D&D General Worlds of Design: A Question of Balance

Some people think that every character class must be equally balanced with every other class, but why is that necessary? Are they competing with the other players in a co-operative game?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay​

The Destination or the Journey?

When approaching a discussion of class balance, it's worth asking the question: is an RPG session a destination or a journey? Or to put it another way, is an RPG session "mental gymnastics" or an "adventure"? I think the latter in both cases. Consequently, shouldn't character classes be about different ways to succeed, not about "power" (or whatever it is that has to be "equal" between each character)?

The concept of asymmetry--different starting capabilities and assets on each side--is very important in some kinds of games, like historical strategy games. It's hard to sensibly reproduce history symmetrically, in which all players start at the same level of power; for an example of how this is handled in a board game, see Risk. There's good reason for this. One of the easiest ways to achieve "balance" in a game is to make it symmetric, with everyone beginning "the same."

The need for symmetric play has spilled over in video game design, with all classes being balanced against each other, even in single-player. That style of game development has influenced modern tabletop games for similar reasons: keeping all players equal smooths out the game's design. But I think something is lost in forcing symmetric design in a tabletop role-playing game.

What's Class Balance, Anyway?

The first problem is that "class balance" is a fungible metric. Presumably, all classes are "equally powerful" but what does that mean, really? If play is all about the individual, the game turns into a competition between players to see who can show off the most. For games where personal power is important, this can make sense--but I don't find it conducive to the fundamentals of teamwork Dungeons & Dragons was built on. If D&D is about cooperation, flattening out every character's power implies that they're in competition with each other.

When the game is about the success of the group as a whole, about co-operation, then there may be compensations for playing a less powerful class. In fact, some of the classes by their very nature are inherently unbalanced for a reason. Jonathan Tweet's most recent article about The Unbalanced Cleric is a perfect example. And there are opportunities for creativity in how your "less powerful" character copes with adventuring.

Variety is the Spice of Life

There's also something to be said for the variety that comes from characters of differing capabilities. It doesn't matter to me if some characters are more powerful than others, whether it's because of class, or items owned, or something else. Different characters with different power levels creates a form of interesting play.

Here's a real life analogy: The soccer striker who scores a lot versus one who makes many chances/assists and helps the team maintain possession. But in a profession where it's so hard to score, the one who scores a lot will usually be regarded as a better player ("more powerful"), or at least the one who is paid more. Yet both are equally valuable to the team. And offensive players tend to be more highly regarded than defensive players.

Magic is Not Balanced

Then there's the issue of magic. In earlier versions of D&D, magic-users did much more damage than anyone else thanks to area effect spells (I tracked this once with the aid of a program I wrote for a Radio Shack Model 100!). In a fantasy, doesn't it make sense for the magic users to be the most powerful characters? Heroes in novels, who often don't wield magic, are exceptions in many ways: without a lot of luck, they would never succeed.

Designers can avoid the "problem" of character class balance by using skill-based rules rather than rules with character classes. You can let players differentiate themselves from others by the skills they choose, without "unbalancing" them. And shouldn't each character feel different? There are certainly archetypes that character classes often follow, yet those archetypes exist for reasons other than "play balance!"

Still, won't magic use dominate? A GM/game designer can do things to mitigate the power of magic. For example. magic can be dangerous to use, and the world can be one of low rather than high magic, e.g. like Middle-earth more than like The Wheel of Time.

The Value of Combined Arms

In the only RPG I've designed--which is intended for use with a board game, so that simplicity is paramount--I use a classless system. But for a bigger game such as D&D, multiple classes help provide both differentiation and opportunities for cooperation ("combined arms"). And I enjoy devising new character classes. Whether you need a dozen or more classes is open to question, however. Nor do they need to be "equal."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And there's the fourth player, who doesn't run around much and (almost) never scores but who is often every bit as important to the team as the striker or the playmaker, and that's the goalkeeper. Also, that third player who is "just running around" today might be vital in the next game as a central defender.

And that's just it: in a given game it's very unlikely all four will contribute equally, for any number of reasons (e.g. quality of opposition and-or marking, nagging injury, manager's tactics for the match, or even simply one of them just having an off day). But over a whole season they'll all chuck in their share, and the team will be as good (or bad!) as they make it.

Single game = short-term balance. Whole season = long-term balance. Which matters most, over a campaign?

That analogy only holds if that third player is better than the other players at something: If they don't get to apply their particular skillset this time, they will probably get to another time, where the other players' skillsets aren't as useful.
It doesn't work in the case where the other players are as good as that third player at the their specialist skillset, and also have their own specialities that they are best at.

In games I play, the social pillar focus a lot on character personality, goal, bond, flaws. In this aspect character class and even level don’t influence that much. The social pillar is not only succeeding charisma check.

in my opinion the exploration pillar cover the classic dungeon crawl exploration, but also all discussion on tactics, mission goal, storyline understanding, evaluation of threats. Skill monkey and casters may be advantaged, but any classes could help and partcicipate actively.

You can achieve a lot with ingenuity, intelligence, creativity and just a screwdriver.

However, you can achieve a lot more with ingenuity, intelligence, creativity and a large toolkit of powerful tools. The more, and better tools you have, the more they multiply the ways you can apply your ingenuity etc.
When it comes to screwing in things, opening paint pots, and stabbing people, you can turn to either workman. For almost anything else, you'll be turning to the workman with the large and varied toolkit.

 

[Derren]

What sadly doesn't get addressed is "balanced for what".

The assumption is of course combat. But that is very limiting. You already had and still have this problematic with mundanes vs. casters (with all their non combat utility spells) and skilled vs unskilled classes.
Widen the scope of the RPG away from just combat/dungeon crawling and it gets even more complicated.
Is a Decker balanced to a Face in Shadowrun? How would you measure that.
Or to take up the sports example, how do you balance the socces striker with the nascar driver and an actor?

For classes to be balanced you must limit yourself to a very narrow scope (most of the time small scale combat) to even be able to measure it. And then you miss out all the other aspects that might be considered balance from a players point of view. Are two classes really balanced to each other when they do the exact same damage but one class could outside of combat also shape reality at will and control the minds of everyone he meets?

Also, I disagree with the video game comment. Symmetric design in video games happened ages ago. The current trend is asymmetric balancing. Most sides in strategy games are not symetric any more since Starcraft and this has spilled over first into MOBAS like DOTA and now FPS with Apex and Overwatch.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What sadly doesn't get addressed is "balanced for what".

Throwing!

Or to take up the sports example, how do you balance the socces striker with the nascar driver and an actor?

Pay packets?

...sorry, couldn't resist...

Single game = short-term balance. Whole season = long-term balance. Which matters most, over a campaign?

Look at it this way: a campaign is a collection of sessions. Balance in each session? Balanced campaign.

Widen the scope of the RPG away from just combat/dungeon crawling and it gets even more complicated.

RPGs are complex by their very nature, of course. One way to cope with complexity is to break it down.

You mentioned combat as 'limiting' - good, balance the character choices in combat.

For a lot of games it seems like there's just "combat" and "non-combat" in D&D in recent years, that's been split into "Exploration" and "Social."
So balance each character choice in each of those, separately.

At that point, it won't matter what 'comes up' as or more or less often than might be expected in a given campaign. Perk of balance - you can run a wider range of adventures.

Is a Decker balanced to a Face in Shadowrun? How would you measure that.

Ye ole netrunner syndrome, yeah.

When one PC's only function is to run off and do something only he can do for a protracted period while everyone else has nothing to do, that's not balanced, that's not even playing the same game.

One solution I heard was to jack everyone in and run as a party. Don't know how well that worked out.

 

[univoxs]

If playing a game where you make a character, I always recommend starting with concept, then build to fulfill that concept, whether its 'powerful' or not. For me, inhabiting an interesting character is more important than being just as useful as everyone else.

I like mechanics where casting a spell is a different than swinging a sword which is different again from charming the innkeeper. I believe these actions should vary in their inherent complexity and, in any given session, vary in their frequency, causing unequal success and usefulness.

I feel there is a distinction between co-operative storytelling and RPG.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm more interested in balancing the amount of fun between players. If you can figure this puzzle out, it really doesn't matter what classes everyone is playing. All of the classes can excel in their own way, and they can all really suck in their own way. But what matters is the fun.

Some players at my table have a lot of fun role-playing. They like to talk in character, use special voices, and do their shopping in-game. They have no idea what's going on in combat, and hate it when everyone is rolling dice, adding and subtracting numbers, and arguing about whether or not someone should have Advantage on a roll. They have a two-page backstory that follows my campaign notes, but they probably haven't read the Player's Handbook.

Other players at my table have a lot of fun with combat simulation. They roll their eyes when other players talk in character or use special voices, and they prefer to do their shopping over e-mail between games. They have no idea what's going on in the story, and they only really tune in for combat. They love to haggle with me about whether or not they have Advantage, or what battlefield position gives them the best odds, and what magic items they "need to find." They have memorized entire chapters of the PHB, but they probably haven't read my campaign notes.

The trick for the DM is to figure out how to balance the two groups so that everyone is having fun at the same time. So I encourage role-players to also give some thought to their combat abilities and defense, without squashing their creativity and ingenuity and without letting the others trample all over them in their rush to start combat. And I encourage the combat enthusiasts to give some thought to their character backstory and motivations, ask them to describe their actions, etc., without squashing their tactical approach and without letting the role-players bore them to death.

I also try to reward roleplaying and exploration with XP like I do for combat, which really really helps. If you feel that the game "revolves around combat" more than anything else, give this a try.

 

[Arilyn]

There have been heated discussions about class balance, since the first magic user hid for many levels, somehow survived, then became a demi-god. So please let's not blame anything on video games.

Everyone wants to contribute, and although perfect balance is not possible, nobody enjoys being the weak link. The Buffy game had rules in place which made playing Xander, alongside Buffy, work. Some of the newer supers games also make it perfectly fine to have Superman and Green Arrow on same team, without Oliver feeling useless. But this requires a ruleset to support this sort of play. D&D type games don't have this, so they rely on reasonably balanced classes.

I'm a fan of games with lots of story and role playing potential, but even I don't want to be in a class or situation where my character is noticeably weaker than everyone else in the group. It's unsatisfying, and can get boring.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's also the question of balance in the short- or immediate-term (can I contribute equally in every combat or even in every round) vs balance in the long-term (this class will shine in this adventure, that class in the next one, etc.; or this class will suck at low levels but make up for it later).

Orignally, long-term balance was all that was required and-or considered. More recently, short-term balance and immediate-term balance have become central to design; IMO too much so.

And there's the fourth player, who doesn't run around much and (almost) never scores but who is often every bit as important to the team as the striker or the playmaker, and that's the goalkeeper. Also, that third player who is "just running around" today might be vital in the next game as a central defender.

And that's just it: in a given game it's very unlikely all four will contribute equally, for any number of reasons (e.g. quality of opposition and-or marking, nagging injury, manager's tactics for the match, or even simply one of them just having an off day). But over a whole season they'll all chuck in their share, and the team will be as good (or bad!) as they make it.

Single game = short-term balance. Whole season = long-term balance. Which matters most, over a campaign?

Sure, a single instance doesn't indicate a pattern. One case of a player being unable to contribute could just as easily be attributed to the player having an off day as any mechanical issue.

I would say that both short term and long term balance are important. If you play 100 one shots, and the "third player" is unable to contribute in a statistically significant number of those sessions, it's still an issue of imbalance despite that it's a case of short term balance. Long term balance is important, but it's not the only thing of importance.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Single game = short-term balance. Whole season = long-term balance. Which matters most, over a campaign?

Absolutely, short-term balance.

Posit a campaign that is 100 sessions long. (I'm picking a number out of a hat, just for the sake of conversation). Now, a class that only shines, say, 1 session in 3, means that that player is riding the pines, not doing much more than observing 2/3rds of the time. Sure, 1/3 of the time, he's a freaking rock star. Fantastic. But, the other couple of hundred hours of play, he might as well not even be at the table.

Meanwhile, the short term balance players, while they might not be shining 100% percent of the time, are at least shining every single session. There's a reason for that character to be at the table every single time. That character MATTERS. Sure, great, your Gandalf character takes on the Balrog. But, the other 600 pages of the novel, he's basically not even worth mentioning.

Which means that that player is bored out of his skull most of the time.

RPG's are not a spectator sport. We don't need a character or a player that isn't engaged most of the time. We don't need a relief pitcher in an RPG. We need workhorse classes that are needed all the time.

That's where game balance comes in. The old AD&D MU character was balanced on long-term. Only problem was, that meant you wound up with multiple points of boredom while the MU just had nothing to contribute and, frequently, the campaign ended before the payoff occured. Yay, I just wasted a hundred hours of play watching everyone else have a great time while I got to throw my sleep spell once every ten hours. Whoopee!

Long term balance is a myth. All long term balance actually is is multiple points of imbalance with a tiny, tiny sweet spot in the middle that may or may not ever actually occur.

 

[Leatherhead]

Why do so many people mistake being balanced for being equal?
Balancing is the exact opposite of being equal, it's using mechanics to distribute loads so that unequal things don't topple over under their own weight!

 

[Krachek]

Balance is a higher standard, and, in a cooperative game, the performance of every player contributes to victory, so underperformance whether due to a sub-optimal or non-viable choice, or due to poor play, is undesirable. Thus, non-viable choices presented in a cooperative game aren't real choices, they'll be eschewed by better players - and by players taking advice from those they're cooperating with, in favor of viable choices. They might as well not exist.

The need of optimal choices to play DnD is exaggerated.
there is also a difference between cooperate to perform in a combat or goal driven mode, and cooperate to help each other to role play better its character.