Are we all becoming balance lawyers?

[Mort]

Screw that. Balance schmalance.

Older editions were as balanced as the DM. All this talk of balance in 3e is to compensate for DMs who cannot maintain this balance at their table. Their are many reasons for this: inexperience behind the screen and really crafty rule twisting players being the primary two.

So, the primary beneficiaries of the "inheirent balance" in 3e are:
1) n00b DMs
2) spineless DMs who lack the ability to place their foot in the proper orafice of players who ruleslawyer the hell out of the game
3) Organized play, like the RPGA, where consistency is a must

For me, at home, with my laid back beer-n-pretzels group, the balance and all of the codification that go along with it is a hindrance. I question just how balanced it really is, anyway. Just because you can point to a formula that calculates the DC for a save doesn't make it balanced, for example.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this entire post.

I've been playing and DMing since 1986 and have been DMing 3e since it came out so I'm hardly a n00b DM.

I try to be as acceptable as possible, but I'm hardly spineless and certain things are an absolute no go in my game (recent example: PC frenzied berserker).

And you know what, I love the fact the 3e and 3.5 at least try to balance things out - it makes things that much easier for me because I don't have to do it so much myself. Anything that makes things easier for me (I'm married with a very demanding job) is good.

I DM'd RIFTS for several years and it was a balance nightmare - there wasn't even an attempt made at balance. Things that wouldn't even phase one character would wipe out several of the others, and many a character that was good in combat also had an edge outside it.
I also played, and when the DM said pick a character you like; I ended up with a god among men (Atlantean undead slayer). This gave the DM fits because anything that could remotely challenge me would wipe out the rest of the party in a matter of seconds. I voluntarily switched characters because it was obvious the other players were not having fun..

The key to "balance" is simply making sure that everyone in the party is capable of significantly contributing in a continuing and meaningful way - the current edition attempts to facilitate this, I can't see how that's a bad thing.

 

[Psion]

They should be balanced for fun, not necessarily "damage" or combat effectiveness.

Ding ding ding ding!

Precisely! I find some arguments rather inane, because they are based on notions of single combat, not team contribution like the game is actually designed around.

What ever happened to just picking a character concept and playing what you want without regards to the "power-level" of the classes of the other characters? What ever happened to playing a character for the fun of playing and not getting all wound up about how powerful they are in combat compared to the other party members?

I think some degree of character balance is desirable, because otherwise the spotlight time is not shared evenly and some player's will probably enjoy themselves less. It also improves the chance you can find a character to your like. Most gamers find it discouraging if the book realizes a concept they are looking for, but the result is so weak that they feel compellled to accept a concept they like less.

1e and 2e certainly didn't have "Balance"...

A major reason I consider 3e to be a major stride.

As a DM I feel it is my responsibility to get a gauge on what the capabilities of my player's characters are so that I can challenge them but not overwhelm them. I have total control over an encounter... there is nothing a PC can dish out that I couldn't counter with the right enemy.

Sure.

But as a GM, you have plenty of tasks already. And a severly unbalanced party makes your work more difficult and less fun, as you try to dream up ways that allow you to challenge and provide opportunities to contribute for the entire party without killing the weaker ones, and (here's the real kicker) making it look obvious that you are doing so in the process.

Having a role-balanced party that are a fairly natural match to the challenges in adventures you design frees you to make your adventures complex and interesting in their own right and opens options to what you can do.

 

[Taraxia]

What's wrong with trying to help out "n00b dms"?

This is exactly the point -- if you want D&D to be more than a small niche hobby, which WotC certainly does since the growth of D&D is what's paying their salaries, then you need to make it easier for people to play the game. Yes, there's a certain cachet to having the super-genius eats-breathes-and-sleeps-RPGs dude from the gaming store as your DM, who can houserule and rebalance and rewrite everything effortlessly, but *lots of players don't have such a dude*. If me and my four friends like the idea of playing D&D but none of us has time and energy to train ourselves into being the super-DM that all of you remember so fondly from 1st edition days, are we just doomed to crappy, unrewarding, impossible-to-win campaigns? Do we *have* to struggle with unpleasant game sessions for weeks before we "deserve" to have an enjoyable game? Is that the rule?

Balance, comprehensive crunch, rules that "assume a DM who applies them heartlessly like a computer" -- all of these are *important*, because for the game to sell and be accessible it has to be usable by stupid DMs. Most DMs start out as stupid DMs, after all, and it's a lot easier for a stupid DM, using comprehensive rules that treat him like a CPU, to *learn* how to become a good DM and *learn* how to use discretion and so on, than for the stupid DM to have an unbalanced, incomplete ruleset that needs tons of tweaking dumped into his lap and have no idea where to go. The most likely situation in that scenario is that the group has an awful session and then stops playing D&D in favor of something else.

 

[philreed]

My opinion is that we all think that we're experts on the game and balance (all of us, from the designers of the game to the latest newbie) but that in reality the game is so complicated that no one is an expert on the issue. A group, with talented proofreaders and experienced playtesters, will always uncover problems and mistakes . . . and identify balance issues.

 

[Umbran]

What ever happened to just picking a character concept and playing what you want without regards to the "power-level" of the classes of the other characters? What ever happened to playing a character for the fun of playing and not getting all wound up about how powerful they are in combat compared to the other party members?

What happened to it? I am not convinced this ever existed as the majority playstyle, and many folks had problems. I don't think the past was particularly rosy on this front.

You may not care as a player, or a DM. But as a player or DM, your concerns are very local and specific. Around here, we also have many amature or armchair designers, and they think on a larger scale. Balance is a worthy general design goal.

Yes, at home, with my well-known players and my DM skills, balance isn't all that big an issue. My players' style is such that I can manage to make sure everyone has fun. But, not all groups have my type of players, or my skills. Some groups, that have inexperienced DMs, or DMs that don't know their players well, or with players that are very combat or achievement oriented can probably use some help there. And even if all groups could handle the problem, it is a worthy goal to try to reduce the amount of work a DM has to do in order to make sure folks have fun.

Plus, aside from all that, balance is a nice and meaty subject. Lots to chew on, think about, and discuss. Given that this is a forum for discussion, you'll tend to see a lot about the meaty bits. That doesn't mean they are more important, or they overly occupy our minds when actually playing. They're just something good to talk about.

 

[francisca]

francisca, while there is an advantage to new DM's, that advantage does not dissapear.. nor does reliance on the balance of published rules mean the DM is either a n00b or spineless. Its more a question of scope.

Hence my qualifier of "primary beneficiaries". I should have said, "those who benefit most".

In your game, your players know the house rules, tweaks, and expectations. In adhoc games or in online discussions, these HRs and expectations vary. The best base for discussion is then a commonly accepted floor... which in 3.x is 'balance'.

I agree, and understand what you are saying, and I'll say this applies doubly so to organzied play and convention games with strangers.

Just imagine trying to debate a HR that you intend on including into a heavily DM-tweaked game. At home with your group its easy. Here on the boards you would have to explain your game, your gaming style, other HR's that affect the rule in question..and then you might be able to get to talking about the rule. With 3.x's floor of balance you can discuss things with people who don't agree with your game style while still gaining benefit from posting.

But you are definately right, 'balance' in 3.x is an artform. The science behind it can make sense but still not fit well with others..

I don't need to imagine those debates, I've expereinced them. However, I've seen arguments which just about ended in a KoDT table flip at RPGA events. <shrug>

See my signature about setting expectations. I think those ideas transcend rulesets.

 

[wayne62682]

My opinion is that we need balance, but even "balance" has to be balanced. What I mean, is that people (especially on the WotC boards) tend to decry anything that can do something new or different than the "oldschool" way. Look at the Duskblade; all the cries of it being unbalanced because it's essentially a Prestige Class made into a 20-level base class. Or the new things in Tome of Battle (which I have not seen yet).

I'm all in favour of playing something for the FUN of it, and to hell with balance. Would I be upset if "Joe" dealt with every scenario and I could never do anything with my character? Sure I would. But as was stated, that's an extreme. Balance needs to have a line drawn, so people don't complain about anything that deviates from the norm as being unbalanced despite the fact it really IS balanced (yes, I realize that people will ALWAYS complain about things, but one can hope).

 

[Umbran]

My opinion is that we all think that we're experts on the game and balance (all of us, from the designers of the game to the latest newbie) but that in reality the game is so complicated that no one is an expert on the issue. A group, with talented proofreaders and experienced playtesters, will always uncover problems and mistakes . . . and identify balance issues.

Well, note that "expert" and "can always produce unflawed products" are not the same thing.

In computer science, it has been mathematically proven that, beyond a certain level of complexity, no system can ever be proven to be bug-free. I would not be terribly surprised if D&D was also beyond that level of complexity.

 

[francisca]

And you know what, I love the fact the 3e and 3.5 at least try to balance things out - it makes things that much easier for me because I don't have to do it so much myself. Anything that makes things easier for me (I'm married with a very demanding job) is good.

Married, 3 kids, 1.5 jobs. I understand. To me, the 320 pages of the PHB, the associated mods that go along with feats, skills, various situational mods, the time it takes to create NPCs, and all of the other stuff present in 3e which brings the balance to the table does not make it easier for me to prepare.

I guess if I ran more published adventures, and trusted them to be balanced and correct (and I'll hold up all the errors people find in stats blocks during week 1 of a new monster book release as an example of why not to trust them), I guess that would save me some time.

But since I prepare my own stuff, and am time constrained, it just wasn't worth it anymore.

I DM'd RIFTS for several years and it was a balance nightmare - there wasn't even an attempt made at balance. Things that wouldn't even phase one character would wipe out several of the others, and many a character that was good in combat also had an edge outside it.

I also played, and when the DM said pick a character you like; I ended up with a god among men (Atlantean undead slayer). This gave the DM fits because anything that could remotely challenge me would wipe out the rest of the party in a matter of seconds. I voluntarily switched characters because it was obvious the other players were not having fun..

I'll take your word for it. I've never played Rifts.

The key to "balance" is simply making sure that everyone in the party is capable of significantly contributing in a continuing and meaningful way - the current edition attempts to facilitate this, I can't see how that's a bad thing.

I agree with the first part of this statement whole-heartedly. I agree with the second part as well. It makes a pretty well executed attempt at balance. I do think that it fails to a sizable degree, though I recognize opinion varies.

What really gets me fired up is when people put their slavish devotion to balance on display and claim that it is impossible to play older editions and maintain balance, whereas 3e is balanced by default. (And no, I don't think you have done so with your post.)

 

[Vigilance]

1e and 2e certainly didn't have "Balance"... just look at the Thief class for that. Yes, their skills were nice and all but nowadays when people discuss balance they are generally discussing combat effectiveness so I am looking at the Thief in that vein. In the earlier editions the Thief could only backstab if he successfully sneaked up on a foe. Once the backstab was made then that was it... no more backstabbing attacks for the rest of the encounter.

I disagree totally with this notion.

First, the thief was one of THE FEW classes that could open locks and find/remove traps, he was also one of the few true stealth experts. This gave thieves plenty of chances to shine in 1e and 2e in my experience.

Secondly, Backstab was really really devastating.

Thirdly, the thief had a VERY forgiving XP table (remember they were different for each class) that often put him 2-3 levels ahead of the rest of the party.

Also, I felt 1E was pretty well balanced UNTIL (and this is a big until) Unearthed Arcana was thrown into the mix. That was where the wheels came off and in a big way. Cavaliers, Barbarians, off the chart multiclass options you didnt have before, like Druid/Ranger, Full Plate that gave you Damage Resistance, stat-rolling methods that basically guaranteed a ton of really high scores...

So until the designers decided to make a book that was every power gamer's dream, I contend 1E was fairly well balanced.

Chuck