Is it really so important that everything is equal?
- Thread starter Li Shenron
- Start date
Victim
First Post
greywulf said:Mark, I think it's something deisgners might want to consider, as it probably means that 65% of their audience aren't that bothered if the classes, feats, etc aren't balanced to perfection - but it's the remaining 1/3 who make all the noise
Or because people might interpret the "within certain limits" on the most popular option rather differently. Someone might be thinking of .005 tolerances, while you might mean .5.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Personally I see the need for balance from a GM's perspective... if I can assume that a group of 4 5th level characters can defeat a single 5 CR encounter...its alot easier to prepare for the adventure.
When balance gets out of whack it takes longer to prepare a solid, and challenging, adventure for the group..and easier to under/over-estimate the proper CR to throw thier way. This turns games into a coin-toss of either walk-over encounters or TPKs.
On the other hand, not every option should be as viable as every other option. Sometimes the knife fighter just isn't the best person to send into the fight.
On the third hand, its the GM's position to allow the chosen chracter types to have an opportunity to shine..within reason.
{What I mean when I say 'within reason' is that if the game is declared to be a bunch of outlaw cowboys running from the law, don't try to bring a law-man into the group!}
So...there is a balance of mechanics, balance of role vs roll play, and the balance of GM style vs player style. I could spend entire sessions worried that something is out of place....
...or I could just play the game and have fun!
Anyway, what I have always liked about 3e is that it offers choices and options between which I am divided over which ones to pick...much better than earlier editions where my choices were basically race and class. YMMV
When balance gets out of whack it takes longer to prepare a solid, and challenging, adventure for the group..and easier to under/over-estimate the proper CR to throw thier way. This turns games into a coin-toss of either walk-over encounters or TPKs.
On the other hand, not every option should be as viable as every other option. Sometimes the knife fighter just isn't the best person to send into the fight.
On the third hand, its the GM's position to allow the chosen chracter types to have an opportunity to shine..within reason.
{What I mean when I say 'within reason' is that if the game is declared to be a bunch of outlaw cowboys running from the law, don't try to bring a law-man into the group!}
So...there is a balance of mechanics, balance of role vs roll play, and the balance of GM style vs player style. I could spend entire sessions worried that something is out of place....
...or I could just play the game and have fun!
Anyway, what I have always liked about 3e is that it offers choices and options between which I am divided over which ones to pick...much better than earlier editions where my choices were basically race and class. YMMV
I voted in the last category.
While I can see that some feats, spells, or other options border on completely useless, I've still been known to make use of "sub-optimal" features of game systems to make interesting, unique and even FUN characters.
In fact, my current PC is designed as a 2WF with Whip and Pick (based upon Indiana Jones- the pick is because he does a lot of spelunking to get to the ruins he investigates)... but his skillset is such that he's essentially able to step into almost any other PC's shoes as a backup...even though he doesn't do much particularly well.
While I can see that some feats, spells, or other options border on completely useless, I've still been known to make use of "sub-optimal" features of game systems to make interesting, unique and even FUN characters.
In fact, my current PC is designed as a 2WF with Whip and Pick (based upon Indiana Jones- the pick is because he does a lot of spelunking to get to the ruins he investigates)... but his skillset is such that he's essentially able to step into almost any other PC's shoes as a backup...even though he doesn't do much particularly well.
kigmatzomat
Legend
D&D, as a system, implies a degree of balance. Number of feats & skills are balanced against combat and magical abilities. Races have level adjustments so that the characters of similar level are explicitly balanced. Wod (new or old) and Palladium made no such promise, tacitly or implicitly. It is still an issue (Palladium drove me nuts) but it is not one that the system puts a high level of importance on. Therefore there is an expectation of balance in d20 by players and DMs because the system tells you it is important to be balanced.
The big problem with d20 is that it has generic and specific mechanics.
Generic mechanics are lowest common denominator rules; they are internally balanced and should not cause a significant degree of imbalance in any specific situation; if they do the specific should have an exception or override built in. The PHB/DMG/MMs are generic mechanics.
Specific mechanics are intended, AFAIK, to be balanced internally, which may rely on setting-specific RP factors as much as setting-specific mechanics. They may replace generic mechanics entirely or just add a new case. In a different setting, there is no confidence that the ability will continue to be balanced in either direction. FR, Eberron, etc are specific mechanics.
Then you have the 3rd party sources that may be generic or specific. All in all, it's more of a massive sprawling mass of mechanically-similar games than one homogenous game. It's really no different to mix FR & Eberron than mixing Runequest and Call of Cthulu.
I don't believe in absolute balance, each game will be run differently even within the same setting or same gaming group. RP and campaign focus is an unpredictable factor. Balance will always have a range. IMO as long as the expectations for a ruleset's use are stated clearly in some fashion ("Bleak Tidings an undead-plagued land in the midst of a civil war with violence around every corner....") then you can judge the relative internal consistency.
From an internal consistency standpoint, Eberron and Tome of Battle are fine. From an "integrate it into my long-running Krynn campaign" point of view, neither work worth spit. Is that Eberron & ToB's fault or mine?
Controlling balance is always the DMs responsibillity. It is a personal decision how tightly balance needs to be controlled and consensus will never be achieved. However, any DM that complains about the game balance has only themselves to blame.
I DM mostly and I don't let anything hit the table until I've thoroughly digested it and probably run a one-shot using it to see how it feels in play. My players know this and they know that I may not allow the cool thing they want or I might write my own campaign-specific version of said cool thing if I also like the flavor but hate the mechanics or I could rewrite the flavor to match my campaign. So far my game has run from 1st-20th level with no concerns that any one character is overpowered or underpowered. It requires work but it eliminates regrets and recriminations.
The big problem with d20 is that it has generic and specific mechanics.
Generic mechanics are lowest common denominator rules; they are internally balanced and should not cause a significant degree of imbalance in any specific situation; if they do the specific should have an exception or override built in. The PHB/DMG/MMs are generic mechanics.
Specific mechanics are intended, AFAIK, to be balanced internally, which may rely on setting-specific RP factors as much as setting-specific mechanics. They may replace generic mechanics entirely or just add a new case. In a different setting, there is no confidence that the ability will continue to be balanced in either direction. FR, Eberron, etc are specific mechanics.
Then you have the 3rd party sources that may be generic or specific. All in all, it's more of a massive sprawling mass of mechanically-similar games than one homogenous game. It's really no different to mix FR & Eberron than mixing Runequest and Call of Cthulu.
I don't believe in absolute balance, each game will be run differently even within the same setting or same gaming group. RP and campaign focus is an unpredictable factor. Balance will always have a range. IMO as long as the expectations for a ruleset's use are stated clearly in some fashion ("Bleak Tidings an undead-plagued land in the midst of a civil war with violence around every corner....") then you can judge the relative internal consistency.
From an internal consistency standpoint, Eberron and Tome of Battle are fine. From an "integrate it into my long-running Krynn campaign" point of view, neither work worth spit. Is that Eberron & ToB's fault or mine?
Controlling balance is always the DMs responsibillity. It is a personal decision how tightly balance needs to be controlled and consensus will never be achieved. However, any DM that complains about the game balance has only themselves to blame.
I DM mostly and I don't let anything hit the table until I've thoroughly digested it and probably run a one-shot using it to see how it feels in play. My players know this and they know that I may not allow the cool thing they want or I might write my own campaign-specific version of said cool thing if I also like the flavor but hate the mechanics or I could rewrite the flavor to match my campaign. So far my game has run from 1st-20th level with no concerns that any one character is overpowered or underpowered. It requires work but it eliminates regrets and recriminations.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Aus_Snow said:
This is a set up that can be accomplished by allowing only one option.
Me, I prefer more options, and I trust the players to help me make them balance in-game.
RC
Similar Threads
