What do you do without balance?

[Voadam]

For years I played in a 1e campaign where 1st level PCs adventured alongside 36th level characters. And I found it awesome. That game was a lot more roleplay and politics and exploration than combat though. Most of the time AC and hp were completely irrelevant.

I've also played in games where power discrepancies really sucked the fun out of the game.

It can depend a lot on the game and the group.

As an ideal I love the concept of PCs being balanced for equal power in combat, each doing different things but contributing and participating meaningfully. This way you can have lots of combat and not have the problems of the unbalanced group. Generally the good things from an unbalanced game can happen in a balanced one just as well.

 

[Cadfan]

Sometimes when people say they don't care for as much balance as modern games provide, what they really mean is they like games that are balanced on "face time" instead of "shared time." When you balance on shared time, you have to make everyone reasonably good at most everything, albeit in different ways. When you balance on face time, its ok if one character sucks at entire scenes, as long as other entire scenes are his strong point. So its ok if the rogue sucks in a fight, as long as he's good at thieving, and as long as thieving comes up once in a while.

 

[Umbran]

I typically use a somewhat broader definition of "balance", but my thoughts seem applicable nonetheless. Balance, alone, is not an issue. Balance (like most other game design goals) needs to be taken in context of a whole game.

If a game isn't intrinsically balanced, then generally speaking some balance must be imposed from the outside for everyone to have a fun time. This can come from players who don't abuse their extra power, or from the GM who designs adventures such that everyone has enough to do. So, in essence, the less balance a game has, the more work people have to do to make it fun for everyone.

Whether that lack is an issue depends on the capacity and willingness to do the work, and how much work the system (or overall running of the game) requires.

If I'm playing a rules-light game, with people who are easy to work with, who share spotlight naturally, and it doesn't require a lot of effort on my part to get the game set up, then balance isn't much of an issue.

If I'm playing with a highly detailed rule set, such that game prep takes many hours, and the players are a bit thick and spotlight-greedy, and it gives me a headache just trying to schedule gaming sessions, lack of balance can be a straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[The Ghost]

Sometimes when people say they don't care for as much balance as modern games provide, what they really mean is they like games that are balanced on "face time" instead of "shared time." When you balance on shared time, you have to make everyone reasonably good at most everything, albeit in different ways. When you balance on face time, its ok if one character sucks at entire scenes, as long as other entire scenes are his strong point. So its ok if the rogue sucks in a fight, as long as he's good at thieving, and as long as thieving comes up once in a while.

This covers half of it. There are also many of us who like "balance over time." Meaning, it is alright for a fighter to be more powerful than a wizard at level one and a wizard to be more powerful at level twenty, etc. The flip side are people who want to see characters "balanced" between themselves on any given level.

 

[Humanaut]

In my 30 years of playing it's never been an issue. I started with Basic, moved to 1e, never fully adapted 2e other than for some houserules.

Only in the last 2-3 years when we converted to 3.5 have I seen, mostly from the large number of extra books avaibable, a need to rein in the options lest some really broken (my opinion) combos be exploited. Even then, everyone still seems to have fun.

Then again, we've generally only gamed up to about 15th level max, frequently stopping around 12th level to start up new. Those are the levels we like I guess.

My main concern for balance is having plenty of challenging encounters for the PCs, with some easy ones so they can smash and feel awesome, and some hard ones to either think harder/ run away/ or die.

Oh Wait! From the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook. The psionicist class, oh yeah, that bit. At like 3rd level you could Dimention Door, then a little after that Teleport and Disintigrate!!!!!!! Granted, it might take up all of your power points, but dang, he just held on to them until the BBEG and then force the save vs disintigrate... ugh. Had he not moved and removed the PC from play, he was going to be the Last psionicist without level minimums for certain powers. He also had energy absorbtion so he was hard to nuke. And a dwarf for great save bonuses.

 

[Gimby]

This covers half of it. There are also many of us who like "balance over time." Meaning, it is alright for a fighter to be more powerful than a wizard at level one and a wizard to be more powerful at level twenty, etc. The flip side are people who want to see characters "balanced" between themselves on any given level.

The issue I've always had with "balance over time", or "face time" balance is that if spotlight time is important to you, then it limits the activities and classes people can play.

For example, you have one character in a party of four who is focused on say, thieving and sucks at all else. In order to share spotlight time equitably you need to ensure that 1/4 of your time is spent on theiving focused activities. Unless you are an excellent DM then this may well limit the situations that the party can be put in.

Or for "balance over time", what if the Fighter is killed at level 8 (or whereever you think casters start pulling ahead) and the player wants to start a wizard? Or even worse, the Wizard gets killed at level 8 and wants to play a fighter?

Balancing at the level of the session or encounter avoids these problems.

 

[Kask]

(For the purpose that I using it here I define balance as "when presented with two or more similar mechanical options there are no clear better or worse choices".)

That's isn't achievable unless the classes are mechanically identical, which means only one class.

A better definition is, "no class is such a 'super class' that it obviates the need for classes outside its category (ie: MU, Divine, Warrior, Rogue).

 

[wedgeski]

I can't really accept your definition of balance, so I'll answer relative to my own notion of balance, which is pretty simple: everyone at the table must feel effective. If I look at any of my players and there are signs of frustration in that respect, I immediately take actions to correct it. You can't really get away from imbalances caused by more effective *players*, but you can certainly start everyone on a level playing field.

I certainly agree with the previous poster who suggests that the net in general, and online multiplayer gaming in particular, might have made some of us hyper-sensitive to balance issues which may not, in the grand scheme of things, matter to many players. It most assuredly applies to me.

I do however think that balanced mechanics (classes, powers, talents, whatever they're called) are hallmarks of good overall design sensibilities, and I doubt there are many professional designers out there who would deliberately write imbalance into a game out of some perceived obligation to the source material, or in the expectation that their player base "would probably be okay with it". I just think the world has moved on from there.

 

[Cadfan]

This covers half of it. There are also many of us who like "balance over time." Meaning, it is alright for a fighter to be more powerful than a wizard at level one and a wizard to be more powerful at level twenty, etc. The flip side are people who want to see characters "balanced" between themselves on any given level.

I'm not 100% sure people think that. People say it, but if they really mean it that would mean that there are people out there who not only like playing a character that they know for a fact isn't very good,
[*] but that they appreciate their character's failings and growing obsolescence over time. I understand that some people feel that its good for the game's flavor if high level magic is incredibly powerful, and mere swordwork becomes obsolete. But that seems more like a desire for a specific environment, not a desire to actually play an obsolete swordsman. I can see enjoying a character who starts weak and grows strong. I don't seem to recall seeing many people enjoy characters who start strong, and eventually suck, unless they have the option to trade the character out at some point.

[*]I'm not talking about characters who aren't good because you've chosen to make them combat-inept for roleplaying reasons, I'm talking about characters who aren't good because the system didn't allow you a choice. So if you're already penning a reply about your character Clumb-dsy the Mute, Pacifist, Tone Deaf Bard, please stop.

 

[CharlesRyan]

For me, balance in a game ensures that there are no (or few) truly suboptimal choices. In a balanced game, I will contribute and feel useful playing any reasonable type of adventuring character. I will not be penalized (with a less effective character) based on that decision.

For games that rely heavily on their mechanical aspects (like D&D, vis a vis combat abilities), I find balance is pretty darn important. If my character sucks, I will have less fun than the player whose character is really effective.

For games that rely less heavily on such elements (like, say, Call of Cthulhu), I find balance much less important. If my character sucks, I can still have a lot of fun, as long as I'm creative in playing out my San incidents!

Even in a balanced game, I might still make suboptimal decisions in service of an interesting character concept. But that's my choice, and the "less fun" I have from being mechanically effective is counterbalanced by the "more fun" I have playing my character concept.