Is it really so important that everything is equal?

[WayneLigon]

Not every feat is or can be equally useful because campaigns differ. I think of most of the metamagic feats as virtually useless, but if I'm playing a mage in a campaign where mages are hunted like dogs you can bet I'll be taking Silent Spell, Still Spell and others.

I do think though that a feat should be something special and so the utility of some feats could be significantly improved. You get so few of them that unless there is a very special niche case, some are virtually useless. Most of the skill enhancers are like this (plus, they just take up room). To me, a feat slot in virtually every campaign style I can think of is worth far more than a mere +2 bonus to to two skills. Making that +5, or making those skills also class skills for all your classes, or make those +2 ranks; something like that makes it Feat-worthy.

 

[Umbran]

I think what's important depends on your group.

At the end of the day, what needs to be equal is enjoyment of playing the game. Mechanical balance is one typical tool to achieve the goal. If it is part of the game design, that makes the GM's job simpler and easier. It is not required, but it usually helps.

 

[shilsen]

I think what's important depends on your group.

At the end of the day, what needs to be equal is enjoyment of playing the game. Mechanical balance is one typical tool to achieve the goal. If it is part of the game design, that makes the GM's job simpler and easier. It is not required, but it usually helps.

Listen to the Umbran. The Umbran speaks truth.

 

[Will]

Balance is an illusion -- a necessary illusion.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If an RPG was a TV show, then balance is measured by the camera: If the camera stays on one character more than the others as an upshot of the mechanics, then those mechanics are unbalanced. This means that a character's actions can be too complex, or they can be too important relative to the group.

I think this is a helpful example, and it reflects the way that the 3.0e designers talked about balance => equally fun options.

 

[KB9JMQ]

As long as one PC doesn't outshine another so bad the other player wants to quit or it makes gaming more difficult then things don't have to equal or balance.

I think all players expect there characters to be different and be better/worse at different things. All things equal sounds pretty boring.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I've been in those games where one character outshines another (typically my character!), so I see the need for some game balance.

Despite that, I have to agree with much of what Greywulf said. I think many of d20's complications have been put into place in a sense of fairness. And while fairness is good, it just seems to have been taken too far, IMO. In the last few years, I've seen this growing "culture of balance" where there's a lot of focus on the balance, and not as much on the game play. Maybe that's just me, though.

The big qualifier here is that each group is different. Some like the level of detail, some don't. And while D&D has a lot of great things to it, no single game system works for everybody.

The key component is that the group has fun. How you approach that can vary greatly.

 

[RFisher]

Imbalance is only a problem when...wait for it...it becomes a problem. (^_^) Most of the time I don't find strict game balance a problem, but I have had games that really suffered due to (specific) balance problems.

I voted for the "worse options OK" choice. Those problems with balance that I have encountered have taught me to err towards making any house ruled option worse than not taking the option.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

No i dont think balance in necessary. After all players choosing crappy feats or abilities is part or learning the game. I prefer to make the best chracter possible in what i have envisioned him doing.

 

[greywulf]

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.