I have played in over 100 RPG systems: IMHO, balance is nice, but is not required for me to have fun.
Balanced Game System: Imperative or Bugaboo
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
I think that balance is a nice thing to try and have in a game. I define balance as every class has a chance to contribute to the game in someway.
But I think trying to achieve a perfect balance is impossible and leads to a very bland game.
When you try and balance to the point of some kind of fairness you end up nerfing some classes to the point they are not fun to play or you end up giving every class so much power and options that it becomes a bookkeeping nightmare.
But I think trying to achieve a perfect balance is impossible and leads to a very bland game.
When you try and balance to the point of some kind of fairness you end up nerfing some classes to the point they are not fun to play or you end up giving every class so much power and options that it becomes a bookkeeping nightmare.
SiderisAnon
First Post
I think balance is vitally important.
As mentioned above, it sucks fun out of a game if one or more characters radically outshine the others at the table. I see this a lot in class-based games where one is just better or in point-buy games where one player is better and building the character. A game needs to have a reasonable level of balance so that everyone can shine and feel like they're part of the story.
You can see this in the extreme for some of the class-based MMOs. If some classes would be the only ones played and other classes only played by people who don't know the game, then those "bad" classes are clearly not balanced in. (It's not as extreme in tabletop, of course, because you can have fun with a class that is less than optimal "raid" material.)
I like it when everyone at the table has something to do and when combat isn't about half the party hiding behind something heavy because otherwise they will die horribly very quickly.
To examples that come to my mind of poor balance are: 1) In AD&D where the fighter outshone the wizard at low levels with ease, but at high levels the fighter was mostly there to keep a few strays off the wizard while the battlefield was burned down. 2) In the Rifts game where one person could take a hit from a tank and the guy next to him would die from a single pistol bullet.
Balance can be taken too far, of course. Sometimes all the cool gets sucked out for fear it won't balance. Sometimes there's really no difference between the characters because that's how the game was balanced.
As an example of the latter, a friend who ran a long Scion game complained that the character sheets all looked alike after a while because it was the only way the characters could keep up with each other. Even a single dot difference at higher point values could mean that a foe who challenged one PC could destroy another.
As mentioned above, it sucks fun out of a game if one or more characters radically outshine the others at the table. I see this a lot in class-based games where one is just better or in point-buy games where one player is better and building the character. A game needs to have a reasonable level of balance so that everyone can shine and feel like they're part of the story.
You can see this in the extreme for some of the class-based MMOs. If some classes would be the only ones played and other classes only played by people who don't know the game, then those "bad" classes are clearly not balanced in. (It's not as extreme in tabletop, of course, because you can have fun with a class that is less than optimal "raid" material.)
I like it when everyone at the table has something to do and when combat isn't about half the party hiding behind something heavy because otherwise they will die horribly very quickly.
To examples that come to my mind of poor balance are: 1) In AD&D where the fighter outshone the wizard at low levels with ease, but at high levels the fighter was mostly there to keep a few strays off the wizard while the battlefield was burned down. 2) In the Rifts game where one person could take a hit from a tank and the guy next to him would die from a single pistol bullet.
Balance can be taken too far, of course. Sometimes all the cool gets sucked out for fear it won't balance. Sometimes there's really no difference between the characters because that's how the game was balanced.
As an example of the latter, a friend who ran a long Scion game complained that the character sheets all looked alike after a while because it was the only way the characters could keep up with each other. Even a single dot difference at higher point values could mean that a foe who challenged one PC could destroy another.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
And to muddy the waters yet further...
There's different scales of balance.
There's the immediate scale (can everyone contribute equally to every situation/encounter/battle) - this one's where 4e really went overboard and it's not necessary at all. Some things are best left to the experts.
There's the short-term scale (will everyone have a chance to shine every session) - while nice to have, this isn't necessary provided the long-term balance is working.
And there's the long-term scale (will everyone get a chance to shine at some point) - this is necessary. My usual example here is 1e Illusionists - if the adventure is all about undead they're hopeless, but if the next adventure's opponents are mostly dumb Ogres the Illusionist becomes the most valuable character in the party!
Another aspect is that the editions have - at least in my view - become more and more rigidly turn-based in their encounter resolution mechanics as time goes on; the problem here is that when it's turn-based everyone naturally expects to have their turn exactly as often as everyone else - which is another way of saying the system leads them to expect immediate-scale balance. Fine for a board game. Not so fine for the ebb and flow of a RPG.
Lan-"I'm not an expert; leave things to me at your own risk"-efan
There's different scales of balance.
There's the immediate scale (can everyone contribute equally to every situation/encounter/battle) - this one's where 4e really went overboard and it's not necessary at all. Some things are best left to the experts.
There's the short-term scale (will everyone have a chance to shine every session) - while nice to have, this isn't necessary provided the long-term balance is working.
And there's the long-term scale (will everyone get a chance to shine at some point) - this is necessary. My usual example here is 1e Illusionists - if the adventure is all about undead they're hopeless, but if the next adventure's opponents are mostly dumb Ogres the Illusionist becomes the most valuable character in the party!
Another aspect is that the editions have - at least in my view - become more and more rigidly turn-based in their encounter resolution mechanics as time goes on; the problem here is that when it's turn-based everyone naturally expects to have their turn exactly as often as everyone else - which is another way of saying the system leads them to expect immediate-scale balance. Fine for a board game. Not so fine for the ebb and flow of a RPG.
Lan-"I'm not an expert; leave things to me at your own risk"-efan
I think the value of balance in a game system is inversely proportional to the experience level of the userbase.
If you're doing the Nth edition of a game with an extremely experienced core audience, then balance is rather devalued. Most of your players/DMs already know all the tricks and traps and can work around them as needed.
If you're making a game from whole cloth that caters to new gamers, then balance is a little more important because it's less likely that they will have a century of RPG experience spread around the table to draw upon to smooth over imbalances that might wreck a less expert group's game.
If you're doing the Nth edition of a game with an extremely experienced core audience, then balance is rather devalued. Most of your players/DMs already know all the tricks and traps and can work around them as needed.
If you're making a game from whole cloth that caters to new gamers, then balance is a little more important because it's less likely that they will have a century of RPG experience spread around the table to draw upon to smooth over imbalances that might wreck a less expert group's game.
For me, the role and importance of balance depends heavily on how the game is designed to be played. Supporting different playstyles requires different design approaches.
If the game is focused on overcoming challenges, strict balance is crucial. I want to be challenged in play, not in character creation and development, with "well-built" characters succeeding nearly automatically and "gimped" characters having no chance. All characters need to be useful in nearly all situations the game offers and each character should have their niche - something they are best at.
If the game focuses on genre emulation, what is important is making each character represent their genre archetype well. Nobody should get overshadowed in what is their role, but global, objective efficiency is significantly less important. There is a need for balance, but it's a different kind of balance than in the previous paragraph.
In a game that focuses on story, player choices must matter, they must shape the world and events that follow. Without this, the game just won't work. But what is important is the choice and it's consequences, not winning or losing; both success and failure may be interesting and fun. What is challenged is beliefs, values, relations and goals. What needs to be balanced is how well developed the characters are and how well they are hooked into the situation, not how powerful they are.
Finally, in a game focused on immersion, the system must give results that are consistent and do not violate the setting as described. The system must also be light and simple, so it does not pull players out of their characters. GM and players' common sense must take precedence over rules. All other traits of the system, including balance, are strictly secondary to ease of use and consistency with the setting.
If the game is focused on overcoming challenges, strict balance is crucial. I want to be challenged in play, not in character creation and development, with "well-built" characters succeeding nearly automatically and "gimped" characters having no chance. All characters need to be useful in nearly all situations the game offers and each character should have their niche - something they are best at.
If the game focuses on genre emulation, what is important is making each character represent their genre archetype well. Nobody should get overshadowed in what is their role, but global, objective efficiency is significantly less important. There is a need for balance, but it's a different kind of balance than in the previous paragraph.
In a game that focuses on story, player choices must matter, they must shape the world and events that follow. Without this, the game just won't work. But what is important is the choice and it's consequences, not winning or losing; both success and failure may be interesting and fun. What is challenged is beliefs, values, relations and goals. What needs to be balanced is how well developed the characters are and how well they are hooked into the situation, not how powerful they are.
Finally, in a game focused on immersion, the system must give results that are consistent and do not violate the setting as described. The system must also be light and simple, so it does not pull players out of their characters. GM and players' common sense must take precedence over rules. All other traits of the system, including balance, are strictly secondary to ease of use and consistency with the setting.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Balance is a bugaboo...a bugbear, as Stormonu said, though I mean it in the more "nasty imagined figment" sense. It is a construct which gamers have created for themselves and, as most such constructs, has no "real" definition or objective meaning.
Different games/systems have different parameters of what makes "balance". Different characters within a game may be "balanced" among each other, or simply an individual character may be "balanced" within themselves/against the game/system (able to handle any/all situations with a reasonable expectation of success).
There is no "true" meaning here. It is all the perception of the player as to what makes "balance" or "imbalance."
As several have stated here, AD&D is seen as "unbalanced" by today's constructed, loosely understood, standard. Yet, back in the day, the very idea of "balance" did not play into character construction or choice at all. You looked for a "party" to be complete, i.e. "balanced", having sufficient resources and characters of various expertise that meshed together to, hopefully, be able to handle whatever challenges were presented to them.
The idea that my character should be "just as good" as you character in all things, except I use magic and you use a sword (or mace or stealth), and if I'm not, the "the game is obviously unbalanced" is absolutely ludicrous to me. I can do things you can't and you can do things I can't. Working together, we can do just about anything. That's my understanding of balance.
You're great at high levels and I'm not. Wah wah. I call "IMBALANCE!" The game is "flawed" and "unfair". My character is being "penalized" cuz he can't shoot fire out of his hands and I can't. I can only hit pretty much anything that moves and do 200hp of damage in a single attack. Wah wah. (a bit of hyberbole, but just a bit, and I trust the point is clear)
(I won't even get into the fact that whenever I see the AD&D MU v. Fighter arguments as an example of "bad balance", all I think of is that at high levels, a fighter character was supposed to get/build/raise a castle and veritable armies of retainers and mercenaries at your command. While the high level wizard was basically still all by his lonesome...maybe with a few low level apprentices in tow. The fact that most fighter PCs that I've known didn't bother to do that is not the game's"being unbalanced" fault).
(speaking in D&D terms here, if that wasn't obvious) It's a Role-Playing Game! Not a board game. Not a video game. Not a miniatures war game. Nor is there any rason whatsoever that it should be trying to emulate any of those things. Do what you have to do, in game, to MAKE yourself great (or equally great to that guy, or "better" than that guy since that seems the major concern) if that's what you want.
There doesn't need to be any "game design mandate" that says your (PC) chances and abilities should be "as good as" everyone elses. No where should it say your character automatically gets (or has an "even chance" to everyone else) to succeed in all things or that there is some point at which you "win". You can win a board game. You can win a war game. You can win a video game. If you "need to win", you may be more gratified playing one of those. As stated above, RPGs are none of those things.
It's a playstyle preference thing, which, as we are all mature enough to see and understand, has no "right/wrong." No "better/worse" just "preferred/personally desired." Hence "Balance" really only exists (or is even "needed" at all!) insofar as the individual(s) playing want it/make it so.
Attempts to come up with some forced/created "balance" inbred into the system design is, as delricho stated, futile. And, not only "futile" but completely "made up", pulled from the ether by what the majority of the people concerned with it (designing the system) decide what "balance" means.
Again, I say, Bugaboo.
As always, have fun and happy [balanced?] gaming.
--Steel Dragons
Different games/systems have different parameters of what makes "balance". Different characters within a game may be "balanced" among each other, or simply an individual character may be "balanced" within themselves/against the game/system (able to handle any/all situations with a reasonable expectation of success).
There is no "true" meaning here. It is all the perception of the player as to what makes "balance" or "imbalance."
As several have stated here, AD&D is seen as "unbalanced" by today's constructed, loosely understood, standard. Yet, back in the day, the very idea of "balance" did not play into character construction or choice at all. You looked for a "party" to be complete, i.e. "balanced", having sufficient resources and characters of various expertise that meshed together to, hopefully, be able to handle whatever challenges were presented to them.
The idea that my character should be "just as good" as you character in all things, except I use magic and you use a sword (or mace or stealth), and if I'm not, the "the game is obviously unbalanced" is absolutely ludicrous to me. I can do things you can't and you can do things I can't. Working together, we can do just about anything. That's my understanding of balance.
You're great at high levels and I'm not. Wah wah. I call "IMBALANCE!" The game is "flawed" and "unfair". My character is being "penalized" cuz he can't shoot fire out of his hands and I can't. I can only hit pretty much anything that moves and do 200hp of damage in a single attack. Wah wah. (a bit of hyberbole, but just a bit, and I trust the point is clear)
(I won't even get into the fact that whenever I see the AD&D MU v. Fighter arguments as an example of "bad balance", all I think of is that at high levels, a fighter character was supposed to get/build/raise a castle and veritable armies of retainers and mercenaries at your command. While the high level wizard was basically still all by his lonesome...maybe with a few low level apprentices in tow. The fact that most fighter PCs that I've known didn't bother to do that is not the game's"being unbalanced" fault).
(speaking in D&D terms here, if that wasn't obvious) It's a Role-Playing Game! Not a board game. Not a video game. Not a miniatures war game. Nor is there any rason whatsoever that it should be trying to emulate any of those things. Do what you have to do, in game, to MAKE yourself great (or equally great to that guy, or "better" than that guy since that seems the major concern) if that's what you want.
There doesn't need to be any "game design mandate" that says your (PC) chances and abilities should be "as good as" everyone elses. No where should it say your character automatically gets (or has an "even chance" to everyone else) to succeed in all things or that there is some point at which you "win". You can win a board game. You can win a war game. You can win a video game. If you "need to win", you may be more gratified playing one of those. As stated above, RPGs are none of those things.
It's a playstyle preference thing, which, as we are all mature enough to see and understand, has no "right/wrong." No "better/worse" just "preferred/personally desired." Hence "Balance" really only exists (or is even "needed" at all!) insofar as the individual(s) playing want it/make it so.
Attempts to come up with some forced/created "balance" inbred into the system design is, as delricho stated, futile. And, not only "futile" but completely "made up", pulled from the ether by what the majority of the people concerned with it (designing the system) decide what "balance" means.
Again, I say, Bugaboo.
As always, have fun and happy [balanced?] gaming.
--Steel Dragons
It's important for the game to be balanced in effect, i.e. in actual play. For this it is not necessarily important that the system is balanced, though it usually helps.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Yeah, what he said.
But also...
It can totally depend on the game system and purpose. Now, if we are considering *only* player character to player character, I'll refer you back up to steeldragons post, above. If we are talking PC's vs. Everything Else, balance is more or less pointless.
Call of Cthulhu = who cares about balance
Marvel Super Heroes = *shrug* take it or leave it, depending on tone
Exaulted = not much to care about...PC's should rawk most of the time
Top Secret = kinda important, but not super-important
...etc...
If we are talking about AD&D and D&D, I still stand by the BECMI and AD&D 1e being the most balanced game out there in terms of having a long-running, exciting and consistant campaign. I am always hearing about 1e (and 2e) groups that have had an ongoing campaign for years (decades sometimes!). Now, 3e is still young'ish, but I rarely if ever hear of a continuous 3d campaign that has had primarily the same players all playing for more than...3 or 4 years. Tops. And those 3e groups...almost always tend towards a slooooow advancement rate. The balance in the 1e/2e days was in the "over the length of an ongoing campaign"; it didn't really concern itself with "at each character level one PC should be equal to another".
So...no. "Game Balance" isn't all that important most of the time. Something FAR more important is how "neutral, balanced and fair" the DM is. The rules? Pretty far down the list, IMHO, as far as balance. As long as it isn't out right crazy-nutty-fun-bar unbalanced (Rifts, I'm looking at you...), it doesn't much matter in the great scheme of things.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
steeldragons said:
Yeah, what he said.
But also...
It can totally depend on the game system and purpose. Now, if we are considering *only* player character to player character, I'll refer you back up to steeldragons post, above. If we are talking PC's vs. Everything Else, balance is more or less pointless.
Call of Cthulhu = who cares about balance
Marvel Super Heroes = *shrug* take it or leave it, depending on tone
Exaulted = not much to care about...PC's should rawk most of the time
Top Secret = kinda important, but not super-important
...etc...
If we are talking about AD&D and D&D, I still stand by the BECMI and AD&D 1e being the most balanced game out there in terms of having a long-running, exciting and consistant campaign. I am always hearing about 1e (and 2e) groups that have had an ongoing campaign for years (decades sometimes!). Now, 3e is still young'ish, but I rarely if ever hear of a continuous 3d campaign that has had primarily the same players all playing for more than...3 or 4 years. Tops. And those 3e groups...almost always tend towards a slooooow advancement rate. The balance in the 1e/2e days was in the "over the length of an ongoing campaign"; it didn't really concern itself with "at each character level one PC should be equal to another".
So...no. "Game Balance" isn't all that important most of the time. Something FAR more important is how "neutral, balanced and fair" the DM is. The rules? Pretty far down the list, IMHO, as far as balance. As long as it isn't out right crazy-nutty-fun-bar unbalanced (Rifts, I'm looking at you...), it doesn't much matter in the great scheme of things.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Similar Threads
