Balance... does it really matter that much to you?

[Agback]

G'day

Balance is what makes it possible to be different without doing something stupid.

Suppose that one class, skill, or feat were so out of balance that anybody would be stupid to take it. No-one would take it, all characters would be a little bit more alike, and the game would be a little less interesting.

Suppose that one class, skill, of feat were so out of balance that anybody would be stupid not to take it. Everyone would take it, all characters would be a bit more alike, and the game would be a little less interesting.

I don't find that it is necessary that all characters be equally powerful, or even have equal amounts of spotlight time. Some players have the mental horsepower to flourish even when their charcters are weak, some players (strange though it seems) don't seem to like being in the spotlight. But Character design is less interesting if it is full of 'no-brainer' decisions, and game play is more interesting if characters are varied. Hence the need for some semblance of balance between options.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Zappo]

Actually, the DMG says otherwise...

Page 8, Under the header "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", paragraph 3, relevant sentance in bold:
Rules become less important in this style. Since combat isn't the focus, game mechanics take a back seat to character development. Skills take precedence over combat bonuses, and even then the actual numbers often don't mean much. Feel free to change rules to fit the player's roleplaying needs. You may even want to streamline the combat system so that it takes less time away from the story.

...what does this have to do with balance exactly?

 

[Li Shenron]

Should all core classes be balanced with each other? YES

Should all characters be equally strong? NO

One thing is that the basis of character creation = core classes are balanced with each other so that there is "wrong" choice to repent later on. Another thing is to necessarily seek for balance in evey single spell, feat or ability that can be chosen during character development. That there is something which is too good to miss and something else which is too poor to consider is not a good thing, but that different choices are not always equal is somehow inevitable.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

...what does this have to do with balance exactly?

Actually, I'd say it's rather clear about what it says about balance, but that's not really the point. You indicated that "more time to do something else" was "lazyness and poor design skills talking". I'm just pointing out that the DMG actually makes the suggestion of doing so in some instances.

 

[Zappo]

Actually, I'd say it's rather clear about what it says about balance, but that's not really the point.

The DMG there speaks about simplifying combat as a technique to shift focus to the story. It is talking about rules complexity, and combat vs. story. I honestly don't get where balance comes in. Damn, why did they remove the question mark smiley, it worked better than .

You indicated that "more time to do something else" was "lazyness and poor design skills talking". I'm just pointing out that the DMG actually makes the suggestion of doing so in some instances.

No, that is taking me a bit out of context, though maybe I just wasn't clear enough. I said that removing balance to have "more time to do something else" is laziness IMO, not that removing anything to have more time is.
Streamlining combat in order to give more attention to the story is a very valid technique, though not one I'd employ (there are better alternatives). But certainly simplifying the rules doesn't imply removing balance.

The part where I definitely wasn't clear enough is that by putting "more time to do something else" in quotes I meant to emphasize the generic nature of that "something else" (and I probably failed ). To explain myself better, I think that if you wish to remove balance you need a very valid, specific and defined reason. Removing balance because there is too much emphasis on balance... is not a good reason, not good enough anyway; you need to either tell me exactly what bad things balance is doing, or exactly what good things you can do that balance prevents you from doing. Otherwise, it sounds like removing a good thing for nothing.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Balance is what makes it possible to be different without doing something stupid.

Suppose that one class, skill, or feat were so out of balance that anybody would be stupid to take it. No-one would take it, all characters would be a little bit more alike, and the game would be a little less interesting.

Suppose that one class, skill, of feat were so out of balance that anybody would be stupid not to take it. Everyone would take it, all characters would be a bit more alike, and the game would be a little less interesting.

This is probably the most concise and yet complete good working vision of balance.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The part where I definitely wasn't clear enough is that by putting "more time to do something else" in quotes I meant to emphasize the generic nature of that "something else" (and I probably failed ).

Tell you what...

You weren't clear enough, and I read more into it than you really meant.

Peace.

 

[francisca]

Suppose that one class, skill, of feat were so out of balance that anybody would be stupid not to take it. Everyone would take it, all characters would be a bit more alike, and the game would be a little less interesting.

I would say then that the ruleset was broken, and not merely unbalanced.

As you went on to say, I don't think classes need to be perfectly "balanced", whatever that means.

It's up to the DM to provide encounters and roleplay opportunities which include all of the players at the table.

 

[Razuur]

Balance isn't any where near as important as story.

If everybody got a good story, then RPing is fun.

Who is the most powerful has no corelation to who got the best story.

A Game of Thrones is a perfect example of this philosophy that I strive for.

Razuur

 

[irdeggman]

My belief on balance is that characters should be balanced between players. That is, no player should feel that another one has gained an unfair advantage in his character.

For example, our DM updated his 'old' campaign to 3.0. He created several different cultures and inserted some house-rules pertaining to them. For example he had a mongel culture that got to wear their armor (a special type, light/medium equivalent) while sleeping and gained a flock of 'special' horses. These horses were already trained and could esentially due unspecified tricks. They also gained extra ranks in riding.

He also had an eastern culture where the PC from that area started with special samurai armor, katana and Wazashi.

Elves took extra damage from iron weapons and if a dwarve took sever damage (e.g., broken bones) he could only be healed by a dwarven healer (e.g., dwarven cleric).

Other cultures didn't get the detail that these did.

Well it is obvious that elves got the short end her since they didn't 'gain' anything for having this special susceptability to iron.

The other cultures also got off on the short end since PCs from those regions gained nothing special to start with, unlike the others.

This is an example of poor balancing as far as what players get.

When he revised to 3.5 - he had the mongel culture have to use their human skill points on ride and the eastern ones use them on diplomacy.

The elves gained self-sufficient feat.

Dwarves gained damage reduction.

Other cultures again had not details.

So while attempting to balance those cultures he had targeted he has still failed to apply the same amount of care and detail to other cultures - hence the feeling that not all players are treated equal.