Game Balance: what does it mean to you?

[DM-Rocco]

I see a lot of threads that talk about game balance. What does game balance mean to you?

Do you feel the need to have fixed hit points because you want everything fair? Are you afraid of rolling a 1?

Do you want to use a point buy system because it is more fair and consistent than rolling ability points?

Life isn't fair. Why should the game give you a break in any edition?

Don't limit the topic of conversation to just these two areas. They are just the two examples from the top of my head.

 

[FireLance]

Life isn't fair. Why should the game give you a break in any edition?

Because the game is where I go to take a break from the unfairness of life?

As for "balance" - the game can be balanced at different levels. The most important, in my view, is "spotlight balance". I would say that in most games, the PCs are meant to be an ensemble cast of heroes, and not one or two main characters and supporting cast. That means that each PC should get roughly equal spotlight time, and that each PC should have opportunities to shine.

Supporting the idea of "spotlight balance" is the idea of "mechanical balance". Mechanical balance is the idea that game elements (characters, classes, feats, spells) may be different, but should be equally useful. Point buy systems and fixed hit point gains contribute to mechanical balance. Mechanical balance supports spotlight balance because it is easier to ensure that characters get roughly equal spotlight time when they are of roughly equal ability. It is possible to achieve spotlight balance without mechanical balance, but it is harder.

A third aspect of balance is that of "challenge balance". This is less important in a "sandbox" style game, because the players have more control over which challenges they want to take on. However, in games where the DM sets the challenge level, he should ensure that the challenges are neither too easy (and thus boring) nor too difficult for the PCs to overcome. Mechanical balance also plays a part here, because the more equal the PCs are, the easier it is to find challenges that are neither too easy nor too difficult for the party as a whole.

 

[outsider]

Character balance to me means that the worst character options aren't signifigantly worse than the best character options. Perfect balance is unattainable. Even if you could manage it, it would basically make your options meaningless. There should be some gap between the best options and the worst, but it shouldn't be overwhelming.

 

[marune]

Spot-light balance is the only really important balance in an RPG.

However, because in D&D we spent most of the time doing combat, a good way to get Spot-light balance is to have some kind of "combat power balance".

Other kinds of RPGs give the option to have PCs with vastly different level of "combat power" because they have other rules to ensure the Spot-light balance.

 

[Greatwyrm]

To me, something being out of balance is when two classes just don't compare on usefulness. Not necessarily spellcasting or melee prowess. If you just have nothing useful to do with your character's abilities, your class isn't balanced. If you look at a class and say, "why would anyone play anything else?" then it isn't balanced either.

 

[JustinA]

I see a lot of threads that talk about game balance. What does game balance mean to you?

There are two types of game balance:

(1) Spotlight time.

(2) Ability to face a challenge.

Spotlight time is the balance you need to achieve between PCs. Basically, every player should get an equal chance to do cool things. One class or race, for example, should not be inherently capable of hogging the spotlight time. (Why? Because everyone is there to have fun. Which means that everyone should be able to contribute and participate equally.)

Ability to face a challenge is the balance you need to achieve between the PCs and the obstacles they face. Basically, the group should be meaningfully challenged -- the obstacles they face should be neither too easy nor too difficult. This doesn't mean that the PCs should never face easy obstacles (this can be fun or simply flavorful) and it doesn't mean that they should never face an obstacle too difficult for them (although they should never be forced into a deathtrap, of course). (Why? Because a game that is not challenging is not fun because you effectively aren't doing anything, you're just putting in face-time. And a game that routinely kills the characters isn't fun because you literally aren't playing.)

Both types of balance are important. But they are not, in general, more than tangentially related to each other.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Lanefan]

Balance ultimately means very very little, because no matter how hard you might try to find balance in a given game or campaign it'll never happen. Some characters live longer than others, get wealthier, do more stuff and earn more ExP than their less-forward comrades, manage to make their saves in situations where other characters' expensive items go *poof*, etc., etc. leading over time to considerable differences in capabilities within a party between the senior characters and the rookies.

Unless, of course, you artificially force all these things into balance and take away any encouragement for anyone to play in a daring manner.

Random hit points and random stats are trivialities compared to the long-term imbalance. And you know what? It doesn't matter, as long as the game's still fun.

Lanefan

 

[breschau]

Because the game is where I go to take a break from the unfairness of life?

Ditto.

We expect every other game we play to be fair. Everyone knows the rules and we all play by them. If you don't like the rules, don't play. That doesn't mean the rules are meaningless and they can be anything. Fair is you get a turn then I get a turn, not you go twice then I go once.

I prefer a point-buy system. That is more balanced than say a class system, but, then each piece has a cost and those pieces have to be balanced against each other. I doubt D&D will ever be point-buy (more's the pity). But that's me. Look at M&M, the skills, feats, and abilities are balanced against each other rather well (won't touch the powers though). That's all that's lacking from that point-buy, balanced powers. If WotC just ported that over and hammered out the powers/magic system they'd be in business.

But that's all later, likely 6th Edition.

 

[Victim]

Balance ultimately means very very little, because no matter how hard you might try to find balance in a given game or campaign it'll never happen. Some characters live longer than others, get wealthier, do more stuff and earn more ExP than their less-forward comrades, manage to make their saves in situations where other characters' expensive items go *poof*, etc., etc. leading over time to considerable differences in capabilities within a party between the senior characters and the rookies.

Unless, of course, you artificially force all these things into balance and take away any encouragement for anyone to play in a daring manner.

Random hit points and random stats are trivialities compared to the long-term imbalance. And you know what? It doesn't matter, as long as the game's still fun.

Lanefan

The fact that play readily produces imbalance seems like all the more reason to at least have mechanical balance as a starting point. That way, the different results in play are more likely to relate to player choices and less likely to relate to luck at the very start.

 

[FireLance]

Balance ultimately means very very little, because no matter how hard you might try to find balance in a given game or campaign it'll never happen. Some characters live longer than others, get wealthier, do more stuff and earn more ExP than their less-forward comrades, manage to make their saves in situations where other characters' expensive items go *poof*, etc., etc. leading over time to considerable differences in capabilities within a party between the senior characters and the rookies.

Unless, of course, you artificially force all these things into balance and take away any encouragement for anyone to play in a daring manner.

Random hit points and random stats are trivialities compared to the long-term imbalance. And you know what? It doesn't matter, as long as the game's still fun.

I would make a careful distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Forcing equality of outcome would, as you point out, take away any encouragement for anyone to play well.

Of course, it could be argued that equality of opportunity applies as much to random rolls as it does to point buy and fixed hit points, since everyone has equal opportunity to roll well or roll poorly. I guess the distinction is that there appears to be little player input to a random roll, and hence, reducing the amount of randomness in the game appeals to players who want their characters' success to depend more on player choices than on luck.