3E and the Culture of Balance

[dead]

I was wondering if the ultra-sensitivity to rules balance that seems to be prevalent in 3E culture is a good thing. I mean, superficially it sounds good, right? What could be wrong with a game designer being accutely aware of game balance?

Well, I don't know about game designers, but I've found myself - as a GM - affected by this accute need to keep everything "balanced" and thought: Is it cramping my style?

I've found that in my play of 3E that myself (and my players) are always fretting over whether such-and-such a rule's change or such-and-such a new class etc. is "balanced". Now, of course we thought of these things in 1E and 2E but it didn't seem as prevalent . . . it didn't seem to "distract" us.

Let me give you an example. Recently, a player wanted to jump in front of another player to protect her from an incoming attack. In previous editions of the game I would have allowed it . . . I would reward such creativity (provided it isn't abused). But in our 3E game, I said: "NO. You cannot act out of turn".

Later I felt a bit guilty about this. So what did I do? Working with game balance in mind, I created a Feat called "Shield Friend" which allows you to act out of turn in this way. I presented it to the player knowing full well they wouldn't invest in the new Feat but *covering* myself from any accusation of being a stiff, unyielding GM. But I thought to myself: "Oh no, am I a victim of the Culture of Balance? Do I *really* have to make a Feat for everything that breaks the rules in order to balance the game?"

Does anyone else feel that they are more involved in making balanced *crunch* and less involved in making creative decisions that might not be rules-balanced but contribute greatly to the *story*?

(And, no, I don't want to go back to previous editions. I've played 3E for four years now and our group is loving it. I've just noticed that I've never fretted so much over game balance before. Maybe I should just loosen up. All the *crunch* out there has gotten to me.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I believe there was already a feat that did that, but...that isn't your point.

I don't think 3Ed/3.5Ed have altered the way I GM. It HAS altered the way I generate PCs for D&D.

 

[BSF]

For me, there aren't issues with "balance" as there are with implied limitations. There are the rules. Then there are feats that bend or break the rules. (Attacks of Opportunity & Combat Reflexes as an example.) This can lead to an implication that if an option isn't explicitly in the rules, and you don't have a feat to allow it, then it cannot be done.

Say you had a character that wanted to move from a balcony to the floor by jabbing a dagger into a nearby tapestry and hanging on to descend relatively quickly and safely. That isn't in the rules, and there isn't a feat to allow that, so should you be able to do that? I would say yes. I might require a die roll of some sort, but why not allow it? Some DMs and some players might assume that such an option would be impossible.

Now would I worry about that action being "balanced"? Probably not. It's a cool idea and I want to encourage those for my games. The balance will come in with a character that has an 8 Str and biffs the strength check to hold onto the dagger. (Or whatever check I just pulled out of my backside.)

Keep in mind that "balance" is a mechanical goal, but that isn't the only application. I have seen players with more aggressive personalities maximize their turns more effectively than other players. So "balance" also helps keep the playing field a little closer to level so that the shy players are not constantly overshadowed by the vocal players. It also establishes a baseline for all Players/DMs to know what to expect out of a new group/player.

I can see where it might cramp your style compared to earlier versions. It is a good thing to question yourself and be sure you understand your reasons for maintaining, or even breaking, the established "balance". When you feel like you need to say No as a DM, you should be aware of the reasons you said No. For your example situation, did you say No because the PC had already attacked & moved that round? Did you say No because the group made a bad decision and suddenly exposed the wizard to a devastating attack? Was there a story reason to say No or to say Yes?

If I were in that position, I would react differently based on the situation itself. If the PC had already accomplished a lot that round, I would probably rule No. There is a mechanic to do what the PC wanted to do. A readied action would suffice. If the player was trying to throw a meat shield in the way to save a low HP PC due to bad decisions, I would be sorely tempted to say No. If the PC was trying to protect another PC, regardless of the consequences, I might allow it and execute some DM fiat to make the sacrifice meaningful and useful in a story sense. If the PC was doing something that clearly stepped on the toes of another PCs strengths and character concept, I will likely say No because that PC put forth effort to function in a manner that is different. (As an example, if I were playing a 3.0 game and the party barbarian wanted to throw themselves in the way of the attack while there is a Devoted Defender in the group, I would disallow the Barbarian to do that. It is taking away the spotlight from the Devoted Defender's class abilities.)

For some of my decisions, "balance" would be a factor. For others, it would not. I can be a little bit arbitrary that way. But I also try to keep my player's trust. I would like to think that when I throw something arbitrary out there, they will accept it for the story potential I am offering. They may not be happy about it initially, but when they stop to think about it, they are almost always curious where the event is going to lead.

So to answer your question, "Balance" is a nice goal and I keep it in mind. But I will not allow the bugbear of indiscriminate "balance" to dictate my actions & decisions as a DM.

 

[dead]

Thanks, BardStephenFox.

These are wise words.

I think the rules and *crunch* prevalent in the industry has just been creeping up on me and I need to loosen up a little.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree with the Bard.

Where balance is seen at its best is the "all classes get equal fun" angle - someone can now play a rogue for all his levels and still have lots of fun (unless the DM makes all adventures against constructs and undead of course )

As a personal note, I think that creating a feat to cover a rules situation like you describe above is often the worst possible idea. Feats are so precious, and for most classes they only become available once every three levels... they shouldn't be used for basic mechanics. A better idea is to just allow someone to do it (on the spot house rule... you can use up an AoO to shield an adjacent pal with your own body. That is simple and anyone could take it up if they wish). As soon as a feat is created for a basic combat mechanic it automatically stops anyone without the feat from attempting it (AFAIR the PHB feats tend to modify or improve on a combat action rather than provide entirely fresh options in combat - there is improved trip, improved disarm, improved sunder etc. etc)

It's a good question you asked though.

Cheers

 

[Melan]

Keep in mind that "balance" is a mechanical goal, but that isn't the only application. I have seen players with more aggressive personalities maximize their turns more effectively than other players. So "balance" also helps keep the playing field a little closer to level so that the shy players are not constantly overshadowed by the vocal players. It also establishes a baseline for all Players/DMs to know what to expect out of a new group/player.

That's a very good observation, BardStephenFox. On the other hand, this is ultimately a human problem which is hard to solve with rules. I understand the goal of the designers to create a level playing field, but the game culture they wrought - the careful and continuous measurement and analysis of the game to keep it balanced - doesn't reach the intended goals IMHO. Rule abusers will remain rule abusers, and judging by the number of loopholes, they have just as good a time as in 2nd edition AD&D (if not better). Those others who do not care to maximize their stats and just want to play the game are, OTOH, penalized by the artificial constraints this culture places on their shoulders.

 

[Zappo]

Rule abusers will remain rule abusers, and judging by the number of loopholes, they have just as good a time as in 2nd edition AD&D (if not better).

I don't think so. It is true that rule abusers will remain rule abusers, but the amount and, more importantly, severity of the loopholes is vastly decreased in 3E. Maybe if you compare core 2E versus core 3E plus supplements, then you get close, but that's a wildly unfair comparison. In either "core 2E vs core 3E" or "core 2E + extras vs core 3E + extras", 3E is far more effective in forbidding absurd powerful characters while still allowing creative balanced characters.

 

[Berandor]

I am a little wary and weary of balance (fun, now I don't have to know the difference between these two )

I don't think everything must be completely balanced. For example, in the Buffy RPG, some characters will be obviously better than others - but still all will have fun. To me, "balance" doesn't mean "everything must be covered by rules, and everything must be of equal strength" but instead it means "every choice should have a cool application in the game, so that every player gets a chance to shine."

 

[boxstop7]

This one's kinda long-ish...

WARNING: The following post will contain some generalized statements. These are made in the interest of furthering discussion. I am well aware that stereotypes and generalizations, while possessing a modicum of truth, are in no way accurate assessments of an entire group of people.

There, now the lawyers should be happy.

The only issue I've had with "balance" in 3.0/3.5 is players wanting to pull options from every available resource to create ridiculously powerful and front-loaded characters (I will call these players "powergamers" for the sake of discussion). I feel this "unbalances" the game when other players are uninterested in "powergaming", and instead decide to create characters they will enjoy playing, even if those characters have multiple weaknesses. This issue has been a constant one in the games I've run to this point, and it's been difficult for me to get a good handle on it at times. I've resorted to telling my players up-front, "I reward style, role-playing and creativity more than I reward 'powergaming', so please be aware of this."

I've pushed some players away in doing this. But I don't view their departure as a loss. I've managed to keep the players who are interested in the type of game I like to run. And we commence enjoying ourselves.

However, I have noticed a common thread in the "powergamers" to which I've had exposure: they all grew up playing CRPGs rather than P-n-P D&D. In my experience with CRPGs, I've been able to create characters that were basically gods walking the earth, and I was able to do it quickly. And I firmly believe these players bring those same expectations to P-n-P D&D. As an example, I'll summarized a conversation I had with one of my players (who's played CRPGs almost exclusively):

We've had some problems with the game, and we're going to start anew. However, we'll be starting at 4th level rather than 8th level this time. He has a ranger, and he'd like to keep the basic character. But he asked me if he could make some changes, and he wants to drop the ranger spells and animal companion for a few more feats. My response was, "So you basically want a fighter?" He said, "Yeah, but let me explain..." The long and short of it is that he basically wants all the feats a fighter gets, but he wants the ranger's free access to the two-weapon feat chain so he doesn't have to worry about rearranging his ability scores to meet the prerequisites otherwise. His comment: "I'll get it faster this way. When I think of a 4th level chararacter, that character should be able to take about half an enemy's hit points in one swing." I was floored. He freely and readily admits that he's impatient and simply doesn't want to "follow the rules" to meet prerequisites and wait through the fighter levels to gain the two-weapon chain. He wants it now, and for free. He also said that the ranger's spellcasting "doesn't seem to be any part of the Ranger class. It looks like they just tacked it on as a bonus because they couldn't find anything else to throw in." He followed that up with "It just almost seems to me that they really limited the spell casting for a Ranger. I mean at fourth level I get the ability of spellcasting so therefore I should be able to cast something. But if my Wisdom is lower than 12 then I get nothing even though a wisdom of 11 would allow me to cast 1st level spells. And Ranger spells suck anyway. The druid gets mad spells. The druid gets spells to cast even if the wisdom score is only an eleven. If I have a wisdom at 11 as a ranger I get nothing."

My counterargument: "Druids are spellcasters with moderate combat ability, like clerics, and spellcasting is the PRIMARY ability of the class. If the druid has a wisdom of 11, he can still only cast 0 and 1 level spells. that's it. he'll never cast 2nd level spells until his wisdom hits 12. as spellcasting is secondary class ability for rangers, the requirements are slightly more stringent. read the spells section. "at 4th level, a ranger gains the *ability* to cast spells". *ability*. it's not a right or privilege. it's an additional class ability. if a player hasn't structured his character to take advantage of that ability, that's the player's fault and no one else's, in my opinion." He then proceeded to complain about his "low" ability scores. His score array: 17,15,15,14,12,12. I told him, "Those scores are incredible. You're above average in everything. I (censored for Eric's grandma) myself when I roll scores like that." He goes, "But then why doesn't it seem like I am, I see the 12's as being pretty low." It was at this point that I started banging my head against the desk and simply told him that, in my games, he *will not* be able to create a character that is a god on earth, or even one that is good at everything.

I see the above issues as the biggest problem of "balance" in modern D&D. If players want to do something immensely cool in the game, and there isn't a rule to govern it, just house-rule it. So long as you remain consistent, what's the problem with house-ruling things? In the situation you described, I probably would've allowed your player to shield the other character at the expense of losing his own turn that round (since he wanted to do something out of turn). That's a very selfless and team-oriented move, in my opinion, and I'll never penalize a player for playing that way. I guess it really comes down to "Do you favor style and flow or do you favor following the letter of the law?"

- Jason

 

[Ibram]

In many ways balance is needed in D&D. If Wizards were vastly more powerful then any other class then it would shortchange those who wanted to play another class.

The originaly example is not about game balance, as that implys that the character was unable to do something that other characters could do.

In Buffy it is assumed that there will be one "Main Character" (the Slayer) who is vastly more powerful then the other characters. D&D assumes that all the characters are relative equals.