Game Balance, what is it to you, why is it important, and what if you all but threw it out?

[Voadam]

Mechanical balance between PCs? That’s dead simple. Most rules light games have it built in. Hell, even D&D 4E managed it, mostly.

For me this is the one I want the most, and mostly in combat. I run D&D and combat happens a lot and I don't want some players to be outclassed by others every time combat comes up. I want it to be a team activity where everyone participates meaningfully.

4e was fantastic on doing this and making the different classes feel distinct but contributing and generally balanced in combat without much oversight. 5e is not as well balanced as 4e, but still decent.

I dislike specialized spotlight style balance such as older D&D where you can be designed for combat or for social or for specialized skills or to be mediocre at multiple things. I disliked that thieves were really always crappy at combat in return for their special skills, I much prefer the 3e-5e striker model of high damage skirmishers. Shadowrun particularly annoyed me with its cyberspace and astral space where deckers (and later technomancers) and mages were the only ones to participate in those parts of the game at all and it took points away from them being good at other normal stuff. I want everyone to fight and to talk and to engage with stuff as it comes up all the time and not leave it to the niche specialists.

I also dislike the older D&D design where you are good at certain levels and crappy at others. This makes it a meta consideration of whether you are playing a campaign or a one shot and at what levels. I much prefer the game design of it being designed to be balanced for everyone from one to twenty and balanced for both whether it is ongoing or a one shot.

 

[1QD]

There’s a solution for that. You don’t need all the complex rules mechanics to emulate physics. Let the referee decide. With a lifetime of experience most of us have a fairly well developed sense of the real world and how things work.

I agree with your sentiment but it doesn't always apply to a younger audience. DnD does have that covered by telling players exactly how everything should be, but at a large cost of individual creativity.

 

[SteveC]

On the balance issues, I pretty much agree with Blue. On the issue of dragons, there are plenty of stories of them being defeated by humans, so I don't consider it unreasonable. One of my favorite quotes is:

"Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed."

Personally, I'm all for having powerful dragons who are forces of nature, but also having heroes who can defeat them, too.

 

[payn]

I mean none of you are playing my system currently, so when someone says, Oh I wouldn't play a game like that....it really isn't that much of a take. I mean, um ok? I have literal decades of people playing my game, having fun and coming back for more. When people come back to your table every week for a decade, you have to be doing something right. Like I have said in the past if you are DnD based, my system may not be for you! That stated, I find it interesting that the immediate go to is that the Dragons are unbeatable. While I would definitely NOT recommend fighting one, pretty much ever, there are those players who have done it, repeatedly. They do so, not by me game balancing them out of existence, rather they made the odds fall in their favour.

Well, to be fair, nobody knows what your system is. They are simply operating off the info you gave us in the OP. That, A, you have your own system, B, that dragons have hundreds if not thousands of HPs in that system, and C, dragon slayers are not a thing because its assuming to be extremely rare for characters in your system to kill them.

Now it has been mentioned that there are alternative ways to deal with a creature of this nature. I favour that idea, but within my game system there are ways to make yourself exceedingly powerful and critical hits are also a thing. Add a well oiled co-operating team, and it can be done. My issue is that for...game balance purposes.... the DnD dragon was down played, terribly. All of the strategies they suggested to make up for it, were easily usable by a powerful wizard and did not stand out as uniquely Draconic in nature.

This sort of helps. Again, you talking about your system isnt helpful, becasue we cant assume what your system does. Folks are not purposely saying your system is good or bad, they are just making assumptions on the info they have. What we can discuss is D&D dragons. I agree with you that give dragons magic spells seems to be a traditional way of making them a challenge. Another aspect of D&D dragons is they are not a static creature. You have many different types, and since the game has a leveling system, you are bound to fight less magical, less big ones on your way to fighting very magical and very big ones. If that lessens the idea of a dragon for a person its understandable.

Even the HP argument .... doesn't sit well with me, in part I equate mass with HP. So I have 1/4 and 1/2 sized mod creatures in my world as well as commonly 1-10X size mod creatures. This is balanced out with often my encounters are there for a reason, not just milling about waiting for someone to drop by... The worst time to meet a dragon is when you crit fail an encounter roll. No time for planning and caught off guard. Dragons being sentient often like discourse with the players and how they handle the encounter will often determine if they live to see another day.

Wait... a lot to unpack here. We dont know how your system works or even how you are framing this. HPs according to mass is fine, but wasnt mentioned in the OP. If thats your framing, its rather important to the discussion. Which leads to my view about mass = HP. Dragons are not a real thing. Just because its large, doesnt necessarily mean it weighs a lot. When you put magic on the table all bets are off. The dragon could weigh 10 pounds because its magic. Which is why making fantasy rule sets realistic is such a crapshoot.

I have a sense of balance but it relies more on player investment and story line. Actions have consequences, but players almost always have options, rarely is anything impossible. I find the major difference between DnD's sense of balance and my own, is 2nd ed DnD dictates the answers. All goblins are kinda the same, all 12th lvl fighters are the same and there is a set path or encounter and it is often to be played a certain way. My system in counter, tells you all the ways you can create your own path, or solution. There are less limits on what you can do, and more ways to express your character. And I put few caps on that. Like you wouldn't see a healer and a necromancer multiprof combo typically....but even then I am flexible, and in fact there was a character who was both, and he had multiple personalities. By day he was a healer, by night he was a necromancer.

Again, I cant really say anything about this as its a vague statement on how things work in a system ive never seen. It would help to stop assuming folks have any understanding of your system at all if you are going to "challenge" them.

I also, politely, challenge the notion that players should all be equal. If you want to shine as a character, then do so, why should you be held back? I mean, some people are more comfortable taking less of a front stage, or being responsible for ideas that might go south. I think to a reasonable degree we must factor that people all have different personalities as well. If Player A) wants to spend 30 Hrs leveling up their character and Player be spends 10 minutes before the game, it does not make sense to treat them as equals, rather it makes sense to treat them with respect to the amount of work they put in. Now out of the two players, who do you think is going to take a lead role between these two?

Regardless of personalities and preferences, folks have been playing not just RPGs, but games for a long time. Its pretty common for folks to not enjoy games in which the gulf between abilities and power is massive. Folks often on the extreme ends of these preferences act as if its bad design not to follow tight balance or loose balance. I think there is room for both but the dominat nature of D&D makes it a very contentious topic. Though, relying on personalities as a defense of game design isnt a very sturdy argument in any sense.

Attempting to balance out players can also punish those who are naturally skilled in character design, leadership and problem solving. Now to be fair, I do game with adults. There is less of an ego driven push when it comes to my players. I also will note that my experiences in DnD led to players wanting to play the 1 man army. Players that can do it all. Team work was, just who could help that player reach his goals and that was pretty much it. In my system I encourage role taking, and strategic use of defences spells and attacks.

Lastly I will address the, fools folly. I have never judged myself by the inability of others. Just because you have tried and failed at something, does not make it unachievable, a bad idea nor not worth undertaking. I was also told I could never make my own system, have my own book, have my own copyright, have my own trademark. I mean, that type of opinion, is a dime a dozen. So it carries little weight for me. Now if you explain why, and present something constructive, I am indeed humble enough to listen, but critiques from someone who has never even tried my system only go so far. So, I listen for sound advice, and leave the unhelpful stuff where it is. That video was gold btw lol!

Making a fantasy RPG that is "realistic" is an impossible goal. First, there is no magic in our world in which we can model. Nobody knows how a realistic dragon should be like, so its all "in my head". Second, even in situations we can very much model like a guy swinging a sword at another guy, its going to be interpretive. You are not going to get a majority of gamers to agree its realistic in the end. It might work solidly as a game a mechanic, and it might be very popular, but this isnt a design goal that going to be achievable objectively. Though, I appreciate your attitude of reaching for a goal that everyone thinks is impossible. Folks have been proven wrong before.

 

[mamba]

I am more interested in balance between players / characters. As long as all of them are about equally useful in combat and outside of combat (covering separate niches is fine), that is what matters.

Balance vs the enemies is up to the DM, they can always make unwinnable fights, regardless of what individual stat blocks look like.

 

[1QD]

I am more interested in balance between players / characters. As long as all of them are about equally useful in combat and outside of combat (covering separate niches is fine), that is what matters.

Balance vs the enemies is up to the DM, they can always make unwinnable fights, regardless of what individual stat blocks look like.

This is why I encourage roles, and I do not encourage 2 of the same profs until higher levels. If each person has their own place within the group unbalance becomes less of a thing.