What do you do without balance?

[Voadam]

Fair =/= balanced.

Balanced is like a handicap in sports. Sometimes it is appropriate. Often it is not.

It is fair that, if I play better, I get to be higher level than you. It is not balanced.

I would rather have fair than balanced, any day.

Nah, fairness is not a relevant concept here IMO. Character level and power is not a meritocratic reward for good play.

If I am a more "skilled" player than my friend Al and play "better" I do not think it will make the game experience better for me or for him or the DM if I am 7th level while he is 5th. I would say PC balance is better for game play than providing different character power levels based on "better play".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whe're talking about different things.

Exactly my point. The baseball analogy fails because it doesn't talk about the same "thing". Different equipment means different rules, not using the rules in different ways.

I'm saying if the optimal character is always a certain type -that's the problem. If for example I present you with 3 different scenarios - say: spying/infiltration, combat superiority (not necesessarily damage output), and survivability and the optimal character for each situation is a spellcaster - the game is skewed toward spellcasters and not balanced between casters and non-casters.

I certainly agree that this is the case. However, as previously stated, I don't accept that the best character for all situations is always a spellcaster. But, were I willing to grant that this was the case, I would equally say that (while not unfair) it might not be to the tastes of someone who wanted more mundane PCs, or a balance between mundane PCs and spellcasters.

And were I willing to grant as well that 3e purported otherwise, I would agree that this was unfair advertising of the product.

But neither of these would alter my initial point, that "balanced =/= fair", and that fair should trump balance. Actually, though, Beginning of the End's post says what I wished to say far better than I did.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nah, fairness is not a relevant concept here IMO. Character level and power is not a meritocratic reward for good play.

If I am a more "skilled" player than my friend Al and play "better" I do not think it will make the game experience better for me or for him or the DM if I am 7th level while he is 5th. I would say PC balance is better for game play than providing different character power levels based on "better play".

This can be true so long as PC level isn't directly linked to the amount of risk undertaken, where a PC of level X is expected to be able to meet a minimum skill level Y at that level in order to succeed.

If a game assumes competent use of the assets available, and success or failure depend upon that competent use, then character level is very much a meritocracy....and the DM does no favours to Joe when he lets him start at 10th level because the other PCs are 10th level. Far better to start Joe at 1st level in a seperate game area, and let Joe learn the system (i.e., earn merit) than to simply allow him to get his sequential 10th level PCs killed (and possibly his companions as well).

And, to be quite honest, character power is always a meritocracy, simply because given the exact same characters, the better player is going to be able to better use that character's abilities to meet his goals.

Unless, of course, the DM actively punishes merit.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Exactly my point. The baseball analogy fails because it doesn't talk about the same "thing". Different equipment means different rules, not using the rules in different ways.

But they do use "different" rules.

One uses the spellcasting system for the main source of his power, the other uses the feat system for the main source of his power.

They're indicated to be "balanced" but in the end one of the systems is the aluminum bat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But they do use "different" rules.

One uses the spellcasting system for the main source of his power, the other uses the feat system for the main source of his power.

They're indicated to be "balanced" but in the end one of the systems is the aluminum bat.

Ummm.......

When I am talking about fairness here, I am talking about fairness to the players. And the players get to choose which "bat" to use, in your version of the analogy.

However......

Just walked to the convenience store & back, and I was thinking about Voadam's post. I am strongly inclined toward sandbox play, and strongly disinclined from AP-style play. (Side note: When and if Cubicle 7's Doctor Who RPG comes out, I'll see if it can change my mind!) If one was playing an AP, the idea of letting Joe start at level 1 and learn the system makes no sense at all; it only applies to games where there are multiple areas and (if lucky!) multiple PC groups of different levels/actual level of experience playing in it.

Of course, no version of WotC-D&D is, by RAW, anywhere near ideal for sandbox play (IMHO). Hence, the memes that support the sandbox paradigm might be dying out (or never have arisen) in some quarters. I was really hoping that 4e would actually flatten the power curve out some, and provide some support for the old sandbox. Even if I wasn't going to play it, it would have been nice to see those memes back in a D&D product.

RC

 

[Fanaelialae]

CONCEPT BALANCE requires that either the flexibility of character creation or the scope of gameplay be limited. This is why lots of people advocating for concept balance focus exclusively on combat, for example: By limiting the scope of gameplay strictly to combat, they can achieve balance.

NATURALISTIC BALANCE allows for the creation of sub-par characters. Avoiding these sub-par characters requires system mastery.

SPOTLIGHT BALANCE requires the GM to actually balance the spotlight. It can also mean that player A needs to sit around and do nothing while player B struts their stuff. (The "decker problem" in Shadowrun is an extreme example of this problem. More typical is the system in which character B has about 80% the effectiveness of character A in situation X, whereas in situation Y the reverse is true.)

These problems can be mitigated in various ways, but not eliminated. They're fundamental to these types of balance.

4th Edition is heavily invested in concept balance, virtually abandoning the spotlight balance which was once the core design principle of D&D. It achieves that concept balance by both limiting the scope of gameplay (as seen in combat) and the flexibility of character creation (as seen in the skill system).

(Some may interpret that as a slam, but it's not. It's just the reality of 4th Edition's design: They traded scope and flexibility for concept balance. Whether that trade-off is worth it depends on how highly you value concept balance.)

I agree that 4E traded most of the Naturalistic Balance for a greatly increased Concept Balance (from the standpoint of prior editions).

I don't agree that they traded Spotlight Balance so much as reduced it's dependency upon the DM (conceptually redefining Spotlight Balance, if you will). The spotlight is more present in 4E (combat) than ever before due to the role system. Defenders are "sticky", controllers redefine the battlefield, leaders crank the party's efficiency to 200%, and strikers pick their desired targets and take them out. Admittedly, there is some degree of overlap, but I doubt you could find anyone complaining that their Cleric is regularly "out-leadered" by the Paladin, much less the Wizard.

In this sense, the spotlight remains but (in combat) isn't as dependent on the DM. One can (relatively) easily demonstrate this premise by building an encounter that favors one role above another. An encounter made up of only artillery role monsters behind tons of hindering terrain would probably favor Strikers while marginalizing Defenders, for example. That is why there is advice in the DMG for what types of enemy roles do and don't favor which PC role.

Spotlight balance also still exists outside of combat, though I would agree that here it is somewhat diminished in many cases (though increased in others). The rogue is still the thieving go-to-guy, for example (high Dex, and gets Stealth and Thievery skills automatically). The fighter could , via feat expenditures, improve his thieving to the point where he wouldn't be a liability to the rogue if he wants tags along on "sneaking missions". He would, of course, be trading efficiency as a fighter for this increased flexibility (the Naturalistic Balance that has been significantly diminished but not entirely eliminated). The Wizard cannot, however, render the rogue's sneaking skills meaningless with his spells. If he wants to be sneaky, he can train the skill as the Fighter did.

In the end, I would agree that a significant amount of reshuffling occurred in 4E with respect to balance, and with a particular emphasis on increasing Concept Balance. Nonetheless, and meaning no offense, I think your statement that 4E virtually abandons spotlight balance is inaccurate. It mostly just reduced the dependency of Spotlight Balance upon the DM, rendering it a more inherent part of the system than in prior incarnations.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Of course, no version of WotC-D&D is, by RAW, anywhere near ideal for sandbox play (IMHO). Hence, the memes that support the sandbox paradigm might be dying out (or never have arisen) in some quarters. I was really hoping that 4e would actually flatten the power curve out some, and provide some support for the old sandbox. Even if I wasn't going to play it, it would have been nice to see those memes back in a D&D product.

Please excuse me if I am crediting the wrong person for this (I definitely read it on ENWorld, but it was sometime last week and I have a terrible memory).

I think it was Irda Ranger who had a proposed solution to flatten the power curve in 4E by removing the +1/2 level bonus from players (for attacks, defenses, etc) as well as the +hit derived from magic weapons/implements, and removing the +level bonus monsters get (to the same). The major difference between high and low level characters would be that high levels deal more damage (from having higher level attack powers), but the low levels would still be able to hit the defenses of high level monsters and thus contribute even when adventuring beside high levels.

That was the basic idea, but I may not have gotten it entirely right. At the time that I read it, I noted it as an intriguing idea but it isn't something I have a use for at the moment.

 

[Scribble]

Ummm.......

When I am talking about fairness here, I am talking about fairness to the players. And the players get to choose which "bat" to use, in your version of the analogy.

Ummm......

Sure fairness to the players I'm right there with you. But you indicated that if you play better then someone else you should be higher level. Ok cool, I follow along with that, but balance between classes has nothing to do with giving someone inexperienced or with less ability a "handicap."

It just ensures all players (despite their position) use the same equipment. If you give one position a metal bat, he has a better opportunity to "play better" then someone else of equal skill level in a different position that for some reason only gets a wooden bat.

If you give one class spells, they have a better opportunity to"play better" then someone without those spells. (despite what the game says.)

If you're saying the game should simply teach you to always play the wizard for "maximum ability to hit a home run" well that's one thing... But I disagree the game should be that.

And it has nothing at all to do with sandbox or not sandbox in my opinion.

 

[Imaro]

I agree that 4E traded most of the Naturalistic Balance for a greatly increased Concept Balance (from the standpoint of prior editions).

I don't agree that they traded Spotlight Balance so much as reduced it's dependency upon the DM (conceptually redefining Spotlight Balance, if you will). The spotlight is more present in 4E (combat) than ever before due to the role system. Defenders are "sticky", controllers redefine the battlefield, leaders crank the party's efficiency to 200%, and strikers pick their desired targets and take them out. Admittedly, there is some degree of overlap, but I doubt you could find anyone complaining that their Cleric is regularly "out-leadered" by the Paladin, much less the Wizard.

I don't know about this one, I've seen the argument that there are fighter builds that out strike the Warlock and Rogue in pure damage capability. Also as more classes come out it does seem as if more overlap is almost inevitable, and finally unless strict balance is always maintained... classes in the same role may have varying levels of effectiveness...like the Invoker who is held up as an example of a better "controller" than the Wizard.

In this sense, the spotlight remains but (in combat) isn't as dependent on the DM. One can (relatively) easily demonstrate this premise by building an encounter that favors one role above another. An encounter made up of only artillery role monsters behind tons of hindering terrain would probably favor Strikers while marginalizing Defenders, for example. That is why there is advice in the DMG for what types of enemy roles do and don't favor which PC role.

But if you can build an encounter that favors certain roles... doesn't this fall in favor of the spotlight being just as dependent upon the DM as any earlier edition?

Spotlight balance also still exists outside of combat, though I would agree that here it is somewhat diminished in many cases (though increased in others). The rogue is still the thieving go-to-guy, for example (high Dex, and gets Stealth and Thievery skills automatically). The fighter could , via feat expenditures, improve his thieving to the point where he wouldn't be a liability to the rogue if he wants tags along on "sneaking missions". He would, of course, be trading efficiency as a fighter for this increased flexibility (the Naturalistic Balance that has been significantly diminished but not entirely eliminated). The Wizard cannot, however, render the rogue's sneaking skills meaningless with his spells. If he wants to be sneaky, he can train the skill as the Fighter did.

And here I totally disagree, much as people claim that niches are preserved in 4e, I think it's easy for a character to step on another's toes if their niche isn't based in combat. A Ranger can easily out thief a Rogue... in fact as long as a class has an attribute focus that coincides with the attribute for the skill(s), it's trivial to spend a feat and usurp a skill-based role in 4e especially with Backgrounds, skill focus, skill training etc. being optional ways to surpass another PC.

In the end, I would agree that a significant amount of reshuffling occurred in 4E with respect to balance, and with a particular emphasis on increasing Concept Balance. Nonetheless, and meaning no offense, I think your statement that 4E virtually abandons spotlight balance is inaccurate. It mostly just reduced the dependency of Spotlight Balance upon the DM, rendering it a more inherent part of the system than in prior incarnations.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing this conclusion at all... spotlight balance, especially with skill challenges and the ease with which one can raise skills (which may or may not conceptually have anything to do with your niche) to high levels, IMO, do much to disprove this conclusion.

 

[Odhanan]

Rules cannot take care of game balance. The people around the table do.

Beyond a certain point, rules' balance is just wishful thinking on the part of the designer. The rules of AD&D and previous editions actually are "balanced" when you count the human factor without which role-playing games really would not be role-playing games into the equation.