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

[Mercurius]

I'm pretty sure you'll find a variation on this one in many RPG book introductions, but still. . .

'Bang bang. You're dead.'

'No I'm not.'

Actually, its not this. Rather it is the indeterminacy factor--the rules, especially dice rolling, ensure a sense of danger, of chance. Even if all the players know that the DM can pull his Fiat out of the garage at any time, they still have to roll the dice, they still have to avoid missing three saving throws after they go below 0 HP (one of my favorite idiosyncrasies of 4e).

In some ways the whole D&D experience is centered around rolling a die...I mean, making a crucial attack roll when the party is almost down and out...isn't that what D&D players live for? But the story, the context in which the die roll occurs, is what brings it to life. So my point is not that you have to choose between mechanics and imagination, not at all, but that mechanics should serve imagination (and story), not the other way around.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm suprised no one thought of posting this yet...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw"]Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame]

 

[Imaro]

I'm suprised no one thought of posting this yet...

Seen it, and in my opinion, we could just as easily throw Superman and Batman up there for an opposing viewpoint. Probably the same disparity in actual power levels, yet through creativity, intelligence and resourcefulness Batman can not only hang with Superman... he's actually one of the few humans who can outsmart and beat him.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Whereas me, we played Vampire: TM for about four or five sessions, realized how ridiculously easy it was to break the system (this was the first edition of Vampire) and dropped it like the bad egg that it was. Sorry, the chargen system in Vampire is a poster child for what I'm talking about.

Taking as high a generation score (I believe that was the term) was just so much better a strategy than anything else you could possibly do that it wasn't funny. So, suddenly, we're all eigth gen vampires running around who can obliterate 99% of anything we face.

And, guess what? In Vampire violence solves SO many problems.

Imaro and others, I'm sorry, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that you've never seen this sort of behaviour. That players will take the superior choice is pretty much a given. To do anything else is deliberately handicapping yourself and I've very, very rarely seen anyone do that.

How many D&D players turn to the DM and say, "Oh sorry, I rolled too well on this character, let me do that again to get lower scores."?

I guess this is just yet another example of agreeing to disagree. Balanced systems, IMO, lead to more creativity on the part of the players. Because you don't have obviously better choices, it's up to the player to make their character memorable and unique. Having choices that are clearly superior simply results in everyone making the exact same choices.

 

[FireLance]

Seen it, and in my opinion, we could just as easily throw Superman and Batman up there for an opposing viewpoint. Probably the same disparity in actual power levels, yet through creativity, intelligence and resourcefulness Batman can not only hang with Superman... he's actually one of the few humans who can outsmart and beat him.

In other words, Batman is actually balanced with Superman because he has higher Intelligence and resources (money and technology)? Or it takes a master player to enable a Batman-class character to function on the same level as a Superman-class character? Which is fine if that's what you want out of a game, but not everyone does.

This is a terrific idea and exactly what I was getting at. Most of the other posters took it into a place that I wasn't going for (nothing wrong with that). But this really addresses the example I cited: a Tolkienian elf wizard vs. a hobbit rogue--how can they possibly be balanced while still retaining their essential characteristics? Byronic addressed this quite well, for certainly Frodo et al had a Special Something that all the great elf lords and dwarvish warriors and human rangers didn't have, an "X factor" if you will.

But isn't a "luck" quality just balance in another form? Let's say you give halflings a -4 penalty to Strength but give them a +2 luck bonus to all Strength checks and rolls. What have you accomplished, exactly?

 

[ExploderWizard]

3.0, by contrast, seems to have made the individual adventure the basic unit of play. Character classes varied more in their ability to impact any given encounter, but if the DM followed the adventure construction guidelines, every PC had the same ability to impact the outcome of an adventure. This led to "spotlight" scenes (or, to be more negative about it, "sit around and twiddle while the rogue disarms traps, the wizard deals with magical challenges and/or the fighter types whack the ogres") and in so doing opened the door for "weak" characters to adventure with "powerful" ones. This kind of balance is, I think, precarious simply because it requires a great deal of attention by the DM to construct adventures in which every character had the potential for equal contribution. More importantly, it made adventure design very difficult: with so many possible "builds" for any given class, and so many possible party compositions with those builds, professional adventure designers could never pre-design an adventure that engaged every player in every group. This had the twin effect of promoting "lowest common denominator" adventure design (not as a disparage, but just generally sticking to the mainstream party composition) which I think is what led directly to the 4E "balance" philosophy, and it made DM prep even with published adventures a chore, as DM's still had to ensure their PCs would all be equally valid in the adventure -- which is arguably more work than just creating an adventure from scratch.

The concept of sitting around twiddling thumbs while the expert character does everything is the result of bad DMs and players more concerned with "winning" the game than having fun with roleplaying thier characters. DMs in these situations should reward players for getting involved in the action under less than optimal circumstances.

The "do nothing" style of player behavior is reinforced by DMs who are too dependent on rules to determine the outcome of thier own games. Experience with such DM's leads players to to build only the most efficient of characters and to not bother attempting anything outside thier sphere of specialty because the system punishes such actions.

 

[Hussar]

Seen it, and in my opinion, we could just as easily throw Superman and Batman up there for an opposing viewpoint. Probably the same disparity in actual power levels, yet through creativity, intelligence and resourcefulness Batman can not only hang with Superman... he's actually one of the few humans who can outsmart and beat him.

See, but, this is where the difference between fiction and games just comes out.

Imagine a game where you play Batman and I play Superman.

What challenge can the DM possibly throw at us, without using Kryptonite EVERY SINGLE TIME, either in combat or out, that you could solve better than I could? Combat is certainly out. Between super speed and x-ray vision, there isn't a mystery that I can't solve before you. I'm far better liked than you are, making pretty much every social contest mine for the taking.

The only way Batman gets to shine is if Supe decides to let him. (In the comics, it's only when the writer decides to let Bats shine that it happens, Supes tends to be conveniently absent at those times.)

That doesn't work in a game. The only way Batman gets to shine is if the DM plays the Kryptonite card.

Now, there are games where you do this. Ars Magica is one of them. But, the balance is achieved by trading roles between players.

But D&D? Come on.

Ok, tell you what. Tell your players next campaign that you will randomly pick one player to get ten levels on everyone else. That player will start at 11th level, while everyone else starts at 1st. That's what you want isn't it? Unbalance apparently makes the game more interesting. See what kind of reaction you get.

Or, in a 3e game, two random players start with 40 point buy characters while everyone else starts with 15 point buy. That would work. Nicely creates the disparity you claim spurs creativity.

I'm thinking not so many player will go for that.

 

[Hussar]

The concept of sitting around twiddling thumbs while the expert character does everything is the result of bad DMs and players more concerned with "winning" the game than having fun with roleplaying thier characters. DMs in these situations should reward players for getting involved in the action under less than optimal circumstances.

The "do nothing" style of player behavior is reinforced by DMs who are too dependent on rules to determine the outcome of thier own games. Experience with such DM's leads players to to build only the most efficient of characters and to not bother attempting anything outside thier sphere of specialty because the system punishes such actions.

This is a persistent meme that I really don't get either. It makes about as much sense as the whole "imbalance=more creativity" thing.

When you have strong niche characters, that means that when that niche comes up, that character acts and everyone else watches. That's the POINT of having strong niches.

What exactly is my fighter supposed to do while the rogue is dealing with that trapped door? Open it and set off the trap? Start exploring? No. He sits there and watches.

This is not the fault of bad DM's. It's the fault of a system that punishes characters for trying to do stuff they aren't supposed to do. Try having your fighter climb a wall- oops, -8 armor check penalty, fail.

Oh, you want your fighter to be a ship captain? Sorry, too many skill requirements. You get to stand around while someone else does stuff.

Sorry, you took a rogue and this crypt is full of undead. Well, rejoice, you get to Aid Another for the next six sessions, because you might as well use harsh language as poke it with your rapier.

On and on. No, there are just too many common cases wired into the mechanics to pass this off as "bad DMing" or "bad players".

See, because there is a large number of people out there who want to roleplay AND win. Which means they create effective characters based on what the campaign is all about. That's just being a good player.

I fail to understand how winning or losing relates to role play.

 

[Imaro]

In other words, Batman is actually balanced with Superman because he has higher Intelligence and resources (money and technology)? Or it takes a master player to enable a Batman-class character to function on the same level as a Superman-class character? Which is fine if that's what you want out of a game, but not everyone does.

No, ever play the DC heroes game? Batman and Superman are not "balanced" point wise, in fact I don't think Batman is that much smarter than Superman, though he is decidedly more ruthless and willing to skirt the law (But then this is playing the character not point totals) . And it doesn't take a master player to enable a Batman-class character (or does the reverse apply as well, that only a stupid player enables Batman to be sub-par compared to Superman?).

I think that, just like a good author, a good DM can easily create stories that are enjoyable and require cooperation from both characters, don't minimize either character and allow them to shine in their respective areas.

 

[Hussar]

No, ever play the DC heroes game? Batman and Superman are not "balanced" point wise, in fact I don't think Batman is that much smarter than Superman, though he is decidedly more ruthless and willing to skirt the law (But then this is playing the character not point totals) . And it doesn't take a master player to enable a Batman-class character (or does the reverse apply as well, that only a stupid player enables Batman to be sub-par compared to Superman?).

I think that, just like a good author, a good DM can easily create stories that are enjoyable and require cooperation from both characters, don't minimize either character and allow them to shine in their respective areas.

Can you give an example Imaro? Can you give me a scenario where you could have a Batman and a Superman character that would be enjoyable and require cooperation between the characters? Where Superman doesn't just solve the scenario and leave Batman twiddling his thumbs in the Bat Cave?