How important do you think game balance is?

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

My opinion varies.

Are we talking about balance for all people’s games? For our own specific campaigns? Balance amongst the Core Rules only, or in relation to supplements and D20 material?

From the viewpoint of my own campaign, I think balance is only somewhat important. This is because I know the rules well, I know my players (and their expectations well), I know that WotC (and all other D20 publishers) occasionally produce marginally to wildly unbalanced material; and with regard to all this I can determine when to say yes or no to a rule.

Thus “somewhat important” fits best because what I might say “yes” to may not be what some other DM will say yes to.

Consider the FRCS, the Mini’s Handbook and the Book of Exalted Deeds. Some say these are all unbalanced, and I disagree with that. I don’t think they are unbalanced for either my campaign or for anyone else’s campaign.

But that statement comes with the assumption that everyone understands which books contain required rules, which contain optional rules, which provide rules for two related but separate games and which require radical restrictions on characters and strong group agreement before play even progresses.

From a Core Game/Supplements/Other People’s Games, I think balance is Extremely Important. I also think that each source for rules should effectively communicate how and under what circumstances the rules provided by each will apply.

I think the statement that WotC doesn’t care much about game balance is wildly ludicrous and misinformed.

J. Grenemyer

 

[irdeggman]

Extremeely important on a player to player basis. Otherwise it fosters discontent and arguments.

 

[MonsterMash]

I voted not very, largely because balance only really works with a very small set of options, after all CR for example is based on a monster fighting a party of the four core iconics - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue, any other party composition can drastically affect how effective a monster can be.

Fun is far more important.

 

[GVDammerung]

For games I run, in particular, I'm not so worried that the game have balance built in. I am an old enough hand at GMing that I can make sure that each player gets his or her times to shine, and I don't mind teh extra work that might entail.

Most important part is to have fun and game balance is not needed for that.

That said, striving as hard as WotC often does to maintain balance can do harm. This is especially true for stuff like the Epic Level Handbook, the very concept of which goes against balance. WotC erred on the side of balance, and the book never realized its potential.

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.

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.

I voted not very important.

Until 3X, "balance" discussions were comparatively rare. "Builds" were all but nonexistant.

I like 3X well enough but it is a heavy rules set that has had the unfortunate side effect of raising "balance" and "builds" to great prominence.

To paraphrase Judge Dredd - as DM, "I am the balance." Two points -

(1) Fun is more important than "balance" and is not dependant upon it.

(2) The quest for "balance" can mute otherwise fun designs when the "wahoo" factor has to be toned down to such a point that the concept looses its essential flavor. Balance can lead gray designs.

This last point is my biggest complaint about the quest for "balance." The Epic Level Handbook has already been cited as a victim of the quest for balance. I find a number of Malhovoc products, for me, suffer a similar circumspection in design that leaches what could be a wild ride into a Sunday drive with grandma. Balanced? They are applauded for it. Yet, I find them lack luster.

This said balance and tight design are not mutually exclusive. Legends of the Samaurai, for example, is kicka$$ fun but it is also an amazing tight design. Very "balanced." Not to pick on Malhavoc, When The Sky Falls is a Malhavoc design that rocks but that is also fairly well balanced.

Unfortunately, any number of products seem to have to choose between maximizing the fun or maximizing the "balance." I will take fun any day. Balance? I am the DM. I _AM_ the balance.

IMO

 

[Mercule]

I said "somewhat". Each PC should have equal opportunity for fun and sun as the others. Beyond that, it's pretty much in the GM's hands. If he wants to put the PCs up against Tiamat at 1st level, that's his perogative.

On the other hand, where the rules do have an implied "balance point", like CRs and treasure per level, it's really important that they at least explain the thought process behind that -- and, hopefully, get those metrics correct -- so the GM can make intelligent choices in campaign/adventure design.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Until 3X, "balance" discussions were comparatively rare. "Builds" were all but nonexistant.

I like 3X well enough but it is a heavy rules set that has had the unfortunate side effect of raising "balance" and "builds" to great prominence.

Agreed. Perhaps the internet has done much to change our perceptions too, but the very discussions surrounding gaming seem to have shifted. There always have been rules discussions, but there was also a good amount of discussion on the adventures one played and on settings.

"Balance" has become a buzzword with the advent of 3rd edition. Since 3e came out, we've heard discussion after discussion about whether X is balanced and how horribly unbalanced Y is. Yet really, that's subjective.

This is not to say that game balance isn't important. I've been in those games where one character tends to overshadow the others. There should, IMO, be an effort to maintain game balance, but fun, setting, and role-playing should not be sacrificed in the process.

I think WotC has come to the realization that there has been this overfocus on game balance. Though they don't seem to be toning that down any, they are at least trying to add materials on roleplaying characters. I think the recent PrCs we've seen lately have shown just that.

(2) The quest for "balance" can mute otherwise fun designs when the "wahoo" factor has to be toned down to such a point that the concept looses its essential flavor. Balance can lead gray designs.

Yes and no. I've seen a lot of bland designs, but that can be due to any number of factors. Balance is but one reason. It could be a poor concept, or the desire to make something generic enough to fit into any world.

 

[kyloss]

Not very. Just as long as things aren't abused, its okay.

pretty much

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Balance is one of the guiding principles of my choice of games and how I choose to play them.

I find it simplifies things for me. I like to start from there.

Sometimes I play with people I don't know. That's how you get groups together. That's how you add people to groups.

It's fine to decide that in a perfect world, beneath your beneficent hand, all shall be put arights with the world even if balance doesn't exist ... but the world is not perfect, and all does not fall beneath your beneficent hand.

I can tell what kind of person a player is by the type of character he'll bring to a table. If there's a twinked out "build" with no substance behind it, I know that's the kind of game he's looking for. If it's a pages-long story with a character sheet stapled to the back, I know that's the kind of game that person is looking for. And thousands of variations in between. And I like my game system to be able to cater to BOTH of those types of people and maintain parity between them on enough levels that the game can go on without hard feelings or annoyance on either side.

This is why, when playing D&D, I stick almost exclusively to the core rulebooks, and the PHB in particular. I allow a few feats in from Complete Adventurer and Complete Warrior, but that's about it.

--fje

 

[JVisgaitis]

Balance is one of the guiding principles of my choice of games and how I choose to play them. I find it simplifies things for me.

Good point. And another thing that makes me consider balance such a factor doesn't really concern balance. If you don't know the game enough to be releasing products that are at least close to balanced, you lose a lot of credibility with me. I know I'm the balance and mechanics evangelist of this post, but I like people that produce products with an eye toward detail. Hope that makes sense...

 

[ThirdWizard]

If you're going to write a game and not worry about making it well designed, perhaps you should be a novelist.