Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Belen]

I prefer balance of opportunity rather than balance of outcome.

 

[Ariosto]

People who plays more often than GMs will often accept imbalance as a tool to make their characters more powerful than others.

Looking at the OP, I see an assumption about the games "people against balance" play that is far too myopic. What "make their characters more powerful than others" means does not necessarily have jack to do with what you mean!

Different games, different balances.

Are you playing a game in which the same four people show up session after GM-plotted session to play the same four characters, "built" on some point-based or similar system, doing the same things and advancing at the same rate like a marching band?

Well, that's dandy as candy -- but it's not the only game in town!

 

[Mistwell]

I've only got the first round of 4e's core three, along with some 4e adventures - I thought that would be enough to give me a fair idea of how the game is intended to work; particularly seeing as for the first year or so that *was* the game. So yes, my opinions of 4e as a system are also based on the first round of releases; much as my thoughts on 3e as a system (and 2e, for that matter) also ignore a lot of the bloat that came after the initial release.

I think this is an important point, for the 4e aspects of this discussion.

It's fair to say that 4e did not present the full array of options with just the initial three books. And, if you feel you should not have to buy a ton of books, or subscribe to the DDI in the alternative, to get the full array of options, then that's a fair reason to be critical of the options 4e offers.

However, 4e has changed a LOT since those first three books, and I think a lot of critics of the options available in 4e are simply unaware of those changes. The expansion of not just races and classes, but actual mechanics (like a class that doesn't even have encounter powers, for example), is pretty massive as the books progressed.

We've now gotten to the point where you can make a skill focused character, with skill powers, Martial Practices (skill based out of combat "tricks", including essentially a reintroduction of the Craft rules), significantly improved skill challenge rules and advice, and a host of additional things that allow for a lot of out of combat interesting activities.

We've now gotten hybrid rules, many additional classes and races, and more multiclassing options, and paragon paths, that allow for a great many more character concepts to be embraced fully with the rules. And there is DM advice on reskinning names and descriptions as well. If you can imagine the concept, you might not have been able to make that concept fully realized under the initial 2-3 4e books, but you probably now can since the supplements that came out since then.

So yes, the game has changed to allow for a lot more flexibility in character concepts, and out of combat adventuring, since the first three books came out. It's fair to be bothered that you had to wait for supplements before your desired level of flexibility could be fully achieved with the rules. But, I think some of the claims about lack of flexibility mentioned in this thread are a bit unfair. The flexibility is there now. With a single month of DDI access (which is cheap) you could get all the info you needed for whatever kind of character you want to play, with whatever level of focus the DM/Players want on combat vs. out of combat play. You can now realize a lot more campaign ideas than you previously could.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

However, if you're focusing on an issue like that, does the tactical combat system add value to play?

Depends. The game as a whole might be focused on the inter-character conflicts, but if combat with outside threats still takes up a portion of game time.... yeah, it might.

If the people playing enjoy that kind of combat, it's a value add, even if it isn't the explicit focus of the campaign. Even if it only takes up 20% of your game time, you might as well make that 20% fun for everyone there. If that means tactical complexity or it means super-abstract hand-waving is entirely up to the group. The value for your group might not be as high as it is for a group that prefers to spend 90% of their time kicking arse and taking names, but unless you prefer a diceless system or something of that nature, I doubt the value of tactical combat reduces to zero.

Something that has driven me crazy since 3e was new and we had that edition war.... A complicated combat engine and less detailed social/skills engine does not preclude complicated social/skills play. Now, as the combat engine gets more complicated, some groups may find more of their time gets eaten by combat than they like. But that doesn't make the combat engine objectively bad. It makes it less suited to the needs of that group. And it can be tailored very easily. Take a power card and write "At will: Talk" on the fool thing. I also keep around an "Encounter: Parlay" and "Daily: Palaver" for emergencies.

 

[nightwyrm]

As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).

A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.

 

[Umbran]

As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).

A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.

There aren't too many examples of organized play out there to form a real pattern.

In my experience, there are two major organized play venues - the RPGS (D&D) and the Camarilla (White Wolf's WoD). D&D of late has tried to be a balanced system. I know sure as anything that the old WoD was about as balanced as a drunken unicyclist carrying a squirming hyperactive Labrador Retriever. I haven't read the new games to have a broad opinion.

 

[nightwyrm]

There aren't too many examples of organized play out there to form a real pattern.

In my experience, there are two major organized play venues - the RPGS (D&D) and the Camarilla (White Wolf's WoD). D&D of late has tried to be a balanced system. I know sure as anything that the old WoD was about as balanced as a drunken unicyclist carrying a squirming hyperactive Labrador Retriever. I haven't read the new games to have a broad opinion.

Well, I guess I wasn't thinking specifically about TTRPGs but more about games in general, including CCGs, boardgames, and even videogames. It seems that single player games or multiplayer games expected to be played in a living room (ie. mario party games) can be more forgiving of game breaking elements than online games designed to be played primarily with a bunch of strangers.

 

[CovertOps]

As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).

A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.

This. I had a several hour long conversation with a friend a few months ago (and he doesn't care for 4e much). He commented that he didn't like level based systems at all (or D&D in general because it's level based) and it made me realize something. If characters of equal level are not roughly of the same power level, then there is no point in having levels in that system. If a 1st level Fighter can (hands down) beat a 3rd level Wizard every time without trying hard then I think we can agree that "level" in this case means nothing. Now since D&D is a level based system, level in this context should mean something and the something that WotC chose was combat effectiveness.

@Hobo: I would think your "non-combatant" should just be several levels lower than the rest of the party and you'd be just fine. Less effective than the others, but still able to do "something". Using this methodology allows 4e to work like it's supposed to by lowering the DM's XP budget because your PC IS lower level while not having a significant effect on skills. I don't recommend more than 4, however.

 

[Krensky]

As an aside, do people find that a large part a game's focus on balance has to do with a game's focus on organized play (ie. ppl showing up at a venue with their own characters and playing with a bunch of strangers).

A game for a bunch of friends playing together every week can have a much looser requirement in terms of balance than a game designed to be played by a bunch of complete strangers.

Considering some of the design commentary regarding the needs of Living Spycraft in regards to Spycraft 2.0 and then in regards to Fantasy Craft, yeah. A lot. The same with rules for every situation. A game designed to be run with a table of strangers needs consistency and predictability.

 

[Cadfan]

If characters of equal level are not roughly of the same power level, then there is no point in having levels in that system.

Exactly. This is something that gets missed in discussions of game balance. All it means to say that an RPG is "balanced" is that the game system gives you accurate information about the power level of the characters, enemies, and various forms of challenges.

Nothing stops you from ignoring that information, except possibly your DM or the other players if they don't want to play an imbalanced game. Which doesn't exactly make the system the bad guy.