Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Bedrockgames]

I personally think there is merit to both the 4e (highly balanced approach) and the 3e (power disparity approach). I also think the key to running any 3e game is the GM. Once builds and splat books became the norm, it took me about a month as a GM to figure out how to reign in the excesses. I noticed was players basically fell into two camps--those who really liked the options and the disparity of power in 3e (which to them was really just about making their choices have an impact on the game in most cases), and those who couldn't stand that about 3e. I could be wrong, but it looks like the later are basically the ones who play 4e now and the former are the ones who continue to play d20 or pathfinder.

Honestly I think this is good for the hobby. Toward the end of 3e, everything was d20. There wasn't anything new or fresh (or at least, it didn't seem like there was a whole lot of non-d20 stuff coming out). But now it feels like there is new spark in gaming. In a way, I am glad everyone (at least i the groups I play with in my area), didn't make the 4e shift (a lot of them did, though). Now my options are open. If I want to play 4e, I know of about 4 groups in my area that are playing. If I want to play d20, I know of a bunch of groups for that as well. But I also noticed that there are more alternatives out there as well. There are groups playing games like Savage Worlds.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The primary mistake, after which things become unrecoverable, is to allow Minotaurs and other such monsters as PC races at all; because once this happens either believability or balance goes out the window. 4e sacrificed believability. 3e sacrificed balance. Either way it's a train wreck.

A point here, if I may:

When discussing AP design, a thing that often comes up is giving players an "illusion of choice". I.e., the clever GM, although directing events, makes the players believe that what occurs is the result of their choices. In reality, regardless of their choices, the outcome is the same.

I bring this up because it feels as though we are discussing the same idea, applied to game design. The player is allowed an "illusion of choice" -- You get to play a minotaur! -- but because the design doesn't actually reflect the strengths and weaknesses a player would expect "playing a minotaur" to embody, regardless of this "choice", the outcome is the same.

I know that the outcome is not exactly the same, but it is the same within broad strokes, as is the outcome in the AP.

I know this analogy is far from perfect, but that is what it feels like......I would be interested in what others think, and I would like to hear that I am dead wrong.


RC

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

A point here, if I may:

When discussing AP design, a thing that often comes up is giving players an "illusion of choice". I.e., the clever GM, although directing events, makes the players believe that what occurs is the result of their choices. In reality, regardless of their choices, the outcome is the same.

What, like real life?

On a similar note, it is worth reflecting that having more choices actually does NOT make people happier. Usually quite the opposite. Look at any TED talk by Barry Schwartz or Dan Gilbert for some illustrations. But the short version is that people who no choices or a very narrow selection of choices almost always end up happier with their outcome than people who have a huge variety of options. For example, people decorating a room from a very short, limited catalog of options versus people with a giant, comprehensive catalog. The first group often doesn't see "exactly what they want" but somehow if you go back to them a few days, weeks, or months later, they are always happier with the final room than the people who had a giant, comprehensive list of options.

Infinite options does not improve quality of life. And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.

 

[Nifft]

It works just fine in M&M, HERO, GURPS and other point based systems.

Besides, you'd still have to meet the Feat's prereqs- Gore, for instance, would require some kind of horns on the head...or at least on the body.

Great. But I don't want a lame Minotaur Gore attack. I want Elven Accuracy, I want an extra At-Will power, I want to use my Second Wind as a Minor action, and I want an At-Will from another class.

That's four feats, right?

I do agree with your second point completely though. You cannot ever have a completely balanced system. Nor, honestly, would you really want to in a game which allows so much player freedom. There's just no way to do it without ramming huge walls around player choices inside the game world.

But, you can still attempt to approach it though.

Even if no one game can allow freedom of choice in all dimensions, IMHO we should still think about it, because different games can be built around different axes*.

I personally think there is merit to both the 4e (highly balanced approach) and the 3e (power disparity approach). I also think the key to running any 3e game is the GM. Once builds and splat books became the norm, it took me about a month as a GM to figure out how to reign in the excesses.

It seemed to me that balance was a design goal of 3e, but it was secondary. The primary design goal of 3e was simply systematization. Before 3e, things were so fragmented, and house rules were so common, that it was hard to say you were playing the same game as anyone else. 3e tried to change that -- and succeeded overwhelmingly, to the point that people changed their entire mindset about the game.

I bring this up because it feels as though we are discussing the same idea, applied to game design. The player is allowed an "illusion of choice" -- You get to play a minotaur! -- but because the design doesn't actually reflect the strengths and weaknesses a player would expect "playing a minotaur" to embody, regardless of this "choice", the outcome is the same.

I know that the outcome is not exactly the same, but it is the same within broad strokes, as is the outcome in the AP.

I could buy that. It already takes some willing suspension of disbelief to play a non-human race, so why not err on the side of balanced mechanics?

Infinite options does not improve quality of life. And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.

Interesting. I'll bet this could be usefully applied to dungeon design.

Cheers, -- N

*) For all you Dwarves in the audience, "axes" here is the plural of "axis".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I could buy that. It already takes some willing suspension of disbelief to play a non-human race, so why not err on the side of balanced mechanics?

As with Canis's "infinite options", I am somewhere in the middle. I want real options; I do not want an infinity of them. I would rather, for example, have a smaller set of races that provide actual divergence in terms of playstyle strength than a larger set of races that are functionally the same.


RC

 

[Nifft]

As with Canis's "infinite options", I am somewhere in the middle. I want real options; I do not want an infinity of them. I would rather, for example, have a smaller set of races that provide actual divergence in terms of playstyle strength than a larger set of races that are functionally the same.

Largely agree. The one area where we might diverge is that, once those (few) real options are in place, I'm fine just reskinning them and having several non-real options also exist. For example, if my game world has Goliaths and some player wants to play a Minotaur, I'd be cool with just reskinning the Goliath. His race is mechanically distinct from all normal, non-beefy races -- but functionally rather similar to all other beefy races, no matter what kind of flavor he used on the beef.

"... and now I'm hungry", -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

As with Canis's "infinite options", I am somewhere in the middle. I want real options; I do not want an infinity of them. I would rather, for example, have a smaller set of races that provide actual divergence in terms of playstyle strength than a larger set of races that are functionally the same.

That's valid. But is a minotaur with a Strength bonus of only +2 instead of some higher number functionally the same as other races?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It seemed to me that balance was a design goal of 3e, but it was secondary. The primary design goal of 3e was simply systematization. Before 3e, things were so fragmented, and house rules were so common, that it was hard to say you were playing the same game as anyone else. 3e tried to change that -- and succeeded overwhelmingly, to the point that people changed their entire mindset about the game.

.

I agree that balance was a goal. And I am actually more in the 3e than 4e camp. But I think 3e and 4e have very different definitions of game balance and are really going after different audiences.

 

[BryonD]

IMO this thread is devolving into the equivalent of a debate between baseball fans and football fans on whether it is better for the offense or the defense to handle the ball.

The starting presumptions between the two sides are so different that the debate becomes surreal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Largely agree. The one area where we might diverge is that, once those (few) real options are in place, I'm fine just reskinning them and having several non-real options also exist.

And that's both cool and understandable.

That's valid. But is a minotaur with a Strength bonus of only +2 instead of some higher number functionally the same as other races?

That probably depends upon one's metric for "functionally the same", which, IMHO, is pretty much open to opinion & preference.

IMO this thread is devolving into the equivalent of a debate between baseball fans and football fans on whether it is better for the offense or the defense to handle the ball.

The starting presumptions between the two sides are so different that the debate becomes surreal.

Very true!


RC