Free Will and Story

[innerdude]

Even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context.

..SNIP..

And that only become more true when you start looking at mechanical elements as complex as classes. You can certainly make some subjective judgments, but there is no definitive answer in any rpg that I'm aware of as to which one is the best.

When you start throwing other approaches to balance out there, the picture only gets more complicated.

Which is why to my knowledge, all of 4e's "balance" is based purely on COMBAT effectiveness, which is predicated on the ENCOUNTER as being the primary locus of action resolution, which assumes a DEFAULT LEVEL of combat activity per encounter (assuming we're not running a skill challenge).

When people say 4e is really great at what it does, it's because it's true---it's VERY good at generating relatively stable balance for combat effectiveness within encounter-based resolution. There's very few people, even 4e detractors, that disagree that when it comes to relative combat balance, 4e didn't succeed in its intent (it's the side effects of reaching that goal that they disagree with).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is why to my knowledge, all of 4e's "balance" is based purely on COMBAT effectiveness, which is predicated on the ENCOUNTER as being the primary locus of action resolution, which assumes a DEFAULT LEVEL of combat activity per encounter (assuming we're not running a skill challenge).

None of which are assumptions that necessarily reflect how the game is played. After all, there is combat, but it certainly isn't the only thing or the only meaningful thing, and the default level of challenge is itself subjective and not necessarily used. And indeed, one of ENW's notable metathreads of the past five years was when some WotC person stated that D&D was "about" combat, and the majority (at ENW) rejected that notion (albeit not without a boatload of debate).

And, if you're looking at balance problems that get traction, they're very often related to noncombat situations, and unbalanced characters are often problematic outside of combat (or through their ability to avoid or countermand battles) rather than for their ability to directly win battles.

There's very few people, even 4e detractors, that disagree that when it comes to relative combat balance, 4e didn't succeed in its intent (it's the side effects of reaching that goal that they disagree with).

I do. Don't know how many people hold any particular opinion one way or the other, but I'm not convinced that it's better or even as good as the previous versions of D&D, even if you consider only the comparative effectiveness of different player characters in overcoming combat encounters based on the recommended encounter building guidelines. I do, on the other hand, agree that the "side effects" are where most people's objections are, but I've never been convinced that anything was gained.

If I wanted tactically engaging and balanced combat, I wouldn't look to D&D in general, and definitely not there.

 

[Hussar]

And that's why mechanical balance will always be secondary to the referee balancing player interests, focus time, and attention at the table.

But, that's not what's being talked about when we talk about game balance.

Game balance has nothing whatsoever to do with the players. It's about mechanics. The only people who argue otherwise are simply trying to cloud the issue. And, again, I've never quite understood why. Mechanical balance is better design. Mechanical imbalance leads to bad games. Every single time.

Balancing player interests, focus time and attention at the table is not, and has never been, any part of game balance.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM. In one campaign, Weapon Focus (Longsword) might be close to the best feat available. In another, Skill Focus (Spot) might rule the day. You cannot tell which feat is better just by looking at the rules, no matter how knowledgeable you are or how hard you look. There are only very rare cases where one particular option is unambiguously better than the other, usually in different publications that are not cross-referenced very well.

/snip

Of course you can. In a balanced campaign, one which features equal amounts of combat and exploration and interaction (the three pillars if you will) then neither feat will be measurably better than another. You will get pretty much equal traction out of either feat. If the game leans more heavily on combat, then weapon focus is likely better, in that specific situation, which is actually outside the baseline presumptions of the game in the first place.

However, your second point that one option is "unambiguously better than the other" betrays a pretty stark lack of knowledge of gaming systems. Two Weapon fighting in 2e is flat out better than any other fighting style. Longswords in 1e were flat out better than any other weapon - virtually all magic weapons will be longswords, the damage dice and the weapon vs armor charts make longswords flat out better than any other weapon. And that's right in the PHB.

Clerics in 3e are easily better than monks. In virtually any situation and certainly over the course of a campaign, a cleric will shine far more than a monk. It attacks better, does more damage, has way more options and is better out of combat as well. There's nothing a monk can do that a cleric can't do better. Never minding Druids. There's a reason people talk about CoDzilla. And, if you don't believe me, we'll take two groups through any module you care to name - my group is 3 clerics and a druid, your group is 4 monks, and we'll see who gets further.

Trying to whitewash balance issues by pushing it off onto individual DM's is the reason why so many games fail. Many DM's, particularly starting ones, don't have the experience to know how to fix the broken systems. So, you get someone like me, who is interested in the nuts and bolts of gaming systems, sitting down at different tables, and the DM throws up their hands crying, "Hussar is a bad powergamer, his character just steamrolled over my encounter" when all I've done is pull stuff straight out of the PHB. I mean, I mentioned one DM crying powergamer earlier, when my cleric had two levels of half-elemental. Yeah, I'm a powergamer for taking off class levels in something that granted me fire resistance and the ability to cast burning hands a couple of times a day. Ooooh...

But, that's my point. IME, people who claim that game balance doesn't matter, or is less important than "DM balance" have very a very poor grasp on mechanics and are quickly overwhelmed by players who actually take the time to read the rules.

 

[billd91]

But, that's not what's being talked about when we talk about game balance.

Game balance has nothing whatsoever to do with the players. It's about mechanics. The only people who argue otherwise are simply trying to cloud the issue. And, again, I've never quite understood why. Mechanical balance is better design. Mechanical imbalance leads to bad games. Every single time.

Balancing player interests, focus time and attention at the table is not, and has never been, any part of game balance.

Mechanical balance may be what you're talking about, but it's a very narrow-minded and myopic approach to gaming and game design, particularly in role-playing game design in which the overall macro-level experience is more important than micro-level mechanics.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In a balanced campaign

Wait, there are balanced campaigns, now? What?

Two Weapon fighting in 2e is flat out better than any other fighting style.

Unless you, you know, take into account the difficult of acquiring two good weapons, or the value of a shield. I mean, it may be good, even too good, but not to the extent you're getting at.

Longswords in 1e were flat out better than any other weapon - virtually all magic weapons will be longswords, the damage dice and the weapon vs armor charts make longswords flat out better than any other weapon. And that's right in the PHB.

Weapons, being very explicit in their statistics and function, can occasionally be the exceptions that do meet the criteria for "unambiguously better". However, their impact is usually pretty small. And even in this case, I think it's implicitly clear that this was a conscious decision made for a defensible reason (to encourage the use of a classic weapon, or to simulate the utility of that weapon compared to some more esoteric and less useful ones). After all, all weapon choices are not perfectly balanced in real life, nor in fiction, so why would they be in a roleplaying game?

Clerics in 3e are easily better than monks.

Unless you, you know, need to make a ref save. Or get stripped of your items. Or need to get somewhere quickly. Or the DM and the player actually play out some roleplaying requirements for maintaining the cleric's faith (and your powers). Or the cleric is hunted by powerful enemies because of his faith. Personally, I do think monks pretty clearly need the boost to full BAB, but even this extreme example isn't true all the time. Clerics are generally a little bit better than monks, but that doesn't mean the rules need to be rewritten to change that.

Trying to whitewash balance issues by pushing it off onto individual DM's is the reason why so many games fail. Many DM's, particularly starting ones, don't have the experience to know how to fix the broken systems.

Of course they don't. Where do you think that experience comes from?

Trying to "whitewash" the individualized, creative, open-ended nature of the game is why people don't start games in the first place. And, as with most anything in life, if you aren't willing to risk making mistakes, you won't accomplish much either.

Personally, I've had the experience. I've had (if only rarely) players that made genuinely unbalanced characters. I've made one myself. And in no case would "balancing" the rules have fixed the issue, nor did I try to avoid responsibility for the quality of my game.

But, that's my point. IME, people who claim that game balance doesn't matter, or is less important than "DM balance" have very a very poor grasp on mechanics and are quickly overwhelmed by players who actually take the time to read the rules.

Um, I'm not.

 

[Hussar]

Mechanical balance may be what you're talking about, but it's a very narrow-minded and myopic approach to gaming and game design, particularly in role-playing game design in which the overall macro-level experience is more important than micro-level mechanics.

Well, you're free to believe that. But, pushing off game mechanics design onto the DM is lazy game design AFAIC. Mechanics, lead to the macro level experience. Bad mechanics, unbalanced mechanics, result in poor overall macro-level experiences. So, no, I do not think that macro-level experience is more important. Get the details right in the first place, and everything else falls into place.

The hobby is littered with poorly designed games based on what you are advocating. Without robust, balanced mechanics in the first place, these games will continue to litter the hobby.

Wait, there are balanced campaigns, now? What?

Please try not to be deliberately obtuse when reading. By balanced, in this sense, which I actually go on to explain, it means that equal amounts of time are spent on the three pillars of the game. But, sure, feel free to play silly bugger pedantic games if you think it will help.

Unless you, you know, take into account the difficult of acquiring two good weapons, or the value of a shield. I mean, it may be good, even too good, but not to the extent you're getting at.

Yes, because it would be so difficult to find a longsword and a short sword. The value of a shield is +1 AC. That's it. That is the complete value of that shield, in 2e. So, for 1 point of AC, I double my damage output per round. I'm thinking that's a pretty good exchange. There's a reason that 3e nerfed the crap out of 2 weapon fighting.

Weapons, being very explicit in their statistics and function, can occasionally be the exceptions that do meet the criteria for "unambiguously better". However, their impact is usually pretty small. And even in this case, I think it's implicitly clear that this was a conscious decision made for a defensible reason (to encourage the use of a classic weapon, or to simulate the utility of that weapon compared to some more esoteric and less useful ones). After all, all weapon choices are not perfectly balanced in real life, nor in fiction, so why would they be in a roleplaying game?

I would point out that in earlier D&D, all weapons did the same damage. End of story. In 3e and later, weapons were all balanced against each other. A battle axe is not a poor cousin to a longsword in 3e because of the increased crit modifier. OTOH, in AD&D and 2e D&D, the longsword was flat out better than anything else you could use. Out damaging, out hitting and out magicking everything else in the book.

That's what happens when you don't pay attention to game balance.

Unless you, you know, need to make a ref save. Or get stripped of your items. Or need to get somewhere quickly. Or the DM and the player actually play out some roleplaying requirements for maintaining the cleric's faith (and your powers). Or the cleric is hunted by powerful enemies because of his faith. Personally, I do think monks pretty clearly need the boost to full BAB, but even this extreme example isn't true all the time. Clerics are generally a little bit better than monks, but that doesn't mean the rules need to be rewritten to change that.

So, all those analyses showing clerics and druids as tier 1 PC's and monks as Tier 4 or 5 are all mistaken, and you're right. Because I might have to make a Ref save? Or I might get stripped of items? ((Which doesn't actually hurt me that much - only stops me from casting spells that need a divine focus - never minding that there are numerous spells out there that let me CREATE holy symbols)).

Of course they don't. Where do you think that experience comes from?

Trying to "whitewash" the individualized, creative, open-ended nature of the game is why people don't start games in the first place. And, as with most anything in life, if you aren't willing to risk making mistakes, you won't accomplish much either.

Personally, I've had the experience. I've had (if only rarely) players that made genuinely unbalanced characters. I've made one myself. And in no case would "balancing" the rules have fixed the issue, nor did I try to avoid responsibility for the quality of my game.

Um, I'm not.

Well, considering from your own admission, you've rarely had players who made unbalanced characters, how do you actually know that you wouldn't be overwhelmed?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, you're free to believe that. But, pushing off game mechanics design onto the DM is lazy game design AFAIC.

Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.

The hobby is littered with poorly designed games based on what you are advocating. Without robust, balanced mechanics in the first place, these games will continue to litter the hobby.

I'm guessing a lot of good games have come out of that "litter".

By balanced, in this sense, which I actually go on to explain, it means that equal amounts of time are spent on the three pillars of the game.

In other words, it's an arbitrary definition that you've coined, based on the pillar concept that 4e coined. What actions fall under these pillars? And what kind of time are we talking about? Real time? Game time? I don't see that any campaign could be meaningfully assessed as "balanced" or not based on this vague and hard to operationalize definition.

End of story. In 3e and later, weapons were all balanced against each other.

Well, not entirely. Daggers are a bit above slot I think (esp for a simple weapon). There may be a few esoteric exceptions out there. There's also some debate to be had on the value of crit ranges/multiplers (especially compared to straight damage). And it's debatable whether the relative equality/homogeneity of weapons is a good thing.

So, all those analyses showing clerics and druids as tier 1 PC's and monks as Tier 4 or 5 are all mistaken, and you're right.

I'm not aware of any analyses. Assertions, yes. Analyses, no. The tier system is something that someone made up. It is opinion, and a person might or might not consider it interesting or useful. It is not fact.

Well, considering from your own admission, you've rarely had players who made unbalanced characters, how do you actually know that you wouldn't be overwhelmed?

Because rarely is not never? Because I'm an experienced DM and know what I'm doing? What do I need, a certificate on my wall for "DMing resiliency"?

 

[Hussar]

Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.

I'm guessing a lot of good games have come out of that "litter".

In other words, it's an arbitrary definition that you've coined, based on the pillar concept that 4e coined. What actions fall under these pillars? And what kind of time are we talking about? Real time? Game time? I don't see that any campaign could be meaningfully assessed as "balanced" or not based on this vague and hard to operationalize definition.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120207

That might help to explain where the terms come from. Sorry, I thought they had been used commonly enough that the meaning would be clear. My bad for presuming.

Well, not entirely. Daggers are a bit above slot I think (esp for a simple weapon). There may be a few esoteric exceptions out there. There's also some debate to be had on the value of crit ranges/multiplers (especially compared to straight damage). And it's debatable whether the relative equality/homogeneity of weapons is a good thing.

But, all of those things are still within the realm of balanced. Nothing stands out as simply better than anything else. Is a dagger better than a club? Not particularly. Now, your last point about whether its a good thing or not is besides the point of the discussion though. Good or bad isn't the issue. The issue is, 3e went to great lengths (with varying degrees of success) to correct the mistakes of AD&D and make sure that your choice of weapon wasn't based solely on the fact that weapon X is measurably better than any other option.

I'm not aware of any analyses. Assertions, yes. Analyses, no. The tier system is something that someone made up. It is opinion, and a person might or might not consider it interesting or useful. It is not fact.

Because rarely is not never? Because I'm an experienced DM and know what I'm doing? What do I need, a certificate on my wall for "DMing resiliency"?

Ok, we're back to silly bugger pedantry. The analysis for Tiers is pretty well documented and examined. It's also pretty well supported. That someone "made it up" does not somehow make it not an analysis, since, well, frankly, all analysis are made up by someone.

I'm far more inclined to look at something like the massive amount of time spent analyzing the math of 3e and coming up with the class tier system as being somewhat more informed than your, "well in my game all classes are balanced." Call me funny that way.

 

[Foxwarrior]

Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.

Is making life easier for the DM a bad thing somehow?