How important do you think game balance is?

[DragonLancer]

Now I'm going to take exception to that. I'd say the "major" third party publishers -- such as Monte, Green Ronin, and Fantasy Flight -- do a much BETTER job of keeping track of balance than WotC does. Especially after the horror stories I've heard connected to Vow of Poverty.

Not all of them are bad but enough of them are to make me seriously check before I buy anything third party. In fact I tend to stick to those I trust these days.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Well, the fact that it sounds like you've pulled one over on your DM is probably to blame. By my count you've ended up with 5 feats at first level...

It's possible -- for a human fighter with two flaws (from Unearthed Arcana and/or Dragon magazine). Not a good idea, usually, but possible.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Especially after the horror stories I've heard connected to Vow of Poverty.

Well, for what it's worth, a lot of the horror stories around Vow of Poverty seem to involve people not actually following the rules for Vow of Poverty. Just like a lot of the really nasty builds... put them under a microscope, and most of them are blatantly illegal.

 

[NewJeffCTHome]

The problem arises when PC classes are BADLY unbalanced against each other. In my experience, this sometimes happen when guys don't like something and try to homebrew it without considering the impact on the game system. Then one player finally realizes that he could smoke any of the other party members without breaking a sweat, and the game goes downhill from there. I've seen this happen a couple times when guys (poorly) homebrewed their own spell point systems and such, but the game's designers arent at fault for that.
Trev

I see your point of view.

However, I've seen groups where no matter what, the same good role players will do well and the same bad players will do poorly no matter how powerful and/or unbalanced their PCs are in relation to one another. If player A is a good player, he or she will do well no matter if they are playing a tank of a fighter with some superstar prestige class or a timid, studious mage right out of the book . If player B is a bad player, he or she will do poorly even if they are the most powerful PC in the group, relatively speaking (i.e., if for some reason, they are a level or 2 ahead of others and/or have extra items, and are just the right PC for the campaign style)

So, I voted not very important. I think it's up to the DM to keep the players entertained & challenged, and a good DM can do that with a group that is a mix of levels, power and playing ability. While 1E had a lot of warts & inconsistencies, it was also a very enjoyable game that hooked millions of players.

 

[scadgrad]

I said not very important since very few RPGs are actually balanced.

If the game's fun, than who cares about balance. As long as things are relatively equitable, it shouldn't make a whole heckuva lot of difference.

 

[Agback]

I think the rules need to be extremely well balanced. Everything has to work to maintain that neither players nor DM's get a silly upperhand over the other.

Interesting. I don't see balance issues as applying between the GM and the character-players, or rather, I don't see those as being determined by the rules. In my campaigns, for example,, the balance is determined by how much the character players try to bite off. If it is more than they can chew, then they are overwhelmed. In other GMs campaigns it may be determined by where they go. In others by the obstacles the GM chooses to put in their way.

Rather, I see balance issues as applying principally between options available to the players, and secondarily between different characters. I don't want players to feel pressured to avoid good story and character options on the grounds that to choose them means giving up too much capacity to achieve character and story goals. Any option so feeble that no player in his or her right mind would take it ought to be left out of the game.

Everybody plays to have fun, nobody to watch someone else have fun. This being the case, setting up the game so that any of the players misses out on his or her share of [what he or she considers to be] the good stuff is bound to lead to resentment.

Final comment. There is an asymmetry between balanced rules and unbalanced rules. Designing balance options is hard, whereas I can come up with unbalanced rulings off the cuff. And a balanced set of rules is easily unbalanced when I want to favour particular option, whereas correcting the balance of unbalanced rules is at best hard, and quite possibly beyond my capabilities. I pay game designers to do hard and tedious work for me. I do not pay them for things I could do myself without effort.

So: "Better to have game balance and not need it than to need game balance and not have it".

 

[mythusmage]

I voted "Not important at all", and that because you didn't include the "A doctinaire insistence on balance will ruin the game" option.

It is not a competition. You don't have winners or losers, you have those who achieve their goals, and those who fail to achieve their goals. You are out taking part in adventures, not out to win a prize, and sometimes adventures involve challenges that require a lot of thinking and creativity.

As for party balance, aint no such thing. Every party has or will have some who are simply better than the others. By the same token all parties wil have someone who simply doesn't get that involved, who doesn't participate as much as the rest of the group. How much each player participates is up to the player, not to the rules.

It is not the game's job to keep PCs alive and ensure all the players have a role to play in any adventure, it is up to the players to keep their PCs alive and ensure all the players have a role to play in any adventure. In my considered opinion the insistence on a balanced game keeps the participants from enjoying the full experience.

It's D&D, not checkers. There is a huge difference.

 

[JVisgaitis]

No it isn't. Most important part is to have fun and game balance is not needed for that.

OK, I'll give you that, but when something is unbalanced it does run the risk of making the game not fun. Although a good DM can overcome anything. I guess I'm just a big mechanics geek...

 

[Crothian]

OK, I'll give you that, but when something is unbalanced it does run the risk of making the game not fun. Although a good DM can overcome anything. I guess I'm just a big mechanics geek...

Not just a good DM, but good players. I know groups that can have one super man and the rest in a support roles.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Not just a good DM, but good players.

Agreed. I mentioned this in the other post.