D&D General Do you care how about "PC balance"?

[Campbell]

I do not really care about balance. I care about game play. In the critical moments how much of an impact does decisions I make have on how things turn out? If you put somebody else in my position and they made different choices would things turn out differently? If I made different build choices how would that effect the tools I have available? How do my choices impact the choices other players get to make? What's the skill ceiling? what's the floor?

I am not really concerned with niche protection, spotlight balance, or power fantasy. I just want the decisions we make to matter.

 

[Coroc]

i do not care the least, but some of my players do, so i take care to equalize things a bit (think magic items) if needed

 

[Oofta]

I try to make sure when I DM that different PCs share the spotlight at different times. Depends on the player though, some people don't want the spotlight.

I don't think PCs are or even should be perfectly balanced all the time. That wizard is awesome when they drop that fireball and take out a dozen goblins, the fighter is awesome when the casters are down to cantrips, the bard ... well actually the bard is never really awesome they just think they are.

The only time I've seen an issue was when we were all forced to roll for ability scores (we asked to use point buy) and one PC had multiple 18s while another had high of 14, a 10 and everything else below. But that's personal preference, style and why I use point buy.

 

[Reynard]

Spotlight time and niche protection I think are tangentially related and functions less of mechanical systems (although systems do contribute) than they are table etiquette and social compact. Even in a game with PCs of vastly different power levels -- upthread people mentioned Supers games and Rift, for example -- it is up to the GM and the other players to make sure everyone is able to contribute in a fun and meaningful way.

But I have never had, at the table, a player complain that the wizard was too powerful and made their fighter feel useless. I mean, there are always moments when the wizard shines, but that's what spotlight time is for.

But my experience is only anecdotal, which is why I asked. I think I would be uncomfortable at a table, as a player or GM, with one or more players were so focused on mechanical parity that they couldn't have fun.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Spotlight time and niche protection I think are tangentially related and functions less of mechanical systems (although systems do contricute) than htye are table etiquette and social compact. Even in a game with PCs of vastly different power levels -- upthread people mentioned Supers games and Rift, for example -- it is up to the GM and the other players to make sure everyone is able to contribute in a fun and meaningful way.

The thing is: if the mechanics are built in a way that unbalanced characters are common, then you make the game harder to play in a fun way. Getting everyone to agree on a set of houserules to make Rifts balanced is a pretty tall order, and is going to require a good understanding of the system, (which basically no one had - not even the game's designer) a lot of restrictions on what content will be used (definitely less than half of the core book), and a long, ongoing conversation about what sort of game you want it to be. If you're very, very lucky, you won't need to change how the game is played every few sessions to keep it manageable and fun.

In 5e DnD, you just say "no homebrew" and you're 99% done with any balance issues.

I agree that the real balance is intra-party balance, and that it's not about exact number so much as the feeling of contributing. However some people are the sort of person to notice the numbers, and they can't un-notice them. A barbarian swinging two battleaxes sounds awesome to me. ut for some other players who aren't that different form me, if they're playing a dual-wielding barbarian it will simply never be as cool or fun as it could be because they'll know they could have done the same job better with a polearm instead. But that's not really a balance issue, that's deciding how optimized you need to be.

 

[Dausuul]

I have encountered many players who are concerned about how they stack up to the adventure or the world, but that makes a lot of sense since (to use video game parlance) D&D is essentially a PvE experience.

It's the same thing.

If my PC does not stack up to the adventure or the world, and other PCs in the party do stack up, then what I am concerned about - even if I myself do not realize it - is an issue of balance between PCs. In a competitive game, imbalance manifests as "I lose all the time." But in a cooperative game, it manifests as "I feel like I'm not pulling my weight." If a player is concerned about that feeling, then the player is concerned about PC balance.

(If the entire party does not stack up, then the focus generally turns to the adventure or the DM as being too hard/punitive.)

 

[aco175]

I think that some of this depends on your age/maturity level. 30-40 years ago I may have cared about this more, but now I mostly want to get together and hang out with friends. My son has been playing for only a few years now and he is getting into the character building min/max phase looking for huge damage. My father just plays a simple fighter to make it easy.

 

[Reynard]

It's the same thing.

If my PC does not stack up to the adventure or the world, and other PCs in the party do stack up, then what I am concerned about - even if I myself do not realize it - is an issue of balance between PCs. In a competitive game, imbalance manifests as "I lose all the time." But in a cooperative game, it manifests as "I feel like I'm not pulling my weight." If a player is concerned about that feeling, then the player is concerned about PC balance.

(If the entire party does not stack up, then the focus generally turns to the adventure or the DM as being too hard/punitive.)

I disagree.

In a game like D&D at least, everyone has a role so it seems silly for people to worry about how well their thief stacks up against the Barbarian when fighting the BBEG. Yet we see complaints like that often enough that they built a whole edition around making sure everyone and everything was balanced. The more important metric is whether every PC was able to contribute equally over the course of the session or adventure (I tend toward the latter, simply because sometimes a session is dominated by a single pillar).

 

[Dausuul]

In a game like D&D at least, everyone has a role so it seems silly for people to worry about how well their thief stacks up against the Barbarian when fighting the BBEG.

That is not what most people mean by "PC balance."

The more important metric is whether every PC was able to contribute equally over the course of the session or adventure (I tend toward the latter, simply because sometimes a session is dominated by a single pillar).

That is what most people mean by "PC balance."

You're doing this thing where you have decided that you do not care about PC balance, and therefore you insist on weird ultra-narrow definitions of "PC balance" so that you can assert you do not care about it, even while you openly admit that you do care about whether PCs are able to contribute equally during an adventure, which is what PC balance is all about.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective spotlight balance is fairly antithetical to a meaningful sense of skill-based challenge-oriented play. The entire point is earning your victories in whatever you can (as a group). A big play does not feel like a big play if it was setup ahead of time.

I see the value in passing around the narrative spotlight, but spotlight balancing and games do not really go together in my mind.