Balance: How important in your game?

[Ion]

A general issue in most discussions about changes to the rules revolve around what "balance" issues it has. Personally balance is usually the last factor in my mind when I wish to introduce a change into my games. My all-important opinion not withstanding , what do you guys think.

I voted "Completely Unimportant: If I think it's cool it's in."

When I'm DMing I'm trying to make sure everyone is having fun. It is usually more fun if you feel your character is useful, and so it is this line of thought that usually leads to PC vs. PC balance, but not for balance's sake, if you know what I mean.

Same line of thought for PC vs. GM balance, it is fun to be the hero/anti-hero/villain/whatever-you-are-playing, and the game usually centers around that. It isn't very often having your first level PCs be crushed by great red dragons and what not, balanced challenges are usually more fun.

So, maybe "completely unimportant" isn't exactly true, but I see game balance closer to a consequence of a fun game than a goal.

Edit: Jdvn1 said it in less words!

 

[Trickstergod]

Balance is important between the PC's. Each needs to be useful and able to contribute. For concepts that aren't necessarily similar, then the PC's should shine in their respective area's. If the cleric is wading into melee combat more effectively than the melee-focused fighter, there's a problem.

Of course, sometimes the PC to PC balance doesn't apply right away. If I think a particular prestige class or feat is too strong ahead of time, then it needs to be fixed, even if the PC is currently the only one filling whatever niche the strong feature grants - after all, someone might want to play a character that would later be overshadowed by that prestige class or feat or whatever. I also don't want prestige classes to be required, which it often seems is the case - many prestige classes greatly outshine core classes, which is a bad thing. Not all concepts have a prestige class and prestige classes often have wide balance disparities.

Balance is also important in the sense of knowing what can or can't be thrown at the PC's. If the power gauge of the PC's can't be figured, than they're bound to run into trouble (that they shouldn't) and it's the GM's fault for that. Either that, or there's going to be some fudging. I hate fudging.

So, yeah. Balance is important. It ensures that no PC feels outdone by another, allows for most character concepts to be valid in some way, and allows the GM to know roughly what the party can and can't handle instead of blindly fumbling about, killing characters left and right with poorly planned encounters or cheating left and right to avoid the PC's dying (or, heck, the NPC's - I disdain NPC's living by GM-fiat, usually).

 

[Nifelhein]

Voted moderately since I will try something out without actually having it extensively playtested, but I usually reserve my right to cut something out after some play time, sicen that qualifies as playtest and as pointed, PC vs PC is something I want to keep the balance. I mostly hate the this is npc so it may/must be more powerful anyway thing, it just does not strike me as being right.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Kind of important but I will over look things for fun; I have alowed good players unbalanced items/characters because they do not play them in a way that unbalanced the game's plot and flow. But in the hands of the wrong player...

 

[taitzu52]

Balance is the only thing that keeps certain players that I deal with from having too much "ME TIME". These are the kind that if they don't like the DM's setup, they start redrawing the map, and saying, "Now if I understand you..." trying to get the best outcome for themselves from a weak willed DM. They tend to forget that there's 5 other gamers in the room, and if given their drothers, they'd be off by themselves, invisible, walking on the ceiling, and dropping down with the sneak attack ninja technique. Um...hello? We're still here too! OK, maybe my issues aren't all balance related, but smacking down with the rules sometimes helps.

TZ

 

[Yair]

I sigend on to "Moderately Unimportant", but will choose higher in most games. It's just that my current one is slightly looser than my usual.

 

[Altalazar]

I think it is vital, though I am not necessarily always that strict in practice, just to keep the game moving.

If things are unbalanced, then it can make things either too easy or too hard - and that can subtract from the fun.

 

[Jdvn1]

Edit: Jdvn1 said it in less words!

And yet I voted differently from you.

 

[IronWolf]

I went with moderately unimportant, not quite sure that quite sums up my opinion, but I think it does. I think a balanced game is somewhat important between the PC's and between the DM and PC's. To keep a handle on things I pretty much limit things from the Wizard's books, as long as it is from there I am pretty lenient. There are the occasional things I rule out, but I try to be flexible as I do want my players to have fun.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

If I like it, I'll allow it. If it ends up being a problem somehow, I won't forbid it but I'll modify (HR) it so that it is no longer a problem.