I hate game balance!

[The Little Raven]

Demand the best out of your players. (If they do not give their best, kill their characters.)
- Demand the best out of your players. (If they do not give their best, kill their characters.)
- Grant high-level abilities at high level.
- Give the DM a chance, since it takes time and effort to become a good DM.

So, you answer game design questions with "Make the DM fix it, because we designers can't be bothered to."

 

[wally]

If Larry's 18th-level wizard can consistently contribute more meaningfully to the fun than my 18th-level rogue, that makes my participation pretty meaningless. No amount of "But it makes sense!" arguments are going to make me any more inclined to keep playing that rogue, much less keep playing that particular game with those people.

Did you really play in a game where that happened?

I keep seeing that argument. 'Well a wizard can cast spells to do what a rogue does.' Have there been that many games where people saw that happen?

When I saw wizards get to that high of a level, they felt that they wanted to spend their spell slots on things other than what other characters in the party can do for free.

Sure a high level wizard can kill a lot of foes in combat, but what does he do when he ran out of spells? Did all your DMs (those that make this argument) really ignore all the other players and say, 'sure you can rest again only three hours after waking up. Who cares about the rest of you, let the wizard get his spells back,' as I think in that case it isn't about the rules letting the wizards be too powerful, it is more about the DM letting it happen.?!

-wally

 

[Rechan]

Did all your DMs (those that make this argument) really ignore all the other players and say, 'sure you can rest again only three hours after waking up. Who cares about the rest of you, let the wizard get his spells back,' as I think in that case it isn't about the rules letting the wizards be too powerful, it is more about the DM letting it happen.?!

I was in a game where the party literally kicked in the door, had a single fight (with two guards!), and then said "Well, we used three spells, we better rest for the night."

And everyone agreed. Then slept in the guard post.

I wanted to eat my dice, I was so livid. I wanted the DM to kick the door in and jump us for it. But no! We went in, got our asses kicked and retreated, then went back, slept in there, left to haul out treasure, went back a third time!

I was so utterly disgusted.

 

[wayne62682]

I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then complaining about it after the fact, is the asshat. Same with someone who chooses to only use the PHB when all WotC books are allowed, and then complaining when a Warblade from Tome of Battle is more powerful.

 

[Rechan]

I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then complaining about it after the fact, is the asshat.

And what about the people who play fighters and don't know until level 12 when they start getting overshadowed?

 

[jdrakeh]

Did you really play in a game where that happened?

I have. Dozens of them. That said, the issue that we ran into more often than not was the magic user usurping the role of the fighter, not the thief.

 

[Scribble]

I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then complaining about it after the fact, is the asshat. Same with someone who chooses to only use the PHB when all WotC books are allowed, and then complaining when a Warblade from Tome of Battle is more powerful.

But that relies on the idea that you should just deal with being suck just because you want to make an idea into a character.

Why shopuld I be penalized by a game that says I can make and play any character I imagined?

It's a game where you get to play exciting adventures as warriors and wizards...

Niot a game that says I cn play exciting adventures as a wizard... unless I don't care that I suck.

 

[The Little Raven]

Did you really play in a game where that happened?

Yes. This is one key reason why, for a while, I stopped playing non-spellcasters (I was sick of saying "Hey, I'll schmooze the guy," only to have the wizard mention "I've got a charm spell," and others agreeing that his outrageous save DC was a safer bet than my Diplomacy roll; the same applied whenever I brought up picking locks, since he carried a wand of knock) and eventually stopped playing D&D altogether.

When I saw wizards get to that high of a level, they felt that they wanted to spend their spell slots on things other than what other characters in the party can do for free.

Most of the "step on another's toes" spells are low level, and thus are common for high level wizards to take, since they will fill the higher level slots with far more useful combat spells. Knock, for example, being a perfect lock opener is much more sensible for a 14th-level wizard than a 2nd-level combat spell.

Did all your DMs (those that make this argument) really ignore all the other players and say, 'sure you can rest again only three hours after waking up. Who cares about the rest of you, let the wizard get his spells back,' as I think in that case it isn't about the rules letting the wizards be too powerful, it is more about the DM letting it happen.?!

No, it was more of a case of "Our heaviest hitter/utility guy is spent, and we're almost certain to face a TPK without him, so we should rest.

The problem isn't necessarily the fault of wizard players or DMs, but rather the way the class was designed.

 

[wayne62682]

But that relies on the idea that you should just deal with being suck just because you want to make an idea into a character.

Why shopuld I be penalized by a game that says I can make and play any character I imagined?

It's a game where you get to play exciting adventures as warriors and wizards...

Niot a game that says I cn play exciting adventures as a wizard... unless I don't care that I suck.

Which is why that was one of the major drawbacks of 3.x - if you picked something you wanted to play, then it might suck mechanically and there's nothing you can do about it. In my opinion 4E took this away.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I LOVE GAME BALANCE!

Well, it's true.

Why? Because it makes for a better game. It means the makers have bothered to give a damn on that level (and have managed to do the thing, what's more), as opposed to not knowing how, trying but failing to do it, or just not caring enough to even try. Many designers and suchlike seem to have fallen into one of those three unfortunate categories. Oh joy of joys, rampant inescapable imbalance for maximum flavour.

Seriously though. . . Try actually playing a truly badly unbalanced game, so the reasons for the above assertion become unavoidably clear, then come back with that hat of balance intact. Please, try?

I don't know whether it's been said here already (I haven't read all the posts I could still see anyhow, whatever ratio is at work there ) but well, it might bear repeating even if so: Game balance and game fun are not mutually exclusive. Not whatsoever. Yes, you can have both, and in abundance. It simply requires good designers (etc.), doing their stuff well.