Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 1395106" data-attributes="member: 633">There is nothing "necessary" in a roleplaying game, except for the players. We could play just by chatting among ourselves if we wanted to.However, there are qualities that are desirable; qualities that are likely to make the game more enjoyable. Game balance is highly desirable. It is very likely to make the game much more enjoyable.First, let me define game balance. You have game balance when there is a huge number of possible characters of roughly equal power, and no possible character significantly more powerful than any one of them. Power means ability to overcome challenges. Ideally, the set of equal-power characters should match the character concepts which the players are supposed to play (eg, "heroes" in D&D, meaning that it's OK if the NPC classes are weak).Think about it; it basically means that players must be free to make whatever reasonable character they want, and not worry about another PC being much more powerful than them.This defines game balance for characters; the definition extends naturally to spells, feats, whatever.What are the consequences of lack of game balance?If there are a few character types more powerful than all the others, then- players will tend to make characters of those types. Since these "overpowered" types are few by definition, this greatly reduces the variety of characters that are used in game. Generally, lack of variety makes for a worse game.- consistancy problems arise between the setting and the rules that are supposed to model it. If I play 3.0, I can't help wondering why Raistlin never casts Haste. Lack of consistancy invariably makes for a worse game.- if everyone plays overpowered characters, there are huge consistancy problems (ie, the game looks ridiculous).- if everyone plays normal-power characters, this works, but it doesn't happen often, it doesn't solve consistancy problems, and becomes progressively harder as the game balance breaks more. In other words, just because in 3.0 noone in my party used Harm except in very exceptional cases, it doesn't mean that it wasn't broken.- if some people play normal characters and one or two play overpowered characters, then the overpowered characters "outshine" the rest - that is, they solve more challenges, because by definition they are more able to do so. This deprives the rest of the party of challenges, which almost always makes for a worse game.Not caring about game balance can appear to have a couple of pluses.- balance is, by far, the hardest quality to achieve. If it isn't a priority, game design becomes a hell of a lot easier. IMO, that's not a justification, because the game also becomes much worse.- many adventuring parties of literature aren't even remotely balanced; just see LotR or Star Wars. IMO, that's not a justification, because a roleplaying game is not a novel and has extra requirements.There are some approaches that are routinely proposed to make the game enjoyable without balance.- tailor challenges to each characters. It doesn't work. It means that some players play and some sit and wait. You can tailor a challenge to the party, but not to a single character; not all the time, anyway. Also, it doesn't solve the consistancy issue.- simply ignore consistancy issues. It doesn't work. It doesn't address the main problem, that of some characters solving more challenges than the rest and therefore stealing the spotlight.- say that, since this character is so powerful, he attracts more enemies and more problems than anyone else. It doesn't work. First of all, it makes life more interesting for the character, which is not what the character wants but it often is exactly what the player wants. Secondly, when the character isn't fighting off the next Zhentarim who wants the secret of Spellfire, he still is overpowered. Thirdly, it doesn't really make sense either, because an overpowered 3rd level character is probably still less powerful than any 7th level character, so why don't these guys go after someone else? Fourthly, the extra challenges can and will draw in the other PCs. Fifthly, it is an attempt to punish the player for an error the game designers did.- house rule the imbalance away. It does work. But that's the designers' work, not mine. My house rules should be directed at enhancing and customizing particular aspects of the game and at better shaping the setting, not at fixing bugs.There are exceptions. There are groups that don't care if someone hogs the spotlight. There are players that, despite having an awesome challenge-solving power, won't use it. There are games for which an imbalance is built-in and makes sense (Ars Magica where one player is the mage and the others are followers). IMO, Magic Missile is fine as it is because everyone having it has become part of the D&D metasetting.But in the vast, vast majority of cases, game balance is a very desirable quality, enough that lack of it can spoil the game.</blockquote>

Verification