Fun vs balance [poll]

[R_J_K75]

I chose "Balance is important, but occasionally override rules to allow more fun". In theory I always thought that game balance, playing by the rules is important so that everyone at the table knows what to expect, even if this doesn't always happen. I know this isn't a character/class ability example, but I was DMing and a player who it was their first game ever came up with a pretty clever idea. The party was on a small ship being chased by some threat or another, IDR what. They had a potion of speed and asked me if it would work if they poured it on the deck would it increase the ships speed? As implausible as it was based on the rules, I allowed it, the ship hit warp factor 10 and they escaped. Everyone playing had fun, but this something I would use sparingly and only if a player proposed the idea. I might rarely allow a player to attempt to use class feature above their level with the caveat that if the attempt fails there may be serious even fatal consequences. Even then I'd probably limit this to once per level for each player.

 

[Lanefan]

I chose "balance is important", but didn't like the wording "fun has to happen within that balanced window" as it seems overly restrictive; as though balance is nothing but cages and bars. Rules are the cages and bars, not balance: you can have a game that's got rules up to here and yet still has no balance, meanwhile you can have a nicely-balanced game that has rather few rules.

Which means, perhaps the dichotomy, if there is one, is more a rules <---> fun divide rather than balance <---> fun.

Also, I took the question to be exclusively referring to mechanical balance. Spotlight balance is a completely different thing; and my perhaps-harsh take on that is that if a player's not willing to at least now and then try to proactively take the spotlight that's the player's problem, not the game's.

 

[soviet]

Or you could presuppose that all those games are badly designed as a rhetorical move to try and more firmly connect balance and good design as contiguous. Do you actually not know any OSR games or anything about whether or not they might be well designed or are you just trying to score points? I'm not sure.

? You appear to have responded to things you've only imagined I said.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For me, it all depends on the type of game. If I'm running 5e or AD&D, I'm going to be pretty strict on the rules to the letter. Because that's how the game is designed. If I'm running Mork Borg, DCC, BECMI, OD&D, or other "looser" systems, I'll be more inclined to let it ride and if something sounds cool, allow it.

Some game systems are very clear on what things do and don't do. If it's that sort of system, for me, the more I let fun dictate the rules, the more I find myself having to make all sorts of micro-judgments each time someone wants to bend the rules, and eventually the weight of all that balancing is going to come crashing down. Not to mention, those games are specifically balanced that way - when I'm running D&D, I don't want power level to ever be determined by how much a person can persuade me to let them bend the rules.

In short, if I'm running 5e and someone wants to use fireball to create some sort of combustion engine, I would refer them to what the book says the spell does. If it's DCC, I'll tell them to give me some spellburn and a spell check and see what happens.

 

[aramis erak]

I sometimes think there are two different things people are talking about with balance, is characters, and with the encounters. Though usually with players it about each other's characters ime.

That's almost synonymous for screentime. Almost.

 

[dragoner]

That's almost synonymous for screentime. Almost.

Yes, it is almost like balance is about someone getting an advantage. I mean then, what if everyone got an advantage of some sort?

 

[Fenris-77]

? You appear to have responded to things you've only imagined I said.

Indeed, much as you were. I thought referencing the OSR was more then enough to give people a handle on what I was getting at. No need to be disingenuous about how they might all just be badly designed games. Unless you happen to believe that all OSR games are inherently badly designed, which would be odd, but not impossible.

 

[MGibster]

I tend to favor fun over balance. As a player, I'm not really bothered if my character isn't as powerful as another player character. I'm only bothered if I feel as though my character can't meaningfully contribute to the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I consider it mostly a false dichotomy, because I've found over the years that badly balanced games aren't much fun in the medium to long term for at least as many players as not.

 

[Darth Solo]

"Fun isn't balanced" and "Balance isn't fun". Okay.

D&D has never been balanced: Magic-Users/Wizards suck at low level but become demigods at mid-high level. But it's the most popular RPG on ground. People champion Apocalypse World but it has XP and Advancement to improve a PC just like D&D. Maybe define what you mean by "balanced" and "fun"? Then people can participate?