Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, but its not a conclusive statement. The system still needs to support you in the endevour. When a system rewards you for NOT being unique, then forcing a unique character inevitably results in a sub par character.

Its like the whole "in 4e you could make the character whatever you want, nothings stopping you". Yea, nothings stopping you except you end up in the inglorious position of being the party gimp.

Except that you don't. 4e is balanced enough that you can make a damsel-in-distress character who does nothing but running around screaming for help and screaming for people to look out and still contributes his or her fair share to the party (Lazy Warlord). You can create an 8 year old with sucky physical stats who is protected by an incorporeal guardian angel and who still contributes his or her fair share to the party (Shaman).

Genuine gimp characters happen in 4e in my experience for three reasons. The first is someone does something point blank stupid - namely dumping their primary stat. The second is that someone doesn't read the very basic guidance like the roles and does something that cuts against them like e.g. building a wizard for single target damage. (This is not to say that you can't build a wizard for single target damage - merely that it isn't something a beginner should be trying). The third is someone has set out to make a gimp character (normally by combining points 1 and 2 - and/or deciding they want to have an unarmoured fighter but must write "fighter" on their character sheet).

I'm curious. Where are all these people in 4e that have done what you claim and ended up with characters more gimped than they'd be if they'd simply decided to play a monk straight out of the PHB as the guidance indicates you should play it in either 1e or 3e? And what are these concepts that you can't make in 4e that don't revolve round Supreme Magical Powah?

(And thanks Hussar for pointing this post out - I'd missed it the first time).

 

[BobTheNob]

I'm curious. Where are all these people in 4e that have done what you claim and ended up with characters more gimped than they'd be if they'd simply decided to play a monk straight out of the PHB as the guidance indicates you should play it in either 1e or 3e? And what are these concepts that you can't make in 4e that don't revolve round Supreme Magical Powah?

Well, we had a guy with "Jack of all trades". He ended up dumping it out when he realised in the paragon tier that he was missing more often than he needed to because he didnt have weapon expertise. So he retrained. Depressing day that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Well, we had a guy with "Jack of all trades". He ended up dumping it out when he realised in the paragon tier that he was missing more often than he needed to because he didnt have weapon expertise. So he retrained. Depressing day that.

But this is exactly points one and two above. To build a jack of all trades character, you have to specifically attempt to leave the role of your class and you have to gimp your primary stat in order to get more in other stats.

It's the one character you absolutely can't build effectively in 4e. This is on purpose. The main point of 4e is to force everyone to be good at their own specialty to make sure they don't step on other people's toes.

 

[BobTheNob]

But this is exactly points one and two above. To build a jack of all trades character, you have to specifically attempt to leave the role of your class and you have to gimp your primary stat in order to get more in other stats.

It's the one character you absolutely can't build effectively in 4e. This is on purpose. The main point of 4e is to force everyone to be good at their own specialty to make sure they don't step on other people's toes.

I was asked for an example, I gave one, I never said a goal was to create "Jack of all trades" characters.

I said the goal of the new system should be to support players in coming up with characters that step outside of the boundries of traditional thinking. To allow a person to follow through with concept without getting to the end of it and saying "ugh, that doesnt work".

Im buying out of arguing that 4e,3e,2.5 WHATEVER did it. Im not going to make any claims in that regard. However well previous editions may or may not have succeeded, I simply feel that when 5e is coming together, I hope that designers are conscious of letting players design characters that are not cooky cutter templates at the same time as being feasible.

I sincerely hope that that is all I am saying, cause given some responses Im starting the get the impression Im not coming across so clear...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, we had a guy with "Jack of all trades". He ended up dumping it out when he realised in the paragon tier that he was missing more often than he needed to because he didnt have weapon expertise. So he retrained. Depressing day that.

Hitting matters. And just about anyone will tell you that the expertise feats are more or less a feat tax. (Fortunately they are more varied than they were). But I've had characters with the Jack of All Trades feat. And at Paragon you have a minimum of seven feats. Why was Jack the most dumpable of his existing feats? (There's IMO one heroic, one paragon, and one epic feat tax. The heroic one is Expertise, the paragon one is Improved Defences, and the epic one is shoring up your low NAD; I believe this to be bad design in every case but when I can only think of three feats like that it's not the incredible issue you're making it out to be).

And there's an entire pile of crap feats. Saying you can't do somehting just because one of the PHB feats is underpowered is ... questionable.

But this is exactly points one and two above. To build a jack of all trades character, you have to specifically attempt to leave the role of your class and you have to gimp your primary stat in order to get more in other stats.

It's the one character you absolutely can't build effectively in 4e. This is on purpose. The main point of 4e is to force everyone to be good at their own specialty to make sure they don't step on other people's toes.

Oh, you can build a jack of all trades - I have a bard with the Bard of All Trades - he gets +4 to all untrained skill checks. By L7 he'll have two off-turn encounter attack powers - he can therefore do semi-respectable damage. He has a little control from his dailies. But what he isn't is a full striker. Or anything resembling a real controller. Or able to take skill monkeys on on their own field (except charisma based or knowledge skills). Or even a great healer despite being a leader. He's a jack of all trades and almost a master of none. And Jacks of All Trades are fine as long as the master of none part remains. If he wants to be a thief, he's merely respectable rather than actually any good - his thievery is about a match for the untrained high-dex ranger. (Who can stealth him into the dust).

 

[Hussar]

I dont think anyone is arguing for classes to be worse overall then eachother. I certainly think the goal should be to make each class equally powerful and equally enticing with respect to the game. (I do however think classes should be allowed to be better/worse in different areas in the game)

But, that's where the rub lies. If you try to balance characters by saying that Class A is good in Situation A and Class B is good in Situation B, you are balancing apples with oranges. For one, how often do situations A and B come up? How often can they be reasonably expected to come up in most campaigns (since we can't really design for corner cases)? How long does it take to resolve A and B? How much do situations A and B appeal to the group as a whole rather than to the individual character (the classic Shadowrun Decker issue)? So on and so forth.

It's much better to balance within, to use the 4e term, silo's. So, two classes are balanced within combat - not that they do the same damage or whatnot, but that both classes are capable of having signficant impact on combat. Two classes should be balanced outside of combat as well - again, not that they have exactly the same skill set, but, that they have roughly the same options and can choose to specialize as the player sees fit.

Something 4e got wrong was different numbers of trained skills for different classes. Why does a fighter have less trained skills than a wizard? AFAIC, there's no real reason. I totally get the idea of different trained skills, that makes sense. But, why should wizards have more overall?

Hopefully 5e with it's "three pillars" approach will nix this sort of thing entirely.

That was my point, a system that DOESNT punish people for stepping outside of the box, where characters can shine even if they don't conform to a cooky cutter design.

Ahh, gotcha. You can achieve that a few ways, but, mostly IMO, you have to eject a lot of the preconceived notions of what a given class is. If you want to have a fighter that can do things other than fight, you have to make the option possible. Not necessarily easy, and, I have no problem with the fighter maybe not being better than another class at doing something, but, he should be able to be as good as another class.

 

[BryonD]

But, that's where the rub lies. If you try to balance characters by saying that Class A is good in Situation A and Class B is good in Situation B, you are balancing apples with oranges.

This is absolutely true and is a very real problem for RPG design in general.

IMO, however, in order for an RPG to truly reach the maximum potential it can, there is an complete necessity for dealing with some apples and oranges situations. From a purely mechanical position, apples and oranges may never really be "balanced", so the solution is to include a presumption of a quality, skilled GM how is willing and capable of taking accountability.

If you boil it down to something that can stand entirely on its own merits then you have already given up on reaching for the highest goals. IME, truly great RPG experiences exist exclusively as a result of a synergy between solid rules built with the presumption of being able to rely on solid DMing and solid DMing implemented fully in the spirit of working with the ruleset being used.

 

[Hussar]

See, I disagree BryonD. If gaming has to rely on "solid Dming" then gaming is doomed to mediocrity. So much of gaming will be crap, not because so many DM's are bad, but, because many of the DM's who are not amateur game designers but would rather rely on a ruleset that actually works out of the box are basically screwed.

You're basically putting a funny nose on the argument that balance is unachievable, therefore we should simply put it on the DM's shoulders. I think that's poor game design and always have. Every single piss poor rule out there can be justified this way. "Oh, the rule isn't balanced, but a solid DM can make it so".

Yeah, no thanks. The Oberoni Fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. Just because the DM can "fix" the problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Expectations that all DM's will somehow aspire to your level of "solid" (whatever that happens to be) cannot be built into a ruleset.

I chose 3e over 2e for exactly the same reason I chose 4e over 3e - a more solid ruleset that does not rely on constant oversight to work. 3e was a HUGE improvement in this area over 2e. 3e has a rule for everything and, by and large, the rules work. You want to know how far you can swim in 12.3 minutes? 3e will tell you that. And it will tell you how to adjudicate it.

That's how you design games. Not for some mythical "solid" DM who will take a game and make it better, somehow magically gaining knowledge that the game designers lacked, thus forcing every single table out there to reinvent the wheel, but for a DM who just wants to run a game and have it work.

Rules don't make great DM's. Lack of rules don't make great DM's either. Creativity, ability to run a great game, fairness, THESE are the things that make great DM's. Trying to pass off your typical "T-Ball and training wheels" rant is not helping the conversation.

 

[BryonD]

I'd say the entire history of RPGs disagrees with you.

And I reject your claim that the DM is "fixing" anything.
My point is that the synergy of good DMing and good rules can achieve vastly more than either one can EVER do alone.

If you try to write rules that by-pass the need for quality DMing you *will* fail to produce the highest possible end result.

But I also think you don't get what I'm saying. Either that or you just are not offering fair responses. No wheels need be "reinvented" and no knowledge the designers lacked is needed. But both the designers and the DMs understand that no set of rules are built with the knowledge of the virtually infinite possible specific situations which may arise. And every wheel needs to be adaptable to every possible terrain, but only the DM there actually working with that terrain can ever make the final call for what adaptation is need *right here and now*.

Trying to brush it off as just a "rant" does nothing to change the practical truth of the point.
You can disagree. But you can't point to an example that backs your claim.

 

[Hussar]

Again, I totally disagree. There are any number of systems out there that have basic task resolution mechanics that can be broadly applied. Savage Worlds has its "Rule of 4" where, after modifiers, if you score a 4 or better on your die roll, you succeed at whatever it is you are trying to do.

Very rules light systems work this way as well. 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars has exactly two stats - combat and non-combat. Anything you want to do that would hurt something counts as combat, anything else is non-combat. Make your roll.

I fail to see how having balanced mechanics somehow makes a "good" DM not achieve great results. How does having characters which are balanced in the three "pillars" as they are calling them in 5e, result in mediocre DM's?

Heck, I've still never quite figured out how having 4e's level of parity between classes somehow magically makes good DM's merely mediocre. Apparently some DM's can't seem to make the 4e mechanics work for them, I guess. Is that a failing of the system? Perhaps. I don't know. I do know that the two or three DM's I'm playing with currently have also DM'd various other systems within the group and, for some bizarre reason, their games are always great. Much better than mine, to my shame.

I completely reject the idea that somehow system makes for better DM's. It's ridiculous on its face. I'm pretty darn sure that if I sat down and played a 3e game with Monte Cook, I'd have a damn good game. But, I'm also sure, he'd run a damn good 4e game as well. And, heck, I'd line up to sit at a Basic D&D game if he'd run one.

So, yes, BryonD, I blow off your argument as the standard "training wheels" rant that you've been trotting out every so often for the past couple of years. That somehow having a system with imbalances makes better DM's because they'll have to rise to the challenge, rather than have the game work out of the box. If that were true, then the greatest DM's in the world would all play Palladium.