[rant] Balance schmalance

[Oni]

I see two problems in this, though.

First, the "odd-pair" may feature moments where one is more important than the other, but it is rarely a case of one always being more important than the other. If such is the case, the matter isn't one of character power but of scenario design (or possibly favoritism). The only true benefit of having a "typical party" of near-same Character Levels is that purchased modules will more easily accomodate them. Outside of that, it is simply the GM's ability to do so that is in the way. I routinely GM mix-leveled parties (my last had a Halfling PsyW4, a Verbeeg ECL8/Fighter4/Rogue2, and a Human Fighter12/Psychic6) and have always managed to keep the game running without a hitch.

Another issue is that believing each character should be equal at all times (hence always sharing the spot light), the idea that everyone gets a chance at the spot light (i.e., the chance to shine as an individual) is becoming a foreign concept, since shinging as an individual has become synonomous with over-shadowing everyone else, which is far from the truth. I have personally seen a player call foul when another PC was able to perform an act no one else could pull off or had any chance of influencing. This same player, however, had seemed to forget that his own character had been the "star" of a session 2 months previous, which (of course) he didn't seem to mind at the time.

I'm not saying that every character needs and equal share of the spot light every moment of every game, and I'm not saying that every character needs to be equally effective in every single situation. What I am saying is when one character is repeatedly more effective in one situation than all the others, that isn't fun. When one character is able to become the "star" 9 out of 10 games because they're able to handle everything before anyone else can, that isn't fun. Imagine you have a 10th level barbarian and a 5th level fighter. The barb is pretty much always going to be the star of the show simply because he'll be better at everthing the fighter does, and the fighter will never have a chance to shine short of completely removing the barbarian from the picture. That isn't fun.

If class A can do the job of class B + whatever else class A does, why bother with class B?

 

[Dogbrain]

As I see it, there are two types of balance.

The first deals with player interaction. If the wizard never gets to harm anything and is just lugged around, or the fighter is doing everything, then you have a problem. Although the DM may be partly to blame, often this is a problem with the rules. It is the main thing the 3E designers tried to do when they redesigned the game: make every character useful throughout their career.

In that case, all the changes were pretty much pointless, since they end up giving no more front time to a particular character class than happened under 2d edition or original AD&D in my campaigns.

 

[Dogbrain]

I've always wanted to know how SCHMALANCE was spelled.

I told them that their characters live in a WORLD, and in this WORLD things beyond their capacity to handle do exist. Plus, I told them I was testing their intelligence and see if they would actually run from something than attack it. They didn't like that too much. So, after attacking a Hill Giant that had absolutely no knowledge of their existence, the campaign ended right there. Was that my fault that they acted rashly and didn't think about it? I don't think it was.

In a reasonable world, wherein a gentleman can expect to enter a tavern, pull out a Devonshire hand-made clay, and smoke a good English blend or a bright Virginia with just a hint of Perique without harassment from (female, bleached blonde--always bleached blonde for some reason) patrons who find his fine tobacco to be far more offensive than the cigarette-derived fumes that otherwise infest the air, it would not be your fault.

In a world wherein personal responsibility is now a sin, wherein contrived scenarios featuring wannabe actors are "reality", and wherein people think of Britney Spears as a "singer", one cannot apply such standards of reason and all mistakes made by the players are the DM's fault.

 

[Plane Sailing]

We all know that once the wizard gets to 5th level then he's gonna pick fireball and begin to blast the battlefield, now suddenly making the fighter type seem weaker, unless the fighter gets some cool magic weapon to make up for the sudden disadvantage.

I wonder, have you played many 5th level parties recently? It's just that fireball is pretty darn unimpressive in the damage dealing stakes nowadays. The wizard can do 5-30 damage, with a ST for half against a lot of foes. But unless you 5th level party is slumming it around a whole lot of CR1 creatures this isn't going to finish them off. The average of 17.5 damage against any single target (assuming they don't save) is paltry compared to the 5th level fighter doing 2d6+2 (specialisation) +1.5str, +1 at least from a magic weapon. At a minimum I'd expect him to be attacking for 2d6+6 every round of combat all day long. He might have cleave and great cleave making him pretty much as effective against CR1 foes.

Fireball was very impressive and dangerous back in 1e. Nowadays it looks neat but isn't a finishing move by any stretch of the imagination at the point where it arrives.

Cheers

 

[Henry]

I have to agree with jdfrenzel (Hi, John!), but some posters may be missing a couple of his qualifying remarks, both in agreement and disagreement with him.

He said that while striving for balance was not a bad thing, it's pointless to think a game will ever be "perfectly balanced" where every option is equally viable at all times. It's no reason to lose sleep over; just play and only worry about the most egregious imbalances.

From MY perspective, if there's an obvious imbalance (say, having a character class that has +5 to all saves, +5 to BAB, and 5th level spell access at Level One), it goes without saying you need to fix it. But if it's an argument of where people bust out four pages of algebraic formulae to prove something is broken, then chances are it's BALANCED ENOUGH. Sure, let people argue mathematics - that makes some gamers happy in and of itself, and people have been debating Keats, Shakespeare, and the Talmud with the same fervor for far longer - but for 90% of gamers, it really doesn't matter, and shouldn't. You end up spending more time playtesting than actually gaming.

 

[Umbran]

The point is, whether the party is barely making it through the encounter, breezing through, expending precisely 20% of their resources to make it through, or running, as long as it's fun then who cares?

You're right, and you're wrong, all in one shot

When you are talking about an individual campaign, you're right. The DM should only be really concerned with whether or not the groupis having fun. The "balance" thing is only a means to that end, and it isn't the only means. We should also note that the DMG agrees with you that there should be a mix of encounters with some easy and some hard and some impossible.

When you are talking about overall game design, however, you're a bit off. There balance is a much larger issue. The designer has to consider general, overall behavior of many gamers, rather than build for a specific campaign. A good game is supposed to be a solid foundation from which we may take our individual departures. The balance designed into the system is a great tool, and discussions about it in terms of general design serve to increase our understanding of the game's strengths and weaknesses.

Believe me, players really love to romp through low-level fodder more than anything. And running from the second encounter is at least as memorable.

Right. As if none of us have extensive experience with players, we should believe you instead of ourselves? My own experience runs somewhat contrary to your assertion. Most players I know quickly get bored with taking candy from babies. An occasional place where they can kick butt and take names is nice, but becomes terribly boring if it becomes a regular part of the diet, or if it serves no useful dramatic or plot function. And similarly running away becomes terribly boring if it happens too frequently.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'm not saying that every character needs and equal share of the spot light every moment of every game, and I'm not saying that every character needs to be equally effective in every single situation. What I am saying is when one character is repeatedly more effective in one situation than all the others, that isn't fun. When one character is able to become the "star" 9 out of 10 games because they're able to handle everything before anyone else can, that isn't fun. Imagine you have a 10th level barbarian and a 5th level fighter.

Funny, that's what I said too. Go ahead, read my post. You'll see it in there.

Something else I'm saying, though, is that the "equal opportunity" mind set (one that is more reflective of how the Machina Politico would like us to see the world as opposed to how the world really is) leads some people into believing that if for once they don't share the spotlight for just a moment and someone else is shining just a bit bright for a single session, that they have been denied their "fair shake" and that the GM sucks. Sure, a team mentality is extremely helpful in solving many problems, but it needn't be the one and only way to solve problems and a GM shouldn't be forced to pidgeon-hole every issue into such a mold.

Individuals will shine. In a properly run game, everyone gets a shot. In a poorly run game, it's a few of the whole. It's important not to immediately assume the later because of a false belief that the former isn't possible.

The barb is pretty much always going to be the star of the show simply because he'll be better at everthing the fighter does, and the fighter will never have a chance to shine short of completely removing the barbarian from the picture. That isn't fun.

I also find the assessment incorrect. That is to say, the combination is only a problem by manner of scenario design, not by level desparity.

For instance, let's look at Pirates of the Carribean. Sure, Jack Sparrow was quite a few levels up on Will Turner, but in the final battle in the treasure cave, was Will Turner left twiddling his thumbs while Jack Sparrow fought the BBEG? No, Turner had plenty of other tasks to accomplish during the same span of time (i.e., villains and challenges properly rated for him). And, in the end, it was Turner's own actions that ended the curse and won the fight.

I agree that the game itself doesn't do this, and it's probably best that it doesn't. However, a good GM with a firm grasp of what the characters can do (as individual abilities, not just a general number determined by averaging character levels) should have little problem doing it.

Now, if a GM runs a game that is simply combat>combat>combat, then yes, the desparity is going to show quite clearly. But then again, the DMG indicates (3.0 page 8, don't know what page in 3.5) that games that are mostly focused on combat have a greater need for mechanical balance. However, it also says that this style of play is an extreme condition, just like games that are 99% role-play are an extreme condition but are less bound to the dictates of mechanical balance. It also goes on to indicate that most games fall in the middle ground, with balance being a good contributor to fun but not oh-so-important that the GM should jump through hoops to maintain it at all times. So, while preaching balance to a degree is a good thing, preaching it too much runs the risk of making it seem to be far more important over-all than it really is.

If class A can do the job of class B + whatever else class A does, why bother with class B?

On this, I agree. However, it doesn't seem to be the topic of discussion. After all, this issue was eliminated with the general class design of 3E. The question is, now that the system is as balanced as it is, is there really any point trying to make it "more" balanced, or it is balanced enough for everyone's needs? I'd say the later, although I can imagine some (like the more mathematically focused amongst us that Henry points out) to go over everything with a tweazers and whine about a .001% desparity at Level 100. To me it's not worth it. The game works well enough for the majority of games being played.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Plus, I told them I was testing their intelligence and see if they would actually run from something than attack it. They didn't like that too much.

Stupid people usually don't.

 

[S'mon]

When one character is able to become the "star" 9 out of 10 games because they're able to handle everything before anyone else can, that isn't fun. Imagine you have a 10th level barbarian and a 5th level fighter. The barb is pretty much always going to be the star of the show simply because he'll be better at everthing the fighter does, and the fighter will never have a chance to shine short of completely removing the barbarian from the picture. That isn't fun.

Well, "Xena: Warrior Princess" was quite enjoyable at times...

I think that shows how combat-oriented D&D is, that a game with characters of widely varying combat power is almost unplayable. I guess you could argue that in the Xena show Gabrielle had bardic lore & some diplomacy ability different from Xena's, but basically she was Xena's cohort and had very little ability of her own that wasn't overshadowed by Xena, yet the writers managed to give her strong characterisation and plenty to do - in D&D terms it was a successful campaign.

 

[Numion]

Then this group got pissed at me because they felt I was unfair. I told them that their characters live in a WORLD, and in this WORLD things beyond their capacity to handle do exist. Plus, I told them I was testing their intelligence and see if they would actually run from something than attack it. They didn't like that too much. So, after attacking a Hill Giant that had absolutely no knowledge of their existence, the campaign ended right there. Was that my fault that they acted rashly and didn't think about it? I don't think it was.

In hindsight you can also ask yourself "what was gained by having the Hill Giant be there?". Sure, the players learned a lesson now - not to fight everything that moves. And if the players had decided to steer clear of the giant, what would've been gained by that?

Most people play this game to have fun, not to learn lessons. If you got the whole group got pissed at you, there surely is room for improvement. Of course there are things in the world that the PCs can't yet handle, but I wouldn't rub it in their face, or use it to teach lessons.