Balance : GM's job or everyone's?

[BSF]

The onus for maintaining balance is in the GM's hands. However, the players should certainly contribute where they can. As a GM, I do everything I can to assure that nobody's character significantly out performs any other. I even try to give each character the spotlight to help the players that are less aggressive. I try to make sure that everyone is having fun and one of the strategies to doing that is to make sure nobody feels like their character is "useless". It is much easier for me to do that when a player can look at something in a book and determine for themselves that it is unbalanced.

It is also nice when each player can look around the table and decide that they should sit back for a little bit and let somebody else have the spotlight. This doesn't always occur, so I need to take the focus off that player/character to give somebody else opportunities.

That is part of what GM'ing is about. So, much of the responsibility rests with the GM. But, the players can, and should, help that process because everyone is at the table to have fun.

 

[Hardhead]

I think in a lot of ways, it's a give-and-take between players and DMs. For instance, my current psion has had two powers toned down. One was Mindwipe, which is basically a fourth level power that bestowed one negative for every two manifester levels I had (fort negates). Upon getting it, it hits for 4 levels.

My opinion was that it was good, but not broken. My DM felt it was *too* good. We talked about it, and finally settled on reducing it by one (one negative level for every two manifestor levels, minus one), so Mindwipe only deals 3 negative levels at my current level. This brings it's combat use down a good bit, though. Enervation requires a touch attack instead of a save (generally much easier), and hits for an average of 2.5. And it's a level lower.

In exchange, though, he let's me erase short memories with it, so I can make someone forget what I just said or that he just caught the party rogue stealing form him, or whatever. In the end, we both got what we want. I don't masacre casters with it anymore (what he wanted), and I got a new nifty trick.

On the other hand, we both agreed that the Ego Whip power (the modified one from Mindscapes, which is a first level power that dazes the target for 1d2 rounds) was *way* too powerful as a touch attack with no save. So now it doesn't have a touch attack, but the target gets a save. I had no problem with that nerf. It was way too good against BBEGs.

 

[The Spectrum Rider]

My gaming group is more accustomed to low-to-mid-level games (under 8th level), but lately we've realy been getting up there. The player for the now 10th-level sorcerer said to me, "I want to take Shadow Evocation, but if you think it'll overwhelm the game, I'll skip it." He offered again after putting it to great use; he was afraid his character would outshine the others by too much. Both times I told him to go for it. Then I tried to design situations where the other characters could be equally useful.

This same player only grimaced once when we switched to 3.5 and he lost his beloved, overwhelming Polymorph Other. (I let him swap some spells out and in at that juncture.) No real complaints.

Players say, "Well, I guess I could do such-and-such by a strict interpretation of the rules, but it doesn't really sound kosher, does it?" They correct my and each other's mistakes and misinterpretations, regardless of whether it's to the PCs benefit or detriment. Despite the occasional power-gaming reach, they generally work to help me maintain balance and fairness.

And I try to give them a game where they can all strut their stuff.

The Spectrum Rider

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I would have to agree that it is primarily the gm's job, preferably with some active player input.

Last time we played a round-robin campaign, I disagreed with the lack of campaign structure and so I passed on playing after about the 3rd session.

Anyway I found out the characters got a lot of wealth and decided to invest in (3.0 ed) boots of springing and striding (without the springing, for a 500gp discount you see) for the whole party. So they had +30 speed for 5000gp each. The result by their own words was that they could out flee anything too tough and run down anything trying to escape them, at level 8*. When they went into towns they deliberately went slower so as not to reveal their speeds.

I believe it was the lack of agreed structure to the round-robin that actually did in that campaign but the speed imbalance surely crippled it.

What it comes down to is that the players themselves do need to look hard at what they are about to do and should be actively talking to the gm. A modest bit of player led initiative does lighten the gm's ultimate responsibility for providing a semblance of balance.

*I realize that this was within the wealth for an 8th level character but I disagreed with 3.0 boot of S&S/Speed(haste) from the outset.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As a GM and a player in Shallown's game, I would say that the primary responsibility for balance in the the GM's hands. He is defining the world in which the game takes place, setting the encounters that occur, and handing out the loot. The players are only responsible for their characters. As such, many balance issues are out of the players' hands. A player does not decide which ruleset or options are available or are modified, that is a choice only available to the GM. A player's only decisions are based on the options allowed him.
That said, the player should take an interest in the game. Pointing out situations/rules that interfere with the suspension of disbelief neccesary to a good game and/or avoiding choices that do the same is the responsibility of the player. Note that I said suspension of disbelief and not logic or reality. It is a game, not a sim. Avoiding choices that allow for abusive situations should be the rule, not the exception. Unfortunately, I have played in and GMed games that failed in this regard.
I choose to involve myself in the balance of the games I play in. I feel that a challenge beaten fairly is more rewarding than a challenge beaten by a schtick. Since I play for the reward of a story well told, I hold that balance, at least some small part, is on the players' shoulders as well. To mix metaphors, the GM may hold the reins, but I will not bite the hand that feeds me.

IMHO, 'vino

 

[billd91]

The way I see it, it's a shared responsibility but with some caveats. It's the DM's responsibility to see that there's balance overall, between the characters, between the characters and the rest of the campaign NPCs and all that, and between players and when their PCs have prime screen time.
The players should be concerned about keeping their own PCs in balance with everyone else and not ruthlessly set out to be top dog.
It is NOT the responsibility of the players, nor is it their business, to keep other PCs in check because they have the inkling that another player's PC is getting too powerful. I've had that happen in a game and didn't appreciate it. It caused no end of trouble.