Balance - A Thing of the Past?

moritheil

First Post
Even as new systems of rules are embraced, the vestiges of old limitations and rule quirks reach from beyond their graves to determine players' concepts of balance, fairness, class abilities, and in many ways the very essence of what is reasonable. Are we doomed to repeat the past, without regard for what the future may hold? Is man so essentially set in his ways that he refuses to look at each new world as a law unto itself, instead seeking some shadow of a long-dead past?

To what extent do your old gaming experiences shape your expectations and condition your responses to new experiences? How many of you have knee-jerk responses to issues of balance or flavor based not only on the current source material, but also on prior editions or other games?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

moritheil said:
Even as new systems of rules are embraced, the vestiges of old limitations and rule quirks reach from beyond their graves to determine players' concepts of balance, fairness, class abilities, and in many ways the very essence of what is reasonable. Are we doomed to repeat the past, without regard for what the future may hold? Is man so essentially set in his ways that he refuses to look at each new world as a law unto itself, instead seeking some shadow of a long-dead past?

To what extent do your old gaming experiences shape your expectations and condition your responses to new experiences? How many of you have knee-jerk responses to issues of balance or flavor based not only on the current source material, but also on prior editions or other games?

I get tired of all the talk about balance. In Game Terms, balance is a matter of perspective. What might be balanced in one campaign might be severely broken in another.

Bring me your broken and nerfed. I will give them freedom...
 

Long ago I accepted that regardless what balance may exist in the game system, the ultimate balance comes from the players and gamemasters.

If you play with people who want to unbalance your game, they will manage that no matter what you are playing.

Myself? I feel the game is currently poorly balanced...and it is poorly balanced because of all the effort made to balance it.

In 1st edition...a 1st level wizard was tissue paper, but a 10th level wizard is amazing. He can throw a 10d6 fireball against people with 8-10 hit dice, a not so great chance of saving for half damage and most likely a small or nonexistent con bonus.

In 3.5 a 1st level wizard is still tissue paper, and a 10th level wizard isn't that much more impressive when compared to other classes. He can throw a 10d6 fireball against people with 10 hit dice, a nice con bonus and a really good chance of saving for half or no damage.

In the end, any changes you push through to achieve this mystical "balance" is just going to cause more problems, imo. If you play with people who want to unbalance your game, then they will succeed one way or another.

How many people have never had a character pick up a spiked chain becaue they find it to be the ultimate in cheese?

How many people have made 3 out of every 4 of their melee characters centered around the spiked chain?
 




The really unbalanced class in 3E is the fighter, because it's TOTALLY a "Mother May I" class. If your DM is some schmuck that builds his campaigns around investigation and talking, rather than killing weird creatures and evil scum, you're screwed. All your game abilities center on fighting, but you have to rely on the DM to serve up some ultra-violence.

We need to change the system to take the "Mother May I" power away from the DM (most of them are incompetent, anyway -- you're lucky to get a good one)! The system should enforce a certain percentage of fighting encounters as a rule.

Oh, and I hate anything too dangerous or "bummer inducing" (level loss, save or die, rust monsters chomping on my vorpal sword, et cetera). Bummer inducing stuff has got to go, too. Bummerism are not fun...

(Thus spoke Ysätters-Kajsa)

:p :uhoh:
 

I let the designers worry about balance. I worry about flavor and how the classes fit into my game. In 14 years of playing D&D, I have yet to have a game crash because one particular class/race/prestige class/spell was unbalanced.
 

Philotomy Jurament said:
The really unbalanced class in 3E is the fighter, because it's TOTALLY a "Mother May I" class. If your DM is some schmuck that builds his campaigns around investigation and talking, rather than killing weird creatures and evil scum, you're screwed. All your game abilities center on fighting, but you have to rely on the DM to serve up some ultra-violence.

I really hope that this is being said tongue and cheek. Because if your DM throws you against an undead lovin' adventure, the rogues are usually pretty well screwed. And if you get thrown against a golem/construct adventure those rogues and many of the signature spells are nerfed. And heaven forbid we throw a party against an adventure that only is centered around killing things because then your bards and skill monkeys aren't going to have fun.

My point is than any build can have an adventure built for it or against it. To think this is not possible is to play under a DM that isn't very creative.
 

Let me explain myself. Please, hear me out, folks.
And tell Gary Gygax this happened, would you? He's up there in that Q&A thread. Please? ... :)

There was a time when I believed in Balance. I thought all rules should be adhered to, DMs should DM properly, players should play properly and under reasonable restrictions, and the game should do all the things Balance Advocates want it to.
This was back when I was 14.
Fortunately for me, I grew out of it (or, rather, I was learned out of it, as my DMs were my older brothers and their friends, and they weren't entirely ... reasonable about everything.)

But while I was believing in balance and running low level characters, my friends of my age (teenagers, so you know where this is going already) were busy with the Oerth, Gary Gygax's world.
They all had a new and different idea of what *reasonable* meant, and it didn't have much to do with balance (it had a lot to do with fun, as long as it was their fun ...)

So what happened?

1. The Evil PCs (there were few neutrals, and NO good PCs) took over.
2. The wizard PC became 75th level, conquered and destroyed Perrenland, then occupied the whole northwest from the Black Ice down to Doraaka (Iuz was evicted or enslaved, I forget which.)
3. The Guildmaster Assassin (14th level) assassinated all of the nobles and other notables in Greyhawk City, including the Circle of Eight, then took over the place. From his secret base until the Hellfurnaces (close to Slerotin's Tunnel, actually, although that was published eons later) he took over the Yeomanry, Geoff, Sterich, Keoland, Gran March, Bissel, Veluna, Furyondy, the three Uleks, the Lortmils, Celene, and the Wild Coast.
4. The Skylord showed up with his fleet of Flying Castles (Dragonlance Flying Citadels were many years off yet). One by one, his followers bombed and destroyed every city on every coastline in the Flanaess. Only Irongate held out, and that is because a rare neutral character took over there as Overlord, and fought back.
5. The wizard PC created an army of wizards, then invaded the rest of the Flanaess. The guildmaster assassin beat him back three times (once by killing him with earwigs, a most amusing affair.)
6. Every country still around was occupied by other evil PCs, eager to get in on the fun. They slaughtered half the Flanaess with their fun.

Better than the Greyhawk Wars, no? :)
THIS was everyone's idea of fun and of Balance, back then. 30th level was common. 40th level was common. 50th level was common. And nobody ever *did* permanently kill that 75th level wizard (for the good reason that he had made himself immune to everything, in a castle also immune to everything.)

Meanwhile, every character I created and ran died, in their *first* combat. Later on, they died ... in their *first* game.
It was not until 1984, when I reached 16, that two of my characters - Clara and Edena - finally managed to survive their first encounter, first game, and first campaign.

Do you understand now?
I learned two things from those days:

1. The game is about fun, and balance (whatever that is ... my current idea is a balance of imbalances (think of trees and how they grow)) is merely one tool towards that end.
2. It is the ultimate job of the DM to treat his players to a fun time. Balance, however it's interpretation, is merely a tool to that end.

Now, I hear that Polymorph is being altered, because it is considered Unbalancing.
That is all fine and well. It is perfectly within WOTC right to alter Polymorph.

But ...

I like the old Polymorph. I also like the original, 1E Shapechange (go back and read it in the 1E Player's Handbook, then flip your lid!)
All so long as there is fun. For me, when I play. For them, when I DM.

As for Oerth, well ... I used the mess those teenagers created as the backdrop of my Haldendreeva story. (remember that? All the elves died except these special lunatic elves who were good people but bloodthirsty maniacs both.)

And now you have my take on Balance. :)

Edena_of_Neith
 

Remove ads

Top