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

[Imaro]

@ Imaro:

So what if a GM is faced with a Superman and a Batman can't come up with ideas that fairly challenge both?

Here we go again, I don't understand this line of questioning... I mean are you expecting me to say well if he can't then he shouldn't be running a game with them in it? If so, ok... you win, but this in and of itself only means balance is a tool that may or may not be (especially dependent upon how that balance was achieved and what it was created around, as well as what was sacrificed to achieve it.) necessary or even well suited for every GM's needs in running his game. Again balance in and of itself is not objectively better since how it is achieved, what it affects and it's effect on play must be factored in and then subjectively the balance as a good or bad thing can be decided on by an individual.

I guess for me, in the end there are too many axis for a roleplaying game to be balanced or unbalanced on... team combat, PvP combat, skill use, proficiency in skill use, attributes, roles, equipment, etc. The only way an rpg achieves balance is for everything to be the same. In 4e this is very apparent to me, the power systems... Arcane, Martial, Divine are all based around the same mechanic... Yes they are more balanced than 3.5, but also more homogenous...

In 4e combat you will be Superman, since Batman has been declared unfun to play... regardless of whether you thought he was fun to play before or not ( and this is reinforced even more strongly by the fact that your team is more dependent in combat on your choices than they were in 3.5, all IME of course.).

Of course outside of combat (because there is no need to balance this for some reason) you can still be dumb fighter (3 skills) or uber-skilled Rogue (6 skills).... but then the only way to balance this is to make sure everyone has the same skills and the same amount of skills... otherwise someone might not be able to do something while another player can in a skill challenge...and you have less options in a skill challenge than another player and these are unfun as well.

 

[Imaro]

In your D&D games, balanced or not, how often do you split the party such that the climax of the adventure is happening in two completely separate fights?

'Don't split the party" is a rule more for just tactical reasons. In general, it is a bit of a GM's nightmare, making session management a real pain. maintaining interest and tension in two separate scenes is not easy, much less something you want to do regularly.

We needs ideas useful for having Superman and Batman working together not just in one scene, or one adventure, but over the course of an entire campaign. One can manage just about anything for the duration of one adventure, but long term sustainability is a different beast.

Uhm it doesn't matter where the fight takes place... the important part is that Superman fights the super being while Batman handles the special ops team. Or Superman battles Braniac while Batman destroys the minion robots. Or Batman faces off against the Joker and his goons while Superman tries to save the victims in his numerous Machines o' Death and so on... this is no different than creating a "tactical" battle in 4e.

I feel like this is just nitpicking now... as I show above...really how does the location of the fight change anything? The important part is that there are foes for both as well as complications designed for the characters capabilities that they cannot easily ignore or switch off on.

 

[Tremorsense]

The important part is that there are foes for both as well as complications designed for the characters capabilities that they cannot easily ignore or switch off on.

So they might as well be separate. If the fights will always be Superman vs. The-X and Batman vs. the-thing-that-Supes-could-take-care-of-in-1-round-if-only-he-wasnt-distracted-by-the-X, then you might as well just have each person be on their own adventure.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Here we go again, I don't understand this line of questioning... I mean are you expecting me to say well if he can't then he shouldn't be running a game with them in it? If so, ok... you win...

If I don't ask the question then it doesn't get answered.

The reason I kept asking is because you keep saying "the GM is responsible for making them both shine" without any reference to what should be done if the GM is not that capable. It seems to me constant harping on one line of reasoning is useless for anyone to hear because then they are left ignorant of the alternative.

...but this in and of itself only means balance is a tool that may or may not be (especially dependent upon how that balance was achieved and what it was created around, as well as what was sacrificed to achieve it.) necessary or even well suited for every GM's needs in running his game. Again balance in and of itself is not objectively better since how it is achieved, what it affects and it's effect on play must be factored in and then subjectively the balance as a good or bad thing can be decided on by an individual.

I'm not trying to argue that balance is always best. I just think it has uses, including for those GMs that lack the ability to make every character shine.

 

[Imaro]

So they might as well be separate. If the fights will always be Superman vs. The-X and Batman vs. the-thing-that-Supes-could-take-care-of-in-1-round-if-only-he-wasnt-distracted-by-the-X, then you might as well just have each person be on their own adventure.

How is this any different from...

Team controller focus on the minions!
Team striker focus on guy with lotsa hp's!

Wait, you two might as well be fighting in separate battles. Right? Or better yet if only it weren't for that pesky brute distracting the Striker... he could help the controller dispatch those weak minions.

Also did you miss the example with the Joker? That's something either one of them could handle either way... but tactically and narratively it makes sense for Superman to handle the traps while Batman fights Joker.

I mean first it's a limited group with just two (Batman and Superman) so of course there's not alot of synchronization and interaction in combat... but with more heroes there would be. Second there are always opportunities for a creative GM to switch it up... Superman loosing his powers or being weakened by something, Batman using some alien technology he understands to do certain things... etc.

In the end I think a certain mindset of GM and players don't understand the fact that for some people playing characters like Batman, Wolverine, Jimmy the Hand, Arutha, Arthur are more enjoyable, interesting and more fun than... Magneto, Superman, Milamber/Pug, Lancelot, or whomever is the most powerful. For them the fact that these characters are "weaker" yet are just as much heroes or world shakers in a different way is "fun" for them. Now these people wouldn't mind having the balance if it didn't come with the homogenizing, cutting out, or ignoring of all things that don't fit this parameter of "balance". They would honestly rather be able to sacrifice some of their combat ability in order to be that much better at something else... and are dissatisfied with a system that smacks their hand and tells them don't do that "for their own good" when they try. Or even worse makes it so that they can barely differentiate their character in regards to most things from another character. again it is a preference thing... not an objective thing as far as roleplaying games are concerned.

 

[Umbran]

I feel like this is just nitpicking now... as I show above...really how does the location of the fight change anything?

The location matters, because it changes the tactical situation. And if there's a power imbalance in the party, the tactical situation is very important. The PCs would take advantage of any such imbalance in their opponents, so it shoudl also be vice-versa.

Let's say we have Superman and Batman on one side, and General Zod and a bunch of goons on the other. The goons are doing Zod's bidding, about to turn Lois Lane into a being of pure kryptonite, or somesuch.

The matchup there is easy from the heroes' side - Superman should take on Zod, and Batman should take on the goons. If they are segregated into separate areas, this is simple and clear.

However, if they are all in one area, Zod's got another choice. He should, if at all possible, get Supes out of the way for just a moment, during which time he will then plaster Bats, fry him with heat vision, or toss him into orbit or something.

Basically, if you don't segregate the fight, the bad guys can and should take advantage of the fact that there are people in the group they can plaster quickly.

And woe betide your plan of separate opponents for each if Zod happens to run into Bats first...

Now, try to keep up that kind of specialization for an entire campaign - it starts getting pretty darned contrived. This is not a nitpick. It is a serious problem for your plot, adventure, and encounter design, and you seem to be dismissing it out of hand as minutiae. I don't think it is at all a small matter.

 

[Imaro]

If I don't ask the question then it doesn't get answered.

The reason I kept asking is because you keep saying "the GM is responsible for making them both shine" without any reference to what should be done if the GM is not that capable. It seems to me constant harping on one line of reasoning is useless for anyone to hear because then they are left ignorant of the alternative.

This is how I feel our conversation is going...

what do you do if you can't play basketball...

well you practice, go to a basketball camp, watch tapes, etc...

But what if after all that you still can't play...

Hire an NBA coach and NBA player to train you...

But what if after all of that you still can't play basketball...

Get a geneticist to splice super duper basketball playing genes into yours...

But what if after all of that you still can't play basketball...

I guess you should play football???

Anything I suggest to you is answered by... but what if they can't... You've set up a situation where nothing I answer will satisfy you because the hypothetical GM just "can't"

I'm not trying to argue that balance is always best. I just think it has uses, including for those GMs that lack the ability to make every character shine.

I agree here, and even said this earlier but to state "balance" is objectively good in and of itself in an rpg is wrong. I think that it depends on alot of things and so far as 4e is concerned they balanced it purely around combat which in turn creates it's own imbalances in other areas. YMMV of course.

 

[Imaro]

The location matters, because it changes the tactical situation. And if there's a power imbalance in the party, the tactical situation is very important. The PCs would take advantage of any such imbalance in their opponents, so it shoudl also be vice-versa.

Let's say we have Superman and Batman on one side, and General Zod and a bunch of goons on the other. The goons are doing Zod's bidding, about to turn Lois Lane into a being of pure kryptonite, or somesuch.

The matchup there is easy from the heroes' side - Superman should take on Zod, and Batman should take on the goons. If they are segregated into separate areas, this is simple and clear.

However, if they are all in one area, Zod's got another choice. He should, if at all possible, get Supes out of the way for just a moment, during which time he will then plaster Bats, fry him with heat vision, or toss him into orbit or something.

Basically, if you don't segregate the fight, the bad guys can and should take advantage of the fact that there are people in the group they can plaster quickly.

And woe betide your plan of separate opponents for each if Zod happens to run into Bats first...

Now, try to keep up that kind of specialization for an entire campaign - it starts getting pretty darned contrived. This is not a nitpick. It is a serious problem for your plot, adventure, and encounter design, and you seem to be dismissing it out of hand as minutiae. I don't think it is at all a small matter.

What are we arguing for here Umbran, an evenly matched, tactical battle game or a "fun" roleplaying game? Yes you do have to play the villains below par to a point... but then again in my D&D games, even though it would be the most tactically sound decision, I don't focus every monster on attacking and coup de gracing the characters in order from those with the least hit points and healing surges up to those with the most, even though tactically this is the best thing you can do in a fight.

 

[roguerouge]

T

There is one game that consciously--even deliberately--bucks this sacred cow of gaming, and that game is the wonderful Talislanta

Actually, the Buffy RPG handles vast disparity between the classes very nicely. It uses a drama point system, in which the Slayers rule combat, but the White Hats are able to accomplish things through trading in drama points (heal, go aggro, get a clue or item, institute a plot twist, etc.)

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Ugh. That is my SECOND least favorite way of balancing out character classes. XP charts is the first.

The problem with this method of balance is that classes end up shining in 1-2 types of encounters, and twiddle their thumbs in the rest of them. Even worse, when an adventure (or even DMs campaign) lends itself to a certain style of game, than classes become permanently ascendant. This is common in some of your examples: DMs who love undead foes teach their PCs to avoid rogues (beyond trapfinding), illusionist/enchanters, monks, and characters who fight with high-threat weapons. DMs who spend a lot more time in dungeons than forests find they don't get many druids, rangers, or scouts.

As a parting example, my DM once ran Crypt of the Devil Lich (DCC). It doesn't give anything away to say that the module is full of uncritable monsters (undead, golems, elementals). So as the resident rogue, I was bi-polar on it. It was great to be loved for trap-finding, but when combat broke out; the fighter shone (power-attack + GWS = pain), the cleric shone (massive buffs + undead killing powerz) the ranger shone (FE undead), and the wizard shone (lots of nuke-magic) but I, the lowly rogue, couldn't sneak attack, couldn't break their DRs (or some of their ACs, for that matter) so I frequently HiPS'd and went to the bathroom during combat because I was THAT useful.

If one of your players frequently feels useless in a major activity of your game (be it rogues fighting undead or a druid in a dungeon) something needs to be fixed so that the player feels he's contributing SOMETHING. Otherwise, why bother?