Balanced Game System: Imperative or Bugaboo

[Hussar]

I guess the real trick is to determine if an issue is deep seated enough to require a major overhaul, or if a tweak here or there can make the difference.

And, of course, no matter which direction you choose, there's going to be an army of people who told you you chose poorly.

 

[SiderisAnon]

While I believe that balance is of critical importance, one thing to keep in mind is that balance isn't just about the system; the GM plays a very big role in balance themselves.

Sometimes you have to look at created character and just say, "The balance on this is broken." If the character is overpowered, you may have to talk to the player about changing some of their choices so that they're a little less perfect. If the character is underpowered, you can talk to the player about how to improve their character, or let them play that way if they're having fun and it's not detrimental to the group.

I realize that there are a lot of people who will scream bloody murder at the idea of forcing a player to take suboptimal choices for the sake of the game, but I will point out in a preemptive response that if one person is obviously more powerful, there are most likely others at the table who are losing some or all of their enjoyment of the game because of this.


One of the places where GM as balance really kicks in is when there are a lot of options. Some flavors of D&D gained so many supplemental books that it became easy to find broken and cheesy combinations. In a recent Mutants & Masterminds game I ran (which is point buy), one of the players was just significantly better at building a character than any of the others and chose purely optimal and mutually-supporting powers. He agreed not to do certain things with his character, such as adding teleportation, because it simply made his character unstoppable and it would have ruined the fun for everybody else. (Or would have simply eliminated the combat from the game.)

Balance also isn't absolute and isn't the same from game to game. In my current Pathfinder game, the players are building up their lands and dealing with a lot of issues that don't require a lot of combat. (The "kill them all" options is usually still there, but those long-term political and social ramifications can rear their ugly heads.) In that game, I'm constantly struggling to keep all of the characters balanced for play time and for ability to have an effect on the problems they're faceing. The party is not balanced combat wise at all. Since it's not a dungeon crawl, since many of their problems can't be effectively solved with bloodshed, the lack of combat balance doesn't matter.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

You know, when I listen to players talking about how they enjoyed a game, never once have I heard them proclaim 'and the game was so balanced!' with a spark of joy in their eyes.

They talk about their acts of daring do, about how they managed to get out of a sticky situation, even about how somebody had bribed a guard.

Balance is not a bugaboo, but it is not the be all and end all.

The Auld Grump

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You know, when I listen to players talking about how they enjoyed a game, never once have I heard them proclaim 'and the game was so balanced!' with a spark of joy in their eyes.

True. But I have listened to players talking about how a game disappointed them because of balance issues. I myself didn't feel like I had a very good time playing my TMNT-type character alongside another player's dragon character in Rifts.

And to borrow another's analogy: When I listen to people talking about how they enjoyed the cake my wife baked, never once have I heard them proclaim 'and the eggs you used were so fresh!' with a spark of joy in their eyes. But leave those eggs out...

 

[billd91]

While I believe that balance is of critical importance, one thing to keep in mind is that balance isn't just about the system; the GM plays a very big role in balance themselves.

Sometimes you have to look at created character and just say, "The balance on this is broken." If the character is overpowered, you may have to talk to the player about changing some of their choices so that they're a little less perfect. If the character is underpowered, you can talk to the player about how to improve their character, or let them play that way if they're having fun and it's not detrimental to the group.

I realize that there are a lot of people who will scream bloody murder at the idea of forcing a player to take suboptimal choices for the sake of the game, but I will point out in a preemptive response that if one person is obviously more powerful, there are most likely others at the table who are losing some or all of their enjoyment of the game because of this.

One of the places where GM as balance really kicks in is when there are a lot of options. Some flavors of D&D gained so many supplemental books that it became easy to find broken and cheesy combinations. In a recent Mutants & Masterminds game I ran (which is point buy), one of the players was just significantly better at building a character than any of the others and chose purely optimal and mutually-supporting powers. He agreed not to do certain things with his character, such as adding teleportation, because it simply made his character unstoppable and it would have ruined the fun for everybody else. (Or would have simply eliminated the combat from the game.)

I think you make some important points here and I'd like to help draw them together.

GM involvement in character generation in point buy systems (like Champions/Hero and Mutants and Masterminds) is a necessity. This is despite the systems starting with perfect balance between players. After all, they all have the exact same points to spend. Yet, by the time those points are spent, inequality most likely exists. Why?

The real bugaboo is player choices. No matter what the game, no matter how balanced it is in so many ways, there will always be choices that are better than others given the circumstances. And those circumstances will always be heavily influenced by the GM. He has ideas on where the campaign will be going. He can incorporate new ideas based on player choices. He can tell you when adding another synergy to a set of powers is gilding the lily a bit too much. And he can tell you when you're running the risk of interfering with another player's fun - or when they are running the risk of interfering with yours.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You know, when I listen to players talking about how they enjoyed a game, never once have I heard them proclaim 'and the game was so balanced!' with a spark of joy in their eyes.

They talk about their acts of daring do, about how they managed to get out of a sticky situation, even about how somebody had bribed a guard.

Balance is not a bugaboo, but it is not the be all and end all.

Balance is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[Guest 85555]

True. But I have listened to players talking about how a game disappointed them because of balance issues. I myself didn't feel like I had a very good time playing my TMNT-type character alongside another player's dragon character in Rifts.

And to borrow another's analogy: When I listen to people talking about how they enjoyed the cake my wife baked, never once have I heard them proclaim 'and the eggs you used were so fresh!' with a spark of joy in their eyes. But leave those eggs out...

Good point but I've also heard players complain about over balance or balance eating into believability.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Good point but I've also heard players complain about over balance or balance eating into believability.

I've read discussion of such on various messageboards, but I've never experienced that at the end of an actual session.

But I'm sure some players have. Like anything, too much or too little can cause problems.

 

[Guest 85555]

I've read discussion of such on various messageboards, but I've never experienced that at the end of an actual session.

But I'm sure some players have. Like anything, too much or too little can cause problems.

I think it depends on the group. In my area, in the two main groups I was playing with when 4E came out, everyone but one person complained about overbalance and balance eating into other areas of the game when it was released (so much so we simply couldn't get a 4E campaign off the ground). This isn't about whether that is actually the case with 4E, because I realize that is a tired debate and it is a little beside the point. What matters here is the perception among the players. During 3E (a game I regard as not very balanced, but one I like), we had one player who complained very strongly about lack of balance and one or two others (myself included) who wanted more balance (but I'd say just a touch more, not anything radical).

I am not arguing that your position isn't significant or correct (I imagine a lot of people out there consider balance a critical part of a good RPG). I just think its important to remember how diverse gaming groups tastes can be and what is good for one group isn't neccessarily good for all groups. Often in these balance debates people (and I don't have you in mind, I just happened to respond to one of your points about balance) talk as if there is a single formula for making games. When it comes to balance though I believe there are gamers who gravitate toward RIFTs and there are gamers who gravitate toward something like 4E (and I think both ends of the spectrum make up a substantial part of the gaming community).

 

[gamerprinter]

Balance is not an issue I've ever heard complained by players in game, nor at an LGS. The debate only seems to occur online in forums in my experience. Not to say it doesn't exist, but I've never heard a live person even mention it. But then there are many RPG issues discussed on forums, that I've also never seen in actual play... like the 15 minute adventure day, the over-powered-ness of wizards in low to mid level games, etc. Almost as if they are online urban legends, and not real concerns in gaming.

In retrospect, the only time I've witnessed any kind of imbalance, it always involved a player that was either 'cheating' or simply misunderstood how a particular spell or feat actually worked, using it inappropriately granting them an unfair advantage. When the issue was pointed out, the player pointed to the specific rule, and it was found that he hadn't read the entire rule, just the first sentence and applied the implied (incomplete) spirit of the rule to use it improperly. Once we (the group) deciminated the entire rule - the player realized he was doing it wrong (or got found out to be doing it wrong) and then quit the gaming group, because he couldn't have it his way...