Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Crazy Jerome]

The thing is, some people just don't care about experience gained. Maybe the adventure is only planning on running for a few sessions then ending, so the possibility of level gain is small. Maybe it's a single session convention game. Given the freedom to take a class that only goes up by .5 in these situations, most people I know would take it in a heartbeat.

Yes, mistakes happen. But I would prefer errata to fix mistakes than classes made purposefully imbalanced.

If the adventure is short, what stops the players from adjusting the levels of the characters to account for such discrepancies, or at least acknowledging them if they don't want to adjust? This is exactly the same way that some old AD&D games would start at a given character level while others would start at a set XP total.

For mistakes, if it truly is a mistake that can be fixed, and then the numbers adjusted, sure. What happens, however, when it not an easy fix? Or worse, what happens when it is currently working fine for you, but it gets "fixed" because it isn't working for others, and now has shifted?

Look, I enjoy well-executed balance in my RPG mechanics as much as anyone. But the idea that even well done balance is consistent across every table is frankly ludicrous. Environment counts for a lot.

 

[Ranganathan]

Chances are they're returning to different xp charts for different classes. It makes the most sense to balance disparate classes with focuses that range from role-playing, to combat, to exploration. They will likely also include an "ECL" or something similar to allow different characters to pick different options at the same table, i.e. you want an AD&D style fighter, and I want a 4E style rogue... that disparity has to be managed somehow, and balancing skills, feats, powers, etc with... nothing just doesn't work. If they're really going to allow players to opt into varying levels of complexity, they're going to have to use the xp charts and an updated version of ECL.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If the adventure is short, what stops the players from adjusting the levels of the characters to account for such discrepancies, or at least acknowledging them if they don't want to adjust? This is exactly the same way that some old AD&D games would start at a given character level while others would start at a set XP total.

Which required the DM to go through a bunch of extra steps. And I hesitate to call that balance. A Thief might have been 3 levels higher than the Wizard due to XP chart differences, but even a Thief 3 levels higher was not balanced with a Wizard 80% of the time.

For mistakes, if it truly is a mistake that can be fixed, and then the numbers adjusted, sure. What happens, however, when it not an easy fix? Or worse, what happens when it is currently working fine for you, but it gets "fixed" because it isn't working for others, and now has shifted?

Obviously things shouldn't be "fixed" unless they need to be. But "working fine for you" is kind of hard to discuss. For instance, 3e works fine for a lot of people, but it's been my experience that's because their group of people have a certain mindset that says "We will choose not to break this game". Or they have a focus on roleplaying that prevents them from considering the portions of the game that are broken. Or in the case of a group of people I know, they say "Sure you can build all sorts of broken things in 3e. The DM won't allow them, though...so the game is balanced."

While that "works for them"....it doesn't work for me. It brings back memories of friends of mine spending 2 hours on the phone with me trying to convince me to let them take broken options because it fit their backstory.

Which leads me to:

Look, I enjoy well-executed balance in my RPG mechanics as much as anyone. But the idea that even well done balance is consistent across every table is frankly ludicrous. Environment counts for a lot.

It does if people are using the game to play the same way. This is the real problem with D&D. If you balance the game as a way of playing skirmish battles against monsters in a dungeon...it can be balanced well. Until people start using it to simulate a poisoning the wells campaign against a city of kobolds. If you balance the game assuming 4 battles a day it becomes imbalanced to those who play with more or less than that.

D&D is trying to be everything to everyone. The current approach to 5e seems to be balancing between the "3 pillars", so that a class is 80% combat, 20% social...while another class is 100% combat and 0% social. And, although it'll be possible to make the first character DECENT at combat, he'll always be worse than the latter. Which works well if your character gets into social situations. What happens when the DM runs a dungeon adventure that ends when the PCs get to the end? The game will be imbalanced for them.

To me, it just seems that the designers personal tastes lie in more social and exploration....so now the game will focus balance on that. 10 years from now designers that are tired of all the social and exploration will take over and focus the balance back on combat. If your tastes are the same as the current designers, you get a game balanced for you. If not, you wait for another edition. But it's always been like that.

If people are playing the way the game is balanced for then well done balance can be consistent (within a certain range) across the board. Sure, you'll have a class that's a little weaker than another. But when the difference between classes is within a certain small range, it is at least plausible that someone will take the weaker one for reasons other than power.

On the other hand, if you factor in different playstyles, you'll find that a class that can charm people(but only outside of combat) and turn invisible and silent(but not if someone is currently looking at you and it ends when you attack) at-will but who only has a 30% chance of doing 1d6 damage with their attacks will be considered super overpowered in one game and super weak in another game. Those abilities just aren't valued in a game where 80% of the time is spend in open combat with enemies.

 

[mkill]

This is why the game needs combat roles. Without them, you end up balancing apples against oranges.

If you define the illusionist as a controller, his damage output becomes secondary, and you look at how good he is at misleading enemy attacks and creating terrain effects. Then you can compare him against a control-focused Warlock build.

So you don't need one balance meter, but at least four, depending on how you define the roles.

Of course, 5E has to be more flexible than (early) 4E, and allow you to choose different roles, but the point still stands.

If you don't do this, you completely screw up class balance. For example, the damage output of 3E Wizards is roughly balanced against other classes, but this "balance" completely breaks for control builds that ignore damage spells, because the designers didn't even look at them when balancing classes.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is why the game needs combat roles. Without them, you end up balancing apples against oranges.

If you define the illusionist as a controller, his damage output becomes secondary, and you look at how good he is at misleading enemy attacks and creating terrain effects. Then you can compare him against a control-focused Warlock build.

So you don't need one balance meter, but at least four, depending on how you define the roles.

Of course, 5E has to be more flexible than (early) 4E, and allow you to choose different roles, but the point still stands.

If you don't do this, you completely screw up class balance. For example, the damage output of 3E Wizards is roughly balanced against other classes, but this "balance" completely breaks for control builds that ignore damage spells, because the designers didn't even look at them when balancing classes.

Of course engineering balance strictly on combat in a roleplaying game doesn't work either. Game balance needs to account for the game as a whole and not focus on just one aspect.

Meaningful balance will ultimately be in the hands of the group that is playing. Looking at a book to do the job of reasonable thinking people never works out.

 

[Kingreaper]

Meaningful balance will ultimately be in the hands of the group that is playing. Looking at a book to do the job of reasonable thinking people never works out.

The better job the book does, the less effort you have to put in.


Roleplaying games can be entirely designed, top to bottom, by the group playing them.

Balance isn't unique in being unnecessary. And yet people still buy books. Why? Because it's easier.

Ignoring balance for the book is going to mean that those people who want balance won't buy it.

 

[hanez]

If you define the illusionist as a controller, his damage output becomes secondary, and you look at how good he is at misleading enemy attacks and creating terrain effects. Then you can compare him against a control-focused Warlock build.
.

Please dont destroy D&D for me......... again. Not being reactionary or dramatic, just telling you the truth, maybe my reaction below will shed light on it a bit.

My illusionist isn't a controller. He's a fun little gnome, who plays tricks on people. Often he's completely useless in combat, because the undead consider him an idiot, so I as a player have to work extra hard to make sure I'm not holding the party back. I think of clever ways to interact with the environment or the encounter to have an effect, and I expect my DM to craft encounters where there are a VARIETY of ways to overcome some (but not all) encounters. The DM doesnt do this because I chose an illusionist, he does this because thats what DMs are supposed to do.

My illusionist is a challenge to be as powerful in combat as my fighter comrades. Thats OK, because I'm a kickbut usefull mage in social situations, bartering, making deals, convincing people to help us, overcoming obstacles and even exploring with my side spells. Still in other situations my phantasmal killer, or mirage arcana are clutch spells. Pit me against an army of humans and I may just have 500 soldiers running before the fighter draws his sword.

By making me a controller you scare me that you will simply force me into the same template as everyone else (as was done in 4e). I want to be weaker in some situations, thats why I chose an illusionist in exchange for power in other situations. Cruniching numbers to make me useful in combat will not "unite" anyone.

And if my DM is a strict combat oriented undead heavy DM? Thats ok, when I die I roll up a barbarian, or try again with the illusionist. I much prefer you not redefining the illusionist to play well in his world. In fact by redefining classes to play well in his world, you encourage it to be the only one a DM can imagine. Leave the combat challenged illusionist alone, it will help make the game more imaginative.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The better job the book does, the less effort you have to put in.

That sounds great but.. better for whom?

Since a ruleset cannot be balanced to everyones' taste it is better if moderate balancing guidelines are included for the whole rather than draconian balance for one play aspect alone.

 

[Kingreaper]

That sounds great but.. better for whom?

Since a ruleset cannot be balanced to everyones' taste it is better if moderate balancing guidelines are included for the whole rather than draconian balance for one play aspect alone.

I can agree with that, however I find that it pays to be clear that you're not saying "balance needs to come from the group" but rather "balance needs to be available, if imperfect, in the game, and then easily polished up by the group to fit their needs"

Because "balance needs to come from the group" reads like an excuse not to even try to balance the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I can agree with that, however I find that it pays to be clear that you're not saying "balance needs to come from the group" but rather "balance needs to be available, if imperfect, in the game, and then easily polished up by the group to fit their needs"

Precisely that. Sorry for any confusion. Balance that attempts to be too finely tuned ends up being endlessly patched. A tabletop rpg should be robust enough to not require that.