Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Garthanos]

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.

One of the elements mentioned earlier that was burried in a big post that received a warning pointed out that ...characters who inspire people to fight for them and who are a in character "hiding and screaming" ... actually work well in 4th edition and the key component isnt even something brand spanking new (The Warlord). When I built my Frodo baggins character I did build him with some of the latest rules... probably because I wanted him to be very good at hiding and made him hybrid rogue and warlord. ;-).

Frodo isnt a comedy relief but I do find the warlord useful for building comedy relief characters (out of genre characters). Non combatant In the middle of the fight get themselves in trouble almost constantly and coincidently the real heros are always in the right place to save them.

Warlord doesnt have to be visualized exactly this way but it really lends itself to it.....and the warlord is actually an under appreciated class.

Did you catch that element ... Players through their characters powers and how they visualize them are often given control over "coincidence" it is not a pure province of die rolls or even dm fiat. There is some role changes in 4e and it isnt about defenders and strikers. Its in DM and Player categories. Absorbing the difference is not necessarily at first glance but for me its significant.

[sblock=quoting myself about DM and Player Roles in 4e]
Role playing games have explicit limited set of mechanics which are used to govern/under-pine the nearly infinite actions a character chooses to take.

In 4e the player is encouraged to visualize the infinite choices the character can take in terms of that more finite set of mechanics and differentiate them narratively...Character says I can sing thousands of songs but the Player looks at the character sheet which only lists ... "Rock Blues" and "Hot Dance". . The character may want to do something plausible like do a romantic dance it isnt in the characters specialties but seems obvious to the player and DM it is plausible. So the DM excercises her job..and uses page 42 to extend the games mechanics ie to stretch or take off the lid

... she has less job than she used to involving converting from narrative to simple mechanics a lot of those have been given to the player, but her job of being an enabler for going beyond the explicit rules is now even more important. And there are actual guidelines for it.. Page 42 is used as a short cut reference for this but it is not limited to being expressed on pages 42/43, that say "yes, but.." philosophy applies directly to the idea of opening up the mechanics .. and DMG guidelines encourage doing it in a controlled sort of way.

Somebody reading the players perspective and ignoring the dms (whose job always has been enabling going beyond the rules), may see more restrictions than there are.
[/sblock]

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The most conservative approach to create low imbalances (in the definition of underpowerdness/overpowerdness) is make everything the same. 4e uses a base structure that is used for (now mosttly) all classes. With added mechanics you don´t notice it in actual play, but it makes sure that you have a good base.

There are other approaches and those are fine too (2nd edition)

And there are games without anything that resembles balance. Usually those games that are classless or mainly classless. My experience with such games is that creating a noncombatant is very unfun because combat happens in every rpg and it takes a lot of time. But if you are the host, you can hide and prepare the food for the rest of the party.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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.

Several exist, actually, but they are all very flawed, and conversation about them among psychologists and psychiatrists makes my head hurt and generally goes nowhere.

Interestingly, Gross National Happiness (7 compiled indices for a nation/state) seems to be a better, stronger measure than any single index (or group of indices) measuring happiness of any given individual.

I'm feeling another parallel here.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

One more point I meant to add...

My Reductio Ad Absurdum was also meant to point out the most important part of a good game, which I believe just about every single person who posted in this thread so far would agree with (and many have outright said).


"Balance" itself is not the greatest good or only good in gaming (though good it may well be).

"Balance" must be "balanced" against other things, such as how much fun it provides (which will be different to different people), how the game is being used (which will be different to different groups), how much diversity is there, what flavor is provided (gritty, high heroic, fantasy with little or much magic), etc. etc. etc. Even "balance" as we have seen can mean many things....like balanced in combat...or balanced across all 20 or 30 levels...or balanced in terms of what one is able to do/contribute...or balanced via narrative rather than rules.

It is the convergence/synergy of multiple game elements combined with such factors as group and individuals that leads to personal taste. RC's example of lock-step Chutes and Ladders is a game perfectly balanced but absolutely un-Fugglewumpy to me.

4e is more Fugglewumpy to me when I play with my friends from Colorado than my group around here. 3e is the opposite.

In that sense, if we balance "balance" against the other factors of getting together and playing a game, things like how much fun you have, then one game is better for one group and another game is better for another.

so, when I say you play the most Fugglewumpy game...I mean it. If you weren't doing that, you'd switch. You find the game that is most "balanced" for all factors that you prioritize.

 

[Piratecat]

...characters who inspire people to fight for them and who are a in character "hiding and screaming" ... actually work well in 4th edition and the key component isnt even something brand spanking new (The Warlord).

I'd never considered a leader who sits in the back, terrified, screaming "oh my God don't let them get me!" Not for every group, but it could be really funny until the shtick got old.

My definition for Balance is fairly practical. "Does one or more players feel irritatingly less effective because their PC is sub-standard or another PC is great?" If so (*cough*3.5psionics*cough*) then I consider there to be a problem that needs addressing. All classes are going to have some differences, but if they're not annoying anyone I don't give a damn.

 

[Garthanos]

I'd never considered a leader who sits in the back, terrified, screaming "oh my God don't let them get me!" Not for every group, but it could be really funny until the shtick got old.

He might lurch about trying to hit and missing ... and giving the other PCs opportunities....and saying "oh my god" at just the right moment its a broader schtick than it seems. It works well if the character is otherwise loveable and brave enough to try in spite of his short comings.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It works well if the character is otherwise loveable and brave enough to try in spite of his short comings.

That's what she said!

 

[Garthanos]

That's what she said!

Snow I want you to know that I threw away 4 responses because I couldnt find any that didnt wend there way in to implied ratings passed R... all your fault.

On with the Non-topic this has inspired me ;-)

I think it might be interesting to have somebody with skills at "aid other" ... out of combat they might inspire people to do better at skills and remember obscure bits... generally this might be by pointing out what might be dumb or unrelated things... they might sacrifice skill of there own to do it. This allows one to have a very non-skill monkey character who still contributes ;-)

 

[pawsplay]

Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.

I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.

In my opinion, trying to talk about game design in terms of balance is like trying to talk about cakes by talking about flour. You decide how much you need for your recipe, you pour it in, done. 4e is like a factory cake mix, and perfect proportions are a goal for making it come out just the same each time, just right, but if I am making a pound cake at home, I'm thinking, "Do I want lots of butter, or do I want an F-ton of butter?" The metaphorical butter in this case could be genre-emulation, wild magic, narrative, color, whatever. Things that are not balance.

 

[pemerton]

So, "clearly some players are better at character building....It is a separate question whether, and how, this is to be reflected in the character build rules". Sorry, but I am not following you here.

In order to reward competitive players, the game does not necessarily have to reflect their greater skill at play within the character reward mechanics - even if they get the same treasure and XP for their characters as do all the other (less capable) players, for some competitive players their desire to win will be rewarded by non-game-mechanical esteem they receive from the rest of the play group (eg "We would have been totally hosed in that encounter if you hadn't XYZ . . .").

4e seems to be designed along these lines - the reward for a competitive individual's good play is outside the game mechanics, not internal to them.

That may not suit all competitive personalities. But if we look at a game like T&T, which is designed to reward competitive indidivuals within the game (more XP, more treasure, for the winning players) then a different sort of problem emerges - a vicious (or, from the point of view of the winner, virtuous) circle as the winner is stronger and so wins more and so gets stronger . . . This might be fine in competitive wargames and board games, where the game starts again every so often, but can be more difficult in an RPG intended to support long-term campaign play with a high level of ongoing player/PC attachment.