My least favorite thing about D&D is balance.

[enrious]

Y'know, for me, I've come to detest balance in D&D.

Please hear me out.

Let's take 1&2e - Class balance was uneven, but it was felt that having XP charts unique to each class was a way to balance things, but IMO, they didn't. Racial balance was handled via level limits, which every group that I'm familiar with tossed.

And y'know, looking back on it I'd say that those editions were unbalanced.

But I had fun with 1/2e.

In 3e, classes were designed from the outset to be balanced. There was a unified XP chart, although there was still some wonkiness - alignment, for example, was thought to be a balancing factor. Races now had no racial limits, stats were fairly uniform, but some races seemed less mechanically gifted as others. The side effect of this, for me at least, was worry about modifying races or classes for fear of introducing unbalanced races and classes.

But I had fun with 3e.

I have no personal experience playing 4e, but I'm led to understand that balance was more of a factor than in previous editions.

But people have fun 4e.

I've had an epiphany. I hate balance. Not balance per se, because I wouldn't want to play in a game where because I'm playing Class X it means that I am basically a non-entity in combat, or in social encounters. At the same time, I don't want to play a game that requires slide-rules to tweak Class X or where I look over at a player playing Class Y that outshines everyone and am told that they have role-playing requirements that are supposed to reduce them down to the level of mere mortals. That only makes it up to the DM.

So yes, I hate balance. Or rather, the endless gnashing of teeth agonizing over it - things are unbalanced, things are too balanced.


Forget that.

I want to have fun.

Balanced or unbalanced, they're merely tools to achieving fun, but they aren't the fun themselves, for that the only measure is fun.

For me, if we can sit down at a game, play our characters (balanced or not), maybe introduce new materials (creativity has been a hallmark of our hobby) and at the end of the night all enjoyed ourselves, then it was a good night.

Fun should be the goal; balance should be a footnote.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think fun and balance are too closely related to say that one is the goal while the other is a footnote.

I would say that balance is (for many) necessary for achieving fun, though certainly not sufficient in itself to that end. Balance is a means, not an end itself.

I think balance is quite important. You, yourself, said above that you wouldn't want to play a class that is sidelined by another class. Balance helps to ensure that that doesn't happen.

Fun is, of course, of top importance. However, if balance is necessary for some groups to have fun (meaning that the rogue isn't constantly overshadowed by the wizard, or visa versa) then that means balance is also of top importance. Not because balance is itself important, but rather because those players won't have fun without it.

Now, granted, it is possible for balance to overshadow fun and I don't think that's a good thing. Balance should never be placed above fun in importance. For some, 4e certainly went too far in this respect. However, unless you're the type who absolutely has to play something ten times more powerful than what the other guys at the table are playing (slight hyperbole there), I believe that you can achieve balance without hindering fun.

Balance should serve "the fun", as opposed to lording over it. So long as that rule is observed, I think balance is highly desirable.

 

[TwinBahamut]

First off, I'll disagree that the classes in 3E were balanced. There is absolutely no way that the PHB classes are balanced in any way... You don't get such staggeringly laughable class imbalances if you make an attempt at balance. That said, a lot of the late 3.5E stuff was actually quite well balanced (it took them a while to figure it out, but they did, mostly), and a lot of fun, too. 4E was kind of the opposite... They started with a lot of balance, but it took them until Essentials to really begin to figure out how to have 3E's variety of fun classes within that balance.

Anyways, I'll always disagree with the idea that balance is a bad thing. Balance is only a bad thing if you enjoy watching players be miserable at the table, or absolute craziness that makes playing the game a matter of russian roulette.

Overall, I think people tend to use balance as a scapegoat for other, more legitimate issues with a game. I don't know why people latch on to a necessary and positive concept like balance for that scapegoat, but they do. In my opinion, though, is that anyone who blames balance for their problems is better off re-appraising their reasons for disliking a game rather than complaining about something that is so important. After all, there are plenty of perfectly valid and reasonable reasons to dislike a game. Balance, a concept with the sole purpose of letting everyone who sits down to play the game have fun, is never going to be a bad thing.

 

[harlokin]

Anyways, I'll always disagree with the idea that balance is a bad thing. Balance is only a bad thing if you enjoy watching players be miserable at the table, or absolute craziness that makes playing the game a matter of russian roulette.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[FireLance]

I'll be a bit more nuanced. Balance is neither necessary nor sufficient for fun, but it does help ensure that the fun is more evenly spread. It's a distribution issue.

(Okay - now I have visions of fighters and rogues occupying mage towers, cleric temples and druid groves holding placards proclaiming "We are the 95%*")

* Because you can't get more granularity on a d20.

 

[Gort]

First off, I'll disagree that the classes in 3E were balanced. There is absolutely no way that the PHB classes are balanced in any way... You don't get such staggeringly laughable class imbalances if you make an attempt at balance. That said, a lot of the late 3.5E stuff was actually quite well balanced (it took them a while to figure it out, but they did, mostly), and a lot of fun, too. 4E was kind of the opposite... They started with a lot of balance, but it took them until Essentials to really begin to figure out how to have 3E's variety of fun classes within that balance.

Anyways, I'll always disagree with the idea that balance is a bad thing. Balance is only a bad thing if you enjoy watching players be miserable at the table, or absolute craziness that makes playing the game a matter of russian roulette.

Overall, I think people tend to use balance as a scapegoat for other, more legitimate issues with a game. I don't know why people latch on to a necessary and positive concept like balance for that scapegoat, but they do. In my opinion, though, is that anyone who blames balance for their problems is better off re-appraising their reasons for disliking a game rather than complaining about something that is so important. After all, there are plenty of perfectly valid and reasonable reasons to dislike a game. Balance, a concept with the sole purpose of letting everyone who sits down to play the game have fun, is never going to be a bad thing.

I think one issue third ed had was that the class balance was inconsistent depending on what level you were playing at. It was pretty much built-in to the system intentionally that if you were a spellcaster you were generally worse than mundane classes at low-levels, but that if you "got through" those, you would outshine the mundane classes at high-levels.

In my experience it just meant that you got a lot of mundane characters switching to spellcasters as the campaign increased in levels, which is bad game design.

Now, I can understand that people might upset if in one edition their favourite class had the option to do basically anything they wanted, campaign be damned, and then in the next they could do much that was game-breaking any more, but it's a bit much to assert that "game balance" is a bad idea.

If anything, an unbalanced game effectively has less content than a balanced one, because many of the options there are traps that an experienced player wouldn't take in the first place.

 

[Stalker0]

Not balance per se, because I wouldn't want to play in a game where because I'm playing Class X it means that I am basically a non-entity in combat, or in social encounters.

This is why balance cannot be forgotten. As you yourself said, it wouldn't be as much fun if you felt left out, and that is what can happen in a very unbalanced game.

Balance is like many things a matter of degrees, but is always of some importance and worth talking about.

 

[enrious]

This is why balance cannot be forgotten. As you yourself said, it wouldn't be as much fun if you felt left out, and that is what can happen in a very unbalanced game.

Balance is like many things a matter of degrees, but is always of some importance and worth talking about.

I'ts always why I said right after that, "So yes, I hate balance. Or rather, the endless gnashing of teeth agonizing over it - things are unbalanced, things are too balanced."

 

[Rechan]

I guess someone getting the shaft is one of those things that makes D&D feel like D&D.

 

[avin]

I want to have fun.

Quick question: do you most DM or play?

Because absence of balance may be a killjoy for DMs... and fun for unbalanced characters while others, well, they just sit and wait the show to be over...