The Problem of Balance (and how to get rid of it)

[Remathilis]

IMO, "balance" is like training wheels on a bike. They're great if you don't know how to ride a bike, or if you want to make sure you don't fall. But after awhile you either learn to ride without them, or depend on them for the rest of your life... there's some things you just can't do on a bike (that are dangerous, but fun) with training wheels on... and just because you like them or need them doesn't mean every bike should have them as "good" bike design.

Zuh?

Ok, I'll ignore the thinly veiled dig that everyone who wants a balanced game is still playing with training wheels and needs to get to the back of the class with the safety scissors and the paste.

Exactly WHAT can you do in a non-balanced game that you CANNOT do in a balanced one?

* Create a PC so mechanically inferior as to be a hindrance?
* Be a halfling commoner in a party of dwarven warriors, elven archers, and mighty wizards?
* Watch as certain character classes eventually fade into irrelevant henchmen to uberpowerful spellcasters.
* End a combat before it starts with a single saving throw?
* Throw fights way above a PCs chance to succeed?
* Starve PCs for treasure so that 10th level PCs are thankful for a +1 dagger and some potions of healing?

I'm sure I can do nearly all of these things in a balanced system simply by ignoring certain rules. Its nice when the default assumption allows me to go off road in search of imbalance, not requires me to lay new concrete in order to get from here to my destination...

 

[Imaro]

Zuh?

Ok, I'll ignore the thinly veiled dig that everyone who wants a balanced game is still playing with training wheels and needs to get to the back of the class with the safety scissors and the paste.

Ok, I make no comments about peoples intelligence, training wheels are about comfort levels and it's not insulting... unless you're really reaching to make it that way. So thanks for reaching but it was an analogy not some thinly veiled insult.

Exactly WHAT can you do in a non-balanced game that you CANNOT do in a balanced one?

* Create a PC so mechanically inferior as to be a hindrance?
* Be a halfling commoner in a party of dwarven warriors, elven archers, and mighty wizards?
* Watch as certain character classes eventually fade into irrelevant henchmen to uberpowerful spellcasters.
* End a combat before it starts with a single saving throw?
* Throw fights way above a PCs chance to succeed?
* Starve PCs for treasure so that 10th level PCs are thankful for a +1 dagger and some potions of healing?

I'm sure I can do nearly all of these things in a balanced system simply by ignoring certain rules. Its nice when the default assumption allows me to go off road in search of imbalance, not requires me to lay new concrete in order to get from here to my destination...

Hey... that's exactly what this thread is about, and no one is claiming you can't change the game... it's when people come in and holler badwrongfun, because you don't ascribe to what they prefer in design principles (balance as a driving force) that things get heated. I'm not arguing imbalance fits everyone's needs and is objectively better... but the reverse is not true either.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

the only way to make Rand and other channelers more powerful was to increase their level; yet in the stories, even from the beginning Rand was more dangerous than most seasoned warriors.

Isn't the solution right here?
Make everything balanced when levels are equal but if you want to have 'unbalanced' characters simply make some higher levels than others, make channelers 4 levels higher than the rest of the party.

Personally I wouldn't want to play in such a game. But if you and the players don't care about balance then most systems will accomadate you.

Balance is hard to achieve, unbalance is easy.
Therefore game systems should be designed to be balanced and if the users want to unbalance them in a particular way they can.

If wizards should easily out match other characters just make all wizards x levels higher.

 

[Stoat]

Ok, I make no comments about peoples intelligence, training wheels are about comfort levels and it's not insulting... unless you're really reaching to make it that way. So thanks for reaching but it was an analogy not some thinly veiled insult.

It certainly looked like an insult to me, and not a thinly-veiled one either.

 

[Imaro]

It certainly looked like an insult to me, and not a thinly-veiled one either.

Sorry you feel that way, but the use of training wheels on a bike doesn't say anything about the intelligence of someone (or else geniuses would be the best bike riders)... it relates to their specific skill in handling an unsteady bike (game). Now if you decide to take Rem's tangent about paste and safety scissors as what I said well it's not what I said... it's his addendum to my actual words.

 

[Ahglock]

There needn't be anything lost in this so-called 'trade off'. There needn't be a trade. . . of any kind, IOW. Zero sum / either or? Nuh uh.

This is what you don't seem to believe is possible.

Well, it is, as far as I'm concerned. IMO, IME and all that. Also, that goes for many other gamers.

Increased balance without awareness of/consideration for other things that might change in the process? Well yeah, that's just daft. But replace 'balance' with almost anything else that can go there, and the verdict is the same. Duh. So what. :/

There was quite a bit lost from 3e to 4e. Whether those things are important to you is another question.

Save or die spells gone
Real summoning magic gone
basic combat maneuvers like disarm gone

 

[Irda Ranger]

To put it another way, how could you take "game balance"--in terms of classes and races--out of 4E, but still keep it D&D, and still make it enjoyable and playable?

Make the PCs different levels. In Lord of the Rings it's not that Wizards are uber, it's that Gandalf was uber. By which I mean, he was Paragon or Epic level when the quest started. Frodo et. al. were not.

Whether that's "enjoyable and playable" really depends on your players. Will they mind that Bob's character can win all the fights by himself? Most people can deal with varying levels of expertise in real life, but when playing games it's usually a loser. YMMV, of course.

 

[Alex319]

It seems to me that part of the reason this discussion seems to be going in circles is that we actually agree on most of the main points.

It seems like the following are points that we can agree on:

1. More so than previous editions, D+D 4e is designed with "balance" as a guiding principle. This was done because many (though not all) players desire balance, and it's a lot easier to houserule in "unbalanced" elements to a "balanced" system if that is what is desired, than to houserule "balance" into a fundamentally "unbalanced" game.

2. For many players, consistency with a particular fictional source (like LOTR, Harry Potter, etc.), particular setting, or particular model of how the world works is more important than "balance." In this case, consistency with the fiction/setting/model is fundamentally opposed to game balance, if said fiction/setting/model includes "unbalanced" elements like wizards being more powerful than fighters. In this case, however, it is usually simple to houserule whatever "unbalanced elements" you like back in, and it's the players' decision as to whether the gain in consistency outweighs the loss in balance.

3. It seems like what some players are asking for is a D+D that is designed with "consistency with the fiction/setting/model" as a guiding principle rather than "balance" as a guiding principle. This seems to be an unreasonable thing to expect, because the D+D designers have no way of knowing which fiction/setting/model you want to play with. (Unless you're referring to the fictions, settings and models within D+D itself, like Eberron, Greyhawk, etc., but those setting by definition have whatever the D+D designers put in them, so saying that D+D is not consistent with them makes no sense.)

If you're looking to build your own world from scratch, with powers, abilities, etc. of your own design, D+D isn't the right tool for the job. You're better off looking at generic "toolkit" systems, like GURPS, the Hero System, etc.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The balance that really matters:
Every player needs to take the same entertainment from the game. No one should feel as if he is useless for a game. (He might feel useless for a certain scenario - that's okay. But nothing for a long time.)

Now, if you find that you don't need class balance and similar things for that, that's okay. Ignore them. Maybe Wizards in the beginning need as much XP as everyone else, but at it mid levels, they need less to gain levels. Or, if you want to go in the other direction, you can't take levels in Wizard before 10th level, or can only multiclass into it. Or just give one character extra benefits, free ability bonuses, feats or whatever.

Balance created by a game system is a way to make things easer, because whatever a player picks to play, he can contribute meaningful to the game - without him, the group would not have succeeded, and without the rest of the group, he wouldn't have succeeded - independent from any story-line considerations. (Like "oh, Jack remembered to carry some Rope with him! That's helpful now that we need to get down here")

 

[Reynard]

Isn't the solution right here?
Make everything balanced when levels are equal but if you want to have 'unbalanced' characters simply make some higher levels than others, make channelers 4 levels higher than the rest of the party.

Personally I wouldn't want to play in such a game. But if you and the players don't care about balance then most systems will accomadate you.

Balance is hard to achieve, unbalance is easy.
Therefore game systems should be designed to be balanced and if the users want to unbalance them in a particular way they can.

If wizards should easily out match other characters just make all wizards x levels higher.

This falls apart because D&D bundles a whole lot of things together with "level" -- not just power level, but general competence of survivability. Putting Rand up a few levels doesn't work because he's as green and frail as everyone else -- he just happens to have access to great cosmic power. Legolas isn't higher level than Aragorn, but he's unerring with a bow and has all that "elfness" going for him.

In 3E or 4E, I think the best way to model this kind of thing is through a "hero" template -- extra hit points, a significant bonus in a given area of expertise and a ability/power or two. But not an overall level increase and all the baggage that comes with it.