Game Balance: what does it mean to you?

[Lanefan]

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.

I see what you're saying; distinction noted.

That said, you-as-player can make all the choices you want and the end result still comes down to luck anyway: I-as-DM randomly determine the Beholder's death ray is targeting you (instead of one of the other 4 characters it could target), then you randomly blow your save. As I'm probably a more chaotic personality than some in here, I just let the good/bad luck start a bit earlier.

And that said, bad luck can be overcome. An example: I play in a 3e game where we randomly roll base stats, hit points, and spell points (used instead of slots). My #1 character there is a Wizard(Illusionist; banned Evokation) whose stats, when rolled up, barely cleared the 3e DMG standard for "playable"; never mind I don't tend to go for the "optimal build" at the best of times, she's grand proof of that! 11 levels later she's got average hit points, *awful* spell points....and is the senior surviving character in the game! And that's not because I play her cautiously - she's Wisdom 7, as chaotic as they come, and played to suit....

In various games, I've also seen characters with nigh-ridiculous stats not survive their first combat.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to FireLance's excellent summary:

Balance also means, at its most basic, that one choice is not obviously better than all other choices. While something might be better some of the time, it shouldn't be better all of the time.

Take longswords in 2e. d8/d12 damage and a speed of 5. Absolutely the best weapon you could use in the game with one hand. Nothing else came even close. Any choice to not use a longsword was a deliberate handicapping of the PC. Coupled with the two weapon fighting rules, there was just no reason not to use a longsword/shortsword combo, other than deliberately choosing a weaker option. This is poor balance.

While absolute balance is an unachievable goal, that doesn't mean that games shouldn't attempt it. The pursuit of balance makes the game better, and the closer you come to achieving balance across a number of factors, the better your game will be.

IMO, YMMV and all that.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

As Gary says in the 1e DMG, D&D isn't a simulation. It's a game. Do you start games of chess with a die roll to see how many pieces you get?

 

[JustinA]

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.

Besides, imbalance that occurs as a result of high or low quality play is quite different than a handicap.

Look at Chess, for example. Both sides get the same starting position. By the end of the game, one player has won and the other has lost (total imbalance). RPGs aren't a game that you win or lose, but the idea that play can result in a bettering or worsening of one's position within the game seems quite acceptable to me. (If the outcome is pre-determined, what's the point of playing?)

The analogy of Chess' starting position is an interesting one to misuse. For example, one could argue that the "starting position" of D&D is character. One could then conclude that the Warrior and Fighter classes are balanced, even though one is clearly an inferior option, because choosing the Warrior class would be a worsening of position as a result of play.

This is obviously a bad approach, since it can be used to justify poorly balanced classes.

OTOH, trying to eliminate sub-optimal builds isn't particularly productive. For example, trying to create a system in which a player cannot decide to create a fighter with Strength as his lowest ability score is not only a waste of time, but an unnecessary limitation on the flexibility of the character creation system.

(I think one potential explanation here is that, since a functioning D&D party needs to have certain roles fulfilled -- fighter, arcanist, healer, rogue -- no one should ever have to "bite the bullet" and choose one of those roles for the "good of the group", even though it's a sub-optimal and less fun choice.)

The question, I suppose, is ultimately where the line between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" (as FireLance terms it) is to be drawn. In Chess, the line can be firmly drawn. In D&D the line is a bit fuzzier, but it definitely lies somewhere within character creation.

Take longswords in 2e. d8/d12 damage and a speed of 5. Absolutely the best weapon you could use in the game with one hand. Nothing else came even close. Any choice to not use a longsword was a deliberate handicapping of the PC. Coupled with the two weapon fighting rules, there was just no reason not to use a longsword/shortsword combo, other than deliberately choosing a weaker option. This is poor balance.

But this is an interesting example because there are, in fact, superior and inferior weapons in the real world. So while I agree that no single weapon should be the Ultimate Weapon, I don't necessarily think that all weapons should be equally valid choices.

As Gary says in the 1e DMG, D&D isn't a simulation. It's a game. Do you start games of chess with a die roll to see how many pieces you get?

Well, yes. But two pages after saying that, Gary gives multiple methods for rolling up ability scores (and no methods for not rolling for ability scores). So I'm not sure it's the best example.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[mhacdebhandia]

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?

Actually, no. I like using fixed (in my case, maximum) hit points and point-buy ability scores because I find there is no benefit to be gained from the time-consuming randomness of the original method.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

Granted, but I'd add a few further distinctions. First of all, if the sort of opportunity we're talking about is the "opportunity" to roll up a character who doesn't suck, or something other than a 1 when rolling hp while levelling up, then I'll pass. That's not really "playing," its making one die roll. No tactical thought went into it. Second, I'd add that if differences in outcome crop up often enough, its evidence that maybe the classes haven't got the equality of opportunity that we thought they did.

 

[DM-Rocco]

As Gary says in the 1e DMG, D&D isn't a simulation. It's a game. Do you start games of chess with a die roll to see how many pieces you get?

Yes, but other than fixed hit points after a certain level, Gary designed the game to not be fair. Fighters where the only one to gain a bonus from a STR over 18 and a CON over 16. Only Clerics got bonus spells. There were a lot more save or die effects than there are now and you only got a bonus to a score from a 15 or higher score.

3rd edition really strived for balance by making bonuses start at scores as low as 12, there are less death effects, everyone gains bonus spells (who can cast spells) and everyone gains bonuses (not just fighters) from high STR & CON scores.

The difference between editions has differences.

Why do some people feel that you need max hit points per level? Doesn't anyone value individuality or do we need to make robot characters. If you are a cleric, you will have these scores, this gear and this many hit points? That really doesn't scream balance to me. It is at its primal basis a min/max method. If you know everything you run into will have a certain amount of hit points and weapons do a certain amount of fix damage and you will hit that creature everything 3 out of 4 swings, then where does the fun come from?

 

[Hussar]

But this is an interesting example because there are, in fact, superior and inferior weapons in the real world. So while I agree that no single weapon should be the Ultimate Weapon, I don't necessarily think that all weapons should be equally valid choices.

And, even in 3e, some weapons are better than others. The Simple/Martial/Exotic division shows that. As well as weapons within each group also feature better or worse characteristics. I would point out though, that weapons that were clearly inferior were replaced. D&D, OTOH, keeps these weapons on the list.

Given the choice between realism and better game, I'll take the latter every time.

Why do some people feel that you need max hit points per level?

This is a direct reaction to the fact that 3e combat is far and away the most lethal of any D&D. When a given CR can kill a given equivalent level character in a single round AT ANY LEVEL, it makes sense to up the survivability of PC's.

Doesn't anyone value individuality or do we need to make robot characters.

I don't know about you, but, the personality of my character goes far beyond the simple numerical stats on my paper. Even back in the day, when the only difference between two fighters was their equipment, we still managed to have individual characters.

If you are a cleric, you will have these scores, this gear and this many hit points? That really doesn't scream balance to me. It is at its primal basis a min/max method. If you know everything you run into will have a certain amount of hit points and weapons do a certain amount of fix damage and you will hit that creature everything 3 out of 4 swings, then where does the fun come from?

Meh, this has always been true. A cleric in earlier editions would have an 18 wisdom come hell or high water. Even the pregens in the modules support this. The chargen method in the back of the Unearthed Arcana also supports this. Even Basic D&D allowed you to swap stats (STR, Int, Wis could be raised or lowered, Dex only raised, 2 for 1, minimum 9) so you could have that all important 18.

As far as meta-gaming what we know about the critters, again, this was always done. I know that an ogre has 4+1 HD, meaning it's got a max of 33 hp. And, yup, we dropped it in about 3 or 4 swings.

The fun comes out of moving beyond the dry examination of the mechanics and actually playing a character and reacting to the situation.

 

[Umbran]

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

When I use the term, I generally mean it thusly:

A game is balanced when, over an extended and varied campaign, all the basic character options can be expected to have roughly equal chance to be effective. Each would be able to have roughly the same overall coolness factor and ability to take some spotlight for themselves.

I don't take this idea down to to granular a scale. For example, it does not mean that each character must be able to dish out the same damage in a fight. It does mean that each character probably ought to be able to do something constructive in a fight, and have a decent chance of getting back out of it so they can eventually reach the activities in which they do shine.

So, I don't think fixed hit points are necessary, as there are ways to shine other than by soaking up lots of damage. I don't think point-buy stats are required - but if point-buy isn't being used, I do have a GM's editorial step, where I make sure a character is not a superman or complete waste of time.

 

[Nifft]

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".

Totally agree.

If 4e has some nice non-combat conflict resolution mechanics (like "tactical etiquette"), then perhaps combat power can be reduced in importance. But as it stands, I think everyone needs something cool to do every round (offensive, defensive or supportive), and also a way to kill monsters.

Cheers, -- N