Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Henry]

Well, since the 3.x era, and certainly in the 4e era, I have seen increasing incidence of some players telling other players what to do on "their" turns. From threads on EN World -- where players have complained about other PC builds not being efficient enough -- I suspect that there are groups out there, right now, where even having separate characters is really an illusion. The operative unit has become, as with Bus Depot Diner, the team.

Oh, you mean like in AD&D when each party had a caller?

Seriously, bossy jerks at the table have been nothing new - but at least in 4E, there are whole classes built around the fact that a person can give their party bonuses if the party allow themselves to be bossed around.

Dare I take it a step farther and suggest the sense of enchantment has been sacrificed on the altar of balance (both real and perceived), along with some other things?

Me, I've perceived it as the game having taken a step back towards the older D&D way of empowering the DM to make the changes needed to shake things up and build that sense of wonder on the fly with magical effects unreproduceable by PCs, monsters and NPCs easily changeable again within the rules, and magic items again possessing unique or quirky effects - but still keeping it in a rules framework that gives the DM a guideline where he is less likely to throw something out there that is well outside the party's range.

 

[Benimoto]

I'd say that a person who gets their panties in a wad about someone not "pulling their weight" in combat in a cooperative game is someone who, by my book, doesn't understand the first thing about playing a cooperative game.

At the same time, if five people get together to play Scepter Tower of Spellgard or one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, and one player is playing a noncombatant, that is not really being fair to the rest of the group.

The scenario you are playing is important here.

 

[Desdichado]

It's really the same thing as the guy who has sand in his crevice about "but it's what my character would do!" -- when that thing is obnoxious to other players, like stealing from party members, or trying to do comedy in a hardball combat-centric adventure.

Both come down to: know your group, make your compromises up-front, make sure they're playing a game you want to play, and don't try to use social blackmail during the game to guilt other people into tolerating your anti-social behavior.

"11: Thou Shalt Fit In", -- N

Absolutely.

At the same time, if five people get together to play Scepter Tower of Spellgard or one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, and one player is playing a noncombatant, that is not really being fair to the rest of the group.

The scenario you are playing is important here.

Oddly enough, we're now playing Rise of the Runelords. And yes, we have our typically bizarre and eclectic group of characters, including a traveling lawyer, a sorcerer who refuses to take Magic Missile and fights with a bladed scarf, a half-orc who's sole purpose in life is to convince everyone that he's a human (and get that Tianese babe in the inn to fall in love with him) and a druid who's in denial about his magical abilities, a rogue who turns into a cat a la Ladyhawke every night, and her knight lover.

 

[billd91]

I think game balance is about having multiple choices when faced with a problem and there is no clear optimal solution. If there is a clear optimal solution the game isn't balanced.

It's not a question of there being an optimal solution when faced with a single problem. You can reasonably expect there be a single optimal solution to a problem (though hopefully, there are other solutions as well even if less optimal).
It's problematic when the optimal solution to every problem is the same solution or comes from too small a set of solutions.

 

[Krensky]

At the same time, if five people get together to play Scepter Tower of Spellgard or one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, and one player is playing a noncombatant, that is not really being fair to the rest of the group.

The scenario you are playing is important here.

I've run Burnt Offerings in FC with a party including both a Medicine focused Keeper (skill monkey, like an Expert on steroids) and a Craft and Haggle focused Courtier (social manipulator). Both are typically non-combatant classes, and these played to type. I needed to beef the converted NPCs up a bit, but it was a pretty straightforward conversion.

Both typically plinked away with their bow (for the courtier) or their knife (Keeper) in a fight. They weren't worthless, but the Courtier didn't contribute much. Due to some lucky rolls and good gear choices, the Keeper
was relatively effective. Both were invariable out of combat. The Keeper for patching the Mage or healing Priestless party up, and the Courtier for typically doubling their take, tripling their Reputation, and generally wrapping the town around his finger.

Both players had fun as far as I can tell. Were they drains on the party?

 

[pemerton]

a game in which no one is allowed to demonstrate any form of personal excellence, while it might be cooperative, is very much liable to bore some folks. And the minute Sue starts showing personal excellence rather than Bob, the game either ceases to be fully cooperative, or fails to reward Sue for her excellence.

It's one thing for the game to allow Sue to demonstrate excellence (this is possible in 4e, for example - clearly some players are better at character building and combat tactics than others, and/or better at skill challenges and using p 42 to advantage than others).

It is a separate question whether, and how, this is to be reflected in the character build rules. The 4e design assumes that all characters will advance at mechanically the same rate, and that the "esteem" rewards that Sue is earning over Bob will work themselves out purely in the metagame. And unlike most boardgames, there is a very rich metagame in which these rewards can take effect (and thus, comparatively speaking, less pressure to ensure that the rewards of success are felt within the ingame context).

A game built in this way is obviously not going to reward a certain sort of competitive personality. But it does not fail to reward all competitive personalities.

 

[BenBrown]

Both players had fun as far as I can tell. Were they drains on the party?

The question isn't whether they had fun, but whether everybody else had fun, and didn't feel like they weren't holding up their end.

If the answer is "yes", that's great. There is nothing wrong with a game involving widely disparate characters as long as there is something for everyone to do, and aren't any long stretches where people either feel useless or dragged down.

I say this as someone who is generally a proponent of game balance. Of course I'm also a proponent of games doing what they say they're going to do, of games doing what they set out to do, and of games which reward interesting play more than digging through supplements to look for optimal combinations.

Still, I'm not going to rain on anyone's fun. If you want to play in a game where the characters are three demigods and a cheesemonger, and all the players and the GM are fine with that and willing to run with it, who am I to say you're doing it wrong.

 

[LostSoul]

It's not a question of there being an optimal solution when faced with a single problem. You can reasonably expect there be a single optimal solution to a problem (though hopefully, there are other solutions as well even if less optimal).
It's problematic when the optimal solution to every problem is the same solution or comes from too small a set of solutions.

Those problems - with one clear solution and no choice to be made - are boring. A game filled with those kinds of situations is going to be boring. It turns the game into Snakes and Ladders. No choices to be made, roll the dice.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, yeah, it's old now. Well I'm feeling old right now (even though I'm probably not.) So there.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]YouTube - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame]


And yes, I could explain the bais against game balance, but I have a feeling that wouldn't go down too well, so I won't.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Those problems - with one clear solution and no choice to be made - are boring. A game filled with those kinds of situations is going to be boring. It turns the game into Snakes and Ladders. No choices to be made, roll the dice.

Don´t think so: in filfe there are optimal situations too. It is only problematic if there is a single optimal solution to every situation. If the optimal solution varies from encounter to encounter and different characters have this optimal solution at hand the game becomes good. If a seemingly optimal solution can be a very suboptimal choice which you can find out through good play and other hints, the game becomes great:

imagine fireball in 2nd edition: very often it is the best solution

- there are monsters that convert fire damage into healing
- maybe the bard can use his bardic knowledge to recite a tale about this monster

- maybe you are in a tight space
- good skills in math can show you that using the fireball will make short work of everything in the room... including you...