Some people seem to think that balance means that every class should have exactly the same damage output in combat (e.g. If a wizard of a certain level can do a 10d6 fireball, then a fighter must also be able to do a 10d6 martial attack). Others seem to suggest that balance means ever class should be completely equal in all situations (not just combat).
I've never seen anyone say either of those things. What post (or which poster) do you have in mind?
I think many posters (including me) support reasonable parity of player effectiveness across the range of situations the game is intended to throw up (the 5e designers talk about the "3 pillars" of social, exploration and combat, though all we've seen so far is combat). As 4e has shown, this needn't be mechanical identity: the sorcerer in my 4e game does more damage in combat than the invoker-wizard, for example, but the invoker-wizard still matters, and makes a contribution (control, especially via condition-infliction) that the sorcerer can't.
If game balance is built on certain fragile assumptions, then that just means the game is actually imbalanced for every single way of playing that doesn't fit those assumptions.
<snip>
In order to achieve genuine balance, rather than a fragile illusion of balance, then the game needs to be balanced for every way it is played. A game is balanced if and only if it doesn't break down and stop being fun for someone when something unexpected happens.
I think it's reasonable for a game to take for granted that it will or won't be used in certain ways. For example, I don't think it's very important that D&D combat be balanced for bar-room brawls, or professional boxing or wrestling matches. The combat rules take for granted that lethal or near-lethal damage is being inflicted, and that is fine. (I know that 4e permits the last blow to be non-lethal, but this still won't produce very satisfactory sparring rules. It's one thing for a player whose PC drops an NPC using Burning Hands to declare "That NPC is only unconscious, not dead"; but it would nevetheless be absurd to have that PC use Burning Hands in a sporting duel - it is the player, not the PC, who enjoys the power to decide what "0 hp" means.)
D&D has historically been narrow in other ways too. For example, "exploration" in D&D has almost always focused on a fairly narrow conception of dungeon exploration. Look at Moldvay Basic, for example, or Gygaxian AD&D: rules for secret doors, finding traps, listening at and opening doors, etc. But there are no rules for wandering around cities, for exploring and understanding museums or galleries, for plotting sea voyages, etc (which might be important in other games, say Cyberpunk, Cthulhu or a Pirate game).
And in AD&D "social" is confined mostly to the loyalty and morale of soldiers. There are no rules for dancing, for fast-talking or the like.
One thing I like about 4e is that it has working action resolution systems that are more expansive than these D&D traditions. And that, as a side effect, do deal with the unexpected better. Part of what lets them do that is there robustness as a framework (DCs by level, plus the skill challenge success/failure structure). If you are thinking of that as one feature of 4e's balance, I'll happily agree.
I can't think about many RPGs that worry about balance as much as D&D. Most new games, even ENnie winning and nominated RPGs don't worry about balance as much as D&D.
I'm not sure exactly what RPGs you have in mind. But D&D has certain features that make the balance of mechanical effectiveness across PCs especially salient: a strong emphasis on party play; and a strong emphasis on "failure is not an option, and the penalty for failure is death". This very mono-focused approach to the stakes of conflict in D&D mean, for example, that mathematical parity in action resolution matters more, and (say) spotlight balance determined independently of success or failure matters less.
Design the game in such a way that failure matters less, and suddenly having an 8 CHA in social situations won't matter so much. Ssome games, like Burning Wheel for example, make players
spend resources on PC disadvantages precisely because those disadvantages will mean those players get more spotlight time from their PCs - but Burning Wheel also has a much more relaxed approach to failure than does D&D - it doesn't generally result in PC death.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that many of the same posters who are hostile to the importance of balance are also hostile to approaches to play that increase the range of stakes in conflict, and thereby reduce the prevalence of life-and-death stakes.
Anyways, a lack of balance, pretty much by defintion, means that the game has less depth. A poorly balanced game has no depth. There are the good options, that everyone who knows anything about the system should take, and the bad options that no one should take. Imbalance removes all real complexity, variety, and skill from the game. If you want RPGs to have depth, then balance is absolutely critical.
I agree with you. But I think that many posters who take the opposite view take for granted that the GM will exercise a very high degree of force not only in world-building or scene-framing but in the actuall process of action resolution, and thereby introduce "balance" or "depth" by the moment-to-moment exercise of fiat. (I don't know if this is true of [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], but in another recent post Ahnehnois did talk about the GM being responsible for creating the story, which suggests something along these lines.)
I personally regard that sort of GM force as toxic (both from the point of view of a player, and a GM).
Who said I disliked D&D? This is silly.
<snip>
4E is fun, totally an edition of D&D, is certainly balanced, and was explicitly omitted from my comments.
Unless I missed a memo that mentioned how ENWorld was formally transformed into a forum for core-only 3E fans with no 4E discussion allowed, then I think I'm fine here.
I missed that memo too, but a lot of posts seems to take it as a starting point!