Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I disagree.

(1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO. I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results. 1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.

What is the unit of measure for balance?

Not picking on you specifically, RC. I'm just amused by the ongoing conversations about this, and think it would be interesting to divine the first principles.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree.

(1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO. I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results. 1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.

(2) This is not an assumption. IF balance is always good, THEN if improving balance is good to do once, it will still be good to do it N+1 more times.

That the result is absurd only demonstrates that "balance" is not always good.

That it may be good to remove or revise classes demonstrates that "balance" is not always bad.

1) If balance is not measurable, and I do not believe it is, especially as you get closer to a balanced scenario, then your statement here is fairly meaningless.

2) No, it is absurd, because it assumes that balance is the only element of a game that has value. To do it N times until you have... what, one class left? is not good, because diversity also has value. You'd have a perfectly balanced scenario, but the cost of achieving that balance would be too high.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What is the unit of measure for balance?

What is the unit of measure for an emotional state?

I am certain that you would agree that you can be more or less happy, whether or not a formal unit of measurement does (or can) exist.


RC

 

[nightwyrm]

I find that some of the talk about balance is simply arguements about genre appropriateness and disagreement about which genre D&D should fit into.

Let's talk about Buffy. In a show about the supernatural and fighting vampires, it would simply be a bad idea to introduce a main character who has no combat ability, no connection with the supernatural and no desire to engage in the supernatural. Every character in that show eventually gained some combat ability over the seasons even if it was just to survive.

Similarly, if you introduced Buffy, who has no medical knowledge or hospital expertise, into a medical drama, she would be a useless character. If you take a look at the entries for The Scrappy and The Load at tvtropes, you'd find that a lot of them are simply characters who don't fit into their show's genre.

I just think that a lot of the stuff about balance being thrown around is due to a) picking a genre/focus for a game and b) making sure characters are built to fit into said genre/focus.

 

[Raven Crowking]

2) No, it is absurd, because it assumes that balance is the only element of a game that has value. To do it N times until you have... what, one class left? is not good, because diversity also has value. You'd have a perfectly balanced scenario, but the cost of achieving that balance would be too high.

No it does not; it only assumes that increasing balance is always a good thing.

As soon as you add the cost to increasing balance, you deny that base assumption. In other words, it should be pretty clear to anyone that increasing balance is not always a good thing.

All that remains is to determine the cut-off point, and that will vary by individual taste.

Thus, the question posed by the thread is answered.


RC

 

[Nifft]

I disagree.

(1) This should be taken as a given, IMHO. I believe that it is demonstrable, in any game system, in any edition, that every time a choice is made regarding character build, some level of imbalance results. 1 = 1 is balance; 1 =/= 1 indicates some form of imbalance.

Nope. "Unequal" is different from "imbalanced".

Two choices may be equally good, but under different sets of circumstances. That's a valid, balanced choice.

(2) This is not an assumption. IF balance is always good, THEN if improving balance is good to do once, it will still be good to do it N+1 more times.

That's not what he actually said, of course.

However, your marginally less absurd version retains the crucial absurdity: removing imbalance N+1 times implies that there will always be imbalanced elements. That is an assumption, and it's one that's rather more defeatist than I'd expect of a budding game designer.

That the result is absurd only demonstrates that "balance" is not always good.

Or it might be a demonstration that not everyone understands "balance".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nope. "Unequal" is different from "imbalanced".

Two choices may be equally good, but under different sets of circumstances. That's a valid, balanced choice.

I do not know how to answer that without specific examples, and I don't want to be accused of "edition warring".

Suffice it to say that we are now conflating different meanings of the word "balanced"; I certainly agree that different games and different editions have meant different things by "game balance".

However, I am not aware of any bias against "game balance" as you have defined balance here.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

No it does not; it only assumes that increasing balance is always a good thing.

Which is, as Nifft pointed out, an absurd assumption.

As soon as you add the cost to increasing balance, you deny that base assumption. In other words, it should be pretty clear to anyone that increasing balance is not always a good thing.

All that remains is to determine the cut-off point, and that will vary by individual taste.

Indeed. Since there's no qualitative way to measure balance anyway, the "will vary by individual taste" could be a shorthand for the entire answer to the question posed at the beginning, really.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which is, as Nifft pointed out, an absurd assumption.

I am pretty sure that the whole point of Aberzanzorax's post was that it was an absurd assumption. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed. Since there's no qualitative way to measure balance anyway, the "will vary by individual taste" could be a shorthand for the entire answer to the question posed at the beginning, really.

Agreed.

Which makes one wonder why the question would need to be posed at all.

Luckily, there are a lot of games out there, with different levels and types of balance. And even the ones that aren't particularly suited to one's personal tastes usually have elements worth swiping!


RC

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I am pretty sure that the whole point of Aberzanzorax's post was that it was an absurd assumption. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Correct.

The point is, that if we Reify balance as some perfect and measurable thing...

Then my post makes/made sense. But my post WAS absurd....hence balance should not be reified.



The responses to my post were exactly right...that balance is NOT the holy grail of gaming...that there are other factors to balance, er...weigh, against it, that it cannot be perfectly quantified...etc.etc.etc.


One thing I will disagree with...unless two classes are exactly the same, on the Reductio Ad Absurdum level...they are not balanced. Maybe they're balanced across x or y...but to EVEN BE ABLE to show that there is a situation where one is quantifiably better..well then they're not balanced.

I.E. in a game that is "all fighting, no socializing" a fighter is a much, much better class than a bard.

In a game that is all stealth, cloak and daggers, traps, infiltration, etc...a thief is a MUCH better class than a fighter.


That's situation specific some may say...of course. But this (further abusurdity) goes to point out that this is the case with some of the arguments earlier in the thread. For both editions mentioned, it has been said that "D&D is a game of combat"...I disagree personally, but if this is said, then the "situation" for one who believes that defines the bard and rogue as worse than the fighter.


In essence...it's all absurd. The very nature of "balance" is not defined so we might as well be talking about which game is more Fugglewumpy than the other. (Which, of course is my game of choice!)

I play the most Balanced and Fugglewumpy D&D of all (homebrewed of course).

Edit: and so do you.