, and each is good at different things. But none is clearly better than any other, and every class has a counter-class who can exploit their weaknesses. It encourages a strongly cooperative experience by having each player do what they're best at, covering each others' weaknesses and making a cohesive team out of the individuals. Any cooperative RPG ought to behave the same way, and crucial to that is making sure everyone can contribute to team success.

If you dislike balance, the simplest way is to go along with thedungeondelver and give out more XP to the characters you want to be more powerful. A Wizard 3-4 levels higher than his buddies will be significantly more effective in most situations.

 

[S'mon]

I'm a fan of Classic BX-BECMI's race-classes; these deal with elves being more powerful than halflings by requiring elves to earn more XP to advance. It avoids the fragile elves of the AD&D-3e-4e line; a BX Elf Lord is pretty awesome compared to a Dwarf Lord also of 9th level, but needed a lot more XP to get there. AD&D used variable XP for classes but ignored race balance; a drow is rodiculously more powerful than a human but needs no more XP. Any balance comes from the greater range of classes available to humans, eg Ranger, Paladin and later Barbarian.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

If you dislike balance, the simplest way is to go along with thedungeondelver and give out more XP to the characters you want to be more powerful. A Wizard 3-4 levels higher than his buddies will be significantly more effective in most situations.

That... only makes someone higher in level than others. The problem people are speaking of with balance is that, more and more, it keeps forcing the mechanics to get in the way of the flavor.