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

[Mallus]

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?

If you're going to ditch 4e's unified power framework --the root of all balance in the system-- there isn't much reason to use the system. Play a previous edition of D&D. Each of them have many things to recommend them (even 2e, I swear!).

Or you could cut to chase and play Rifts.

If you're determined to use 4e, but want less balance --and why you would I admit to not understanding-- the easiest thing to do would be roll randomly for ability scores.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

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?

Okay, well.. I'll just go with one of my favorits here. Class/Feat features that brought about subsidiary entities. Familiars, Animal Companions, Bonded Mounts, Spirit Guides, Cohorts, etc.. I've always really loved those aspects, and 4E as an example tossed them out the window initialy, because they couldn't figure out how to "balance" them at first. We're just starting to get some of that back now, but I can already see the balance inflicting strangeness on it because once combat starts, they begin being an either-or type of thing.

In answer to other replies..

I don't protest the existence of balance. I protest it when they toss aside features I love, or when balance breaks my verisimilatude just because a combat round started. I know the game has to be balance, I just think they're working too hard at it now.

When it does come to combat, I miss the days when the DM would just throw up a rough sketch of the "battfield" and we'd say, "With a speed of x, can I get up to about here and do this?" "Yes." "Cool.. I'll go with that."

I DO look at D&D as a "collective storytelling tool". I'm perfectly happy with nights when we don't run into any combat at all, as long as the interactions or exploration have been fun, and we've all had a blast, and something supremely humorous usually winds up happening at some point.


I'm not saying I'd like to go back to how wildly broken and unbalanced a lot of 2E stuff was.. but what I'd like out of the game is the range of possibilty that 3E had, with the ease of bookkeeping that 4E has. (But that's getting into a whole different discussion about how I hate that unseen numbers are too important in any edition.. I know we need the numbers to make things "work", I just.. think too much relies on them..)

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

In my case it works this way:
The system mechanics can be open enough that I know what choices are going to make me good at what I want to do and what aren't.
OR
The system can be balanced so I at least know that my lack of system knowledge isn't what's causing me to hate my character.

I see balance as a necessary tool for a system that won't let me in on its tricks right away. I have no intention of playing a character who I didn't choose to play, and the chances of that increase if the system is a convoluted mess designed to make some choices that look totally the same as other choices actually work better.

I believe in the idea of concept. I just don't believe in concept if mechanics are involved.

 

[Hussar]

Count me in the camp that finds it very confusing when people complain about balance in a game. Limiting? Really? IME, imbalances are far and away more limiting than balance.

If you have two options that are balanced, then it comes down to concept which one you will choose. OTOH, if you have two options and one option is clearly superior to the other, then most people are going to choose the better option. It's pretty rare to deliberatly handicap yourself in a game.

Yes, yes, I know YOU do it, but, I'm thinking that there are a rather large number of people who don't.

What I find is that when you have imbalance, you create cookie cutter characters. Nearly everyone I played with, almost without fail, in 2e took two weapon fighting if their class could do it. It made absolute sense to do so - you doubled your attacks and damage/round at the cost of a weapon proficiency. Shields were pitifully weak and two handed weapons just didn't compare to using longsword and short sword (or whatever two weapons). So, everyone dual wielded.

To me, that's what happens when you unbalance the system. You wind up with people making choices, not because it fits with a concept, but to game the system for the largest rewards. And I can't say I blame anyone who does. You don't arm your fighter with a spoon, you give him the best weapons you can.

Give me balanced options any day of the week.

Heck, you can see it pretty easily in the Big 6 magic items in 3e. There's a reason those were the most chosen magic items. The cost/benefit ratio is clearly the best for those items. A stat boost item will do more for your character, both in combat and out, than any other single item you can name (other than perhaps artifacts). So, what's the first thing a player wants to get his hands on? A +2 whatever to boost his stats.

Boring.

I really cannot fathom this idea that keeps circling around that imbalance in the game somehow leads to more creativity. It just flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jack7]

To Hell With Balance

Well, some kinds any way.
By the way I approve of this thread.

 

[Mallus]

You wind up with people making choices, not because it fits with a concept, but to game the system for the largest rewards.

Exactly. An unbalanced system is like a tax on creativity. It forces players to choose between effectiveness and personal style.

Give me balanced options any day of the week.

Me too. The less I have to sweat the mechanics, the freer I am to focus on style. I like style.

I really cannot fathom this idea that keeps circling around that imbalance in the game somehow leads to more creativity.

Imbalance in the game leads to 4e resembling prior editions.

 

[Imaro]

Count me in the camp that finds it very confusing when people complain about balance in a game. Limiting? Really? IME, imbalances are far and away more limiting than balance.

If you have two options that are balanced, then it comes down to concept which one you will choose. OTOH, if you have two options and one option is clearly superior to the other, then most people are going to choose the better option. It's pretty rare to deliberatly handicap yourself in a game.

Yes, yes, I know YOU do it, but, I'm thinking that there are a rather large number of people who don't.

What I find is that when you have imbalance, you create cookie cutter characters. Nearly everyone I played with, almost without fail, in 2e took two weapon fighting if their class could do it. It made absolute sense to do so - you doubled your attacks and damage/round at the cost of a weapon proficiency. Shields were pitifully weak and two handed weapons just didn't compare to using longsword and short sword (or whatever two weapons). So, everyone dual wielded.

To me, that's what happens when you unbalance the system. You wind up with people making choices, not because it fits with a concept, but to game the system for the largest rewards. And I can't say I blame anyone who does. You don't arm your fighter with a spoon, you give him the best weapons you can.

Give me balanced options any day of the week.

Heck, you can see it pretty easily in the Big 6 magic items in 3e. There's a reason those were the most chosen magic items. The cost/benefit ratio is clearly the best for those items. A stat boost item will do more for your character, both in combat and out, than any other single item you can name (other than perhaps artifacts). So, what's the first thing a player wants to get his hands on? A +2 whatever to boost his stats.

Boring.

I really cannot fathom this idea that keeps circling around that imbalance in the game somehow leads to more creativity. It just flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps because honestly, when you get down to it... very little fantasy in any medium is "balanced", I almost want to say it is in fact a trope of fantasy to be unbalanced.

Second, I think it is also a matter of the balance being prime can often lead to awkward or even unsatisfactory limitations in which the mechanical effect of something ( and how it weighs against things which shouldn't have any relation to it) is more important than it's feel or narrative basis in the game.

As a prime example I will use the beastmaster ranger... where I cannot attack and my beast attack at the same time. I understand the "balance" reasons for the beastmaster mechanics... but it in no way models the fiction or narratives that I am use to which contain warriors who have an animal companion with them (I rarely see them unable to attack if their beast does... and honestly, most of the time the beast is smart enough to act independently of the "beastmaster", especially in dangerous situations). Can the concept of "beastmaster" be done in 4e... certainly, will that concept necessarily play or feel like the archetype one has read about, seen on tv, etc... not necessarily, why? Because it wouldn't be balanced.

Personally I've never had a problem with this "cookie cutterism" in other games, and I feel D&D is one of the few games where combat is the end all and be all of balance. For contrast when I have played White Wolf games, my players build their PC's based on concept... now some might claim that this will end up with unbalanced PC's... my answer is that is what a GM is for. I might have a combat player, a social focused player and a skill monkey... but as a GM I can plan adventures that cater to those actions the PC's want to involve themselves in.

 

[Mallus]

...I almost want to say it is in fact a trope of fantasy to be unbalanced.

It's a trope of games to be balanced.

Second, I think it is also a matter of the balance being prime can often lead to awkward or even unsatisfactory limitations in which the mechanical effect of something ( and how it weighs against things which shouldn't have any relation to it) is more important than it's feel or narrative basis in the game.

I think this is true, but I feel it's best handled by DM judgment/ad-hoc rulings, not the rule system. I'm all for letting a character do things well outside the scope of the rules when it makes dramatic sense/seems fun to, but that doesn't imply that a deliberately unbalanced system is a smart design choice.

Can the concept of "beastmaster" be done in 4e... certainly, will that concept necessarily play or feel like the archetype one has read about, seen on tv, etc... not necessarily, why? Because it wouldn't be balanced.

At some point the game has to be game. Where that point is, however, is open to some debate

 

[billd91]

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

I largely agree. My job as DM is to make sure that the game is set up to feel like an ensemble show and not a star vehicle for a single character. Screen time in the long run is the important factor and not round by round.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

.....when I have played White Wolf games, my players build their PC's based on concept... now some might claim that this will end up with unbalanced PC's... my answer is that is what a GM is for. I might have a combat player, a social focused player and a skill monkey... but as a GM I can plan adventures that cater to those actions the PC's want to involve themselves in.

And what if a GM is not good enough to do this?