How important is game balance to you?

[Jhaelen]

Personally, I feel that these days folks seem to view balance as the end goal, while I feel it's just part of the toolset. After all, a perfectly balanced game is this:

Everybody roll 1d6. Highest roll wins.

Fun, eh?

How do you feel about balance?

Wow. That's an awesome strawman you have there. Obviously you feel the need to troll to provoke more replies.

How about this then:
- rogues only ever deal 1 damage regardless what weapon they use.
- wizards always automatically kill everyone affected by their attack spells.
- fighters get to flip a coin whether they deal zero or infinite damage with an attack.
- clerics cannot be killed, but also cannot deal any damage.

Fun, eh?

Having said that, what is 'really' important is that every character gets about equal time in the limelight. In a game that is mostly about combat, that means, that every character must be able to contribute meaningfully. In a game with a mix of social, combat, and other types of encounters, that's less important. It can be okay, if some characters suck at certain types of encounters, as long as the encounters don't take a whole session to resolve.

 

[Morrus]

Wow. That's an awesome strawman you have there. Obviously you feel the need to troll to provoke more replies.

Please do not call other members trolls. Even me. If you disagree with a post, please do so without resorting to namecalling.

 

[Morrus]

I find this poll very biased. It basically asks "do you want balance _or_ fun?".

Both opposites are presented in an exaggerated way in order highlight them, but I'm sure you get the meaning.

The middle one isn't very exaggerated, but it's hard to exaggerate neutrality.

 

[CapnZapp]

Somewhere in between Options 1 and 2. It may not be the goal, but it definitely ought to be a goal. Perfect balance is pretty much impossible to achieve, but a class, feat, spell, other such option has to (a) feel like it's strong enough to be worthwhile against most other things in the game, and (b) not be so powerful that it renders every other thing obsolete, thus presenting only the illusion of choice and making anyone else at the table feel like they're not having fun.

Exactly this.

It is fine to have a game where some broad character archetypes are generally more powerful than others (wizards vs fighters?) but it's just sloppy when two immediately comparable choices are significantly unbalanced.

What is the goal in and fun of having a game where fighting with a Greatspoon is twice as effective as fighting with twin Laserforks?

Why can't the designers be bothered to do rudimentary checks before adding a function that grants some (but not all) weapon users a hefty damage bonus? Such an inclusion does nothing but tell you "damage isn't important" which flies in the face of all gamers who believe damage IS important, and perhaps the MOST important statistic of all, especially if you're a Fighter/Rogue/Special Space Pirate - dealing damage is WHAT YOU DO, it's your core reason for being asked to join the team!

Still, I voted the middle option. I really would have wished a more gradual poll, though; a way to express "option 1 1/2" as it were.

On a scale of 1 to 10, balance is a solid 8 for a game like D&D. It might be less important for other games; but I play D&D specifically for the character building aspects. D&D to me is significantly more game than some other RPGs (take Call of Cthulhu for instance).

 

[Morrus]

Exactly this.

It is fine to have a game where some broad character archetypes are generally more powerful than others (wizards vs fighters?) but it's just sloppy when two immediately comparable choices are significantly unbalanced.

What is the goal in and fun of having a game where fighting with a Greatspoon is twice as effective as fighting with twin Laserforks?

For me, because I like a bit of optimisation in my games, and I like the idea that not all choices are equal. Some are better choices; some weapons are better than others, just like in real life. Sometimes you might find yourself in a situation where you are using sub-optimal equipment, and that's cool in my book. Some character combinations may be better choices than others.

Why can't the designers be bothered to do rudimentary checks before adding a function that grants some (but not all) weapon users a hefty damage bonus?

Well, that's a different thing altogether. We're talking about design choices here, rather than mistakes.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I went with “it’s vital,” but would clarify that I think there are many different ways to balance a game. For example, 5e uses concentration, attunement, short, and long rests to balance things out, while 1e uses differing XP rates/ level limits, and for the paladin and cavalier, a code of conduct.

I don’t think it’s any fun for the DM to see a character with a broken build steamroller every single encounter, nor is it fun as a player to be either outclassed by someone’s munchkin or to be faced with unsurmountable odds from a cheap monster or trap that the DM dredged up from some random book. Tough challenges are on thing, but there has to at least be a chance.

 

[jmucchiello]

Fun, eh?

Could be. Who's GMing? Who's playing?

My reaction to balance is to follow it with smalance. Ultimately people having fun is the goal and a great GM can work his magic with any RPG system, regardless of balance. This GM will engage the players' imaginations and let the rules fall into the background.

The market leaders of TTRPGs have had class based systems since the beginning. If balance mattered there would be far more point buy systems at the top of the sales charts.

Sent from my SM-G386T using EN World mobile app

 

[Dualazi]

Voted vital. Not trying to edition war here but I think 3rd edition was the least balanced of D&D, and I hated that edition by the end, because even my group of players (who rarely visit forums) had realized that caster supremacy was undeniable. This is largely because it doesn't matter if you're on the same team, if one character can handle a disproportionate of the challenge with little/no help, then it makes others question their relevance and involvement in the story. From the DM's chair, it creates massive headaches from trying to challenge a player on one category while not obliterating the players of the other.

Basically in my experience no one wins when a system is off-kilter. Players who like min-maxing are going to bummed by all the fake choices, and disruptive when they streamline themselves, and actors would simply be better served by a more rules-light system where they weren't punished for not researching their feat chains. To me, a system is like a car: the GM is the owner and can do what he wants with the paints and the mirror and what station is on the radio, but if they need to start dismantling the engine block to get it to where it needs to be then it's more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Some of the most fun that I've had in rpgs have come from some of the least balanced games (RIFTS, anyone?). Not to mention the inherent imbalance between the Dungeon Master (or whatever) and the rest of the players.

Roleplaying games are primarily cooperative activities, rather than competitive ones, so balance is really probably the least important thing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What is the goal in and fun of having a game where fighting with a Greatspoon is twice as effective as fighting with twin Laserforks?

Ideally, you'd want it to only be twice as effective in some situations. Like maybe the Greatspoon does a lot of damage to a single target, but the Laserforks let you split your attacks and that is super useful against a lot of small targets. Which isn't the case in D&D 5, since even an orc is unlikely to drop from an off-hand attack, but it could have been the case if the designers had tried harder.

The best way to avoid the tyranny of balance is to avoid creating options that are directly comparable. Qualitative differences make quantitative differences less relevant.