Game Balance

[Nathal]

I was thinking about "game balance". I believe game balance refers to equal power among characters within the context of combat and has little meaning outside of that. Obviously it is most important for games whose GMs have a heavy combat orientation, and D&D is a good example of a high level of attention going into "balanced" encounters and whatnot.

But in LA, GURPS, or any other totally open ended game, a player has the option of creating a non combat-oriented character. A newbie GM may be at a loss to create good encounters for characters in such a system. This may be obvious but I think it has significant impact of the whole concept of game balance...

In games like D&D it is expected that no one class is more powerful than any other, and that is generally true (although the source of endless debate on particulars). So, it seems to me, it is just about expected that combat be the focus of such games.

On the other hand, games like Lejendary Adventure, GURPs or even RIFTS allow the player to create a character that is basically weak. OR one can create a near juggernaut. It depends on the choices made. It is easy to see that D&D does not allow this sort of self-imposed weakness, with the basic classes designed as they are (characters get more powerful whether they like it or not). Why would a player do this to himself? Quick answer: given the chance, many players will create non combat type characters, especially female players.

This creates a whole new challenge to the GM, and one which I have not seen written about in any great length.

Game Masters probably get most of their experience balancing encounters against the average party level in D&D, and so may wonder how to create a good challenge for their players in games that don't have such "game balance" built in by force of design...


To repeat: Game balance usually refers to combat because outside of that aspect it means little. In point-based games the player can make his character more useful by simply playing out his abilities well. That goes for GURPS, LA, etc. It is up to the player to make his character valuable if "but-kicker" is not built right in and requiring no effort.

 

[Crothian]

For be it's the PCs that need to be balanced, and not really in a combat situation. It's more an overall usefulness. I run games that try to make everyone useful, so that helps define each character in their ability with what they can do.

 

[Victim]

I disagree. It's very easy to create characters that can't contribute meaningfully in combat. While all character classes are constructed so that they CAN have acceptable or better combat power, that doesn't mean that all possible character builds are good in combat.

A social based rogue with high INT and CHA, only moderate DEX, and low STR won't have decent combat ability. The rogue's redeeming combat ability, sneak attack, requires that attacks hit first. Similarly, a bard focused on Charm and persuasion will have problems. Combining the two classes increasing skills and versatility at the expense of combat ability. A swashbuckling fighter with average STR, who uses a rapier and no armor will be deficient in combat ability as well.

Character creation at high levels has another area to screw up, as characters are expected to have a certain level of powers from magic items. At high levels, allocationing these points is probably equally important to the actual class and level based powers of the character. This situation is most pronounced at Epic levels. A warrior's ability to strike at his expected enemies is more dependent on bonuses from items than from class.

 

[Nathal]

I disagree. It's very easy to create characters that can't contribute meaningfully in combat. While all character classes are constructed so that they CAN have acceptable or better combat power, that doesn't mean that all possible character builds are good in combat.

But in D&D 3rd Edition are not such characters considered duds? Is it not common for a player to re-roll if they recognize that the character statistics don't match the requirements for effective use of the class abilities? How many players actually use the 3d6 "straight-down-the-line method for stats? So sure, it's possible to create a character that can't contribute meaningfully in combat, buts it's hardly an issue because such characters are usually scrapped and re-rolled from the outset. The point is that there are systems which allows for character creation wherein the character may not seem "broken" because there is no class requirements against which to judge his/her effectiveness.

A social based rogue with high INT and CHA, only moderate DEX, and low STR won't have decent combat ability. The rogue's redeeming combat ability, sneak attack, requires that attacks hit first. Similarly, a bard focused on Charm and persuasion will have problems. Combining the two classes increasing skills and versatility at the expense of combat ability. A swashbuckling fighter with average STR, who uses a rapier and no armor will be deficient in combat ability as well.

Right, and such characters in D&D would not be considered viable I'd imagine or would be at a disadvantage. This is because 3rd Edition is a combat-oriented game from the get-go. In other systems a character who puts his points into high INT and CHA at the expense of combat ability would not always be at a disadvantage. Why? Because maybe the Game Master does not focus on combat. I consider D&D games that do not focus on combat to be against the design of the system in spirit, although there is nothing wrong with it in practice. I only feel that other game systems lend themselves better to more "role-playing" intensive styles.

Character creation at high levels has another area to screw up, as characters are expected to have a certain level of powers from magic items. At high levels, allocationing these points is probably equally important to the actual class and level based powers of the character.

Exactly. The focus of 3rd Edition is power, combat prowess and being effective as a combat unit. It doesn't make too much sense to me to create a "diplomat" character to travel with the typical D&D party. That is why I shake my head at the idea of a Call of Chutulu D20 game. Has anybody played that game and felt that it worked with D20?

So again I state that "game balance" is a concern of those who enjoy combat-oriented games for the most part. There is nothing wrong with that! I run combat heavy games and so D&D is not a bad choice for me, and just about any game system can support the basic hack & slash. But I find game balance as it relates to power between PCS goes out the window as the focus changes from hack & slash to PC-driven plot.

 

[RangerWickett]

So, um, how does a system encourage roleplaying? I don't think it's very easy to encourage real story- or character-driven games instead of combat-driven games, from a rules standpoint. You can't make rules to force people to roleplay.

D&D just happens to have very fun, very good combat rules. Since you don't _need_ rules for roleplaying, then D&D is good at both ends of the spectrum, combat or roleplaying.

 

[Turjan]

One of the last D&D sessions I took part in went over three days. During the whole time we had only one combat encounter, and even then not all PC's were involved. We had a lot of fun, nevertheless . Lots of Bluff and Sense Motive checks though .

 

[jdavis]

I don't think D&D is based solely on combat and i don't think every class is equal combat wise. Rouges are pretty poor in straight up combat, they shine in sneaky things, but the most important part to a rouge traditionally is getting around locks and traps or sneaking into areas instead of fighting. The majority of spells are not direct combat spells, there are alot of indirect ones but there are also lots of spells that are not combat oriented at all. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians are all different combat oriented characters as are Monks to a certain extent, but Clerics are not really combat machines, they normally fill a support role. Bards, Druids...? Well I don't think either is oriented for combat, although they both fight fairly well.

You have to balance alot more than combat into the equation, and not just from a combat vs. roleplay standpoint. Boil D&D down to it's basic elementsm well Dungeons and Dragons, boy theres alot more to getting through a Dungeon than fighting skills, Dragons, well Dragons are a fight but there is nomally more han a straight up fight going on, especially at lower levels where the characters need to have a plan to win. It also gets to the point if your based on straight combat that you can follow a formula to get the maximum out of any character. I hate Min/maxing but it alot of people are very good at it, you try to get the same scores to the same point and the same feats in the same order with the same weapons, etc... and it gets to be like filling out a form instead of fleshing out a character. There are feats a straignt combat character would never take, and skills are mostly useless. The game is combat intensive but I don't think it was made to be a combat simulator. In our gaming group only three out of seven of the players fight well. The highest level character is one of the worst fighters.

 

[Nathal]

So, um, how does a system encourage roleplaying? I don't think it's very easy to encourage real story- or character-driven games instead of combat-driven games, from a rules standpoint. You can't make rules to force people to roleplay.

D&D just happens to have very fun, very good combat rules. Since you don't _need_ rules for roleplaying, then D&D is good at both ends of the spectrum, combat or roleplaying.

A game system can encourage roleplaying by means of its attached setting (Storyteller systems jumps to mind), or its degree of flexibility in character creation. It certainly does not guarentee a certain kind of game, regardless of the spirit of the rules, because such direction is ultimately in the hands of the GM. I've played hack & slash Vampire and enjoyed it.

I'm getting into trouble here with semantics now, and the definition of "role-playing" is the trouble I think. I did not mean to imply that D&D does not support role-playing at all! Of course it does. I DO believe D&D game rules and presentation have a major focus on combat, which is fine. However, other systems are presented in a way which takes focus away from combat, or allows a character creation system that is so open-ended as to allow any sort of game at all with little adjustment or trouble (GURPS).

I am stressing the point that I believe "game balance" is usually a phrase invoked concerning combat and it has little meaning outside of that context in just about any system I can think of.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I personally don't care about game balance. I find that worrying about game balance can ruin roleplaying.

When I think of a story, I don't see balanced characters. For example, Frodo was not as good as Aragorn at just about anything and Gandalf was heads and tails above everyone. Could you really run something like this in a standard D and D campaign while worrying about game balance?

This is a role-playing game, and the only time game balance should matter is when it interferes with the story. Other than that, the story and adventure comes first.

 

[RangerWickett]

Combat power balance is important when you want to run a combat encounter. Though monster CRs are a bit off in a lot instances, the whole CR system does definitely help make it easier for a game master to run a combat encounter that is challenging, but not overpowering, without having to fudge things.