Discussions about "balance" at the table

[Ed Cha]

I don't think if it's even possible to have perfect equilibrium in an RPG, especially when you're covering classes, feats, skills, abilities, spells, special abilities, weapons, armor, currency, magic items, and so and so on. It's a matter of relativity, in my opinion.

As long as players are having fun and nothing seems too out of proportion, then there is some kind of "balance".

 

[Gronin]

Most people realize that if player A's character is better than player B's character, it usually is not a question of balance but of how much a min/maxer or utter twink Player A is in comparison to Player B.

Or, it is a perception of the impartiality and competence of the DM. If a DM favors a player (a no no, but know to happen), there is a incorrect conclusion that that's player's character is better than the other characters.

Or, as I find is most often the case, the player perceived as unbalanced is simply a better player. By that I mean they play a particular character in a way that reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the character. I find that most of the time any of my players who find a class too weak (rarely do I hear complaints about a class being too strong) are playing like (to be blunt) morons. If you charge into melee with your wizard and die it is not a flaw in the class, if you singlehandedly try to take out 12 orcs with your 1st level Barbarian it is not a flaw in the class, if you.....

Hmmmm......there is potential for a Jeff Foxworthy "You might be a redneck" kind of thing here. "If you <fill in the blank>, you might be a moron."

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't think if it's even possible to have perfect equilibrium in an RPG, especially when you're covering classes, feats, skills, abilities, spells, special abilities, weapons, armor, currency, magic items, and so and so on. It's a matter of relativity, in my opinion.

As long as players are having fun and nothing seems too out of proportion, then there is some kind of "balance".

I hear that argument quite often: "You can't have perfect balance". Well, of course you can't. But that doesn't mean that we should do our best to achieve it. Even though it won't be perfect, it will be the best we can get. This applies mostly to rules.

Though you didn't say that we should ignore balance alltogether, because we cannot really have it anyway. I've actually heard people saying that.

Is there really a need for all characters to be balanced? If one player plays a winged elf, that character can fly and mine can't. I don't expect any advantages to make up for it.

I think it's more important that players don't hog the spotlight, so that everybody participates euqally in the game. It's not important whether one is better than the other.

As has been said, it is impossible to achieve total balance. But the players should play in the same league.

The thing is that more power will often mean more spotlight. The more power you have, the more impact you will have on things. If it becomes too much, it won't be "the party defeated the evil warlock" but "Player X defeated the warlock, with the help of the party".

And don't underestimate the advantage of flying. it will make the life of that character much easier in a lot of occasions, and greatly increase the effectiveness of said character in many situations, including a lot of combat situations. While the rest has to waste time negotiating difficult terrain, a flying character can get to the point at once. This will often mean that he can't help to "hog spotlight", unless the others can make the reduced time they get in the action count.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think if it's even possible to have perfect equilibrium in an RPG, especially when you're covering classes, feats, skills, abilities, spells, special abilities, weapons, armor, currency, magic items, and so and so on. It's a matter of relativity, in my opinion.

As long as players are having fun and nothing seems too out of proportion, then there is some kind of "balance".

Agreed. The experience with my group is, nobody complains about balance as long as every character gets to do cool things.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

In our games, it usually doesn't come up during play. It might come up when everyone is leveling up and their choices of feats and the like are discussed, along the lines of: "Hm.... what do you think of that feat? I consider taking it." "Whoa, that's soo much over the top it has to send postcards. No way." or "Hm.. seems a little too good, especially in our situation. Get it past the DM first."

Or, of course, if there is a character that is just too good and has to be cut down to size (or the opposite, when a character simply cannot get anything done). We have one of those in one campaign. His characters usually end up with no real weaknesses, but often strengths in everything that counts, due to a combination of race, classes, feats, and the like.

 

[Wombat]

Interesting posts here.

In all my time as a GM (about 30 years now) no one has ever complained at the table about balance. I've been in a lot of discussions on-line, in print, and away from the table about it, although never about a particular game that I am running, but as I say, never at the table.

I wonder how much this has to do with my gaming style? Overall my games have a stronger emphasis on story than on rules, so things get fudged here and there, and while a particular character may not shine in one session, s/he will probably shine soon enough in another. I guess in a number of ways I work the balance into the plot, rather than into the rules.

Comments? I'm very interested.