Balance - A Thing of the Past?

[Umbran]

That is a presumption of 3e I believe, one that I have grown to have some level of distaste for.

As others have noted, this isn't a presumption of 3e. It is a presumption of people who have not fully read or remembered the rulebook.

I don't have my book on me to give you page references, and the information isn't found in the SRD, but if you look at the DMG section on designing encounters, you will find a table that gives suggestions on how powerful encounters ought to be. It says, quite clearly, that at least 5% of encounters ought to be of the "Turn and run or the party will all die" variety. Yet another 5%, if I recall correctly, are supposed to be of the "Some of the party might survive, but taking on this challenge is still stupid" variety.

So, something like 10% of encounters are expected to produce PC deaths. That the rules call for everything to be beatable is a myth.

 

[Odhanan]

Talks about rules balance annoy me quite fast, because they are theoretical reasonings that completely exclude the actual specificities of gameplay at a precise game table.

Game balance does not solely depend on the rules' balance. The DM and players are the ones who make game balance happen... or not. From there, the theoretical balance of the rules might be a bit off from time to time, I personally do not care much, since I'm one of the people in control of the game in the end.

 

[Ghendar]

Crusty Old Grognard?

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?

Balance is rarely a huge concern to me unless it's blatantly unbalanced but what I still wrestle with is the vestiges of prior editions coloring my current views. As someone who started playing with 1st ED, the whole concept of dwarven wizards is alien to me. That's just one example.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I will step forward as a game design Balance Nazi!

Balance in game design boils down to a tool to give the DM some measure of predictability. If you are arguing against balance in general, you are arguing against the DM having the slightest clue about what is going on now or what will go on in the future.

"Gee, I wonder what that magic item that I just gave the PC does?"

Is that the mark of the pinnacle of DMship?

Balance is not about telling the DM or the players how to run their campaign in detail. Balance is not about preventing the DM from changing rules.

Balance is about creating a useful (even if imperfect) baseline.

A solid baseline makes bending and tweaking rules both less often necessary and more easily accomplished when the DM chooses to do so.

In this day and age I can easily dig up 10,000 pages of free fan created material. So why should I give WotC one red cent?

The reason is that 9,998 of those 10,000 pages require too much work to be worth the trouble of using. I am more than willing to pay a professional game designer a few bucks to bring the in balance with previously published material.

Even if my campaign departs significantly from the guidelines in the DMG as a practical matter it is easier to adapt material that generally adheres to the baseline than it is to adapt material that is all over the map in its design philosophy.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Personally, I prefer the old approach that allowed classes of equal level to be more or less powerful than others, but addressed the issue with different XP advancement.

I loathed the decision to make the nerd class (wizard) the ultimate end all and be all of the game. Go figure. Personally I thought that was one of the worst ideas about early editions. "Here, you suck. You get to advance quickly. not that you'll be worthwhile, but at least you'll be a level higher". The idea that non casters contribute past 10th level is laughable in 1st/2nd edition... you may as well not even show up. What a great concept... you get to be sidelined the longer you play! What incentive!

Every class should be more or less balanced at every level.

 

[Lanefan]

The biggest balance issue by far is one that cannot be solved by any rule, design, or book:

Players are not "balanced".

Some players are better at the game than others. Some talk more and take up more airtime, others sit quietly even when they'd be better off talking. Some can role-play, or act, better than others. Some know the rules and-or bother to learn them, others don't. Some want in-depth role-playing, others just want combat. Some want to follow the storyline, others are more interested in killing other PC's.

With all this in the game, rule balance becomes a relatively minor issue.

Lanefan

 

[diaglo]

...it doesn't seem I neew to know.

i need some balance of this statement.

need to know, new to know, need to now, or new to now?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Players are not "balanced".

True 'nuff. I've met plenty of unbalanced players.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've always thought that balance was kind of a crock. Different characters will excel in different activities and it's up to the DM to make sure that everyone gets some spotlight time. The important thing is that everyone should have something useful to do in almost all situations and be able to be a star in some situations.

 

[diaglo]

Count me in the "Never seen a spiked chain yet" club. Over 50 players in the last 3 years and not one spiked chain.

i guess you never played in Banewarrens d02 by Monte Cook. NPCs r0XX0r. even when they are just encounters.