Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[BryonD]

Not everyone doesn't like it for that reason, obviously. Still, there are a number of people who have that problem with it. Most of them don't phrase it that way because they either don't want to be seen as a munchkin...or they don't really know that's the reason themselves.

A lot of people look at the books and say "So, I have to pick 4 powers from a list of abilities and I get 1 feat? How do I make a character like my character from 3.5e who could fly above the battle immune to all energy based attacks and all weapon attacks that weren't magical while I lowered all the enemies strength to 3 and trapped them in a web that they couldn't leave? Maybe at higher levels? No...none of those powers are available. Well, this edition is stupid. It just doesn't have enough options for me."

I think we agree that there are examples on both sides.

I don't agree that inability to break the game has been a significant factor in 4E's popularity issues.

But the problem is, the options that are missing aren't there because they were imbalanced. It's a catch-22. Balance the game and people get annoyed at the lack of choice. Keep the game imbalanced and it's no fun to DM most of the time because the game is so unbalanced.

I don't agree that either of side of that MUST be true.

I haven't seen too many players complaining about Save or Dies. Most of the people in the RPGA wanted to get rid of Save or Dies, not because of how they affected PCs, but because of how often the PCs could use them against enemies. It felt very anticlimactic when you played a 4 part adventure over 20 hours and you reached the bad guy at the end, just in the midst of finishing his plot that you'd been hearing about all this time. Only to have the PCs open up with 3 Save or Dies, each of which had a 75% chance of failing.

I don't know what to tell you. There is debate after debate on these boards and they focused on how much it sucked to be out of the game with "save or suck" being lumped in under the same umbrella as Save or Die and very much focused on the players feelings toward their character. Again, I'm not remotely claiming the other side of this point doesn't exist. But if you count noses it strongly skews toward PC protection. And the debates I've had in meatspace pretty well reflect the online debates.

I didn't actually hear anyone at all calling for the crits to always succeed.

You can find a few thread about that topic alone in this New Edition forum.

Most of the people from the RPGA who got into the Beta test for 4e got in because they were really dedicated to the RPGA(i.e. they DMed a lot), so most of the feedback given was "Fix this so it's easier for us to DM and fairer to the monsters".

And, again, I accept that I can't speak for the RPGA perspective.

 

[Mattachine]

But the problem is, the options that are missing aren't there because they were imbalanced. It's a catch-22. Balance the game and people get annoyed at the lack of choice. Keep the game imbalanced and it's no fun to DM most of the time because the game is so unbalanced.

I completely agree with your post, above, but many players are not annoyed by a lack of choice, and many DMs found the "imbalanced" game fun. Definitely, you did not find it fun, and some other DMs you knew didn't find it fun--I know I didn't like the imbalance. Still, many DMs liked it, and still do . . . and play 3e or PF.

 

[hanez]

The thing is, I think we played 3.5e the way the rules made it out to be. In other words, we played the real 3.5e D&D. Thus, we saw all the ugly parts of it.

It wasn't so much that we played in public locations or that we had campaign rules. My home campaign suffered all the same problems because I DMed it in the same way I DMed Living Greyhawk games: Completely by the rules.

The rules created the imbalance, not the style. It's just that a lot of DMs corrected the imbalance by not playing by the rules. And any rules can be awesome...if you don't use them.

It is a specific style that uses the Rules as written without house rules, without social contracts, without the understanding that everyone is working together. That is not the default style.

I completely agree with your post, above, but many players are not annoyed by a lack of choice, and many DMs found the "imbalanced" game fun. Definitely, you did not find it fun, and some other DMs you knew didn't find it fun--I know I didn't like the imbalance. Still, many DMs liked it, and still do . . . and play 3e or PF.

I know my groups wanted choice (the choice for my class to work differently then your class) and not "imbalance" so much as not rigid homogenous classes.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It is a specific style that uses the Rules as written without house rules, without social contracts, without the understanding that everyone is working together. That is not the default style.

Of course everyone is working together. Our style doesn't get rid of that idea. In fact, the idea is even stronger....since the players are all working together to solve the mission, they should be willing to make sure they are as good at solving that mission as possible. If you are bad at it because you made a poor character, then you should roll up a new one to be a better team player. Which generally means playing a caster of some type or a really power gamed fighting class.

I don't think House Rules are the default in any game. I think for some people they've become the default in their groups because they are used to rules being broken and wouldn't consider running a game by the books. But, I think overall, there were more games without house rules than those with.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is a specific style that uses the Rules as written without house rules, without social contracts, without the understanding that everyone is working together. That is not the default style.

Define "Working together". Because working together does not to me mean putting the nerd and the jock together on the science project. Working together IC and OOC are different things. And by "working together" some people mean "doing the best we can towards a common goal". Doing the best you can is effectively the same thing as power gaming.

I know my groups wanted choice (the choice for my class to work differently then your class) and not "imbalance" so much as not rigid homogenous classes.

And with 4e my group has choice. We also have, as I have demonstrated, less homogeneity than 3.X between non-caster classes. Our silos are more open than they were in 3.X as I have already demonstrated. Our variation within classes is far greater than 3.X - far fewer of our class features are locked down. And our variation between classes is IMO greater as long as you don't coun the major casters.

 

[hanez]

Of course everyone is working together. Our style doesn't get rid of that idea. In fact, the idea is even stronger....since the players are all working together to solve the mission, they should be willing to make sure they are as good at solving that mission as possible. If you are bad at it because you made a poor character, then you should roll up a new one to be a better team player. Which generally means playing a caster of some type or a really power gamed fighting class.

I don't think House Rules are the default in any game. I think for some people they've become the default in their groups because they are used to rules being broken and wouldn't consider running a game by the books. But, I think overall, there were more games without house rules than those with.

By working together I meant to create a fun story where everyone is the hero and has a good night, preferably with nachos and popcorn, not lets all craft codzilla so we can help to make a better "team". If you had house games where everyone played "a caster of some type or a really power gamed fighting class", then they were really different then mine.

Whether or not they represent the majority, I am tring to say that something that is imbalanced in one type of play, may be a feature in another. And an edition that caters to one style, may be unacceptable for another.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Not everyone doesn't like it for that reason, obviously. Still, there are a number of people who have that problem with it. Most of them don't phrase it that way because they either don't want to be seen as a munchkin...or they don't really know that's the reason themselves.

You get a similar issue on the "gimping yourself" side of the equation, too. With our group full of players not that interested in character buidling, probably a third of our appreciation for 4E over 3E is that I'm not constantly having to police the characters to make sure the players don't gimp themselves. There is a little chafing about not having options (in character), but it is nothing compared to the chafing at having options in the book that sound plausible but don't actually work very well.

I don't know how many times I've had a long conversion that starts something like this:

Player: I want to do X.
Me: You can do that, but it might not work the way you intend because of Y.
Player: Bugger. Well, I still want to try it, got any suggestions?
Me: Well, let's see what else you want to give up or incorporate ...

And 15 minutes later, we've practically reworked half the character to make it sort of work. After a few times of that, it becomes, "Out of these things, which ones will actually work for me?" You know, a limited set of choices that all mostly work as advertised.

Bringing this back around, kicking and screaming, on topic ... I don't object to having choices that are imbalanced. I object to having imbalanced choices that are not labeled as such and/or missing necessary advice to clue a player in on when and when not to use it.

Say a fighter character has 20 feats to pick from that might be plausible in his current circumstance and level. I want maybe 8-10 of those to be no particular extra information, meaning, "You can pick this and unless you've done something really odd, it will be mostly ok. Not perfect, but you won't totally regret gimping yourself or fill like you stepped on someone else's toes." Then if on top of that, we have a few that say, "Don't pick this unless you also have A or B, or know what you are doing, or you want this option enough you don't mind losing a bit of power." And then a few more that say, "This is typically a bit overpowered. Check with your DM before taking. Will be more acceptable when J or K."

 

[BryonD]

I don't think House Rules are the default in any game. I think for some people they've become the default in their groups because they are used to rules being broken and wouldn't consider running a game by the books.

I think a lot of the disconnect ties back to this.

There are different points being made with words being interchanged.
A game can be open to ABUSE and still not be BROKEN out of the box.
3E CAN be broken, quite easily, if played right out of the box. But it can also work quite well. I'm still not willing to claim I can speak for RPGA, but I could speculate on how a open-ended group would invite intentional abuse in a manner that a consistent group of friends may not.

There is also a difference between house-rules for the purpose of balance and house rules for the purpose of customization. There are a ton of rules in 3E and I won't even begin to try to defend them all. I absolutely concede that some house ruling for balance is fairly common. But I think 3E was designed with the very intent of house ruling for customization as a typical expectation. I don't think having some select house rules for balance on case by case issues (with the cases often being different from one group to the next) demonstrates a fundamentally broken core (And, to be clear, I dispute any claim the 3E core was fundamentally broken) and I think it is very unfair to lump customization house rules in with balance house rules.

Again, I don't dispute that there are examples of everything you mention. But my experience is strongly against those as being driving factors, particularly in regard to the acceptance of 4E.

 

[hanez]

And with 4e my group has choice. We also have, as I have demonstrated, less homogeneity than 3.X between non-caster classes. Our silos are more open than they were in 3.X as I have already demonstrated. Our variation within classes is far greater than 3.X - far fewer of our class features are locked down. And our variation between classes is IMO greater as long as you don't coun the major casters.

That is not an argument either of us can win. I agree that 4e presents choice to your group. To me, it does not. The idea that everyone has the same amount of powers, has powers at all, can use the powers at the same rate, and gains powers at the same rate, is the opposite of choice to me.

I have a guy who comes to my session and always plays a dwarven fighter. He never updates his sheet so I do it for him. He plays a simple, fun character and he mostly just describes what he wants to do without knowing the rules, hes an awesome player to have. 4e took AWAY his choice to run a character without lists of powers.

Still, I grant that your choice can be expanded in your game, this is not an either or thing, its a preference that relates to what types of choices you value.

 

[hanez]

There is also a difference between house-rules for the purpose of balance and house rules for the purpose of customization. There are a ton of rules in 3E and I won't even begin to try to defend them all. I absolutely concede that some house ruling for balance is fairly common. But I think 3E was designed with the very intent of house ruling for customization as a typical expectation. I don't think having some select house rules for balance on case by case issues (with the cases often being different from one group to the next) demonstrates a fundamentally broken core (And, to be clear, I dispute any claim the 3E core was fundamentally broken) and I think it is very unfair to lump customization house rules in with balance house rules.

I don't know thatI've ever had a houserule for the purpose of balance, for example. Most of its for customization and making the game quicker and more fun. We rely on social contract more for balance then houserules. And DM discretion as well, a magic item can always make a weak pc better, is that a "house rule"? I would say not, in my view DMs giving out magic items was just a part of D&D.