[Not a Troll] An Honest Question (really) About Game Balance

[mythusmage]

Question: Is game balance really necessary in an RPG?

Stay on topic, refrain from personal attacks and insults, and support your position. The moderators and administrators are encouraged to delete any posting in this thread that disregard the above guidelines.

I'm looking for replies with some thought to them, not just the usual pat answers or ones that repeat accepted dogma. If you don't feel like expounding on your position, this is not the thread for you.

So, is game balance really necessary in an RPG? Give yourself some time to think about it, compose your reply in your favorite word processor or text editor, then return to this thread to add your composition to the conversation.

This will apply to your final grade for the semester, but will not apply towards your degree.

Let the gab fest begin

 

[JeffB]

Well for me it's really simple ...

I often see people cite that older systems were unbalanced because one character had "better" powers or more spells, or etc. etc. And they prefer the rules as written to keep the balance. And I understand that, and I'm cool with that.

But IMO, Game balance is ultimately in the hands of the DM...if the thief sucks in combat then set up situations where he can shine...the low level mage has only one or two good spells? Then put him an a situation where those spells will REALLY make a difference.... Druid not getting enough Nature Time? Have him take the center stage on some sort of Wilderness adventure/quest......etc. etc...

The problem of balance arise mostly in combat...and generally people complain about characters who aren't combatants not being able to shine in combat...well that's why they are called non-combatants..put them in their element and have the fighters, paladins, and rangers take a back seat for awhile..

That's how I see it anyways...YMMV

 

[Mark Chance]

Question: Is game balance really necessary in an RPG?

What do you mean by game balance? Do you mean that it is necessary for all characters to basically be equivalent to all other characters, as in "The D&D ranger got short-changed. It is not balanced compared to the other classes."?

If that is what you mean, then: No, game balance is not necessary, but game balance may be desirable nonetheless. The two qualifiers are:

1. Your answer may vary depending on the type of campaign you're playing.

2. Your answer may vary depending on the game system you're using.

For example, I don't think that D&D would work well if the players' characters weren't all more or less the same power level.

For another example, I have run a DC Heroes 3rd Edition mini-campaign in which the players' characters were created using widely different point bases. In terms of point base, the top end character was about 10 times more powerful than the low end character.

Despite this, the mini-campaign went quite well. All characters were able to participate meaningfully, and everyone got a change to shine at least once.

 

[nameless]

It also depends on the point of the game you're playing. If the object of the game is to vanquish foes (usually through combat), then it's important for each player to have his chance to shine. D&D tends to fall into this group. If the goal of the game is to overcome adversity through subterfuge, there are other balance issues (WW's Vampire is more like this. Being a combat-twink is easy. Being a successful vampire is not.)

The new LOTR game, for instance, makes no attempt to balance between the races. Elves are better than Men at everything, Men are better than Hobbits at everything (of course there are a few exceptions). But it's supposed to be a moot point because defeating Sauron/Melkor/whoever is pretty much impossible, even though his minions tend to be pushovers. The party is there to be heroic, so it doesn't matter if Legolas can kill 50 orcs and Frodo can only kill 10. Killing orcs isn't the point of the game.

 

[pogre]

For my D&D campaign the answer is certainly yes. I don't think that would necessarily be the case in every game or even every D&D campaign.

I agree with the poster who stated this is largely because of the heavy combat factor in D&D. Obviously, every D&D campaign is not combat intensive so this would not apply to those campaigns.

The better question is: Why wouldn't you want balanced rules? If it serves a purpose to have one character greater than the others (e.g. Ars Magica) then that is provided for by the rules. D&D attempts to create roughly balanced classes - in some games there are no such pretensions.

 

[brun]

I think that it all depends on what you expect in a said RPG.

For games based around novels or movies or the like (I'm thinking about StarWars), game balance is not as important, in my opinion, as being true to the concepts and ideas that made the original popular or unique. I'll always see Jedis as being above simple gunners or mercenaries. No matter what. And I think it is the way it should be.

You also need to define "balance". Balance between what and what? In all of White Wolf's StoryTeller gams that I've seen, you play creatures that are above average, abnormal or superior to humanity in some way. These creatures might be balanced between themselves, but there is no balance between them and humanity. The very way you role for stats in D&D implies that you will be above the standards (3d6).

But if you meant for balance between character classes or races, I'll still say that it is in no way necessary, but a good thing. If a game is unbalanced, you would need to play it with good roleplayers. If not, you will see a lot of people taking the same all-mighty combo that will ensure them ultimate superiority. If you play with good ennough roleplayers, you'll get, at least, an interesting portrayal of the all-mighty combo, but you will also see opressed folks fighting the odds, second-in-powers viying for supremacy, the character that no one gave a chance just going, and going, and going, and all sorts of other very interesting characters.

In fact, I think that when playing a disadvantaged characters, chances are you will make something really interesting and fun with it, to compensate for his lacks or innabilities. I, for one, usually go for something really weak when having bad rolls. Instead of trying to bring the most out of him or to reduce his disadvantages, I go for the roleplaying aspects and stress it ennough that the character is still enjoyable. I have very good memories of my goblin fighter or kobold wizard (2e edition).

I'll say that it all comes down to the concepts of a setting or game, but for an unbalanced game to trully work, you'll need good players. This is why, for a game like D&D, that is meant to be "universal" or the "default" RPG, strong balance between all elements isa good thing.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

In a perfect world, no, it is not necessary. It is theoretically possible to set up a campaing in which there is one character which is dramatically more powerful then the rest, and still have a compelling story. After all, most action movies usualy have one star accompanied by a few side kicks. You do not need balanced characters to have a good story.

However, it is my experience that most players would like to be able to contribute meaninfully to the adventure. If you have one character who is easilly capable of completing the adventure without the help or input of the other players, then why are the other players even playing the game?

This does not mean that eveyr character must be just as effective as any other character in any other combat. What it does mean is that no one character should be more important then any other in the greater scheme of things.

On a side note, that is the same reason that I do not like to run adventures where one of the PC's is the "Chosen One". It is more fun when the players choose their own destiny.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It depends.

If all of the players except one don't mind being told to wait in the sidekick lounge whenever the hero goes to the bar and occasionally performing seemingly insignificant but essential roles like tossing the hero a new sword when his breaks or is disarmed or expending their energies to make the hero better (casting haste on the hero for every battle for instance) then balance is unnecessary. (Of course, that kind of game doesn't really appeal to me as one might guess from my description of it).

Similarly, if the game is constructed such that, despite everyone's vastly different potentials and abilities, everyone is necessary, contributes, and gets a reasonable amount of time in the spotlight then a certain kind of balance (balance of abilities and mechanical advantages) is unnecessary although another kind of balance (balance of spotlight time and importance) is assumed.

In the same way, if the rules set doesn't cover the vast majority of the game--a 1e game centered on social interaction, for instance--all of the unbalanced mechanics in the world won't make a difference because it's how good the player is at coming up with ideas and manipulating people or doing whatever the character is doing that makes a difference and the mechanical aspects of the character are largely irrelevant to the game.

In most other cases, however, I think it's important that characters be mechanically balanced with each other to a reasonable extent. I've played in games of D&D where there's three levels difference between the highest and the lowest level character at the table and everyone contributed and had fun. (The game in question featured a 1st level ranger and a 4th level bard among others). I've also been in D&D games where there was 6 levels of difference between the highest level character and the lowest level and the low level guy didn't do anything except occasionally absorb attacks and make the higher level characters worry about how to keep him alive when he's stuck between a wraith and a wall of fire. Clearly, there's some degree of flexibility in my concept of "balance" but limits as well.

 

[ichabod]

Yes.

Roleplaying games are in part games. If the game is not balanced, part of the experience goes down the tubes.

 

[bret]

No, balance isn't needed.

Balance in a game is very difficult to define or quantify. In some games, a huge bonus to Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive could be unbalancing because of the role that intrigue and character interaction play. In other games, they could be near useless. Not all games focus on the same capabilities.

What I do expect in a game is some sort of fairness. This can be in the form of every character getting an equal shot at the spotlight, or each having a certain area of expertise that is valuable in the game which is unique to that character, or even allowing anyone equal access to the various abilities like most classless systems allow.

What is needed is a meaningful way for each character to participate in the story. Everybody should have fun.