Is it really so important that everything is equal?

[Mark CMG]

While not everything can be exactly equal, it is good to have options that are all fairly close so that everyone gets a fair shake at the table no matter which choices they make.

 

[Lanefan]

I largely agree with greywulf, that balance has become too much of an end rather than simply one of many means to achieve an end.

Balance can change from one adventure to the next. Illusionists are pretty useless against undead. Druids aren't much use in a stone-wall dungeon crawl (except as healers). And so on...and that's just how it is.

Big-time balance differences e.g. the uselessness of 1e low-level Monks can be (and realistically need to be) fixed with houserules. But fine-tuning balance differences e.g. whether feat A is better than feat B is overkill, and in the final result pointless. With good roleplaying, most if not all mechanical balance issues can be largely overcome.

Lanefan

 

[Moonstone Spider]

Pick any other role-playing game - /any/ game at all - and you won't find anything like the kind of arguments over "balance" that D&D generates.

Rolemaster players don't moan that the Nightblade is better than a Fighter, or a Warmage is unbalancing. They just pick the class they like, come up with a cool backstory, generate a unique character, and play.

Traveller players don't complain that the Scout career is better than a Marine. If they want to play one, or the other, that's cool.

Tunnels & Trolls players don't gripe that MR4 isn't the same at a level four human. They just have a blast.

Warhammer fantasy games will see Rat Catchers banging heads with Wizards, all for the cause of Having Good Fun.

Hope you're seeing a common thread here..........

It just doesn't happen. Nada, nothing.

In D&D though, you get folks wondering whether a Hobgoblin is "worth" +1 LA, or if a Barbarian is front-loaded and all that jazz.

C'mon people. Balance IS a myth. Drop it, have fun, and move on.

I have to disagree. Debates on the balance of DnD pale next to the frothing rage over balance you'll usually find in Shadowrun forums, for instance. Many people cite the terrible lack of balance in RIFTS as a reason not to play. Balance is universal to the gamist mindset, to get slightly forgy for a moment.

Balance is important in that no one option should be "the one true way." Take the Longsword Problem mentioned earlier, withlongswords so superior to every other weapon the game really did turn into roll-play vs. role-play, if your role wasn't to use a longsword you were going to have lousy rolls and probably die against an encounter designed for a longsword wielder. An extra point or two here and there doesn't matter, but 44% more damage is too huge to to affect play hugely.

And in a game like DnD, a very subpar build is probably going to die and maybe take the rest of the party with it. The wizard needs the fighter to keep that monster back while he casts, and the cleric needs the rogue to be able to disarm the trap, and the fighter needs the cleric to be able to heal him from protecting the wizard. If one of them is effectively unable to perform that job because of a bad build, the chain is broken and everybody may die.

Incidentally game with perfect and unbreakable balance has been written. It's called Wushu and it's only about two pages long. In it you could have one player create Thor, might god of thunder, and the other play Ash Ketchum and have them perfectly balanced and equally useful in combat (Or any other situation but it's a combat oriented game). It's a rather clever game although the lack of crunch makes it seem. . . simplistic.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I am a big fan of people making meaningful choices. If a feat is so bad or so good as to be a no-brainer, that suggests to me that there's a problem with the feat.

QFT.

"Balance" does seem to be a popular chimera. A lot of people seem to like to dismiss balance concerns by pointing out that "balance" differs from group to group. However, there's a *big* difference between designing for an individual group and designing for the market. Your Elven High Mage class with the ability to cast epic spells at -50 Spellcraft DCs may be "balanced" for your group simply because a) no one gets to play one unless they can compellingly justify how their character lived through the 500 years of study required to take the class and b) everyone is concentrating on roleplaying different archetypes, so the other players won't mind if one guy is the spell-hurling bad@$$, since they've got their own character development going.

However, a game design company can't go on that principle, since they're designing for hundreds or thousands of gaming groups, most of whom will want a reasonably balanced array of character options. Thus, mechanical balance is a pretty important component of good game design, simply based on the level playing field paradigm.

Incidentally, I think it's a truism that no game system can perfectly balance every option with every other. It's a question of how much damage control you can perform in reining in runaway options.

 

[Lanefan]

However, a game design company can't go on that principle, since they're designing for hundreds or thousands of gaming groups, most of whom will want a reasonably balanced array of character options. Thus, mechanical balance is a pretty important component of good game design, simply based on the level playing field paradigm.

Incidentally, I think it's a truism that no game system can perfectly balance every option with every other. It's a question of how much damage control you can perform in reining in runaway options.

And at the same time you have to be wary of overdesigning things. Magic cards have gone this way; everything is *so* overdesigned in the name of balance that it's getting blander all the time. 3e is threatening to go the same way, where I'd prefer to see the basic design remain basic and let DM's tweak to suit their own games.

Lanefan

 

[Aaron L]

Well, to me the point of actually paying for a game is to get rules, not to have to tweak guidelines to my own needs. And I want rules balanced so that every character has a reasonable amount of the spotlight and no one outshines anyone else too much.


That why I play D&D and not Palladium or some other game that has no concern for balance whatsoever.


What, exactly, has been "going too far" in the name of balance? The last year or two has seen the best D&D books ever, in my opinion.


And I really don't understand how roleplaying can overcome a mechanical deficiency. Does that mean that if you want to make a Fighter that uses daggers that you can use "roleplaying" to cover for the fact that you are useless as a combatant compared to the guy with the greatsword?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

For me, balance is not necessary, so long as the imbalance in a known quantity.

In RIFTS (for example), there is no semblance of balance. Balance was not even considered, much less attempted. I am okay with that. When I'm running or playing in a RIFTS game, I know where I stand...

In D&D, on the other hand, balance is (generally) assumed to be present. So an imbalance can (and does) cause problems when it is found to be lacking. Although, I suppose that it wouldn't be terribly hard to let everyone know that (in a specific instance, session, campaign, whatever) the assumptions of balance are not going to hold.

Later
silver

 

[ThirdWizard]

I can't really think of any reason to not have balanced rules or any benefits to such.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I can't really think of any reason to not have balanced rules or any benefits to such.

That's because there aren't any (good) reasons.

The myth that balance doesn't matter always has a breaking point. That point varies from gamer to gamer, from group to group. Sure. But still, it is surely there. All it takes to realise this, is to take any two options for a character in an RPG, and stretch them further and further (and so on. . .) apart in terms of power. Sooner or later - but inevitably - any given gamer will see it as a gross imbalance that renders both the options distasteful/pointless/in need of changing.

Any game system (i.e., not just any given RPG system) should be fair and balanced (well, words to that effect); if it's not, it's a design flaw, often due to laziness / time constraints and/or a lack of understanding.

 

[werk]

Yes, I believe it is important. Not necessarily on individual basis, but in the grand scheme of things. You may have a slightly underpowered feat as a prereq for a slightly more powerful choice. General balance.

I play in a lot of different groups, and players change out. All it takes is one player looking to powerbuild and exploit, one ruiner, and everything goes to hell. For that reason alone, everything needs to be reasonably equal.

Not trying to be the pessimist here, but as is continually pointed out, we all prefer different aspects of the game. When you mix those different desires or opinions, sometimes problems arise.