Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Nifft]

Yeah, I agree with you, though I think I'd call it unification or consistency. 3e gave D&D what RuneQuest had had since the late 70s - a unified system. In fact, by the mid-80s onwards, virtually all rpgs had unified systems. HERO, GURPS, anything by Chaosium, WEG Star Wars, White Wolf. The only exceptions were D&D-style throwbacks like Palladium/Rifts, that were still stuck in the 1970s. It was Hong, I believe, who talked about the HERO-isation of D&D with regard to 3e. He was right.

However 3e isn't quite as unified as it could be. I always felt the spell system looked a bit weird, by virtue of being mostly a copy and paste from previous editions. Lots of spells have their own little sub-systems, like Entangle traps its victims in a different way than Web does, for, imo, no good reason.

IMHO 3.0e was trying its hardest to change as little as possible, while fitting (nearly) everything into a single mechanical framework.

3.5e is where they said, "Okay, that kinda worked, now let's make it work right."

"A fan of HEROoization", -- N

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

So, "Your choices are fighting man, magic user, cleric, or rogue" is superior to the number of class options of later editions, and the "cantina effect" inherently causes dissatisfaction?

Fifth Element nailed it. I was schematizing a bit excessively. And there are differences depending on the nature of the choice to be made. In most cases, a small, manageable number of options leads to better outcomes than having everything under the sun available. Occasionally, having the choice made for you actually leads to the best outcomes.

I humbly suggest that randomization (and its small group of vocal adherents) are an outgrowth of the latter within gaming circles.

EDIT:
Overall, there has been a tendency to increase the number of available choices across all decision points as time has gone by. The first trick is to figure out which choices add to overall player happiness and which do not. The second is to hit on how many options continue to be a value add, and at which point there are too many options. The third is to figure out how to make money once you've hit that limit and adding more classes, races, feats, powers, etc is just decreasing overall player enjoyment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was similar thinking that led to me removing feats from RCFG......I decided that they were actually a trap, making the game less fun overall, rather than more fun. And I haven't missed them!

(Obviously, some people's mileage may vary.)

 

[Ariosto]

"HERO-ization"? Yes, when I encountered 3e it seemed to me designed for people who would (or perhaps should) have been playing Champions instead of AD&D in the 1980s-90s. In the early 2000s, though, WotC's D&D won them over. I think the Hero System is more flexible, more robust, and easier to balance. Complex character builds and long combats: Hero Games since 1981!

 

[airwalkrr]

I'm not going to bother to read 303 posts, but I will answer the OP.

I don't think there is a bias against game balance per se. It's a simple matter of not wasting time in an ultimately futile attempt. If you want your game to be balanced, throw out dice, make everyone play the same class with the same stats, same equipment, and same abilities.

Monopoly is a balanced game. The only variables are luck and player skill. RPGs are built upon a different concept, that each of the players get to play by a different set of rules. Imagine playing Monopoly where one player was allowed to steal from the bank, another was able to land on any square desired instead of rolling dice, and another could send other players to jail each turn. Now imagine trying to balance these abilities against each other without removing them completely.

It is impossible to balance RPGs. No matter what approach you take, you can never make all players equal without removing the essence of the game. The true balancing factor in RPGs is the Game Master, although even the Game Master cannot establish true equality. It is simply his/her job to make sure that everyone is having fun, contributing, and enjoying themselves. Game designers should spend less time trying to create "balanced" games and more time creating fun and interesting ways for players to play the game.

 

[The Shaman]

Monopoly is a balanced game. The only variables are luck and player skill. RPGs are built upon a different concept, that each of the players get to play by a different set of rules. Imagine playing Monopoly where one player was allowed to steal from the bank, another was able to land on any square desired instead of rolling dice, and another could send other players to jail each turn.

I'd play that version in a heartbeat.

 

[Garthanos]

Your ability to contribute is through your game token... not feeling able to contribute because your game token either quickly becomes useless or starts out massively useless... is the exact reason that balanced is great. And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.

 

[Nifft]

I don't think there is a bias against game balance per se. It's a simple matter of not wasting time in an ultimately futile attempt. If you want your game to be balanced, throw out dice, make everyone play the same class with the same stats, same equipment, and same abilities.

Literal equality is not the only form of balance, but it may well be the most boring.

Now imagine trying to balance these abilities against each other without removing them completely.

Perhaps it could be done. If so, it would be a more complex game than the death-spiral grind-fest that is Monopoly.

Game designers should spend less time trying to create "balanced" games and more time creating fun and interesting ways for players to play the game.

"Balanced" games are more fun and interesting to play than games where one of the choices is "win", and all the other choices are "suck".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lanefan]

"Balanced" games are more fun and interesting to play than games where one of the choices is "win", and all the other choices are "suck".

On a right-here-and-now basis you're quite right; but what about the long term? You're forgetting the time factor.

The choice you make might show "win" now, but in 6 levels you could be on the short end.

If there's a clear choice between "win now, lose later" or "lose now, win later", or "kinda be in the middle all the way along", that's not imbalanced overall...and in fact might give the players serious pause for thought. It's certainly far better than forcing everyone into the "kinda be in the middle all the way along" bracket whether they like it or not.

Lan-"I'll just suck, and then rise from the ashes and rule them all"-efan

 

[LostSoul]

Your ability to contribute is through your game token... not feeling able to contribute because your game token either quickly becomes useless or starts out massively useless... is the exact reason that balanced is great. And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.

"GM fix it" can be a great boon to roleplaying games. It allows someone to make creative contributions to the game.

Now, if your best choice while playing the game is "Let the other guy do it", you don't really have any choices to make. So, once again, it comes down to optimal choices.

If all the players have meaningful choices to make, the game is balanced. And yes, that could mean a game of RIFTS where one guy plays a Glitter Boy and another a City Rat.