Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Doug McCrae]

I care passionately about game balance, and by this I mean balance between the PCs. It has been said that balance isn't measurable. This is clearly false. We watch the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit video (posted upthread) and we can see that one character is more powerful than the other. If they were characters in an rpg we could see the same thing. When one can determine that X > Y then some form of measurement must be taking place.

Perfect balance - all characters being equally useful at any given moment - isn't needful imo, a good rpg has PCs that are equal but different. An interesting question is the time scale over which this is achieved. The encounter? The session? The campaign? Multiple campaigns? I frequently play in oneoffs, so to me, game balance that takes longer than a session to achieve is of less use. 4e answers this question with the encounter. Gygaxian D&D achieves its balance at the campaign scale - the magic-user needs to be played from 1st to around 10th level (and no further) in order to be balanced with the other classes.

D&D has always been a fairly well balanced system imo, compared to others out there such as Rifts, original Stormbringer, or HERO. Points based rpgs that give the players total freedom are the most vulnerable to min-maxing. Level and class based systems, if designed well (which D&D, unlike Rifts, always has been) have more balance because they restrict player freedom. Not always a bad thing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Yes. It's really when there's a PvP element, as there is in most traditional games such as chess, and also in many online games such as World of Warcraft that there is the greatest need for balance. There can be a competitive element to raiding in WoW, when there are a limited number of places on a raid - currently 25 I believe - and more than 25 people in the guild wanting to go. You see a strong concern for balance there too (but not as strong as in PvP), that each class contribute equally to the raid's success.

Obviously with ttrpgs there is a major difference of opinion here, which we see in this thread. I'm mad for balance me, and happy to sacrifice some verisimilitude in order to achieve it. In fact I'm pretty happy to sacrifice verisimilitude to almost anything else that could be regarded as a good in roleplaying. For others, simulationism - maintaining belief in the secondary world - is the prime goal. And for another group, a more powerful character is the reward for skilled play.

 

[Nifft]

An interesting question is the time scale over which this is achieved. The encounter? The session? The campaign? Multiple campaigns? I frequently play in oneoffs, so to me, game balance that takes longer than a session to achieve is of less use. 4e answers this question with the encounter. Gygaxian D&D achieves its balance at the campaign scale - the magic-user needs to be played from 1st to around 10th level (and no further) in order to be balanced with the other classes.

Yep, the idea of balance certainly has evolved over the editions.

IMHO the relevant time scale ought to be the session. It could be longer, if your players are the stoic type, but that's where the default ought to be.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There sure are and they are mechanically called "rogues"... note they are not defenders and so are not about absorbing attackers or about pulling enemies to themselves sort of anathema techniques for a spritely agile halfling/gnome anyway in my opinion.

Exactly supporting my point that a negative stat mod to Str for a race with a Dex bonus doesn't prevent them from being an effective "fighter," it just minimizes their effectiveness as a Fighter.

I actually have to assume strength is not raw brute muscle but rather the ability to use that physique and apply leverage etc. (because even 4 points of variation wouldnt feel enough to describe the difference just between a 200 pound human and 75 pound halfling)

I was a "gym rat" for a good portion of my life, which is why the 4Ed racial mods get under my skin and why I keep bringing up those as examples of "shoehorning."

A human kid of 80-100lbs body weight- about the size of a Gnome or Halfling- who is in excellent physical condition is going to be hard pressed to bench his body weight- roughly Str5 in 4Ed terms if you consider that a heavy load.

A typical "big" collegiate or NFL wide receiver of 180-200lbs (typical Human PC in D&D) would be able to bench around 300lbs, or about Str15 in 4Ed terms. A 250lb linebacker (about the size of a Half-Orc) might be able to bench 450lbs, or Str20+ in 4ED, while a 350lb lineman or NBA center like Shaq (equivalent to Dragonborn, Goliaths, Minotaurs and the like) may bench 600lbs or more.

So you can see why that mere +2Str mod just bugs the heck out of me.

 

[ST]

I have to say, I think the symbiosis between companies publishing overpowered splatbooks to make money, and players snapping up splatbooks to get overpowered stuff, made it pretty easy to push for a bias towards not really sweating balance to much. It's like a comparison between board games and CCGs -- the money element can really skew things, and some people get very tempted to just buy their way to a win.

 

[Garthanos]

A human kid of 80-100lbs body weight- about the size of a Gnome or Halfling- who is in excellent physical condition is going to be hard pressed to bench his body weight- roughly Str5 in 4Ed terms if you consider that a heavy load.

I assume adult physiology in a halfling or gnome in spite of there size. I do get that is still half the size of an average size man.

The reason I figure putting the difference in DCs(+5 on the dificulty for the small folk and -5 for large folk) is because I dont think the use of strength in say various class powers is actually pure strength.

I dont actually have as physical of ideas about the strength of gnomes they are faerrie to me.. .and ever see how Tinkerbell lifts things ;p there is magic involved.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So you can see why that mere +2Str mod just bugs the heck out of me.

It bugs me too. I mean, if a 4e halfling and a half orc arm wrestled, a DM would probably settle it by way of opposed Str checks. Assuming the same starting stats, the half orc is only going to win 11 times out of 20 -- Standard deviation is likely to make much more of a difference than that! If the two characters weren't described to me, and I didn't know their Str scores I'd have see like a hundred wrestling matches to be reasonably sure that one was marginally stronger than the other.

Here's where we differ: I see this issue in every single edition of D&D. If a 3e halfling and half orc wrestled, the half orc still only beats the halfling 12 times out of 20. Hardly matters, IMO.

I guess the point is, D&D just ain't a realistic game.

I have to say, I think the symbiosis between companies publishing overpowered splatbooks to make money, and players snapping up splatbooks to get overpowered stuff, made it pretty easy to push for a bias towards not really sweating balance to much. It's like a comparison between board games and CCGs -- the money element can really skew things, and some people get very tempted to just buy their way to a win.

I've expressed the opinion on WotC's M:tG forum that players with a lot of dough have a significant advantage over players with more limited funds. Some people agree; but some people spend a lot of energy minimizing and rationalizing the result of more money = better cards.

So yeah, there definitely is a relationship between money and balance.

 

[Nifft]

It bugs me too. I mean, if a 4e halfling and a half orc arm wrestled, a DM would probably settle it by way of opposed Str checks. Assuming the same starting stats, the half orc is only going to win 11 times out of 20 -- Standard deviation is likely to make much more of a difference than that! If the two characters weren't described to me, and I didn't know their Str scores I'd have see like a hundred wrestling matches to be reasonably sure that one was marginally stronger than the other.

It would be a rare Halfling who allocates his base stats the same as a Half-Orc.

There is a strong bias towards playing to your strengths -- and in a Halfling's case, his strengths don't include Strength.

So yeah, I think if you took some actual Half-Orc PCs and some sample Halfling PCs, there would be more than a 2 point difference in Str. The large bias would have been led by a small bonus -- not wholly represented by it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I prefer to think of Halflings in reference to Chimpanzees or other smaller than Human mammals, who for for their size can be stronger than the average person.

 

[Mistwell]

Dannyalcatraz, I think you could safely play with the bonuses and penalties for races in 4e without much harm to game balance. There is room for a +1 bonus to attacks and damages and some skills (which is the bulk of what you are talking about for balance issues), without the game creaking much.