Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[airwalkrr]

If all the players have meaningful choices to make, the game is balanced. And yes, that could mean a game of RIFTS where one guy plays a Glitter Boy and another a City Rat.

While such a thing is possible, it's far from easy, or likely to find. In most cases I think it is the GM's responsibility to step in and say either:

"You may not have fun playing a City Rat in my campaign. It's going to be mostly combat."

-or-

"You may not have fun playing a Glitter Boy in my campaign. It's going to be mostly stealth and intrigue with little chance for combat."

GM responsibility goes beyond just showing up to recite read-aloud text from an adventure. He should assist in the character creation process to ensure everyone creates a character that can contribute.

For example, when I began my Ravenloft campaign and one of my players wanted to play a ranger, I explained which favored enemy choices would be appropriate for a Ravenloft campaign. Sure, I could have let the player (who knew nothing about the setting) choose blindly, but I had a greater responsibility than that. It's the same reason you don't let the new player choose a fighter when they have a 10 Strength (or you let them swap Strength with one of their higher stats). Now if a player WANTS to play an underpowered character because they enjoy it, that's one thing. But it is every GM's job to make sure every character has a chance to contribute, and that starts with character generation. That way, situations like the one Garthanos brought up don't happen.

 

[innerdude]

"Balanced" games are more fun and interesting to play than games where one of the choices is "win", and all the other choices are "suck".

Cheers, -- N

I wrote a lengthy post on this a couple of weeks ago about a problem with the underlying assumption of this statement--because when people talk about balance in this context, 99.9 percent of the time they're talking about "balance in combat."

The problem assuming that "balance = combat balance" is that it naturally assumes that every single player at the table can only be happy if their character is just as combat balanced as every other player--when this is not the case.

People who enjoy the role-playing aspect of RPGs often don't give a rat's butt about combat balance--they just want to play an interesting character, and explore that character's motivations, world-view, and experience the milieu of the game world through that character's eyes. Sure, if the system is "combat balanced," that's an added bonus, but for some role-players, an over-emphasis on combat balance in the rules can actually take away from their enjoyment of playing the game, because the combat system itself dictates some of the requirements their character must meet. And if the dictates of the combat system force the player to create a character in a way they really don't envision, then that player is actually having a "sub-optimal" experience--regardless of how amazingly balanced the combat system is.

Someone else in that same thread also rightly pointed out that in this case, sometimes "combat balance," in terms of rules or character concept, is less important than the assumed social contract between the GM and players, and player-to-player. Some groups are okay with having a "sub-optimal" combat character, because they want to encourage the player to have "uber-optimal" fun with their character concept. To some groups, a "sub-optimal" combat character is anathema, a betrayal of the group. To a group that's heavily into the combat portion of a game, playing a character that isn't helping them "win the combats" is hindering their fun.

 

[LostSoul]

Speaking from experience, in the last Burning Wheel game I played it was an important fact that my PC was not up to par with the other PCs in combat (or pretty much anything else, for that matter).

This was demonstrated to good effect when one of the other PCs killed my PC. Good times! It was the climax of the game and had a lot of meaning.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Literal equality is not the only form of balance

I don't believe that statement to be true, at least not as it pertains to rpgs.

The "other forms of balance" are, IMHO, rather "forms of imbalance that person X finds acceptable".


RC

 

[Hussar]

On a right-here-and-now basis you're quite right; but what about the long term? You're forgetting the time factor.

The choice you make might show "win" now, but in 6 levels you could be on the short end.

If there's a clear choice between "win now, lose later" or "lose now, win later", or "kinda be in the middle all the way along", that's not imbalanced overall...and in fact might give the players serious pause for thought. It's certainly far better than forcing everyone into the "kinda be in the middle all the way along" bracket whether they like it or not.

Lan-"I'll just suck, and then rise from the ashes and rule them all"-efan

But that's not really balance. That's just multiple points of imbalance.

You suck for six months and then I suck for six months means that someone is sucking ALL THE TIME.

At no point in time, should the mechanics of a game sideline any character through absolutely no fault of his own. Forcing a player to ride the pines because of a choice he made six months ago is very poor game design.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

There have been examples in this thread of contributing non-combatants. All it takes is a willingness to take the descriptions of things as less than literal.

Powers in 4e, for example, are about effects and narrative control. Where the effect comes from is up to the people at the table.

For example, you could reflavor your Fighter such that he's a complete incompetent with incredible luck. "Come and Get It" is him nearly falling on his arse so spectacularly that all the enemies rush in for a quick kill. Most of his damage could be attributed in flavor to the other characters in the party protecting him or taking advantage of the opportunities he creates by careening around the battlefield. That 6W+whatever wasn't done by the Fighter, it was done by his archery Ranger buddy when the Fighter's wild swing caused the enemy to rear back and expose a weak spot. Just be creative with description.

A little creativity nets you whatever character you want without forcing the DM to rebalance all the encounters around having a wet noodle in the party.

 

[billd91]

For example, when I began my Ravenloft campaign and one of my players wanted to play a ranger, I explained which favored enemy choices would be appropriate for a Ravenloft campaign. Sure, I could have let the player (who knew nothing about the setting) choose blindly, but I had a greater responsibility than that. It's the same reason you don't let the new player choose a fighter when they have a 10 Strength (or you let them swap Strength with one of their higher stats). Now if a player WANTS to play an underpowered character because they enjoy it, that's one thing. But it is every GM's job to make sure every character has a chance to contribute, and that starts with character generation. That way, situations like the one Garthanos brought up don't happen.

Now, maybe it's because I used to run a lot of superhero games, but GM involvement in PC creation has always been an important job for me. I find it difficult to relate to stories in which this does not occur and players are left to themselves to make characters that may or may not fit in radical ways.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Speaking from experience, in the last Burning Wheel game I played it was an important fact that my PC was not up to par with the other PCs in combat (or pretty much anything else, for that matter).

This was demonstrated to good effect when one of the other PCs killed my PC. Good times! It was the climax of the game and had a lot of meaning.

The thing is you knew exactly what you were getting into when you made your character. Some people will make characters that they believe will be effective but will end up sucking. That's a problem.

 

[Fifth Element]

The thing is you knew exactly what you were getting into when you made your character. Some people will make characters that they believe will be effective but will end up sucking. That's a problem.

Very good point. It's great if you want a character of that type, but if the system is built in a way that lets players fall into "traps" such that their character is ineffective when they don't want them to be, that's a problem.

 

[Garthanos]

For example, you could reflavor your Fighter such that he's a complete incompetent with incredible luck. "Come and Get It" is him nearly falling on his arse so spectacularly that all the enemies rush in for a quick kill. Most of his damage could be attributed in flavor to the other characters in the party protecting him or taking advantage of the opportunities he creates by careening around the battlefield. That 6W+whatever wasn't done by the Fighter, it was done by his archery Ranger buddy when the Fighter's wild swing caused the enemy to rear back and expose a weak spot. Just be creative with description.

Here is another contribution to the incompetent fighter grab bag... the cleave maneuver works well the main attacks is the wimpy secondary effect and the really damaging effect is a accidental... like a back swing that hits somebody different or you interrupted the bad guys attack and they hit their own ally.

Honestly it takes less heavy breathing to abuse the Warlord ... kind of a whipping boy designed for this dont you think ;-p

Beastmaster rangers might never land an effective attack themselves.

A haunted character built on the wizard class who is defended by ghosts ... can be done interestingly.