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

[Saeviomagy]

And strangely enough, some people still like Rifts, because they prefer other ways of sharing the spotlight than simply laying down the smack.

Actually I'm guessing that they simply never play a vagabond.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness springs to mind. Based on pure combat ability or power level, what would you rather play: a chicken, a cow, a wolverine, or a rhinoceras? And all determined by a random roll at the beginning of character generation. But we always seemed to have a great time, no matter how vast the gap between characters, who ranged from a truck driving polar bear to a psychic pigeon that looked exactly like... a pigeon.

Of all of palladium's games, TMNT&OS is by far the most balanced. Characters will be more-or-less of the same power level.

Not to be maddening but, why do you have to compensate? What sort of compensations are you making?

If you show up to a game, get sat in the corner and told that there is nothing you can contribute to, you will have a time.

Got it?

Your participation in the game is governed by your character's time in the spotlight - specifically how much you contribute to the story.

This in turn is controlled by the following factors
1) The GM
2) The rules

If the GM makes an effort to ensure that everyone participates in the game regardless of the rules, then the rules are irrelevant.

If the rules are designed to make sure that everyone participates the game, then the GM can sit back, relax and just have fun playing.

If the GM does not make the effort, and neither do the rules, then chances are that someone will get left with the job of sitting in the corner and having a ty time.

 

[Epametheus]

Vagabond vs. Glitterboy is a terrible example; who in their right mind would play a Vagabond? That's practically worse than playing a Commoner in D&D.

Balance isn't necessary, but it's generally desirable. If a couple classes are utterly sub-par to the rest, then that can be tolerated -- just be sure that the newbie players are warned about what classes to avoid.

 

[MerricB]

Vagabond vs. Glitterboy is a terrible example; who in their right mind would play a Vagabond? That's practically worse than playing a Commoner in D&D.

That's the point. Both are presented as PC options, but one is so much more powerful than the other that there's no meaningful choice involved.

If they were the only two classes available in RIFTS, what would everyone pick for their character? That's right. They'd all play the Glitterboy.

When you look at the D&D classes, do you see one that is just a burden in a standard adventure and doesn't do its fair share?

In AD&D, I think the Monk is most likely to qualify. (The 1st level Magic-User with burning hands also qualifies, although there's a certain amount of balance implied if the campaign is assumed to last until 12th level).

In 3E (not 3.5E), the Ranger seems most likely, outclassed by the Barbarian for most things.

Cheers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

3) Game definitions:

This is perhaps of lesser importance, but it is still one that many third party publishers stomp all over. Some people have the attitude that "it's okay to make my class/spell/feat uber-powerful if I only allow NPCs to use it, since the DM can control such characters and could throw anything he wants at the players anyways." That's fine in theory, but in practice if you do this you are undermining the utility of levels and other game definition as tools to manage the game. If the DM has it in his head that an 8th level PC is challengeable by the party but should be able to beat it, but he uses this uber prestige class that is about twice as effective as a normal class, the DM AND the players are in for a rude surprise.

Good stuff, Psion.

I want to emphasize this third point Psion made. I am willing to trust my DM to throw the rulebook out for a specific, well-considered purpose. But the job of the game designer is to not inflict imbalances on the game without letting the DM know what his campaign is in for ahead of time. Imbalanced design erodes the effectiveness of the ruleset. Ultimately why bother with rules at all if they do not assist in maintaining the game within a consensually accepted range of the plausible?

IMHO what is actually important to players is to have a comparable share of spotlight time. As a practical matter in D&D this requires approximate balance with respect to combat effectiveness between the classes. In theory the DM can pull the strings to impose balance, but it is really not all that easy to accomplish.

 

[Epametheus]

If the only class choices were Vagabond and Glitterboy, Rifts would be the worse system ever.

Rifts maintains what passes for balance in it by having multiple classes that are all just as obscene as the Glitterboy. The only Rifts character I've ever played was a Battle Magus from the Atlantis book; we were all rather surprised when I looked up one of my starting spells and realized that my L1 character could duel a SAMAS and win without getting scratched. Palladium makes no real effort to be balanced, but there are so options available that actually chosing one of the sub-par classes without even realizing it takes some doing. Though we have had that happen; we had a newbie player in a Palladium Fantasy game who decided to play a Soldier, and the vets didn't bother to warn her away from that. Her character was basically useless and helpless compared to the rest of the party. We actually changed systems after a couple sessions.

I do see what you mean, though -- in 3.0E, bards were utterly inferior to the rest of the PC classes; making an archer build is just about the only way to get a bard that's at least on par with the rest of the party. The sorcerer and the wizard are the classes that are actually worse in terms in physical combat, the bard is completely blown out of the water as a support character by the other pure spellcasters, and the bard can pretty easily be matched or exceeded by a rogue in the skills department, too. Jack of all Trades but Master of None = the party doesn't actually need you, and can probably do just fine without you.

In my group's games, bards only show up as joke characters nowadays.

 

[Krieg]

click

 

[Desdichado]

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..

There are characters in D&D who are non-combatants?

 

[Psion]

I didn't realize this was an undead thread and I posted in it already. I think I made my point more thoroughly the first time so... deleted.

 

[Woas]

I think the only real balance that is needed is with the aspects that directly effect the players. This includes: races and classes. Nobody likes the be the odd man out. And nobody really wants to play the character that is 100% flavor. So making sure that whatever a type of character a player decides to choose, that they can atleast be part of the action of the game is very important to 'game balance'.

Otherwise, with spell power, weapon damage, feats, etc. In reality they balance themselves out... cause whatever the players can do, so can the monsters and opponents. Jimmy the Mage wants a spell that kills 4 opponents with just a ranged touch attack and no saves at level 9?. He better be prepared to die then cause any wizard would kill for that spell.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Game balance is a myth that I wholeheartedly subscribe to.