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

[Daniel D. Fox]

I don't believe what 4e addressed was wholey balance issues. It broke down to what and who does what in combat - it's all about role. Balance came second; and if you look real close, you'll still see some gross "imbalances" between powers of the same level.

The definition of role is what makes 4E seem fluid.

 

[Mallus]

Perhaps next we can tackle the problem of enjoyment (and how to get rid...).

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps next we can tackle the problem of enjoyment (and how to get rid...).

Or maybe just a thread of posts that aren't about the topic or add anything to the discussion??

 

[Mallus]

Or maybe just a thread of posts that aren't about the topic or add anything to the discussion??

Hey, I added some more substantive posts... allow me one one-liner, it's a Friday afternoon...

 

[LostSoul]

I agree, and I'll go a little farther and say Balance is good or bad (depending on the source material) for narrativists as well.

I would say that balance is neccessary for narrativism - but it's a different sort of balance. More about making sure that a PC is (or at least has a chance to be) a protagonist, and making sure that no moral stance on a particular issue is a "better" one. I should be able to go after what I want, and I should be able to get what I want through treachery or through honour with about an equal chance of success.

 

[Imaro]

I would say that balance is neccessary for narrativism - but it's a different sort of balance. More about making sure that a PC is (or at least has a chance to be) a protagonist, and making sure that no moral stance on a particular issue is a "better" one. I should be able to go after what I want, and I should be able to get what I want through treachery or through honour with about an equal chance of success.

See, I would call these game assumptions, but not balance per say. Balance would mean a fair or equal disadvantage for every advantage and I don't see that as necessary or even desirable in a narrative game, likewise I think protagonists being equal as far as abilities go is even less important in a narrativist game, one might play a "sidekick" in a narrative game and be less capable than a "champion" because that is the archetype or role you wish to experience. Since it is more what that archetype would do as opposed to what he can do mechanically, it may very well be a fact that there are things the champion can do that you cannot. Now you may have things you can do, by dint of being the "companion", that the "champion" cannot do... but in no way do I think it's necessary in a narrativist game that they in any quantifiable way... equal what the "champion" can do. I guess in the end it is about what type of narrative is the basis for the game and thus that is why I say it depends.

 

[Negflar2099]

What some people seem to forget is that balance is a pure game mechanic creation and as such only exists for the PCs and not for the NPCs. That is to say two PCs of equal level but of different races and classes are equally fun to play and make equal contributions to the game. That's what balance is to me. Why would that be a bad thing?

It's all well and good to say "my wizard should be more powerful than your fighter" but if it's fun to play wizards and not fun to play fighters than why do you have fighters in the game at all? Why waste space with an option that can't contribute as much to the game as the other options? Is it to trick people who don't know better? Is it to give newbies to the game a weaker but simpler class to play? Is it to make yourself feel superiour because you picked the "right" option?

If I was designing a video game with 6 classes you would bet I would do everything I could to make each of those classes just as fun to play as the others. If not then I wouldn't waste my time designing them in the first place because nobody would play them.

Now if you're talking about D&D as literature and not as a game well that's something different. It is totally fair to say trained wizards who can summon fire out of their fingertips are more powerful than your common soldier or that Dragonborn who can breathe fire are more powerful than halflings but that neglects a few points. First Fighters are not common soldiers. Even at 1st level a 4e Fighter is like a Navy Seal fresh out of training. Inexperienced perhaps but certainly able to beat up any 1 guy or possibly any half dozen guys. Why shouldn't a trained Navy Seal be able to take on a young apprentice wizard who just finished his own training? Even a wizard can get his neck broken afterall.

For that matter why woulnd't Conan the freaking Barbarian be able to take on wizards and evil priests? He does in other mediums why not in the game? If I wanted to build a Conan should I be unable to because in the designers mind wizards are always more powerful than everybody else bar none?

You see where I'm going with this. Fighters are to common soldiers as Wizards are to stage magicians and hedge mages. That's the literary explanation for the balance that the game requires in order to be fun.

 

[Imaro]

What some people seem to forget is that balance is a pure game mechanic creation and as such only exists for the PCs and not for the NPCs. That is to say two PCs of equal level but of different races and classes are equally fun to play and make equal contributions to the game. That's what balance is to me. Why would that be a bad thing?

Nothing at all wrong with this unless... you're idea of what made the game "fun" doesn't sync up with mine, and/or you remove/alter/change/etc. what is fun for me in the game in order to achieve your "balance". If it's one thing about D&D I've come to realize, it's that everyone doesn't play for the same reasons/experience/etc.

It's all well and good to say "my wizard should be more powerful than your fighter" but if it's fun to play wizards and not fun to play fighters than why do you have fighters in the game at all? Why waste space with an option that can't contribute as much to the game as the other options? Is it to trick people who don't know better? Is it to give newbies to the game a weaker but simpler class to play? Is it to make yourself feel superiour because you picked the "right" option?

You see, you're assuming what is "more fun" for everyone... what's true for you is not necessarily what is true for others. A gamer may like the simplicity of a 3e fighter as opposed to a 4e fighter, regardless of the power disparity, because he just wants to hang out with friends, have a good time and not necessarily have to think so tactically as 4e requires.

If I was designing a video game with 6 classes you would bet I would do everything I could to make each of those classes just as fun to play as the others. If not then I wouldn't waste my time designing them in the first place because nobody would play them.

And how do you define "fun"? How much fun does a ranger equal as opposed to a fighter in 4e... you're trying to quantify something that is subjective to each individual... though I will say WotC did a good job on marketing their direction as being the accepted "More Fun!!" for the game.

Now if you're talking about D&D as literature and not as a game well that's something different. It is totally fair to say trained wizards who can summon fire out of their fingertips are more powerful than your common soldier or that Dragonborn who can breathe fire are more powerful than halflings but that neglects a few points. First Fighters are not common soldiers. Even at 1st level a 4e Fighter is like a Navy Seal fresh out of training. Inexperienced perhaps but certainly able to beat up any 1 guy or possibly any half dozen guys. Why shouldn't a trained Navy Seal be able to take on a young apprentice wizard who just finished his own training? Even a wizard can get his neck broken afterall.

I'm confused by this whole section... are you talking about 4e? Because if so a 1st level Fighter in a head up fight will slaughter a wizard (of course 4e wasn't designed for PC vs. PC fights and with exception based monster design you can create a "wizard" anyone can beat). So, yeah not getting the point here. Is it any better that a 1st level PC fighter will always beat a 1st level PC Wizard in a head up fight?

For that matter why woulnd't Conan the freaking Barbarian be able to take on wizards and evil priests? He does in other mediums why not in the game? If I wanted to build a Conan should I be unable to because in the designers mind wizards are always more powerful than everybody else bar none?

Because it's not the Conan rpg... that's by Mongoose. And honestly Conan gets knocked out, captured, etc. by wizards in the original stories. Now in 3e I would say he catches them either by surprise or when they are weak (spells used up). In 4e...not sure how it actually plays out in anyway like a Conan story, but if it works for you...

You see where I'm going with this. Fighters are to common soldiers as Wizards are to stage magicians and hedge mages. That's the literary explanation for the balance that the game requires in order to be fun.

What, now you've lost me. What does this have to do with balance being desirable or not. All you did was create your own assumptions about fantasy and proclaim them as "truth" for "fun". Why is this any more valid than the archetype of Merlin, Gandalf, Milamber, etc. who were wizards that made or broke empires, fought Balrogs and shattered kingdoms? I guess Ars Magica isn't "fun".

 

[LostSoul]

See, I would call these game assumptions, but not balance per say. Balance would mean a fair or equal disadvantage for every advantage and I don't see that as necessary or even desirable in a narrative game, likewise I think protagonists being equal as far as abilities go is even less important in a narrativist game, one might play a "sidekick" in a narrative game and be less capable than a "champion" because that is the archetype or role you wish to experience. Since it is more what that archetype would do as opposed to what he can do mechanically, it may very well be a fact that there are things the champion can do that you cannot. Now you may have things you can do, by dint of being the "companion", that the "champion" cannot do... but in no way do I think it's necessary in a narrativist game that they in any quantifiable way... equal what the "champion" can do. I guess in the end it is about what type of narrative is the basis for the game and thus that is why I say it depends.

If I believe that peaceful resistance is superior to the use of violence and I want to make that statement through my PC, I should have the same chance of success as the badass who kills everyone, whose player wants to say that pacifism sucks.

 

[Imaro]

If I believe that peaceful resistance is superior to the use of violence and I want to make that statement through my PC, I should have the same chance of success as the badass who kills everyone, whose player wants to say that pacifism sucks.

Yet the effects for each of you can be different and don't have to be balanced (though they can if that's your choice). If badass is a god of war who slaughters by the thousands and you are a missionary who converts one soul at a time... you're mechanically not balanced as far as effect, but in a narrative game it doesn't matter as long as you both are able to tell the story you want to.