None of those of us who like balance claim that games based round imbalance shouldn't exist. No one is saying that Ars Magica shouldn't exist.
Because there's one fundamental difference between a game based round imbalance and one implying that it is balanced. The game claiming to be balanced is lying to you. It is lying to you because the designers are incompetent.
I was replying to the implication of the statement: "There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining."
That statement, to me, seems to be implying that there are two types of people when it comes to balance: those that like it, and those who don't care about what their friends want. I take issue that that implication, even if I like balance.
The second point is that a given imbalanced game lasted what? Ten minutes? And then you rotated the juggernaught? And you knew what you were getting into? I've run an RPG campaign for years - and I'm not the only one. Now imagine you were playing one of the goons rather than the juggernaught for several hours a week every week for a few years. Think you'd get sick of it?
I sure as hell would.
You rotated the juggernaut
if you lost, which wasn't all that often. Most of the time it was for the struggle against overwhelming odds, which was really fun in its own right.
But, regardless of that, you don't need to convince me to the pros of having a balanced system. I prefer it. I also think it's a lot easier to create a balanced system from the get-go and unbalance it than it is to create an unbalanced system and then balance it. No arguments from me there.
However, my point was that the implication that somebody doesn't really care about their friends wants because they don't care for balance? Really uncalled for. I find it misleading and overgeneralized.
But this wouldn't be a problem if you took the Ars Magica approach. You came out and said "This game is about wizards and their sidekicks. And you rotate which of you is using your wizard." As you do in your fun but unbalanced juggernaught. That way you aren't stuck with one person playing the juggernaught for years on end and everyone else ... not.
We could go quite a while without switching off, and it's likely that whoever was the best player (usually me) ended up as the juggernaut the entire time (unless I started as one of the three; then it might take 30 minutes before I had the majority kills against the juggernaut, and played as it for the remainder of our mini-game fun).
Again, though, some people like the imbalance. This includes the "fellow players" mentioned in Tony's post that I objected to. Again, while I do prefer balance in the game, I completely understand the want of some groups to have a game that isn't balanced. It's not my preferred approach to gaming, but I can understand the appeal, at least.
So, you don't need to convince me of anything. My point is about the statement I objected to, not really about my preference for balance in RPGs. As always, play what you like
There's a catch there though. In your examples, all the players knew the ground rules going in. They knew this game was going to be imbalanced and decided that it would be a fun thing to do.
D&D doesn't do that though. They never state, "Hey, the casters are going to dominate this game, anyone who doesn't play a caster is going to be, after a certain level (depending on edition) playing second or even third fiddle to the casters". The classes are supposed to be balanced but aren't.
A couple of things, here. First, D&D doesn't historically (to my knowledge) say that it's a completely balanced game, and that everyone will contribute just as much during gameplay. So, the comment on "D&D never says casters will dominate" doesn't hold, to me (unless old manuals
are saying people are very well balanced; then I'll retract that).
Second, my experience (and that of many others) isn't non-casters of a certain level being second fiddle to casters. While that certainly did happen to many groups (and I think it's a flaw of the mechanical system to allow it), that's also not a problem for many people. It never was for my group, even if people felt casters were a bit strong. Ask the player of the party Fighter, Blake: he
nearly always felt like he was contributing meaningfully. At times he wasn't, but neither was the Sorcerer when he was grappled, blinded, and dimensionally anchored.
It's never a case that imbalance can't be fun. That's obviously not true. There are all sorts of asymmetrical games out there that are lots of fun. But, the point of those games, like something like Ars Magica, is that the imbalance is stated up front. The wizards in Ars Magica are more powerful. OF COURSE. That's the point.
Casters, in D&D though, aren't supposed to be more powerful than other classes. They're supposed to be on par. Not the same, obviously, but, at least playing in the same ballpark. The 1e thief was so far behind the curve that it was laughable. The 3e bard, at least in core, is a bad class. So is the monk.
Again, I prefer balance in the game system from the start. It's easier to make a balanced game and unbalance it than it is to make an unbalanced game and balance it. No need to try to convince me of the perks.
My point, again, is on Tony's statement: When he writes "There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining", he makes it sound like there are only two options here. People who like balance, and people who don't much care what their friends think about it. While I like balance, I dislike that implication.
There should never be tiers of classes in D&D. Or, if there are tiers, those tiers should be made very explicit up front. Heck, paladins used to come with an absolute boatload of restrictions because they were so "powerful" yet, it was the casters at higher levels that had to be nerfed or they would chew up modules like so much tissue paper.
I disagree with "never" in your statement, but I know what my preference is. I definitely like balanced classes, where melee, ranged, magic, skilled, etc. can all play in the same ballpark. However, I am very much okay with an uneven "pillar" distribution; I'm okay with a Fighter being Combat 5 / Exploration 1 / Social 1, and a Ranger being Combat 3 / Exploration 4 / Interaction 1.
But, that's my preference. My point is that I understand the preference of others, and I dislike the implication that Tony's statement had. As always, play what you like
Certainly there are others. Those two are the most polite and reasonable ways I could think of to represent the two camps on the issue.
Then I think you are just too biased, honestly. What you're saying, in my experience, is not universal enough to hold true. Thus, overgeneralized and, of course, misleading.
I think I've given you the impression that I'm trying to reduce an issue to a sort of dichotomy. But, that was already assumed by the post I was replying to. Obviously, I come down on one side of it. I'm afraid I've given the impression that I'm being intentionally uncharitable in characterizing the other side. Actually, I'm trying very hard, and being very flexible with the truth, to try to avoid that.
Well, it does feel pretty dichotomatic (that's right). And, personally, it does feel pretty uncharitable, but if you don't mean it that way, I apologize if I've come off as condescending or otherwise douchey.
If nothing else, I can say that my experience is different from yours, and that I see things differently. Doesn't make you wrong, by any means. Thanks for the replies. As always, play what you like
