D&D General How do you define balance?

Umbran said:

I consider balance mostly a matter of spotlight time and general contribution. The game and party is balanced when these are generated just out of the normal course of play, without the GM having to force the issue with any frequency.

Click to expand...

While I agree in general, I'm reacting to your post not specifically but as one of those referencing "spotlight". I used to think that way, but I've changed since I realised that this is just bias due to the projection of MY expectations on the game. But there are players (4e DMG referred to them as Watchers, but we've known the type ever since we started playing) who don't particularly seek the spotlight, indeed some people who would be inconfortable when pushed (too much) into the spotlight. And yet, these are perfectly legitimate players.

Same about contribution, actually, why should there be balance in the contribution either, our players are all different, with different expectations. At our tables, some players contribute a lot, others very little (not because they are being limited, just because it's how they play the game), does this make then lesser players ? Certainly not.

Hence my fall back to the only balancing factor that makes sense to me, way more than spotlight or contribution, it's just about having fun together, and the nice thing about fun, is that it can certainly be shared more easily than the spotlight.

Lyxen said:

While I agree in general, I'm reacting to your post not specifically but as one of those referencing "spotlight". I used to think that way, but I've changed since I realised that this is just bias due to the projection of MY expectations on the game. But there are players (4e DMG referred to them as Watchers, but we've known the type ever since we started playing) who don't particularly seek the spotlight

Click to expand...

Every general statement has exceptions. That doesn't invalidate the generalization.

Lyxen said:

indeed some people who would be inconfortable when pushed (too much) into the spotlight.

Click to expand...

I already noted that the GM forcing the issue is not a feature of a balanced system. So, I'm not sure why this needed mentioning here.

Lyxen said:

And yet, these are perfectly legitimate players.

Click to expand...

Sure. But even they want the occasional amazing critical hit that has everyone at the table cheering, or the moral equivalent for their character type.

Lyxen said:

Hence my fall back to the only balancing factor that makes sense to me, way more than spotlight or contribution, it's just about having fun together, and the nice thing about fun, is that it can certainly be shared more easily than the spotlight.

Click to expand...

The problem with that as a measure is that... it cannot be measured in any meaningful way. It is too vague and general to be useful for discussion.

Balance ...
The Cosmic Balance ...
True Neutral Beings
===>
Don't drive out of the bounds !

Edit to add the text of the above image for accessibility:

"For me, 'balance' in D&D means everyone having an equal chance to have fun and contribute (not just mechanically) t the game action, not that every choice at every point, for every character class or type, must be equally good."

Umbran said:

To every generalization, there are exceptions. That doesn't invalidate the generalization.

Click to expand...

And this is where I don't agree. 4e, rightly, does not define Watchers are exceptions, and I would personally be offended to be categorised as an exception for my style in playing the game.

Moreover, there is something inherently wrong, for me, in what is probably one of the most collaborative game ever, to present the spotlight as a kind of holy grail that players should, in a sense, be fighting for, with the DM as an referee.

ah!
something to say here :
I hate rolling dice when these affect the long-term
( like rolling for stats, rolling for hit points at each level )
the reason is quite simple :
some people are lucky, and use their luck for personal satisfaction
some people do not use the luck for personal benefice;
these rely ( I say mostly ) to randomness ( or hazard if you like it hotter )

and the second ones are like toys in the hands of lucky-users, who would easily unluck ...

It depends on the context. But it’s mostly a pipe dream.

Balanced encounters are basically impossible given that dice are used. Besides, trying to present balanced encounters is a canard. The world as presented by the DM, if it’s going to have any verisimilitude at all, can’t be balanced. Verisimilitude is wildly more important, to me, than any gamey notion of balance. Balanced characters aren’t possible with random character gen. And I insist on random character gen. Balanced classes are a bit easier as you can make everyone the same, but that makes things samey and boring. It’s further complicated by there being human players behind the characters. The same character run by two different players will get wildly different results as the players think differently, have different styles, diff. strengths, diff. weaknesses, etc.

overgeeked said:

It depends on the context. But it’s mostly a pipe dream.

Balanced encounters are basically impossible given that dice are used. Besides, trying to present balanced encounters is a canard. The world as presented by the DM, if it’s going to have any verisimilitude at all, can’t be balanced. Verisimilitude is wildly more important, to me, than any gamey notion of balance. Balanced characters aren’t possible with random character gen. And I insist on random character gen. Balanced classes are a bit easier as you can make everyone the same, but that makes things samey and boring. It’s further complicated by there being human players behind the characters. The same character run by two different players will get wildly different results as the players think differently, have different styles, diff. strengths, diff. weaknesses, etc.

Click to expand...

Despite dice rolls, some systems do get pretty damn close. With things like fixed/assumed stat lines and set level math it can become quite predictable and balanced. That's where the feel comes in and if its a little too homogenized for taste. Then, you get into discussions on where the game focus should be? Combat as sport or combat as war? I think both are quite valid, but at odds with one another for sure.

" to fight with "means you fight with your opponent, and not against him
( in French it is called com-battre, se battre avec )
martial arts aren't combat sports
( ?? silly ?? )

Scruffy nerf herder said:

In my experience at the table, the answer and most important litmus is success percentage.

Click to expand...

yes... something that is OP on my Saturday game could be under powered in my Tuesday one... Example. In play at my tuesday night Roll20 game I introduced (I am DM) Speed Metal and Death Metal. Two short swords a Bard was wielding. The PCs killed him (he was a really bad guy they are not murder hobos) and gave them to a multi class ranger/rogue...

Speed metal is a +0 magic weapon that can 1/day give you action surge... but you can also attune to it and any round that you make 2 or more attacks with speed metal (hit or miss) you can activate it's biggest ability. Make a free attack with disadvantage. If that attack hits you only deal 1d6 no bonus damage, but you make another free action attack with disadvantage, if it hits ect ect with a max of your level bonus attacks at disadvantage.

Death meatal is a +2 magic weapon that if you attune gains the property that at the end of the round anyone you damaged with it that has 3x your current HD or less of HP dies (as per power word kill) and the sword gains a charge. it can hold 2+ your prof charges. As an action you can spend any or all charges to target all living creatures in 30ft of you with a blast of necrotic energy. They take 1d4 per charge spent + your cha mod (not per die 1x cha mod bonus) this counts as damaging them for the base effect.

this 12th level game was only 7th when they fought and killed that bard... not only is this Ranger/Rogue not OP, he isn't the best killer at the table (although he has had some major moments)

in Saturday night our barbarian didn't get a +1 great axe until level 9... and would trade it in a second for speed or death metal (not both one or the other)

In ourTuesday game we also have a character that can time stop kind of at will (they spend a HD, roll it and that is the amount of rounds they timestop for, BUT they can spend rounds rolled to bring extra characters in... so they can roll an 7 and choose 4 character for 3 rounds or 3 characters for 4 rounds, or just themselves for 6 rounds... but if they roll a 1 it is a waste) That same character has 'living lighting' that is a living spell stored inside of her and gives her advantage on initiative and dex saves... as no action on any non surprise round she can discharge it to cast an 8d6 lighting bolt but then she can't get her advantages back until she takes a long rest. (she is a warlock/sorcerer)

mean while in Saturday game we have a PC artificer (well we have 3 artificers and a druid with the barbarian) that has a modified eyes of charming that gives him charm person at will and suggestion some amount of times per day. and a modified cloak of invisibility that is basic invisibility at will and improved invisibility 1/day. The Tuesday night team would love to have those (infact might want it more then speed and death metal since combat is not that major an issue)