Balanced Game System: Imperative or Bugaboo

[prosfilaes]

I think the value of balance in a game system is inversely proportional to the experience level of the userbase.

I don't agree. I think a lot of inexperienced groups are willing to dive in and have fun with anything. A lot of balance problems really show up in the hands of experienced players only, and a lot of experienced groups have problems with one person hyperoptimizing and another just playing anything cool.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

IIRC this is revisionist history and E Gary Gygax cared quite a bit about having a relatively balanced game. And there are a lot of balancing factors in OD&D and 1e AD&D that simply got removed in later editions. A good example of this is the Wandering Monster Table; there were deliberately mechanisms in place in classic D&D that prevented you taking extended rests. This of course is a balancing factor with serious impact for the wizard and EGG (and the rest of his table e.g. Old Geezer at rpg.net) knew exactly what it was for. But none of the books actually explain this and as first TSR then WoTC moved away from EGG's game about professional dungeon-looters they threw out the balancing factors.

Balance is like oxygen. You don't realise the importance of it until it shatters. And it did shatter in 3e. Especially when 3e tried to go not only playstyle but complete setting independent and took away the fighter's resources.

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.

Strawman. The problem really comes to a head in mid-high level 3.X when a decently built cleric is better than a naively built fighter even at the things the fighter is meant to be good at. Mess up balance enough and there are no things I can do that you can't. Comparing fighter to properly buffed cleric - remember that the cleric starts with more hit points because unlike the fighter he can actually heal. (Or fighter to druid ("I have class features stronger than your entire class)).

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.

That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy goal. But the critical problem isn't the balance mismatches, it's that they are never explicitely called out (Monte Cook having even deliberately left in trap options).

 

[Wombat]

I am in the middle on game balance for a simple reason: what may seem like balance may not be in the end...

If all the mechanics are balanced with each other, yet the adventure or campaign does not end up emphasizing a given aspect of the rules, for the players it can appear unbalanced. For example, if there are few traps to deactivate, a thief-type character may feel less useful. This, then, is the interface between the game system, the setting, the GMs, and the players.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As someone who greatly prefers to run sandbox games, I think balance is pretty necessary. That is, there are "tricks of the trade" you can use to reign in unbalanced factors in game design. However, as someone who doesn't design adventures or the like, and lets the game world unfold naturally (which means no d6 rolls for wandering monsters), I need a healthy dose of balance to make sure the game is running well.

However, as others have pointed out (Lanefan), there are differing types of balance. My approach is different from other approaches, and the same as others. It just depends. But, when designing my RPG, I took three main factors in mind when designing game mechanics: realism, fantasy, and balance. Of course, for my group, having these mechanics equates to "fun" for us, so I didn't really have to factor that in.

At any rate, I feel it's more important to have a balanced game as a sandbox GM. Maybe others disagree, but that's my take on it. As always, play what you like

(Monte Cook having even deliberately left in trap options)

Yeah, just not to trap players. His article is pretty widely misrepresented. I posted this in another thread, months ago:

Monte Cook is one of the guys who thought building in intentional traps into a RPG would increase the fun.

No, he's not. He believed in some things being better than other things in certain conditions. His example was Toughness:

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat.

[SNIP]

To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

If certain feats or powers are better than comparable feats or powers in 4e (Twin Strike, from what I hear), they did the same thing Monte wanted: rewarding mastery of the game. His regret was that there wasn't enough guidance in helping people determine what things were meant for (as expressed in the second portion of the quote).

Monte Cook didn't think it would be fun to screw people, he thought certain choices should be better than others (seemingly conditionally, from the examples given). This is true of nearly any game that allows choice, and I believe this remains true in 4e. He didn't want to "build intentional traps" in the game at all, and saying so is missing the context of the quote. He wanted to have some options be better than others, but not in all circumstances. Toughness is worse than other feats, unless used in a certain way. Longswords are better than many other one-handed martial weapons, but not better than most, and not better than all one-handed weapons all of the time.

His quote has been taken out of context for years. If you dislike 3.X, it makes sense if you don't want him working on 5e. That's cool, and it's totally a matter of preference. However, he didn't purposefully "build in intentional traps into a RPG to increase the fun." It's totally fine if you don't like his work, or his way of doing things, but let's not claim he's done something that isn't the case. As always, play what you like

 

[Neonchameleon]

Even from your defence, Monte Cook is not being misrepreseted. In any remotely points based system system mastery will be rewarded. You can not create a system with meaningful choices and direct interaction with that system where all choices are equally good for all people. Setting out to reward system mastery is like ... deliberately setting out to reward the person born with the most money. It takes an already existing advantage and magnifies it.

And if he deliberately made some options stronger than others (rather than trying to give them all niches) then he did include traps in the game.

 

[FireLance]

Alas, poor balance! When did you get such a bad reputation?

It used to be that balance was seen as a good thing, or at least, that the lack of balance was a bad thing. Balance was the reason that in the early days of D&D, magic-users had low hit points, poorer AC and were limited in the number of spells they could use per day. Balance was the reason that paladins and rangers, who had more abilities than basic fighters, required more XP to gain a level. Niche protection was a form of balance, as it ensured that different classes were good at different things.

Somewhere along the line, balance acquired Harrison Bergeron style connotations of "every character must be exactly the same". IMO, that is a straw man caricature. Such dystopian corruptions of the idea of balance actually result in the opposite of what balance in an RPG is intended to achieve, namely, to create more (not fewer!) viable choices.

It is a simple fact of human nature that the more unbalanced (powerful) option A is compared to option B, the more likely a player will pick option A even though he would rather have option B. Balance simply ensures that option A and option B, though different, are still approximately the same in terms of viability.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think balance is very important although, as some earlier posters stated, only so far as it works to further the goal of fun.

I don't think an inexperienced player should have to regret a character because he realizes down the road that his character isn't pulling his weight.

I don't think an experienced player should have to choose between the concept he wants to play and an effective character.

I've seen both, which is simply a failure of design. Can a good DM compensate for this? Potentially. Should he have to? No; he has better things he could be focusing on. It's the DM's job to run game, but it's the designers' job to provide an effective platform for doing so.

 

[Thotas]

Balance is good, but what balance actually is depends on a lot of things, and one of the biggies is design goal. Let me create a hypothetical example to illustrate my point.

Suppose we have a license from Larry Niven to create a game based on his stories that began with a short one called "The Magic Goes Away". One of our big design goals is to recreate the feel of those tales. Fine; the first story begins with a statement to the effect that when a wizard and a barbarian come into mortal conflict, the rest of the world is the real winner. Because if the barbarian is the one that's killed, the average intelligence of the human race is raised even if it's by an incredibly tiny increment -- and if the barbarian wins, any wizard who gets offed by one lone barbarian isn't much worth much as a wizard any way.

Clearly, if we design the game to reflect these values, nobody is going to want to play a barbarian in this game, where the rules will necessarily be so skewed against them. It probably shouldn't even be an option. Either way, somebody out there is going to look at our ruleset that likes the idea of playing a barbarian and hate our game because what he wants to do isn't viable. It's entirely likely that "balance" will be invoked to justify the point of view. More than one person has cried "imbalance" when it was really a case of "not to my particular taste".

 

[steeldragons]

First, hey Neonchameleon! Long time no see. Hope all's well.

IIRC this is revisionist history

Well, despite the argument that all history is "revisionist" as you are perceiving the past through the eyes of the present, I suppose I should have been more precise.

In my personal gaming experience, in no group I ever played with, through all of the 80s and into the early 90s, did a discussion or argument about "balance" ever come up. It simply was some ethereal understood concept that did not play into player choice or decision. It's conception as a "game design necessity" or simply and element of play, in the way it means today, did not cross our minds.

and E Gary Gygax cared quite a bit about having a relatively balanced game.
-snip good example-
But none of the books actually explain this and as first TSR then WoTC moved away from EGG's game about professional dungeon-looters they threw out the balancing factors.

Well, I never had the privilege of talking or playing with the man. But nice to know it was a concern...as I said (or meant to insinuate, at least), I always thought things were "balanced" in OD&D and AD&D. It just never came up as a concern.

Balance is like oxygen. You don't realise the importance of it until it shatters. And it did shatter in 3e. Especially when 3e tried to go not only playstyle but complete setting independent and took away the fighter's resources.

Well, this goes to my original point, for "Balance" nowadays. It is as important/necessary as thsoe playing deem/create it to be.

If your perception is "Balance is like oxygen"...then that's what it's going to be for you and your game.

Strawman.

Ya know...I can never remember what this means. I've been told and just don't ever remember (an indicator, I suppose of how often I, or a point I'm trying to make, am/are called a "Strawman".) All I recall is that it is somehow derogatory, implying a "weak" arguement. Is that correct?

The problem really comes to a head in mid-high level 3.X when a decently built cleric is better than a naively built fighter even at the things the fighter is meant to be good at. Mess up balance enough and there are no things I can do that you can't. Comparing fighter to properly buffed cleric - remember that the cleric starts with more hit points because unlike the fighter he can actually heal. (Or fighter to druid ("I have class features stronger than your entire class)).

I'm not really clear on how this contradicts my "strawman". But ok, I'll take your word for it (having no experience to speak of in 3e, myself).

That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy goal. But the critical problem isn't the balance mismatches, it's that they are never explicitely called out (Monte Cook having even deliberately left in trap options).

Again, a matter of personal preference and perception. To my mind, if something is "futile" then no, by definition it is not a "worthy goal." It is a white whale.

Alas, poor balance! When did you get such a bad reputation?

As far as I understand it, I believe it was yon latter days of 2e. Apparently, from what I've read here, was further corrupted in 3e. And completely blown out of the water in 4e.

It used to be that balance was seen as a good thing, or at least, that the lack of balance was a bad thing. Balance was the reason that in the early days of D&D, magic-users had low hit points, poorer AC and were limited in the number of spells they could use per day. Balance was the reason that paladins and rangers, who had more abilities than basic fighters, required more XP to gain a level. Niche protection was a form of balance, as it ensured that different classes were good at different things.

That was always, and remains to be, my understanding of it, as well.

Somewhere along the line, balance acquired Harrison Bergeron style connotations of "every character must be exactly the same". IMO, that is a straw man caricature. Such dystopian corruptions of the idea of balance actually result in the opposite of what balance in an RPG is intended to achieve, namely, to create more (not fewer!) viable choices.

The strawmen are taking over the world! Quick! Load up on fire-based spells! (Your final point which I "snipped", as I have nothing to add/respond to it, is good too.)

--SD

 

[LurkAway]

This poll is lacking 2 precise reference points: what is 'balance' and what is 'game system'.

Perhaps it could be reworded like: "balance is of low/moderate/high importance to my gaming experience AND I think x game system is under/moderately/overly balanced". Then one could start making correlations between what Enworld users prefer vs what x game system/edition delivers. I know the OP isn't trying to aim for that kind of accuracy, but (like most debates about subjective expectations of gameplay) it makes this thread a bit muddly, doesn't it?