Fundamental Basis of Balance

[moritheil]

ENWorld is home to wildly differing views on what constitutes balance. Most DMs and players have an idea of what is "typical" or "expected" in terms of hit points, saves, AC, and attack bonuses at certain levels. However, what informs these typical values can differ greatly: a veteran of a low-magic setting may have values different from a character optimization regular, who in turn will have ideas different from someone who regularly studies monster manuals and relies on those for an idea of balance.

So who's right?

What should we consider balanced in an abstract, general discussion?

I'll go ahead and detail my own approach, beginning with two assumptions that I think most people will not find objectionable.

First, fundamental to any consideration of a norm is the establishment of limits. That is, obviously, whatever your norm winds up being, it must be within the limits of what is possible.

Second, educated opinions are more accurate than uneducated opinions, and accordingly should carry more weight. Having an informed perspective is crucial.

Having acknowledged those, there are logically two extremes in terms of power: very powerful and very weak. A very weak build is not typically a natural occurrence, but instead is the result of someone deliberately trying to make a strange character (i.e. most people capable of grasping the rules and making a valid build have the presence of mind to not take Toughness for all their feat slots.)

For a very powerful build, one can only turn to competitive powergaming to see what is possible. Monster manual creatures and those in prefabricated adventures tend not to be built as brutally as possible, for fear of exterminating parties. (There are many reasons for this, but I think economic interest is the most obvious one, followed by an unwillingness to spend extra time optimizing NPCs.)

As a consequence of the two above assumptions, exploration of extremes is crucial to anyone who wishes to have an informed perspective on normative power levels. Taking them to their logical conclusion, people who know nothing of min/maxing are the worst possible judges of what is or is not excessive.

Under this approach to balance, it is not permissible to throw something out as broken simply in terms of power levels unless it is beyond the limits of what is theoretically possible within the rules. "No infinite loops" is perhaps the most common formulation of this consideration. The infinite stat increases of the Pun-Pun and cancer mage builds contradict the fundamental assumption behind assigning characters statistics.


I acknowledge that there is another approach to balance that comes from a different paradigm: fiat. Rather than seeing what is legally possible within the system, the fiat model begins with what should be possible (as envisioned by the DM) and bans all else. I reject this as a fair model of balance because it smacks of inflexibility and heavy-handedness. However, many board regulars have made impassioned arguments regarding the necessity of this method in actual practice.

What I am curious about is the theoretical basis of the fiat paradigm. Is there any way to justify it conceptually? Or is it simply a dirty necessity? How can its reliance upon an individual DM be reconciled with the fact that visions of balance differ widely?

 

[S'mon]

What I am curious about is the theoretical basis of the fiat paradigm. Is there any way to justify it conceptually? Or is it simply a dirty necessity? How can its reliance upon an individual DM be reconciled with the fact that visions of balance differ widely?

Within a semi-free kriegspiel system*, the referee or Games Master's opinion determines the in-game reality. Rules are used as an aid to adjudication of that reality by the GM, not as a battleground upon which GM contests with players for victory.

It is necessary in free (rulesless) or semi-free kriegspiel that the GM/ref's judgement be trusted by the players, and that his view of in-game balance be accepted as determinative.

*Including, I would say, all editions of D&D prior to 3e.

 

[delericho]

What I am curious about is the theoretical basis of the fiat paradigm. Is there any way to justify it conceptually? Or is it simply a dirty necessity? How can its reliance upon an individual DM be reconciled with the fact that visions of balance differ widely?

The rules are an imperfect system, and they always will be. As such, fiat may be a dirty necessity, but it is a necessity for all that.

One powergamer at a table of non-powergamers can destroy the fun for all involved. Either he tones down his powergamer tendencies, he leaves the group, or the game is likely to be damaged. So, if a single player doesn't fit, he's going to get booted. Simple as that*.

That's not to say powergaming is inherently bad. With the right group it can be great. It's certainly a valid stylistic choice. But everyone has to be playing the same game, or else someone won't be having fun.

* The converse is true as well, but the consequence is more limited. A single non-powergamer at a table of powergamers is unlikely to destroy the game. But, he probably won't have much fun. So, either he'll have to up his powergamer tendencies, or he would be well advised to look elsewhere in much the same way.

 

[Celebrim]

I reject the notion that player expectations of power level have anything to do with balance. A player's expectations of power level are an important part of the social contract, but if that player appeals to the notion of balance to justify his expectations of power level then I think that he's conflating two very different things (and the implicit argument he's making is one I find very ugly).

So before we get any further in elaborate essays, I think we better stop for a minute and ask what we mean by the word 'balance'. In a nutshell, balance is a synonym for 'fair'. A game is 'balanced' if it is fair, that is if it does not favor any of the participants over any other. When we speak of a board game as being 'balanced', we mean that it does not particularly favor who goes first, or if it does, the favoritism is so slight that quality of play can easily overcome the imbalance. In particular, a games balance is usually spoken highly of, if there are within the game many local optimal strategies so that no matter what situation that the player (randomly or semi-randomly) finds himself in, there is almost always some line of play that allows him to be competitive.

In the context of an RPG, balance still refers to 'fairness', but in more particular ways that depend on the particular aspects which are unique to RPGs. In particular, an RPG is said to exhibit balance if the challenges that the PC's are expected to overcome can be overcome with the resources provided to the players. In other words, in the context of an RPG, balance means that the players are capable of achieving local victories. I say 'local' for lack of a better word, because one of the unique features of RPGs is that they tend not to have any end or any defined way to win the game. An RPG is praised as well balanced if there are many different choices available during character creation (or play) which provide (at least some of) the resources necessary to face the challenges expected to be overcome, while on the other hand not reducing the challenge to the point it is non-challenging.

What should be striking about this definition is that what is challenging and what is fair is entirely arbitrary. I've tossed around terms like 'challenges that the PCs are expected to face', and those terms mean exactly what a particular group defines them to mean. In the context of D&D, if one group expects at 8th level challenge encounters to be CR 8, and another CR 10, and another CR 6, then so long as that expectation is met, that is exactly balanced in all three cases. And, so long as this situations meets everyone's expectation, none is any better or worse than the other. There is nothing inherently correct about where you set your expectation of what balance means, so long as you have it.

I would hope that this is in some way obvious. For example, Call of Cthullu sets very different expectations about the degree of challenge and the likihood of success compared to your average D&D campaign, but that in no way makes one game inferior to the other. If one DM runs D&D like Call of Cthullu, so long as the players have agreed to play at his table with some understanding that the game will be difficult in particular ways and so long as the DM gives the players reasonable oppurtunities to succeed within this framework, and allows them to do so even when it is unexpected, then its a 'balanced' game. On the other hand, if some DM wants to run a hack and slash game, so long as he provides actually challenges to the players (at thier play level!), then that is also a 'balanced' game.

S'mon points out that referees determine in game reality, and goes on to suggest that all editions of D&D prior to 3rd edition have this feature. He is correct.

He is also not being nearly as strong in his argument as he could be. Every RPG that has a referee has the feature that the in game reality is determined by the referee. It is always possible for a DM to follow the rules and present the players with an unsolvable problem. The DM determines by fiat ahead of play what the in game reality will be. Even if he never uses referee fiat at any time during play, everything that is in the game is in the game by fiat. To put it another way, the rules never construct the dungeon, or if they do, then you don't need a referee.

Because of this, you can never talk about an RPG being balanced between all of its participants. The DM is always favored. He alone can construct reality, and regardless of whether or not he follows the letter of the rules, this allows him to be arbitrarily fair or unfair. Because of this, it doesn't really matter whether the DM follows the rules. What matters is that the player's trust in the DM is warranted.

One could just as easily ask if there is any basis in believing in a non-fiat paradigm of RPG balance. How can you possibly claim simulateously that "visions of balance differ widely", and yet that a single codified rigid set of rules exists that does not rely on fiat and yet which meets all of these visions and expectations?

 

[S'mon]

S'mon points out that referees determine in game reality, and goes on to suggest that all editions of D&D prior to 3rd edition have this feature. He is correct.

He is also not being nearly as strong in his argument as he could be. Every RPG that has a referee has the feature that the in game reality is determined by the referee. It is always possible for a DM to follow the rules and present the players with an unsolvable problem. The DM determines by fiat ahead of play what the in game reality will be. Even if he never uses referee fiat at any time during play, everything that is in the game is in the game by fiat. To put it another way, the rules never construct the dungeon, or if they do, then you don't need a referee.

Because of this, you can never talk about an RPG being balanced between all of its participants. The DM is always favored. He alone can construct reality, and regardless of whether or not he follows the letter of the rules, this allows him to be arbitrarily fair or unfair. Because of this, it doesn't really matter whether the DM follows the rules. What matters is that the player's trust in the DM is warranted.

One could just as easily ask if there is any basis in believing in a non-fiat paradigm of RPG balance. How can you possibly claim simulateously that "visions of balance differ widely", and yet that a single codified rigid set of rules exists that does not rely on fiat and yet which meets all of these visions and expectations?

I take your point Celebrim; fundamentally any RPG, including the most by-the-book session of 3.5e, is unlike a genuine rules-based game; one way or another, pre game or in-game, GM fiat is the basic determinant of what transpires.

 

[Arkhandus]

Bah. I take this to be a veiled sleight against non-powergamers and an attempt by one powergamer to justify his view as superior and 'the one true way'. Seems to me more like the kind of arguments I've heard before from 1E AD&Ders who wanted to justify their demands that the DM must cater to their whims, and allow them to do whatever they want in the campaign regardless of the rest of the party or the DM's attempt to run a coherent campaign. The desire of a munchkin to be acknowledged as right and superior. Bah.

Roleplaying is a cooperative group activity. Get over it. One person, whether DM or player, is not all-important and does not need to be catered to.

 

[Stalker0]

This is my motto for balance:

"During the majority of games, every player gets a chance to feel cool and special."

It really comes down to the spotlight in the end. A player doesn't really care if he can do 300 billion damage, if he's the one who takes down the big bad guy...if he's the one who saves the princess, if he's the one who bluffs past Mr. Sense Motive, at least once in a while. That is the fantasy of every player I've played with, and as long as you ensure that, balance is achieved.

 

[Lanefan]

Yet another aspect of balance that sometimes gets overlooked is that of scale within time.

Can everything in the game be balanced for each class/player all the time? No. Is every player and-or character going to get a chance to shine every encounter, or even every session? No. Should these in fact even be viable goals? I submit not.

On a larger scale, though: can the game be balanced enough that over the long term each class/player will have a chance to be the star? Yes, with two assumptions: that any given player is willing and able to seize such a chance when it arises (not all are), and that the other players aren't airtime hogs and will let each player have their time on stage.

It's a simple fact of life that in some encounters, or even some whole adventures, certain classes are going to be more useful and get more done than others. An adventure that takes place entirely in the woods, for example, is going to (or should!) bring the Rangers and Druids to the fore. An adventure that consists of an underground dungeon crawl where all the opponents are traps and undead is logically going to feature the Clerics and Thieves. And so on... This is true at all levels, in all editions; trying to force things to be any other way is an utterly pointless endeavour rightfully doomed to fail.

Where the DM comes in is that s/he needs to present a variety of adventure types where possible. If the last adventure was all undead, the next should probably be outdoors vs. living opponents, perhaps followed by something more diplomatic in style, assuming this all doesn't butcher the pre-existing storyline...with half an eye toward the party's strengths and weaknesses. If the party lacks Druids and Rangers, for example, now's the time to throw an outdoor adventure at 'em...

As far as specific character-vs.-character balance, this is less of an issue in that good players can make something out of low-power characters, while bad players can waste the best of rolls and builds. And if one character doesn't work out, retire it or get it killed and try another...

Lanefan

 

[Thomas Percy]

A player doesn't really care if he can do 300 billion damage, if he's the one who takes down the big bad guy.

Are you sure of that?
I'm for example very bombastic when my wizard deals 100 points of damage by magic missile.

 

[marune]

"Power" balance isn't important, "Camera" balance is.

Using "power" balance to get the later is what D&D 3E tried, and it works only when combat is the most important part of the game.