Unpopular opinions go here

[Aldarc]

I don't know how many more different ways there to explain that in a TTRPG that there are so many ways beyond core game mechanics to make an impact and contribution to shared goals that the need for balance becomes vestigial.

Tell that to my players at my table past and present who didn’t have fun in various games because of mechanical imbalances. I’m sure they would love to have their experiences invalidated by your platitudes. So maybe just maybe your argument for any of your arguments don’t hold much water.

Seriously though, I can’t help but hear “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

 

[Umbran]

The problem here is that the Wizard has plenty of limiting factors that aren't often taken into account by Gap Truthers.

Mod Note:
Please refrain from dismissing people by slapping a condescending or insulting epithet onto them.

 

[Squared]

Re: Balance. I find that balance is only important to ensure that everyone is within spitting distance of each other. Too much focus on it will harm the game, homogenizing it or simply making the choices boring. Not enough focus on it will leave some players not having fun. It’s all about….balance… between those two extremes.

More importantly is ensuring that everyone gets to be involved. I find the best way to do that is to always have an initiative order, even in non combat scenarios.

^2

 

[Reynard]

If equal time and energy was given to all modes of play -- combat, exploration, social interaction, etc -- combat balance would not be a big deal and the shifting spotlight would be a compelling balance tool on its own.

 

[Tony Vargas]

balance - in some sense of a comparable degree of mechanical capacity enjoyed by players, in virtue of their PCs, to impact the fiction of the game

Hey, look, it's a definition of balance.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the honest disagreements about the desirability of balance generally, or the degree of balance achieved by a specific game, aren't more a matter of disagreeing about what balance is.

Another definition I've encountered that I find useful is: balance is maximizing the meaningful and viable choices available to the player.

 

[Umbran]

Another definition I've encountered that I find useful is: balance is maximizing the meaningful and viable choices available to the player.

Huh. I don't recall ever seeing that one before.

I'd think that these days, around here, talking about choices is more about "agency" than "balance".

We might sometimes talk about "balance" in terms of adventure design as well - if the GM is throwing really powerful opponents that the PCs can't handle, we might call that an "unbalanced encounter". Do that, and the players' choices become narrowed down to run or die, so I guess I can see where that use might come from. It just isn't one I have run into much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can't comment on the hobby as a whole. But I play, or have played, plenty of RPGs in which some important characters' principal strengths are not combat - Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, to some extent Rolemaster, even to some extent the invoker/wizard ritualist in my 4e D&D game.

While someone can question my experience of course, I'm going to say Traveller--where one of the two commonest campaign models (the other being merchants) was playing mercenaries is still pretty heavily combat oriented. Nothing I've seen suggests that isn't routinely true about Rolemaster either. I won't speak of the others because I only know them by reputation, but I don't think they change my position in general

I don't think that this has much to do with balance, though. The significance of balance - in some sense of a comparable degree of mechanical capacity enjoyed by players, in virtue of their PCs, to impact the fiction of the game - doesn't go away because the game involves situations and conflicts that are not combat-reltaed.

Well, I think the poster I was responding to was suggesting balance could include competence in different areas--but even in games that aren't as combat oriented, I don't think that helps much; it just moves around what the important areas are, but I'd be willing to put a substantial bet that games where activities don't heavily lean into one particular area are rare. In the above merchant oriented Trav games, for example, it just moved the target from combat abilities to ones having to do with finding and moving product.

 

[Gradine]

Tell that to my players at my table past and present who didn’t have fun in various games because of mechanical imbalances. I’m sure they would love to have their experiences invalidated by your platitudes. So maybe just maybe your argument for any of your arguments don’t hold much water.

I'm aware that my experiences aren't universal, just add you and yours aren't. It sucks to not have fun have a game. That said, my experiences do prove that game balance isn't necessary for fun or to make great contributions in a RPG.

Another definition I've encountered that I find useful is: balance is maximizing the meaningful and viable choices available to the player.

I could get behind this. I will still argue that any TTRPG is going to have numerous opportunities to meaningfully contribute without interacting with the game rules in the slightest.

 

[Amrûnril]

Huh. I don't recall ever seeing that one before.

I'd think that these days, around here, talking about choices is more about "agency" than "balance".

We might sometimes talk about "balance" in terms of adventure design as well - in the GM is throwing really powerful opponents that the PCs can't handle, we might call that an "unbalanced encounter". Do that, and the players choices become narrowed down to run or die, so I guess I can see where that use might come from. It just isn't one I have run into much.

I think of it this way. If the player has a choice between two options, but one of those options is consistently more effective than the other, the player hasn't actually been given an interesting choice. If the options are similarly effective, the player has more freedom to make that choice based on personal preference or situational dynamics.


Coming from this perspective. The argument that balance is homogenizing doesn't make very much sense to me. Balance will, of course, make options more similar in quantitative effectiveness, but that's the least interesting way for options to differ from one another. In terms of qualitatively distinct effects, homogenizing options makes them harder to balance, whereas differentiating them actually makes this easier.

To draw an analogy to ecological theory, the more two competing entities are pushed into the same niche, the smaller the fitness/effectiveness differences necessary for one to exclude the other. The greater their niche differences, the more potential there is for dynamics like complementarity and context dependence to make both of them viable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

my experiences do prove that game balance isn't necessary for fun or to make great contributions in a RPG.

Balance is a necessary quality if you're actually engaging the game to do so. The way most of us play TTRPGs, tho, moving beyond the game, itself, is common. I'd argue, because the premier TTRPG, D&D, has been perennially very imbalanced (among other failings).

I could get behind this. I will still argue that any TTRPG is going to have numerous opportunities to meaningfully contribute without interacting with the game rules in the slightest.

Agreed. That doesn't make the game balanced, but it can arbitrarily make the play experience better-balanced - so long as the DM provides sufficient opportunities that redress the imbalances inherent in the system. In D&D, it's traditional for DMs to change or override the rules more or less at will, and that can be used to make the play experience better, in spite of how imbalanced the system is, if the DM is sufficiently skillful & principled.