Different XP progressions as a means of class balance?

[Libramarian]

This is basic equivocation. You know what they mean by unbalanced, and by that definition, early D&D games are unbalanced. The fact you don't find their definition useful or agree with its importance in the game doesn't make their statements false or the speakers confused.

He's questioning the validity of their concept of balance by saying "but don't we want to call this balanced too, and yet your definition doesn't include it".

He thinks their definition of balance doesn't really get at the important thing.

Nothing wrong with that as a form of argument.

 

[prosfilaes]

Fair enough. My point is their claim that D&D is unbalanced is like saying Chess is unbalanced because the pieces can be rated differently.

Chess is one of the most balanced games on the planet, in terms of practical equality of the players, and playing of chess in formal or even just serious settings works to balance out the first turn advantage over several games. There's many board games that some racial/class choice that is analogous to D&D, but mostly there is some serious attempt to balance them. But at least they would be remotely analogous.

It is possible to have a 1st level PC who lost everything but 2 coppers. They can be in the same party as a 10th level PC who happens to be emperor. That can happen.

And it's not fun. The 1st level PC is going to die, quickly, and if the DM brings him back as a 1st level PC, the player is going to get to play a series of characters that have no impact on the story and no chance of survival. Assuming he sticks around as a player.

... And I haven't even got into how treasure / equipment is potentially gained, used, and lost every session as well.

That some things are unbalanced is not an argument to make other things unbalanced.

They have the same odds as everyone else during character generation.

Since you brought up the analogy of a boardgame, any good boardgame takes an effort not to let random choices at the start of the game screw you over or hand you the game.

They can choose whatever class path to progress in of classes available.

(A) Which means that someone who wants to play a high-level fighter is just out of luck. They've got to be ineffective in the game or play a class they don't want to. You're reducing the number of real choices, and that's not a good thing.

(B) As if. In reality, someone gets to play the meat-shield and someone plays the cleric. If those choices can be played from the couch while the wizard does everything important, it's not fun.

 

[howandwhy99]

All I can say is you have a number of inaccurate preconceptions about the game. This isn't 3.x or 4e. Neither 90's nor 00's gaming theories apply.

Also, Chess has no first turn advantage. Think about it. Just like Tic-Tac-Toe it is balanced by competitive game standards. Perfect play by both sides leads to a tie.

Also also, D&D was a cooperative game. Competitive game standards don't really apply.

 

[billd91]

Also, Chess has no first turn advantage. Think about it. Just like Tic-Tac-Toe it is balanced by competitive game standards. Perfect play by both sides leads to a tie.

Also also, D&D was a cooperative game. Competitive game standards don't really apply.

Actually, chess does have a first turn advantage. But it's relatively small. I agree on the statement that competitive game standards don't apply to RPGs, though.

 

[howandwhy99]

Actually, chess does have a first turn advantage. But it's relatively small.

Hmm... I see it as two different games when playing white or playing black. But both hypothetically could be mastered, just like Tic-Tac-Toe.

 

[Bluenose]

A lot of people dont like this, but I have been playing 2e lately and feel it does help with class balance. The trade off is it makes multiclassing harder (but 2e doesn't have 3e-style multiclassing so it hasn't been a huge deal).

+1

Mind you, I'm not convinced that has anything to do with different XP progressions. I think it's just an inherently more balanced game than 3e.

 

[Guest 85555]

+1

Mind you, I'm not convinced that has anything to do with different XP progressions. I think it's just an inherently more balanced game than 3e.

I thijk it is one among many things that make it more balanced.

 

[Bluenose]

I thijk it is one among many things that make it more balanced.

The obvious way to test is to give everyone the same XP progression - say, the Fgithers - and see what happens to balance.