Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Hussar]

Because the DM is the person in the best position to do so. Only the DM, with his unique view of the game world, the adventures in play, and the dynamics of the players at the table, has a prayer of managing all of the different aspects of balance involved in running an RPG.

I think that places WAY too much on the DM's plate. The rules should be there to take that off the shoulders of the DM/GM and let him get on with actually running the game.

Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer? Isn't that what I pay people for? I have no interest in being a game designer. I don't want to. I just want to run my game and have fun doing it. Every minute I have to spend retooling someone's rule set is a minute that is detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

If you want to be a game designer, that's fine, but, why presume that all DM's want to be? Why not make games that actually function at the table with a minimum of fuss, and let those who want to be game designers go off and do their thing?

You get one by working at it and not hand holding every step of the way.

How can you teach someone anything without actually first SHOWING them how?

Isn't it possible for one person's "highly skilled DM" to be someone else's "DM I really didn't have fun playing with"?

/snip
No. The specifics of style are certainly a huge factor. But that isn't capability.
/snip

This I totally disagree with. What one person considers a great GM, another might totally loathe. Great GM will depend on so many factors - the GM's playstyle, the player's playstyle, being probably the biggest, but, there are also a number of others as well. I've had players tell me I was the worst DM they've ever had. I've had other players tell me that I'm great.

Which one is right? I dunno. I just run games. I try my best. But, the idea that there is some sort of Platonic Ideal of GM's is something I strongly disagree with.

 

[Psion]

The merchant with no combat abilities beyond swinging a sword (or shooting a bow) and harsh language.

In our common fantasy game of choice, harsh language can actually be pretty effective. There's a priest in our group built around stress attacks.

 

[Psion]

I think that places WAY too much on the DM's plate. The rules should be there to take that off the shoulders of the DM/GM and let him get on with actually running the game.

That's one perspective.

Some GMs:
1) Get the best results for their groups and themselves by tweaking existing games.
2) Enjoy this activity.

Indeed, I wonder if in some new fangled games, the Game Designer is intruding too much into the territory of "running the game remotely" by creating a rules set that creates too narrow an experience.

Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer?

Heh... that's my usual argument for class based games over freeform games, though that's more a case of making the player into a game designer.

Isn't that what I pay people for?

Again, that's one perspective.

The other extreme is "why should I pay for the dubious privilege of running the Game Designer's unique vision of gameplay at my table?"

What the truth is lies somewhere between, and will vary from table to table.

I have no interest in being a game designer. I don't want to. I just want to run my game and have fun doing it. Every minute I have to spend retooling someone's rule set is a minute that is detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

I would agree, but I find that my retooling is more difficult given a ruleset that assumes too narrow a play model and builds its singular balancing point around that play model, and I want something a little different.

The trade off here is that if you design flexibility in a game, you create opportunities for imbalance. In my case, that trade off is usually worth it. I don't feel like I'm fighting the system.

 

[billd91]

Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer? Isn't that what I pay people for? I have no interest in being a game designer. I don't want to. I just want to run my game and have fun doing it. Every minute I have to spend retooling someone's rule set is a minute that is detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

It doesn't and it never did equate to being a full blown game designer. That's just hyperbole. Unlike a professional game designer, who has to put something into final form for publication, a DM can adjust it according to how it's playing out with his players.

But some game design almost always comes in unless the DM does absolutely everything by the book and does not deviate a jot from the rules. And I don't see too many DMs like that around. They're usually creating some kind of spell, magic item, creature, house rule for their own campaigns.

 

[BryonD]

How can you teach someone anything without actually first SHOWING them how?

You put "showing" in all caps, and yet it has nothing to do with anything I said.

This I totally disagree with. What one person considers a great GM, another might totally loathe. Great GM will depend on so many factors - the GM's playstyle, the player's playstyle, being probably the biggest, but, there are also a number of others as well. I've had players tell me I was the worst DM they've ever had. I've had other players tell me that I'm great.

Which one is right? I dunno. I just run games. I try my best. But, the idea that there is some sort of Platonic Ideal of GM's is something I strongly disagree with.

"Totally disagreeing" with me, and then repeating my position is an odd claim.

 

[BryonD]

Why does being a DM have to equate with being a Game Designer?

Why do people who want least common denominator games games keep using words like "have to" and "every" and "always"?

If you want to be a game designer, that's fine, but, why presume that all DM's want to be?

Problem 1: No one is saying that all DM's want to be. They are saying that games that presume a higher standard of DM have benefits. Those benefits are completely optional and you are welcome to play easier games if the reward exceeds the cost.

Problem 2: I jumped back into the thread when Garthanos said:

And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution.

To which I specifically asked if he meant that as an absolute, in which case he is the one trying to force all DMs into the same constraints. (in other words *HE* is doing what you are accusing others of doing)
I also asked if he felt there was a boundary at which point his claim stops being true, and, if so, where is it.

I've yet to see an answer to that question from anyone.

But the disconnect when one says: "fine, play your game your way, I want more" and someone else replies: "Why should everyone have to pay your way?" is boggling.

 

[Hussar]

But the disconnect when one says: "fine, play your game your way, I want more" and someone else replies: "Why should everyone have to pay your way?" is boggling.

Sorry, you made it sound like the default should be a "higher standard". Or, that's how I took it to be. That's certainly the way a lot of DnD has been designed in the past. The idea that you will get a system that expects you to constantly tinker with it to make it work at the table.

It doesn't and it never did equate to being a full blown game designer. That's just hyperbole. Unlike a professional game designer, who has to put something into final form for publication, a DM can adjust it according to how it's playing out with his players.

But some game design almost always comes in unless the DM does absolutely everything by the book and does not deviate a jot from the rules. And I don't see too many DMs like that around. They're usually creating some kind of spell, magic item, creature, house rule for their own campaigns.

"Full blown game designer"? What's that?

I have zero interest in tinkering with systems anymore. I just don't. If a particular system doesn't do what I want, I'll try a different system. Considering how many bajillion systems there are out there, there's most certainly one that will fit what I want.

Now, equating inventing a new spell with creating a new system to handle things is a bit above and beyond. Considering the rules in D&D have always covered guidelines on what new spells should be capable of - 3e explicitly spells it out as far as damage is concerned - I'm thinking that a new spell isn't game design.

See, I have zero problems with games that want to force DM's to constantly play the role of rules police. That's fine for those that want to play them. Rifts is a perfect example of this. The rules force the GM to constantly pay attention to how the rules interact and place a great deal of the responsibility for making the rules work into the lap of the GM.

But, then again, I don't play RIFTS specifically because of this. I consider it terrible game design. If you cannot create a game that works at any reasonable table, don't bother creating one at all. I know that might seem harsh, but, I'm tired of buying half assed games that people push out the door only to have them go pear shaped in the first three sessions.

The biggest reason, the single biggest reason I love 3e is because the number of rule arguments at the tables I played at dropped to about zero compared to earlier editions. Why? Because the rules work. The designers actually took the time to make sure that the rules are balanced and work most of the time.

I realize there are those out there that want to play games which presume the DM will be on the ball. That's fine for them. But, I think it's lazy game design.

 

[Chrono22]

You call it lazy, I call it preemptive.
The player and GM are the ones that arbitrate what constitutes "fun" and "enjoyable" and "balanced". You aren't doing them any favors by trying to do that for them- you're just getting in their way.
Going out of your way to build a game that can play itself is a waste of time and effort. Building a game that can be molded by the players and GM to conform to their own standards isn't.
Case in point- d20 has rules for modern, past and future play. Should the developers force the players and GM to avoid using future technologies because they are "unbalanced"? Who should be the one directing the experience? The person who wrote the rules, or the people at the table? I'd say the opinions of the players and GM are more important than the developers'.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I would put it to you all that Hussar's position is more common among the general population and even the general run of gamers than the position that the GM would want or need to step seriously into a design arena.

I've said it before, but the GM commitment around here is leaps and bounds beyond anything I've ever seen in real life.

Either most people who post regularly here are several deviations better than the mean for engagement and skill, or every single person I've played with in real life is several deviations below the mean.

The odds that I've stumbled into that many bad groups by chance are low. The odds that an online community has attracted a niche group of relatively hardcore gamers.... much higher.

There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design. Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ok, should an all-world calibre DM play this mass-market game? Or does it make sense for them to play something else?

If it's the type of game he and his players want to play, by all means. Great DMs can be great DMs without much support. But if there is another game that better meets the group's desires, then that game would be preferable.

And the good news is, there are great systems out there that avoid this issue.

Indeed. Which means it's absolutely, 100% okay that there are some systems that do cater to middling DMs.

(Also, a pet peeve about your sig: Perseus was a Christmas Tree with divine interventation, and was a demigod to boot. Winged sandals, a cap of invisibility, a sword from Hermes and a reflective shield from Athene. Medusa never stood a chance.)