Balance: for the group or the game?

[dreaded_beast]

This quesetion probably comes up fairly often, so forgive me for asking again.

How would you define balance? (Not the skill for all you jokers )

Is balance in regards to a group of players, making sure that one player doesn't outshine the rest? Using this definition, does that mean if all the players were low-level melee types with +5 weapons, balance is still maintained even though they have magical items more powerful than suggested for their level?

Or

Is balance making sure that the rules/crunch of the game are handled in such a way as to not give an unfair advantage to either the PCs or the challenges they face?

Basically, is balance mainly to keep players in check with each other or is balance mainly to keep PCs in check with the game?

 

[Crothian]

In check with each, becasue it doesn't matter what the PCs have as DM I can keep them in check with the game.

 

[Savage Jim]

A mix of both.

For PC balance, I'm primarily more concerned with PCs being able to contribute to the game equally. To a degree, this may mean that some PCs are better combatants than others, while others are more knowledgable than the rest, and so forth. By intergrating these various elements into equally important game aspects (some purely dice-driven, while others are more role-play oriented), PCs remained balanced just fine (even though at times some of the PCs may have a wide degree of variance regarding stats, level, equipment, etc.).

By keeping these aspects within the reach of PCs (some exceedingly easy while some are just barely obtainable), than I maintain balance between the PCs and their challenges.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Mainly I use it to mean that one player (or player character, rather) shouldn't outshine the rest. That's very important to me in all rpgs though I notice that some players don't mind at all if another player's PC is much better than theirs.

Huh. Roleplayers...

 

[shilsen]

Primarily the first. Challenging tenth level PCs who own masterwork weapons and wear studded leather or third level PCs with holy avengers is not a problem for me. Making sure that all PCs get a chance to contribute to the game and share the spotlight is what I focus on.

 

[3catcircus]

Hmm - I dunno - I generally think that "balance" is a bit overemphasised at the expense of the storyline and has less to do with the monsters being thrown at the party than it does with what the combat environment is like (granted, pitting a CR20 monster against level 1 PCs is an insta-kill...)

For example - I recently pitted my players (Ranger/Rogue, Swashbuckler/Wizard, Fighter, Wizard, Healer, Paladin - all at 7th level, and a 5th level Rogue/Bard Cohort) against a group of NPCs (Ftr 11, Ftr 10, Rogue/Dread Pirate 9, Wizard/Master Alchemist 9, Fighter/Outlaw of Crimson Road 9, Rogue 5), fighting inside of a tavern. While the party nearly got beaten to within an inch of their lives (judicious use of swift action healing by the Healer prevented the Wizard from gacking it), they complained that the fight was too tough.

Conversely, just hours before (this was a Saturday marathon session), they fought a Group of 24 goblin archers, 24 orc javelin-throwers, 6 Ogrillons, 6 Bugbears, 6 Riding Dogs, 2 Ettins, and a 13th-level Half-Orc Cleric of Bane (and they were a level lower at the time). The fact that they were outside allowed the Wizard/Swashbuckler to unleash a couple of Innate Spell fireballs at the orcs (broken into 2 groups of 12, and each led by 3 ogrillons), making the encounter fairly mundane - at least until the Ranger/Rogue invisibly attacked the cleric. After that initial attack, the cleric (with Knifefighter, Clever Wrestling, and several other feats) proceeded to simply wrap him up and jab his dagger into the Ranger/Rogue's ribs several times (almost to the point of going to negative HP) before the Paladin had a chance to finish off the ettins and the Healer had a chance to disarm the dagger with her longspear. Finally, the Wizard used Grease spell to make it easier for the Ranger/Rogue to escape the grapple. The guys didn't complain about *this* battle, even though it was just as deadly (and actually lasted longer).

Obviously, they couldn't charge (furniture and fleeing non-combatants were in the way) or use fireballs inside of the tavern (unless they wanted to zorch themselves in the process), so they felt that they were over-matched, despite the fact that the baddies were at the same disadvantage.

As far as party balance - that is really up to the PCs as to what classes they are, who gets what loot, etc. I once ran an RPGA Legacy of Green Regent scenario (Epidemic, IIRC) - four players - 2 fighters, 2 wizards - they never made it past the Orc Barbarians before they gacked it - no clerics = no healing. No rogues = no sneaking past them to set up an ambush...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Is balance in regards to a group of players, making sure that one player doesn't outshine the rest? Using this definition, does that mean if all the players were low-level melee types with +5 weapons, balance is still maintained even though they have magical items more powerful than suggested for their level?

This is the primary balance I'm concerned with in my games. I want all the PCs to feel they're an important part of the whole, not one particular PC's flunkies. This means not handing out a vorpal sword for the fighter, unless I'm going to include a Staff of Power for the mage.

Is balance making sure that the rules/crunch of the game are handled in such a way as to not give an unfair advantage to either the PCs or the challenges they face?

I personally also try to achieve this kind of balance as well, but only because I'm lazy and don't want to put too much thought into creating combat encounters. If I completely abandon the assumed PC power level, CRs become useless to me, and it takes a lot more work to craft an encounter that will challenge the PCs without slaughtering them outright.

But if I were savvy enough to be able to eyeball my group and various monsters and instinctively know what sort of a challenge it'd be, I could readily see abandoning balance type 2 altogether. Indeed, I'd enjoy that kind of freedom. It'd allow me to introduce certain Iconic magic items earlier, giving PCs longer to play with them (Rings of Wizardry, Holy Avenger, Helm of Brilliance, etc. etc.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Balance is about both for new DMs, or those who don't have the time to figure out what their PCs can handle.

Eventually, balance is just between PCs. It's always best to allow everyone to contribute, although obviously each PC has his strengths and weaknesses. Unless he's an ex-Paladin/Blackguard/Ur Priest/Nar Demonbinder/Mystic Theurge/Ninja (IIRC). Then he's a party unto himself.

That goes double for campaigns widely outside the normal wealth-per-level limits, campaigns where the party has unusual composition, and campaigns with veteran character optimizers. I'm presently running a low-magic, clericless, wizardless, heavily optimized espionage and spy action campaign. At that point, the CR becomes essentially worthless and it's up to the DM to set challenges.

 

[FireLance]

Balance between players is generally good so that every player feels like he is contributing something to the party. Of course, you get players who don't mind playing a weaker character, a support character or an ineffective character, but these tend to be the exceptions.

Balance between PCs and challenges of the same level helps a less experienced DM to minimize walkovers and TPKs (although the occasional one will happen once in a while). Even for more experienced DMs, it makes it easier to create appropriate challenges and cuts down on preparation time.

A great DM can probably run an unbalanced but enjoyable game, but all aspects of balance will make his job easier. An inexperienced DM may find an unbalanced game spinning out of control, or find himself with unhappy players to deal with.

 

[Frostmarrow]

In my opinion balance in the game is cut in the wrong direction. In my group we all like to roleplay, fight, cast spells and generally be a nuisance to any NPCs out there. However, we also like to complement each other. Having a fighter, a bard, a wizard, and the cleric does not accomplish this. In fact, our characters look more like multiclass freaks. When making new characters we are very careful not to step on any other player's toes (by making a character with the exact or better set up for the same tasks). Instead we try to find a new niche - which will involve role-playing, fighting, spellcasting, and generally be in the DM's face.