Collecting Definitions of "Game Balance"

[howandwhy99]

For the sake of easy conversation I was thinking it might be best to start differentiating between all those definitions of Balance out there.

What are the definitions you use in relation to games?

Depending on how the thread goes, I may try to keep an updated list in this post:

1. Balance between PCs. My 1st level == your 1st level.

2. Balance in relation to Combat Encounters. We're 5 PCs @ 3rd level facing 12 monsters @ 2nd level.

3. Balance in relation to Traps and/or Environment. Scythe traps are level 4 challenges. Crossing swift rivers is a level 1 challenge.

4. Balance in Skill Challenges. The 4e game mechanic makes some challenges more or less likely to overcome.

5. Balance means players have more than one meaningful course of action.

6. Balance means risk is related [equivalent?] to the reward.

7. Balance means "Every player has fun and feels like they meaningfully contributed every session."

8. Balance means:
8a. combat efficiency PCC, PC:NPC, Party:Encounter
8b. level PCC, PC:NPC, Party:Encounter Level
8c. Social efficiency PCC, PC:NPC (not player skill)
8d. Skill efficiency PC:act, PC:environmental challenge, PC:NPC
8e. Equipment benefits

9. Balance by activity type: Combat, Exploration, Interaction, or by Class-specific niche content.

10. Balance by available environment. E.g. cities, wildernesses, dungeons.

11. Balance by spotlight time. "No PC greatly outshines any other most of the time. Everyone gets their moment to shine"

12. Balance between player effectiveness across a campaign, adventure, or game session.

13. Balance according to how much every player is engaging in play.

14. Balance by dungeon/environmental level to class level of PC.

...

Keep 'em coming

 

[LostSoul]

My definition of game balance is something like this:

A game is balanced when players have an in-game decision to make and there is more than one reasonable course of action.

 

[ExploderWizard]

My definition of game balance is something like this:

A game is balanced when players have an in-game decision to make and there is more than one reasonable course of action.

Is that game balance or just meaningful choice? Choice is very important for the game but it is separate from overall game balance.

For example, a first level party wanders into Monty Haul's dungeon of jokes. To the right there is a kobold guarding the sword of Kas. To the left there is a giant rat guarding the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd. Only one path may be chosen and when that happens, the other vanishes.

The choice as to which path is taken is meaningful but neither one is balanced. The reward in both instances far exceeds the risk, enough to possibly unbalance the campaign.

Game balance to me means that rewards are largely related to the risk and effort needed to win them. All players are capable of contributing to the success of an adventure and that the rules of the game are fair and satisfying to all involved.

 

[Meatboy]

My ideal deffinition for TTRPG is "Every player has fun and feels like they meaningfully contributed every session."

 

[jonesy]

Combat efficiency balance. PC to PC, PC to NPC, Party to Encounter.

Level balance. PC to PC, PC to NPC, Party to determined Level of Encounter.

Social skill efficiency balance. PC to PC, PC to NPC. (And no, I don't mean Player social skills. That leads to Player vs DM, which is somewhat problematic).

Skill efficiency balance. PC to Activity (like climbing). PC to Challenge (environmental effect, traps). PC to NPC (pickpocketing vs spotting it, hiding vs spotting, etc.)

Equipment balance. A low level NPC can be boosted to much higher than its apparent level. A PC might be seriously nerfed by losing vital equipment for some reason.

 

[billd91]

I think there's also activity balance - combat, exploration, interaction.

There's also environment balance - dungeon (or tightly controlled environment), civilization, wilderness.

And what I consider the big one, already mentioned by others in this thread, ensemble cast balance - the idea that everyone feels they have contributed in meaningful ways and no single PC is the overall star of the show.

 

[OnlineDM]

1. No PC greatly outshines any other most of the time. Everyone gets their moment to shine, yes, but you don't end up with an hour at the table where one PC is rocking the world and the rest feel ineffective, especially in combat. If PCs are unbalanced outside of combat, then the DM should keep the time spent in "unbalanced land" to a minimum (e.g. hours-long negotiation with NPCs when only one PC is any good at social interaction and the other players feel useless).

2. Hazards in the books (monsters, traps, obstacles, etc.) should be written in a way that makes them useful for DMs. If you have a party of level 3 PCs, you should be able to figure out roughly how hard it will be for them if you throw X combination of monsters at them. Party and monster synergies will have an effect here, but if a particular level X monster is a cake walk then a different level X monster shouldn't be a near-TPK.

 

[Umbran]

The choice as to which path is taken is meaningful but neither one is balanced. The reward in both instances far exceeds the risk, enough to possibly unbalance the campaign.

And we should note that this imbalance is in the adventure design. That translates to "game balance" if and only if that adventure was designed using the guidelines for adventure design laid out in the game rules (and many games don't *have* such guidelines).

Stepping aside from that, the form of balance I am most concerned with is a form of inter-player balance, such that I, as a GM, don't have to work too hard to keep all the players engaged, and like their PCs are effective and constructive members of the group.

This is not necessarily "My level 1 = your level 1". Equality in all things is not required. Equality in terms of effectiveness over an entire adventure or so would be more what I'm thinking of.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I'm with Umbran on this one. As long as the players feel balance, it doesn't actually have to be balanced. I don't think balance for balance's sake is a good thing in RPGs and the reason is that life isn't fair. There are people that have more skill, ability and power than others in real life. Why should a fantasy world that is trying to make players "believe" that it exists, even for just a few hours a weeks, should be so homogenized?

Don't get me wrong, sure it makes things easy, but that too isn't very real is it? I'm not saying that my fantasy should be reality (that can be far too dangerous.) But if I'm trying to sell suspension of disbelief, isn't it easier if there is at least a partial basis in reality? As long as the players are good with,"I'm okay and you are a wimp.", I can plug along happily. If everyone wants to be Superman, I have an issue and I can't fun, even as a DM.

Conflict and it's resolution, be it good, bad or indifferent is what makes D&D special for me, if there is no 'real' conflict, why play it, I have video and board games with that mind set. They are safe, vanilla, and patently boring.
Of course, this is my opinion, and please feel free to have a different one, that would mean there is conflict and unbalance...

 

[Umbran]

I don't think balance for balance's sake is a good thing in RPGs and the reason is that life isn't fair.

Well, I don't think any designer does "balance for balance's sake". The balance is there for purposes of supporting a desired play experience. The questions are whether you desire that play experience, and whether the balance actually helps achieve that experience.

Neither is "balance" digital, all-or-nothing. There's a spectrum - so even if some designer does do balance for the sake of balance, having some of it may be okay, so long as it isn't overdone.

Simply put - having *some* balance makes my job as GM easier. If that tends to limit the disparity between characters, I'm okay with that. The number of players I normally work with that actively desire a major power disparity between characters is pretty darned small.