D&D General Do you care how about "PC balance"?

[Derren]

No.

The only balance I really care about as a player is between the alternative choices I have available. It bothers me if there is an option so clearly better than another for the same purpose that's making me feel I'll never take the other one.

The only time I ever had an inferiority complex to another PCs was my very first d&d character, and that was in BECMI where we had to roll for stats in order, and I rolled so poorly that I had to choose my class by elimination of what classes I didn't qualify for (could have been a house rule). Another player had the same problem, we ended up playing the same class, but I had lower scores.

That works for D&D and other system that already try to have everyone balanced. But play a system where balance is hard to codify in rules or one that does not care about it like Rifts and it will blow up within one session unless you have very mature players.
So imo in this discussion it would be very useful if people would specify the system they are basing their experience on.

Then again, as this is in the D&D subforum I think I can guess what the default should be. And for D&D I do not look at balance either, even in 3E because the system is "good enough" to ensure balance.

 

[Neonchameleon]

From my perspective spotlight balance is fairly antithetical to a meaningful sense of skill-based challenge-oriented play. The entire point is earning your victories in whatever you can (as a group). A big play does not feel like a big play if it was setup ahead of time.

I see the value in passing around the narrative spotlight, but spotlight balancing and games do not really go together in my mind.

But by the same token isn't character power balance almost necessary for challenge oriented play to check that the challenges are as intended? You need balance to play the game as intended and not have the challenges as either negated or overwhelming.

 

[Mort]

They are linked but they aren't equivalent.

Now, in games that focus more heavily on combat, especially if those combats tend toward the difficult side, combat/mechanical disparity will likely lead to an overall disparity in contribution and spotlight time. That may be why I don't see it so much: I try really hard not to run a game that is primarily driven by combat. I like combat and I certainly have lots of combat, but the thrust of the game (the "story") is rarely based on combat. Interactions with NPCs and exploration -- both of which present fewer mechanical disparities between PCs, I think -- do most of the heavy lifting in that regard.

Depends on the system. In 3e for example, a wizard geared for exploration is going to marginalize a rogue geared for exploration unless the DM is expressly making sure the rogue has avenues to shine. It's not just combat that's the problem (it's just usually the most apparent/obvious0.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Depends on the system. In 3e for example, a wizard geared for exploration is going to marginalize a rogue geared for exploration unless the DM is expressly making sure the rogue has avenues to shine. It's not just combat that's the problem (it's just usually the most apparent/obvious0.

Depends on level.

 

[Mort]

Depends on level.

somewhat true, but it's not a high level. In some cases past 3rd - certainly past 7th.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've heard plenty of discussion (complaints) at my table about ability scores being "unbalanced," but not a lot regarding classes or subclasses. (We roll 4d6 for our stats.)

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

somewhat true, but it's not a high level. In some cases past 3rd - certainly past 7th.

Probably around 5th.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Imbalance is an inevitable outcome of character build minigame gamism*, examples being 3e D&D and HERO System. I consider this to be a very bad form of gamism however because the game has been won permanently before play even starts. Combat minigame gamism, exemplified by 4e D&D (and also good in 3e, 5e, and HERO) is far preferable imo.

I've also enjoyed the very freeform gamism of powers use in Amber but it also suffers from the game being won at the character build stage, due to 'magic' characters just being better.

*In the sense of challenge-oriented play.

 

[Derren]

Imbalance is an inevitable outcome of character build minigame gamism*, examples being 3e D&D and HERO System. I consider this to be a very bad form of minigame however because the game has been won permanently before play even starts. Combat minigame gamism, exemplified by 4e D&D (and also good in 3e, 5e, and HERO) is far preferable imo.

I've also enjoyed the very freeform gamism of powers use in Amber but it also suffers from the game being won at the character build stage, due to 'magic' characters just being better.

*In the sense of challenge-oriented play.

There is no character building minigame (except in Traveller)

 

[Deset Gled]

I care a lot about balance; it's really important to me at the party level, and the fundamental design of the game.

I am less concerned about equality. One player is allowed to hit harder when another can be sneakier. One can be artillery when the other can only be a scalpel.

Its an important distinction.