Achieving Balance

[Umbran]

I think mechanical balance in a RP game is a mirage. We think we need it, but actually, we do not.

"Need" is such a loaded word. We don't "need" rpgs at all, so no, we don't "need" balance.

But to say that we don't need it, so as to imply that nobody should desire it at all... well, it is kind of like saying we don't need any oranges. Sure, technically we can do without them, but some folks like them a lot, and find goodness in them.

 

[karlindel]

Different games and gamers define balance in different ways.

Some games make disadvantages/drawbacks to gain extra points to spend on making a character more powerful, the theory being that the drawbacks are negatives that balance out the extras the character gets. In some cases (such as Deadlands), the drawbacks are also useful for getting extra experience for roleplaying.

Other games consider drawbacks to be an essential part of the character, and require or strongly encourage the character to have some negative trait(s).

Still others allow drawbacks, but require you to spend points to gain them (Burning Wheel, for example). The theory being that the drawback allows you to bring the narrative focus towards your character more often.

I think that how balanced a game needs to be depends on the players. It is almost never fun (i.e. I have never met anyone that said they would enjoy it) to play a useless character. If another character can do everything that your character can do, only better, then the game won't be fun for you. When people talk about classes being balanced, what they usually mean is that they want some kind of niche protection, something that their character can do that no one else's character can, or at least something that they are clearly better at than the other characters.

It is also important to most people that their character's niche actually be something useful. It is rare to find someone who is happy with their character who can't fight at all and has no skill other than incredible cooking skill, particularly if cooking only comes up as roleplaying when everyone thanks them for the awesome meals.

Balance really depends a lot on what kind of game it is and what kind of players are in it. The tone of the game and the types of challenges faced has a huge impact on which character archetypes are the most useful and powerful, and you cannot meaningfully discuss balance outside of that context.

 

[Nikosandros]

In my opinion, the relevant balance is the "balance of fun", i.e. all the players must enjoy themselves more or less equally. Anything else is secondary.

I once run a GURPS adventure for 2 characters one of which had roughly twice the point value of the other and it was very successful because both players enjoyed themselves.

I also run a lot of AD&D a game that is infamous for its lack of balance between the classes and never had the problem of one player feeling disappointed for lack of mechanical balance between the classes. In a similar vein, when I was running a very high level 3.5 game, all the issues about "CoDzilla" or fighter suckiness never came up, since all the players where having fun.

 

[Umbran]

I once run a GURPS adventure for 2 characters one of which had roughly twice the point value of the other and it was very successful because both players enjoyed themselves.

The OP clearloy notes there are many forms of balance.

So, yes, you had characters who were not mechanically balanced in detail. But lack of detailed rules-balance does not imply overall lack of balance.

The question then becomes, did you, as a GM, explicitly or implicitly apply some other form of balance? Did you pick the opponents in fights specifically so both of them would be challenged but not outright killed? Did you seek to make sure each got their own spotlight time?

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I think we need to focus less on the balance within an RPG and more on making RPGs overpowered fun-wise with respect to other pastimes. "You gotta try RPGs - they're so good, they're almost broken!"

 

[jasin]

In my opinion, the relevant balance is the "balance of fun", i.e. all the players must enjoy themselves more or less equally. Anything else is secondary.

I heartily agree with this.

This is, obviously a very subjective judgement, which is why people have fun playing fighters in 2E, bards in 3E, halfling barbarians, specialist wizards, generalist wizards, or anything else decried as unbalanced at some point.

However, some assumptions can and should be made. Most people have fun vicariously experiencing success and competence in the spotlight. Most D&D games heavily feature action and violence. Therefore, balance in D&D has a strong correlation with competence at action and violence when in the spotlight.

 

[jasin]

I once run a GURPS adventure for 2 characters one of which had roughly twice the point value of the other and it was very successful because both players enjoyed themselves.

BTW, in this specific case, was this because the double-point skillset turned out as valuable in-game as the other; or because the guy with the single-point character was fine with being half as useful as the other guy?

Without knowing the players, I'd give pretty good odds it's the former.

 

[Nikosandros]

The question then becomes, did you, as a GM, explicitly or implicitly apply some other form of balance? Did you pick the opponents in fights specifically so both of them would be challenged but not outright killed? Did you seek to make sure each got their own spotlight time?

Of course I did. I'm not trying to say that in a LotR game it's fine to throw together a Noldor price and a crippled halfling without making any provisions for such a strange party.

My point is that, even in the presence of mechanical unbalance, a GM can make sure that all the players have equal fun, which in my mind is the overriding consideration.

 

[Nikosandros]

BTW, in this specific case, was this because the double-point skillset turned out as valuable in-game as the other; or because the guy with the single-point character was fine with being half as useful as the other guy?

Without knowing the players, I'd give pretty good odds it's the former.

Yes, it's the former naturally...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course I did. I'm not trying to say that in a LotR game it's fine to throw together a Noldor price and a crippled halfling without making any provisions for such a strange party.

My point is that, even in the presence of mechanical unbalance, a GM can make sure that all the players have equal fun, which in my mind is the overriding consideration.

A perfect DM can always achieve a good game experience.


A good DM can often achieve a good game experience. he can do it more often if he works under better conditions. Good players, a good rules system that works for him and his players.
And that's where game balance comes in.