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

[Imaro]

Can you give an example Imaro? Can you give me a scenario where you could have a Batman and a Superman character that would be enjoyable and require cooperation between the characters? Where Superman doesn't just solve the scenario and leave Batman twiddling his thumbs in the Bat Cave?

Yep, Lex Luthor helps a powerful being (comparable to Superman) escape but uses a drug, device, etc. to control it's mind. He then sends it as well as a team of highly trained specialists to retrieve a sample of kryptonite from and eccentric collector in Gotham City. Once they arrive there Superman, must battle the super-powered being and save the innocents who are put in harms way, while Batman infiltrates the highly secure home of the eccentric collector to stop the specialist team from stealing the kryptonite. Now aside from the customary reconnaissance Superman and Batman would do, Batman would use connections in Gotham (especially since Superman isn't familiar with the city) to discover what the collector has, etc. They both have a battle with side stuff at the end, especially since Superman can't get near the kryptonite.

Yes, it would have to be fleshed out more, especially for the non-combat stuff but this is off the cuff.

EDIT: And if kryptonite ain't your thing Superman is just as vulnerable (probably moreso) to magic.

EDIT 2: In the end Batman is willing to do, and go places that Superman isn't. As an example...Batman will beat a criminal halfway to death to get info, Superman won't and everyone knows it.

 

[Hussar]

Yep, Lex Luthor helps a powerful being (comparable to Superman) escape but uses a drug, device, etc. to control it's mind. He then sends it as well as a team of highly trained specialists to retrieve a sample of kryptonite from and eccentric collector in Gotham City. Once they arrive there Superman, must battle the super-powered being and save the innocents who are put in harms way, while Batman infiltrates the highly secure home of the eccentric collector to stop the specialist team from stealing the kryptonite. Now aside from the customary reconnaissance Superman and Batman would do, Batman would use connections in Gotham (especially since Superman isn't familiar with the city) to discover what the collector has, etc. They both have a battle with side stuff at the end, especially since Superman can't get near the kryptonite.

Yes, it would have to be fleshed out more, especially for the non-combat stuff but this is off the cuff.

EDIT: And if kryptonite ain't your thing Superman is just as vulnerable (probably moreso) to magic.

EDIT 2: In the end Batman is willing to do, and go places that Superman isn't. As an example...Batman will beat a criminal halfway to death to get info, Superman won't and everyone knows it.

So, basically, your answer is to nerf Superman. Either use magic or kryptonite in EVERY adventure to level the playing field.

Why not just use balanced classes in the first place and then you don't need to do that?

And, note, you didn't really have one scenario where they cooperate. You have two solo adventures where the heroes don't even talk to eachother. That's pretty much how the comic books handle it too. But, telling me to go play Xbox while Batman has his turn is not my idea of a fun night.

 

[Hussar]

And this tidbit is cross posted from the gunpowder thread:

Herein lies the entirety of my problem.

I know muskets weren't accurate. That's my point. None of them were. But the only time "realism" is demanded is when the topic of "Everything but bows should suck, how do we justify this?" comes up. So in previous editions, crossbows were just bows with no extra strength damage and stupid reloading times with no extra bonus until later when Crossbow Sniper came out - they were literally "Bows that just suck a lot more, oh and wizards can use them." And even with crossbow sniper, they were still mostly just "bows that suck, but I guess you can make one build that isn't completely crap with them."

I'm not saying bows should suck, and that firearms should be the only ranged weapon used ever. I'm saying that no weapon should be the "USE THIS AND ONLY THIS FOREVER" weapon. Give crossbows, bows, and firearms each a different advantage so players can go "Oh man, crossbows are awesome, I want to use one!" instead of "Oh man, crossbows are awesome...thematically! But my god do they suck too much to use it!"

Bingo! THIS is what happens when you ignore game balance.

 

[Imaro]

So, basically, your answer is to nerf Superman. Either use magic or kryptonite in EVERY adventure to level the playing field.

Why not just use balanced classes in the first place and then you don't need to do that?

And, note, you didn't really have one scenario where they cooperate. You have two solo adventures where the heroes don't even talk to eachother. That's pretty much how the comic books handle it too. But, telling me to go play Xbox while Batman has his turn is not my idea of a fun night.

wait a minute...the kryptonite is used as a macguffin not to "nerf" superman in my example he would still have to handle the super-being before trying to save himself anyway, because that's Superman.

It is one scenario. Look, the investigative stuff can happen together (perhaps Superman can't get a thug to divulge info, but Batman scares it out of him and of course they have their "moral discussion moment" for roleplaying purposes). I mean even the battles can happen within the same area, with them fighting different foes (I'm not writing a whole module out to answer a question on a forum). Or do you feel they have to be fighting the exact same enemies in the exact same place at the exact same time... now that's limiting.

As far as why not just have balanced characters... because something has to be sacrificed to achieve this artificial balance... and sometimes I want to play Batman, because he's cooler than Superman to me... and the power difference doesn't matter because IMO, that's what makes Batman cool.

 

[Mercurius]

But isn't a "luck" quality just balance in another form? Let's say you give halflings a -4 penalty to Strength but give them a +2 luck bonus to all Strength checks and rolls. What have you accomplished, exactly?

Yes, it is a form of balance--but it is not combat-focused, which is what Explorer Wizard was getting at. See, I'm not opposed to balance, per se, just when it homogenizes diversity, uniqueness and imagination. Again, it is the cart and horse thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Balance is good.

Hegemony is not.

EDIT: To elaborate a little, the Superman idea and the Shadowrun idea all rely on balance being different in different situations. In part, this is the same thing that earlier editions did: Fighters were good in combat, Rogues were good at exploration, Wizards were good at everything (but less reliably than either of those), and Clerics were good at nothing (maybe negotiations?), but could keep the Fighters and Rogues on their feet.

4e is all about the combat. Exploration, negotiation, and whatnot, are considered entirely secondary to beatin' on the goblins. Combat balance is the ONLY balance, and it's the only place that allows for some variety (the four roles, for instance).

Other resolution mechanics do not have the same focus, the same concerns, or the same detail, so balance in those ways is enforced by making everyone the same -- hegemony.

There's not a lot of hegemony in combat in 4e (especially compared with earlier editions!), but when the swords are sheathed, everyone is pretty much identical.

This is born out of a very good philosophy, one that 3e began: the idea that story and fluff should not influence combat balance. You can't balance something with "rarity" in the campaign world. You can't balance something with roleplaying restrictions. This is a very good idea, and 4e silo'd it even harder away.

My post in the Noncombat Roles thread from a while ago went into this: the idea that combat is just one extended resolution mechanic, and that 4e could benefit from having more than the deeply flawed "skill challenges" as a way to figure out what happens with the kinds of challenges that don't require dead goblins.

 

[Ahglock]

Balance is good.

Hegemony is not.

Yep.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

@ Imaro:

So what if a GM is faced with a Superman and a Batman can't come up with ideas that fairly challenge both?

 

[Umbran]

Or do you feel they have to be fighting the exact same enemies in the exact same place at the exact same time... now that's limiting.

In your D&D games, balanced or not, how often do you split the party such that the climax of the adventure is happening in two completely separate fights?

'Don't split the party" is a rule more for just tactical reasons. In general, it is a bit of a GM's nightmare, making session management a real pain. maintaining interest and tension in two separate scenes is not easy, much less something you want to do regularly.

We needs ideas useful for having Superman and Batman working together not just in one scene, or one adventure, but over the course of an entire campaign. One can manage just about anything for the duration of one adventure, but long term sustainability is a different beast.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Actually, its not this. Rather it is the indeterminacy factor--the rules, especially dice rolling, ensure a sense of danger, of chance. Even if all the players know that the DM can pull his Fiat out of the garage at any time, they still have to roll the dice, they still have to avoid missing three saving throws after they go below 0 HP (one of my favorite idiosyncrasies of 4e).

In some ways the whole D&D experience is centered around rolling a die...I mean, making a crucial attack roll when the party is almost down and out...isn't that what D&D players live for? But the story, the context in which the die roll occurs, is what brings it to life. So my point is not that you have to choose between mechanics and imagination, not at all, but that mechanics should serve imagination (and story), not the other way around.

Yes! Yes.. Exactly! Yes.

Ok, tell you what. Tell your players next campaign that you will randomly pick one player to get ten levels on everyone else. That player will start at 11th level, while everyone else starts at 1st. That's what you want isn't it? Unbalance apparently makes the game more interesting. See what kind of reaction you get.

Or, in a 3e game, two random players start with 40 point buy characters while everyone else starts with 15 point buy. That would work. Nicely creates the disparity you claim spurs creativity.

Okay.. Now you just proved you aren't paying attention to point the other side is trying to make at all.

So, basically, your answer is to nerf Superman. Either use magic or kryptonite in EVERY adventure to level the playing field.

Why not just use balanced classes in the first place and then you don't need to do that?

Because then NObody gets to play Superman or Batman.