[Not a Troll] An Honest Question (really) About Game Balance
- Thread starter mythusmage
- Start date
kkoie
First Post
To a degree, yes, game balance is nessessary. It is not the most important thing, but it is none the less important. Of course, achieving 100% game balance is about as possible as a utopian society, it's impossible, not to mention boring. However, creating a system that lends some importance to attempting to keep to a certain level of balance is quite helpful.
The players must all have fun. That usually means each player character must be about equally effective at what the players spend their time doing. That doesn't mean the characters have to be good at the same things; a party which splits it's time between smashing monsters in dungeons and hobnobbing with nobles at the king's court can have combat-ineffective diplomats and socially-inept warriors. If a party never (or rarely) does something it doesn't matter how good the characters are at it.
There are rare exceptions. Some people always want to play a particular type of character and don't mind being overshadowed so long as they get to be that one type. Some people are chiefly concerned with acting out their character's personality and don't care about anything else.
As far as game balance with the rest of the world, I care very little about that. After all, the GM can make up whatever is needed to challenge the party.
There are rare exceptions. Some people always want to play a particular type of character and don't mind being overshadowed so long as they get to be that one type. Some people are chiefly concerned with acting out their character's personality and don't care about anything else.
As far as game balance with the rest of the world, I care very little about that. After all, the GM can make up whatever is needed to challenge the party.
Tyberious Funk
First Post
RIFTS.
Vagabond versus Glitterboy
'nuff said.
To explain a bit better - no, game balance is not necessary, but if it doesn't exist, the becomes pretty lame.
Vagabond versus Glitterboy
'nuff said.
To explain a bit better - no, game balance is not necessary, but if it doesn't exist, the becomes pretty lame.
nopantsyet
First Post
I see it as a game, not a simulation or a competition, and as such the goal is to have fun. So if balance is having fun in equal measure, then it's very important to my group. If it's having the same combat or skill effectiveness, then no.
My players (and myself for that matter) tend all to be of the mindset to create characters that will be enjoyable to play in some way or another, whether it's the persona, the skills, the combat--whatever. But when you create a character that's enjoyable to play and the DM provides a setting they can interact with, stat balance doesn't seem quite as important. We still have alot of combat, and everybody approaches it in a way appropriate for their character and I try to give them different challenges so it doesn't become a meatshield contest every time.
But I'm no elitist and I know my players aren't stupid--I have no doubts that if we were playing a different style of game, balance could quickly become very important.
My players (and myself for that matter) tend all to be of the mindset to create characters that will be enjoyable to play in some way or another, whether it's the persona, the skills, the combat--whatever. But when you create a character that's enjoyable to play and the DM provides a setting they can interact with, stat balance doesn't seem quite as important. We still have alot of combat, and everybody approaches it in a way appropriate for their character and I try to give them different challenges so it doesn't become a meatshield contest every time.
But I'm no elitist and I know my players aren't stupid--I have no doubts that if we were playing a different style of game, balance could quickly become very important.
the Jester
Legend
In the traditional sense, balance isn't necessary but I think it is desirable.
What is necessary in its most basic form is that all the pcs have fun, and the gm must have fun as well, or else the ones who don't will quit playing. The reason 'balance' helps with this is that it helps to make sure that different character types are playable and all of their players will have fun. The more your character can contribute and accomplish in the game, the more fun you have (generally); so balance helps everyone contribute about the same amount, and it helps feed the feedback loop (the more you contribute the more fun you have, and the more fun you have the more you tend to play and participate, and therefore contribute).
Another thing about "fun balance" is that most players don't want to be secondary characters, which is why dm pcs are usually bad. This is also why games that focus on one character as 'the prophecied one' and whatnot tend to be less fun for the rest of the group- they don't get a chance to shine.
What is necessary in its most basic form is that all the pcs have fun, and the gm must have fun as well, or else the ones who don't will quit playing. The reason 'balance' helps with this is that it helps to make sure that different character types are playable and all of their players will have fun. The more your character can contribute and accomplish in the game, the more fun you have (generally); so balance helps everyone contribute about the same amount, and it helps feed the feedback loop (the more you contribute the more fun you have, and the more fun you have the more you tend to play and participate, and therefore contribute).
Another thing about "fun balance" is that most players don't want to be secondary characters, which is why dm pcs are usually bad. This is also why games that focus on one character as 'the prophecied one' and whatnot tend to be less fun for the rest of the group- they don't get a chance to shine.
Cedric
First Post
Depends almost entirely upon the players. There are some players who will never enjoy a game unless they are an ass kicker and a name taker. This means certain classes they'll never consider, like bard, because the means to achieve this result are limited.
I don't mind that though, if that's how they enjoy the game it's fine.
For many of the more roleplaying orientated players, who aren't as fond of the combat aspects...the challenge of having a less powerful character but still being a pivotal part of the game, the plot and the party is what they thrive on.
For me...I prefer to usually be effective at what I do. But I also enjoy the occassional lemon character that I make shine purely through skill, wits and good roleplaying.
Cedric
edit: typos...my pet peeve.
I don't mind that though, if that's how they enjoy the game it's fine.
For many of the more roleplaying orientated players, who aren't as fond of the combat aspects...the challenge of having a less powerful character but still being a pivotal part of the game, the plot and the party is what they thrive on.
For me...I prefer to usually be effective at what I do. But I also enjoy the occassional lemon character that I make shine purely through skill, wits and good roleplaying.
Cedric
edit: typos...my pet peeve.
Last edited:
Maerdwyn
First Post
Like bret saud, I don't think it's necessary in all aspects of a game, although I think fairness among the player is necessary.
I'm another Ars Magica fan, and I like playing grogs and companions, as long as I know that at some point I'll get to play the mage.
I'll play a combat-weak bard, knowing that at some point there will be urban adventures where I can shine, or encouters the party wants to talk its way past.
I'm another Ars Magica fan, and I like playing grogs and companions, as long as I know that at some point I'll get to play the mage.
I'll play a combat-weak bard, knowing that at some point there will be urban adventures where I can shine, or encouters the party wants to talk its way past.
Similar Threads
