Game Balance: what does it mean to you?

[DM-Rocco]

Well, I wish to comment on this.

The reason people didn't plan out their characters was that there was no advantage to really doing so. Mechanical character optimization was almost entirely a result of initial choices (or non choices, in the case of random stats and such). To make a more powerful character, pick a more powerful class/race/kit/proficiency set up at the beginning of the game. Later character building choices have little impact, unless you're using Weapon Mastery type stuff - but you're still pretty setting the path the character will take at first level.

I'd argue that minmaxing in previous editions was less a matter of making mechanical trade offs to emphasize certain abilities and more a matter of convincing the DM to allow one to use options that were superior in pretty much every respect anyway.

I understand that, but it is really beyond the scope of this thread. Or atleast I didn't want to turn it into that

Anyway, I'm sure min/maxing is is far from over, but if it makes you feel better, I agree with you

 

[DM-Rocco]

Yes, quite serious. Take a look at the Amber Diceless RPG, Nobilis, and the Marvel Universe RPG (which used the SAGA diceless system, which was also used for a Dragonlance game, IIRC). And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

Hmm, my first thought from reading a few of those links is that is just insane. But it does look interesting and I really have to reserve further comments on that until I could properly read such rules.

Thanks for opening my eyes on that subject. I was completely unaware of such a system.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Game imbalance occurs when either one choice or particular combination of choices is demonstrably better than all other reasonable choices 90% of the time. Not that the combo is unbeatable (there is a random element to the game, after all), just that it is always tactically the right choice. The inverse is also true, but less serious. Having a spell, race, or ability that is always a sub par choice is also harmful.

Borrowing from Starcraft, Mutalisks used to be the default best choice for a Zerg player. They were so good that even if you built anticipating that choice, you still had a good chance of being beaten. Before certain patches, if you were Zerg and you knew nothing else about your opponents, your best option was to build Mutalisks.

In 3rd there were some pretty bad imbalances (Haste, Harm) that got fixed in 3.5. However, there are still some things that just do not work out. The one thing that does annoy me most is that there are too many choices that should be viable that simply are not.

- Monks are presented as potentially effective front line fighters, but low AC options and a poor BaB make them less effective then most other classes.
- Sticking to a single class is never as effective as taking selected level dips for certain abilities.
- Trying to multiclass between Caster and Fighter results in you sucking at both.
- The drawbacks of size Small races always outweigh the benefits (due to weapon size and movement).
- Too many garbage "+2 to 2" feats.
- Too many garbage skills
- Skills with fixed DC's would reach a point where further ranks were unnecessary
- Some magic items were way too necessary

Essentially, I would have liked to be able to create a Halfling Monk and have it reasonably competitive with a Half Orc Barbarian. Obviously, the Half Orc should have the edge in terms of raw damage output. But the Halfling Monk would basicallly be terrible in melee due to a Str penalty for size, a slow movement rate, reduced damage output for being small, a crap BaB, and a poor AC. For a class designed around Melee, there would be very few situations where the Halfling Monk (Or any small melee bulid) would be particularly effective compared to other melee builds.

I am not asking that a Halfling Monk be able to take down a Half Orc Barbarian 1 on 1. It is ok for one build to be less effective than another, even somewhat substantially so. But I would at least like it if the Hypothetical Halfling could at least make the Half Orc work for it a little.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[howandwhy99]

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?

Randomness is a rule designed to simulate reality. It isn't cut and dried. There is always a chance of failure. So I have no problem rolling 1s or hit points. Random PC scores like HPs are almost dead now unfortunately. Almost everything that dictates your character by fortune has gone by the boards.

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

I dislike point buy, but use it in 3E. Its a problem with Ability Scores having far too much impact. Stripping out their integration with other stats would be great. At least make it an option.

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.

Randomness is great when it spurs ideas and gives you a caricature of a character or broad strokes that could lead somewhere. When it has a large effect on your enjoyment of the game, it's a problem. Destroying randomness is not the answer though. It is removing one leg so the other can touch the ground.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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

Game balance, to me, is that quality present when elements of any given RPG system "make sense" together and well, balance, laterally (so to speak), at any point up or down the scale [of power levels]. It is that quality absent at any other time, in the playing (or game preparation) of any given system.

It also follows that, when that quality is present, many of the GM's tasks are easier and more pleasant to carry out. There are, of course, benefits for the players too.

It's *A Good Thing*. IMO.

 

[ProtoClone]

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.

Game balance to me is about just having fun.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Game balance to me is being able to pick any race and class and feel just as worthwhile and useful as every other member of my party. I want the disadvantages of my choices to balance out with the advantages.

So, as per the example above. I want a halfling monk to lose damage output because he's small and weak but to make up for it with moves like being able to run between people's legs and punch them in the groin and give them minuses.

I want the half-orc wizard to lose in spell versatility but make up for it with an affinity to buffing spells cast on themselves (or something like that).

Basically, I want to have fun playing anything and for it not to matter than I took one feat over another. To do that, they basically have to remove the upper AND lower levels of power so everything is close to equal.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I agree with pretty much everything written on this 2nd page. And I do love Majoru Oakheart's signature. Pretty much sums up everyones paranoia when confronting NPCs