How balanced should a game be?

[Mishihari Lord]

Depends what crazy superpowers the butter knife or wielder have. Ditto karate. Sword vs. spear and sword vs. sword seem a lot easier to work out, though. But like, when magic and superpowers exist in a setting, saying that "gun always beats knife" not only doesn't match reality, it also becomes pretty much irrelevant. More important than whether or not it seems realistic, I feel, is whether or not it matches the tone of the rest of the game.

Yes on matching the tone, but as I was saying the preference for tone varies a lot. "As realistic as possible given the fantasy conceits" is one of my tone preferences. You're happy to give up realism/verisimilitude for balance. I'm not, and I suspect that the others arguing the point with you aren't either. It's all good, but we probably wouldn't enjoying gaming at the same table.

I would never argue that gun always beats knife. I've taken away a gun from an assailant on two different occasions. But that was because I was a lot better than they were and there were favorable circumstances. Just because one choice is provably advantageous doesn't mean that it always wins. Given the choice, I'd still take the gun.

It looks like you're arguing above that when you have magic in a setting, you should throw at any attempt at realism. That's a common opinion. I strongly disagree, but that's a subject for another thread.

Gandalf and Frodo are surprisingly close in power level, so yeah, that wouldn't be too hard to handle. On the other hand, to get Goku and Batman playing in the same game and getting the same amount of spotlight takes some amazing doing. I'm not saying it can't be done, but at some point it's easier for everyone if you just move to something where everyone's pretty much equally awesome - or equally mundane - in different ways and at different things.

Gandalf's an angel and went toe to toe with a balrog - Frodo's not a match for a lone orc, so just no. And my personal experience is that DMing for wildly disparate power levels isn't all that hard. On the DM end I've had parties with levels ranging from 1 to14 and everyone was still involved and had fun. It's kind of you to say that I'm amazing, but I think that any reasonably competent DM could have done the same. On the player side I had a ninja anthropomorphic goose in TMNT, sacrificing a lot of fighting power for mobility, while another player had a gun bunny probably equivalent in strength to 10 of my character. The DM was a newby and still made it a great game for all of us.

 

[Zadmar]

What happened to role playing and taking/using stuff because it fits the character or because nothing else is available instead of only using things which are mathematically proven to be the best?

If you make their character concept an inferior choice, then you're effectively punishing the player for sticking with it.

Imagine you said to your GM "my character concept is an acrobatic bladedancer, I leap around the battlefield performing spinning attacks on my foes with a pair of kukri" and the GM replied "Okay, but all that jumping around means you suffer a -10% penalty to your attack and damage rolls, and there are no benefits - plus I have no stats for the kukri, so I'll treat them exactly the same as swords except they inflict half damage".

Would it make you a bad roleplayer if you then said "in that case I guess I'll just fight normally and use a sword"? Even if you think it does, that means you're actually rewarding bad roleplaying - those who choose to discard their concept gain a mechanical advantage over those who don't, in a game that probably involves a lot of tactical combat.

I wouldn't give the player a bonus for their character concept, but I'd make sure their spinning attacks were either purely cosmetic, or provided benefits to offset the penalties. And I'd balance their kukri against swords in the same way. I don't punish cool and creative character concepts.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

If your game is mostly about killing things and taking their stuff, then the combat-oriented definition comes rather closer to holding than you seem to suggest. I know some folks do like to play support roles (I tend to be one of them, in fact), but in the long run, being able to have spotlight matters, and giving everyone a +1 to hit simply isn't *dramatic*. It doesn't get spotlight.

Some will blithelly respond to, "Well, they don't *have* to fight it! They could find another way around, if they are creative." That's kind of like saying that since your artwork is in black and white, you cant' see the skin colors, so your racial representation is good! *Design* for non-combat, rather than "combat can be avoided if you work at it," and then you get to say that combat equality doesn't matter.

It's intersting this topic came up at this time.

We had our first session of our new Eberron game (run under the PF ruleset) this week, and it was clear that the characters are NOT balanced, and comabt equality was DEFINTIELY an issue. Since we're using a PF adventure path, a certain of optimization (specifically combat optimization) seems expected, we defintely struggled through every encoutner so far, depsite having a solid Warforged Barbarian and a solid Human Monk for melee. (OUr DM is excellent about giving "Comabt Avoidance" options, but, in my experience, D+D/PF does typically end up breaking down to combat the majority of the time.)

 

[GMMichael]

we defintely struggled through every encoutner so far, depsite having a solid Warforged Barbarian and a solid Human Monk for melee. (OUr DM is excellent about giving "Comabt Avoidance" options,

May I emphasize (again, if applicable), that the balance of a game is going to rest just as much in the GM's hands as in the ruleset?

If a game, let's take for example, presents rules for fighting, traveling, and everything-else (skills), the GM's choice of what to include will handily determine which characters are useful and which aren't.

Combat is the first choice because 1) there's a certain amount of rulebook focus on a chapter named thusly, 2) excitement equals combat, as ingrained by American culture, and 3) combat is easily the simplest system for resolving conflict (dead opponent = end of conflict).

So to bring this up to speed with the OP: a game should be balanced to the extent needed to keep the GM's whims in check.

 

[genshou]

A game should be balanced to the extent that everyone can have fun. If combat is the main focus of the game (and it is in so many games, not just D&D), then you should make sure everyone can feel like they contributed something useful at the end of the day, and that everyone's enjoying the time at the table. If someone is deliberately trying to make a 'silly' or 'underpowered' character, maybe they are bored or dissatisfied. Something else is often going on that needs to be addressed instead of taking the behavior at face value.

I also don't think every weapon needs to have equal stats. If one guy has a powerfully enchanted needle, and the other guy has a rifle, why not powerfully enchant the rifle? Varying levels of versimilitude will be required in different gaming groups. I've generally had the experience that having some inferior choices is fine. d20 Modern has a small selection of weaponry and armor, but the flexibility comes in the form of less obvious benefits. For example, concealment becomes much more important if you're trying to go unnoticed in a society where visible weapons and armor tend to draw the wrong kind of attention. You also can't use every weapon in every situation. An anti-tank rifle is not so useful when someone ten feet away from you draws a knife. And a knife is no good against a tank.

I think this has too many possible right answers. It really depends on the group, the game, and so forth.

Edit: I lost a paragraph somewhere, but the tl;dr would have been that the worst kinds of imbalances are in permanent character choices, like character class. Despite what many say, I've had satisfied high-level Fighter types in D&D. If the rest of the party is trying to build 'let's make the Fighter obsolete' characters, then they're poor team players. This guy's been fighting all sorts of horrible monsters with you for years. You've gotten used to him being around. He still has his purpose, but you have to support him to keep him relevant.

 

[Cronocke]

Yes on matching the tone, but as I was saying the preference for tone varies a lot. "As realistic as possible given the fantasy conceits" is one of my tone preferences. You're happy to give up realism/verisimilitude for balance. I'm not, and I suspect that the others arguing the point with you aren't either. It's all good, but we probably wouldn't enjoying gaming at the same table.

[snip]

It looks like you're arguing above that when you have magic in a setting, you should throw at any attempt at realism.

I'm saying that when you have people able to summon black tentacles from the ether, creating illusory terrain, calling forth powerful creatures from other planes of existence, etc. then everyone needs to operate at that level.

D&D is two games strapped together very awkwardly. One is a game of wizards and priests slinging powerful spells back and forth, altering reality around them and dueling with powerful avatars of demons and evil gods. The other is a game of swordsmen and thieves fighting kobolds and orcs. The entire game is balanced around the first group's existence, with the second group more of an afterthought. Sure, you can very carefully portion out encounters so everyone fights only the threats that they are most suited for, but it requires a lot of handholding to work properly.

If "as realistic as possible given the fantasy conceits" is really one of your tone preferences, why are you playing D&D in favor of, say, the Black Company d20 game, or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, or something else? Flying invisible summoning batteries are quite outlandish, after all.

I would never argue that gun always beats knife. I've taken away a gun from an assailant on two different occasions. But that was because I was a lot better than they were and there were favorable circumstances. Just because one choice is provably advantageous doesn't mean that it always wins. Given the choice, I'd still take the gun.

The gun is advantageous at ranges of 20+ feet in real life. Closer than that, the knife has advantage, as the video showed. Situational modifiers that make different weapons better or worse are fine, to me. But if one sword does twice as much damage every time, regardless of who swings it, and the only tradeoff is a minor cost increase, why does the other sword exist?

Gandalf's an angel and went toe to toe with a balrog - Frodo's not a match for a lone orc, so just no.

Gandalf went toe to toe with a balrog by collapsing the bridge under it to weaken it and having a magical ability to come back from the dead that the balrog didn't. Frodo had a magic ring and a dagger of orc-kin-slaying, and spent a lot of the story weakened by the ring's effects so he was unable to fight. I'm not saying that "being an angel" isn't awesome, but as far as what the books and movies showed us, it really wasn't that impressive.

And my personal experience is that DMing for wildly disparate power levels isn't all that hard. On the DM end I've had parties with levels ranging from 1 to14 and everyone was still involved and had fun. It's kind of you to say that I'm amazing, but I think that any reasonably competent DM could have done the same.

I sincerely doubt that. CR exists for a reason - to make encounters work with that wide of a level discrepancy basically requires throwing out the concept of CR and assigning different enemies to different characters or something along those lines. If you really had everyone having fun and being productive in combat, you either spent a lot of time working on the fights - which is commendable - or you had players used to being useless in the adventure and mostly just enjoying hanging out with friends, which is sadly all too believable.

May I emphasize (again, if applicable), that the balance of a game is going to rest just as much in the GM's hands as in the ruleset?

If a game, let's take for example, presents rules for fighting, traveling, and everything-else (skills), the GM's choice of what to include will handily determine which characters are useful and which aren't.

Combat is the first choice because 1) there's a certain amount of rulebook focus on a chapter named thusly, 2) excitement equals combat, as ingrained by American culture, and 3) combat is easily the simplest system for resolving conflict (dead opponent = end of conflict).

So to bring this up to speed with the OP: a game should be balanced to the extent needed to keep the GM's whims in check.

This is one of the things I find cool about non-D&D-derived games - combat is not the default assumption, it is only one method of advancing a scene. Further, combat role and out-of-combat versatility being unrelated is also a great thing - you want to be a philosophizing warrior poet? You can! You want to be a brutal thug who literally breaks into jewelry stores and steals things messily? You can! You want to be an idiot savant who knows how to use hexes and witchcraft but doesn't know how to tie his shoelaces? You can!

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Frodo had a magic ring and a dagger of orc-kin-slaying, and spent a lot of the story weakened by the ring's effects so he was unable to fight. I'm not saying that "being an angel" isn't awesome, but as far as what the books and movies showed us, it really wasn't that impressive.

While Frodo was a great fantasy novel character, how much fun would it be to PLAY him in an RPG in a party with Gimli, Legolas, Gandalf and Aragorn?

Further, combat role and out-of-combat versatility being unrelated is also a great thing - you want to be a philosophizing warrior poet? You can! You want to be a brutal thug who literally breaks into jewelry stores and steals things messily? You can! You want to be an idiot savant who knows how to use hexes and witchcraft but doesn't know how to tie his shoelaces? You can!

You absolutely can; the problem comes when you try to incorporate all these widely disparate characters into a cohesive party! That's why you don't [generally] see things like the "Pacifist Fighter" or the "Wandering Minstrel" as Pre-Gen NPC's in modules/AP's.

Granted, in my experience, this problem seems to apply more to pre-made modules and adventure paths rather than free-form campaigns.

 

[Janx]

I did have one potentially new point on the reason why balance is combat abilities is desirable.

If you have a party with disparate power levels in combat, in some groups (particularly less mature), you will see issues where the powerful one pushes the others around. Even if its not blatant, there's the talk of "my character can beat your character." And you know what sucks, is knowing that the other guy is right.

Now, some of you may be too self confident to fall for that, but remember there's people who haven't grown up yet playing this game (and some legitimately so).

There is some value, for a game played by people who as a stereotype have been picked on, to avoid enabling bullying each other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

By "balanced" I mean "every character design choice bring equal". It's a theme I've seen crop up both in discussion of things like D&D and in feedback on my own game design.

This is a strawman. You can not have meaningful choice with all choices being equal. You certainly can't have a class based system where all choices are equal - classes are inherently dissimilar.

The most you can do in an RPG is create a system where all choices are defensible on the power scale. Where picking the choice that you personally consider the most fun (whether this means thematic, tactically interesting, or just weird) is not obviously a choice that is going to lead to either your PC getting killed or your PC being deadweight and someone the rest of the party needs to make up for. That is what a balanced system is.

1) I do not subscribe to the school of thought that character choices should all be equal.

Good. Because they can't.

2) I believe character optimization is a fun part of the game for many. As long as it doesn't dramatically ruin other players' fun, it's fine.

In short you want a balanced system rather than have optimisers overshadow everyone else.

3) There are different things to be good at. Balance is too often a codeword for "good at single combat".

Agreed.

4) I don't think it's so terrible to sacrifice early power for later potential, as long as the player is cool with that.

That doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.

5) I think it's OK to say. "That weapon is worse than that other weapon". I don't feel a paper knife has to be mathematically equal to a bazooka. The bazooka is better. Same with ability choices etc.

You know, I'm not sure which of the two weapons is better. Neither of them are much use most of the time. And there are a lot of times when a knife you can hide in plain sight is more use than a bazooka. Balance doesn't say that "The paperknife should be as good at penetrating tanks as the bazooka". It says that "If you are going to present a paperknife as a combat weapon then there are frequent cases, such as being an operative the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, where a paperknife is superior to a bazooka." And you don't get utterly hosed by trying to be an operative for the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare because you aren't allowed to get into a situation where the paperknife is a very good tool for the job.

So my position is fairly clear - balance is OK to an extent, and extreme imbalance is a problem. but when it is the dominant factor in a game, it starts to bore the heck out of me.

What do you think?

I think such a game is a figment of your imagination.

But sone things are worse, and people don't stop making them. The real world tells us that. Some stuff is better than other stuff. Sometimes the worse stuff even costs more!

Maybe the game world had cultural or economical or fashion-based reasons for certain items to exist, despite not being exactly equal in potency to other items. Maybe the goblin katakanaback really is a crappy weapon. Maybe an older style weapon is rarer. Or ceremonial.

Everything being forced into an artificial equal economy just seems bland to me.

Define worse.

One of the reasons I enjoy 4e is because after it character creation options in all other variants of D&D feel bland to me. In any member of the 3.X family if I even think of playing a non-caster I start wanting to beat my head against a wall. It feels like wearing a straightjacket. And in AD&D the thief, likewise. (And don't get started on the 1e Monk).

My analogy here is the "Fighter on a pogo stick". In theory it's possible to have a fighter bouncing round the dungeon on a pogo stick. In practice ... no one would. It would be a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

But playing a Tier 4 or 5 class is also a Darwin Award waiting to happen. Fighter on a pogo stick is an inherently ridiculous concept. There's nothing wrong with this being a poor option. And just about any game makes it obvious that in a pitched battle a paperknife is a worse weapon than a bazooka. The problem arises when the game signals otherwise. When it indicates that a rogue or thief is as good as a wizard (which it really isn't in any edition before 4th - and the 5th rogue is outstanding). Which makes the rogue not inherently different from a fighter-on-a-pogo-stick.

Further, balance opens up options. How many oD&D/AD&D swashbucklers wearing doublet and hose or even light leather armour did you see? Not a lot because it was mechanically a bad choice. Again, this archetype was one of the ones thought of by the designers - but it doesn't work within the context of the game.

So balance being samey is something I reject utterly as an idea. Balance is how you make effective concepts that aren't samey.

That said, despite the range of effective character concepts being wider in a balanced system there was a huge mistake in 4e's design - and one that's almost never been done right in a class based game since 1974, although it was deeply enough woven into D&D that it's been working fine almost since then.

The question necessary when writing a class is not "What would a member of this class do? How can we represent that?" It's "What experience would someone who wants to play this class in this game want? How can we give them that?" And this is where almost all generic games (whether Fate or GURPS) have problems; in a generic game everyone is working off the same core rules, which channels them into the same play style and incentives.

To illustrate I'm currently writing a 4e Retroclone, complete with classes that fit on a trifold. Some classes, like the 4e Warlord, really work well with the 4e basic experience, so the Trifold Warlord very definitely shows its roots - but when someone wants to play a Barbarian they normally want to play an unstoppable, hitty, smashy person who doesn't have to worry about things. Thus the Spirit Warrior inspired by the Barbarian, Warden, and Werewolf. You can sandblast it and it will still keep coming at you, sometimes even after you've hurt it enough to kill it. But you've no encounter attacks to worry about, and no daily attacks either. You just keep using your basic attacks to obliterate enemies. And while conscious you can't be protected by the party Defender(s).

 

[Celebrim]

Gandalf's an angel and went toe to toe with a balrog - Frodo's not a match for a lone orc, so just no.

While I don't disagree that there is a large power disparity between the party members of the Fellowship, you are giving the hobbits short shrift here. At the beginning of the story, only Merry and Pippin are not a match for a lone orc. Sam is a match for an orc - and proves it in the Mines of Moria. Frodo is a more potent combatant than Sam, and remains so until late in the story when he's utterly exhausted from fighting the ring. However note, once he claims the ring he's a match for Gollum who is more than a match for a single orc - he eats orcs and is more than capable of 'squeezing them' even without the ring. So, keeping in mind that Frodo > Sam, what's Sam capable of? Well, by near the end of the story not only has Sam defeated orcs in single combat, he defeats a huge half-fiend spider in single combat. Sam > Merry and Pippin, but Merry goes toe to toe with the Witch King of Angmar + a Fell Beast and together with just young girl defeats him, and Pippin defeats a troll one on one. So when Gandalf says prior to the scouring of the Shire, "I know longer have any fears about any of you.", he can mean it. Merry + Pippin + Sam (Frodo doesn't even fight) dispatch a few hundred bandits as if the EL is 4 levels beneath them. Granted, they raise an army on the spot to do it (though its really not clear that they need to for any reason other than redeeming the Shire from its fallen state, since they pretty much bully the bandits, and Merry defeats their leader in single combat), but even the raising of the army implies a certain degree of skill associated in RPGs with being high level/high point value. If the four had decided to defeat the bandits with typical D&D style commando tactics and taken them apart piecemeal, there is no reason to think that they couldn't have done so.

None of that necessarily means that even at the end of the story the hobbits are as potent as Aragorn, Boromir, or Gandalf are at the beginning - each of which could taken on a small army of orcs single handedly - but it's not as if the hobbits add no value to the party.