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

[Aus_Snow]

I don't see 'balance' as the problem, but rather exaggerated similarity, or, perhaps more accurately, drastically reduced variety.

A thing does not need to be the same as, or even overly similar to, another thing, in order to be balanced, when compared to it.

It's how they're balanced in play that matters, and personally, I prefer game elements to be as balanced as is reasonably possible - in play.

 

[Byronic]

Personally I could think of two ways in which it was done well.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying is one, although I admit I have never played it I did get the gist of it through reading the book.

Wizards in WHFRP can do a lot of things that other PCs can't. Like boil peoples blood and such. However using magic was far from risk free and the Wizard did risk a lot for his art. This meant that while the Wizard was more powerful it was also more risky. This also served as a way to limit the amount of spells a wizard would cast without creating a very artificial boundry (Vancian) and all this without forcing balance.

Although if someone who played the game thinks I've misinterpretted it please say so.

Another way of doing this would be to balance out the characters in other ways. Perhaps give the weaker Hobbit Thief the Luck of the Underdog or something else to help him survive the world and still participate. It would still be balanced but they would be different and the flavour would be retained.

 

[FireLance]

Personally I could think of two ways in which it was done well.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying is one, although I admit I have never played it I did get the gist of it through reading the book.

Wizards in WHFRP can do a lot of things that other PCs can't. Like boil peoples blood and such. However using magic was far from risk free and the Wizard did risk a lot for his art. This meant that while the Wizard was more powerful it was also more risky. This also served as a way to limit the amount of spells a wizard would cast without creating a very artificial boundry (Vancian) and all this without forcing balance.

Although if someone who played the game thinks I've misinterpretted it please say so.

Another way of doing this would be to balance out the characters in other ways. Perhaps give the weaker Hobbit Thief the Luck of the Underdog or something else to help him survive the world and still participate. It would still be balanced but they would be different and the flavour would be retained.

Both of these sound like attempts at balance to me. In the first example, the more powerful effects are balanced by the fact that they are riskier. In the second, an apparently weaker character is balanced by a metaphysical advantage.

I think one of the greatest fallacies of balance is that the aim of balance is to make all classes and races exactly equal or at least similar. That's an extreme view of balance which I doubt many game designers subscribe to (although there will always be extremists in any belief system ). I think that a more sensible and practically viable goal of balance is to ensure that there are no choices that are obviously superior to all the rest. This still leaves room for a great deal of flexibility and variety in game design.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't think balance is ever a bad thing. Some of you are saying that it "gets in the way of flavor", but I don't see what you mean. You need to get a lot more specific in order to explain that one. Certainly, just because a game system is balanced doesn't mean that balance is forced upon your game, since it is always trivial to unbalance something that is already balanced.

I do, however, think that balance is essential to a game. D&D is not just a collective storytelling tool, it is a multiplayer game designed to serve the needs of a wide variety of people, and all such games inherently need to be balanced, for a lot of good reasons. What is more, it is very hard to balance something that starts imbalanced, so it is always best if balance is the goal of the original game designers, rather than something that players and DMs have to add.

Actually, I will go as far to say that game imbalance is something that interferes with flavor and story far more than game balance does, since it forces the game designers preconceptions upon the DM and players far more. If a game is designed so that elves are inherently better than humans, then running a story in which elves are not superior becomes much more difficult. Meanwhile, if the two races were mechanically balanced from the start, it is fairly easy to give elves some advantage that makes them better for a single story, without interfering in everyone else's preferred way to play the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Another way to balance things without sameness is to have some classes obviously able to almost dominate in certain circumstances (e.g. 1e Illusionists vs. Ogres) while in other circumstances be pretty much neutralized (e.g. 1e Illusionists vs. undead). Druids can dominate in a forest but aren't nearly as useful underground. And so on. Meanwhile, some classes e.g. Fighter are somewhat useful all the time but never really dominant.

Then it falls to the DM to present chances for each of the variable classes to dominate for a while, thus over a long campaign things should somewhat even out.

As mentioned earlier, niche protection is also important.

I think the fatal flaw in 4e design is in trying to balance the small stuff...looking for balance almost round-by-round (which is close to impossible unless all classes become very similar)...instead of intentionally allowing some short-to-medium term ups and downs while seeking a rough balance over the whole campaign; or simply admitting that things will be unbalanced, deal with it.

Lane-"off balance"-fan

 

[yesnomu]

Another way to balance things without sameness is to have some classes obviously able to almost dominate in certain circumstances (e.g. 1e Illusionists vs. Ogres) while in other circumstances be pretty much neutralized (e.g. 1e Illusionists vs. undead). Druids can dominate in a forest but aren't nearly as useful underground. And so on. Meanwhile, some classes e.g. Fighter are somewhat useful all the time but never really dominant.

Then it falls to the DM to present chances for each of the variable classes to dominate for a while, thus over a long campaign things should somewhat even out.

OK, but that leads straight to the Shadowrun Hacker problem, where everyone plays their own single-player game and each has very little influence on their teammate's area of expertise.

The problems there are:

• It requires the DM to carefully tailor their campaign to give everyone roughly equal time, instead of telling the story they want to tell and letting the system balance time. This makes DMing more unpleasant and difficult, which the job definitely doesn't need. We want to encourage more new people to DM.
• It's very hard for a designer to balance, without making the generalist too bad (3.5 bards) or way too good (3.5 druids).
• It gets boring to play a class without any big highs or lows, like the old-edition fighter. Everyone likes having a time to shine, nobody likes being "just there", no matter how useful they are.
• It doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages "I'm not useful here, I'll stand back and let my friends take care of it". Again, it's important that everyone be able to contribute to group success in any situation, even if not always to the same extent.

Seriously, why should it be the DM's job to carefully monitor everyone's fun levels? The game ought to make sure every PC is good for something, and present that situation frequently.

I think the fatal flaw in 4e design is in trying to balance the small stuff...looking for balance almost round-by-round (which is close to impossible unless all classes become very similar)...instead of intentionally allowing some short-to-medium term ups and downs while seeking a rough balance over the whole campaign; or simply admitting that things will be unbalanced, deal with it.

No, it's very possible, just make each class contribute in different ways. Defenders take the attacks, leaders buff and heal, controllers debuff the enemy and remove options. Balancing damage output would be impossible, but there are many ways a class can be useful.

 

[yesnomu]

That... only makes someone higher in level than others. The problem people are speaking of with balance is that, more and more, it keeps forcing the mechanics to get in the way of the flavor.

OK, I don't think we're on the same wavelength. I'm viewing the question in terms of sheer power, while you're coming at it from a different angle. What flavor has been hurt by enforced balance? What were you able to do before that you can't now?

 

[LostSoul]

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?

You play with people who don't put a priority on overcoming challenges.

Then you re-tool the mechanics to do reflect what you are really going for. Maybe your world has monks who can kill with a touch - even the earliest initiates. You allow a background feat - open to someone who was a monk - to gain a special power:
Prerequisites: You must be using an open fist to make this attack.
Attack: Wis vs AC
Hit: 1[W] + Wis modifier damage, and the target is stunned. First failed save: the target dies (no save). You add your Wis modifier as a penalty to the save.

If it's At-Will, Encounter, or Daily depends on how often the monks of this world can do this trick, not how it balances out.

Is that balanced? No. Is it playable? Yes, if what you want to do is explore how monks in this world relate to the rest of the world. Not playable if your group wants to overcome challenges as a goal, because this guy has a power that outclasses anything else anyone can draw on at 1st level.

 

[phloog]

My group is apparently a bunch of freaks...

Balance is something I see discussed a LOT in forums, but it has never...honestly NEVER come up in any game I've run or played in, including some games with what are obviously huge balance issues.

Extreme Example: Gamma World (pre d20, pre goofy color-based success charts)....you rolled for your mutations...roll high enough and you could pick..roll REALLY high and you could pick TWO. You also could end up with weaknesses.

I rolled INSANE numbers...multiple 100s on d%. Since I could pick, I went through and saw things like Power XYZ was supremely powerful if and only if you also happened to have Power ABC...I picked multiple pairs of these.

In the end, my character if hit with any energy weapon could use the damage to heal, and anything left over could be fired as an attack. I also had Kinetic absorption, so NON-energy weapons would heal me. Only blades couldn't be absorbed, and they did HALF damage. If I got too low on hit points, my friends character would throw an energy grenade at me. If that couldn't be done, I had Life Leech which took points from everyone in an area and healed me...insane...completely broken.

My friend had as much of a hoot as I did, and his character had a few mind powers, and telekinetic flight...his character could only fly ten feet off the ground though, because he rolled Phobia:Heights. Eventually I found a Superman suit with technology that let ME fly...better than he could.

The fun came not from balanced characters/abilities, but from the scenarios and playing the role - his character was constantly rolling his eyes as my character did the wildest things...like when a leftover nuclear missile was headed toward our town, and I seriously considered flying at it and kicking it, just to see if I could absorb the power and fire it off into space.

My character was definitely more memorable, but we had exactly the same amount of fun, and at times my pal had more fun as it's sometimes easier to get into the role of a flawed character having to run around with this beast.

To me too much of the balance complaint from players seems to be rooted not truly in the need to have uniform contribution levels, but in a sort of competitive spirit in a game that in my opinion should be non-competitive. Why does it matter if your character is, all things considered, not as powerful as another's? Is your character just as INTERESTING/fun?

I DO get the need to have similar levels of action/attention/focus, but I don't think that arises from balance, or the way that 4e makes everyone roughly equal in COMBAT (which I oppose, but that's 40 different threads). It arises from a DM who plans adventures around the capabilities of his party.

And here is where my thoughts are WRONG. IF you are only going to play pre-published adventures, then maybe you do need combat balance, because a pre-published adventure (without alteration) probably doesn't have a chance for your claustrophobic expert on insects to shine.

Again, though...I just have never seen this come up in my groups, and the only factor that I can see that is different from other groups I've watched is that there's no clear competition between players.

 

[Imaro]

OK, but that leads straight to the Shadowrun Hacker problem, where everyone plays their own single-player game and each has very little influence on their teammate's area of expertise.

I don't necessarily see this as a problem, especially in systems where these "single-player games" are resolved quickly and with a minimum of rolls (unlike hacking in Shadowrun or Cyberpunk). If I choose an area of expertise... I made a conscious choice because I want to shine... not depend on someone else at that point.

The problems there are:

• It requires the DM to carefully tailor their campaign to give everyone roughly equal time, instead of telling the story they want to tell and letting the system balance time. This makes DMing more unpleasant and difficult, which the job definitely doesn't need. We want to encourage more new people to DM.

• 
  
  Shouldn't any DM cater their campaign to their players (perhaps this is what should be taught to new DM's as in the long run it will create a better play experience for all involved as opposed to a one size fits all mentality)... I mean honestly in any system where the characters have at least a minimum of relevant choices in character creation... there will be variability and thus the GM has to take into account that variability. As far as "telling the story they want to tell"... I don't think a GM should be striving for this, He should be letting the PC's create the type of story they want to create by using the characters they enjoy playing.
  
  

  [*]It's very hard for a designer to balance, without making the generalist too bad (3.5 bards) or way too good (3.5 druids).

  
  I think this only applies when trying to balance around one specific aspect of a game. I mean the generalist is not suppose to be as good at combat as the master warrior, but if your game is balanced only around combat you run into a big problem here... since no other yardsticks of measurement are considered... The funny thing is that in doing this (balancing around one specific thing) you have no choice but to limit and focus the game on that aspect as opposed to others.
  
  

  [*]It gets boring to play a class without any big highs or lows, like the old-edition fighter. Everyone likes having a time to shine, nobody likes being "just there", no matter how useful they are.

  
  I'm curious how one "shines" when everyone is equal? I mean IMO, that's booring... especially, again, when your players aren't all focused on combat. Another thing is that sometimes adversity is fun to overcome... in other words, some of the fun of the game is actually figuring a way to be active in a situation where one may be at a disadvantage.
  
  

  No, it's very possible, just make each class contribute in different ways. Defenders take the attacks, leaders buff and heal, controllers debuff the enemy and remove options. Balancing damage output would be impossible, but there are many ways a class can be useful.

  
  I'm curious, why is your definition of "balance" centered around combat? Let me ask you a question... In 4e why do certain classes like the Fighter (3 skills) get way less skills than say the Rogue (6 skills)... I mean is this "balanced", especially since one can gain XP for using skills. Honestly if the classes are balanced in combat, why the giant disparity in what they can do outside of combat?