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

[Jasperak]

It is one scenario. Look, the investigative stuff can happen together (perhaps Superman can't get a thug to divulge info, but Batman scares it out of him and of course they have their "moral discussion moment" for roleplaying purposes). I mean even the battles can happen within the same area, with them fighting different foes (I'm not writing a whole module out to answer a question on a forum). Or do you feel they have to be fighting the exact same enemies in the exact same place at the exact same time... now that's limiting.

As far as why not just have balanced characters... because something has to be sacrificed to achieve this artificial balance... and sometimes I want to play Batman, because he's cooler than Superman to me... and the power difference doesn't matter because IMO, that's what makes Batman cool.

The bolded text is the whole crux of the problem. Unless every character is useful at all times on the battlefield the game isn't balanced.

 

[Imaro]

The bolded text is the whole crux of the problem. Unless every character is useful at all times on the battlefield the game isn't balanced.

So if everyone is "useful" (whatever this nebulous term means...I mean honestly even using aid another in 3.5 every round in combat is of some "use") on the battlefield, their usefulness outside the battlefield doesn't matter. Well both are useful just at taking on two different types of enemies.

IMO, what you're talking about is not game balance it is specifically combat balance and impossible to nail down unless usefulness is defined.

 

[Jasperak]

So if everyone is "useful" (whatever this nebulous term means...I mean honestly even using aid another in 3.5 every round in combat is of some "use") on the battlefield, their usefulness outside the battlefield doesn't matter. Well both are useful just at taking on two different types of enemies.

IMO, what you're talking about is not game balance it is specifically combat balance and impossible to nail down unless usefulness is defined.

4e is all about combat, either swords and magic combat or non-combat combat like skill challenges. Come on you've heard it before, if my character cannot contribute at all times, then the game is not balanced

 

[Imaro]

4e is all about combat, either swords and magic combat or non-combat combat like skill challenges. Come on you've heard it before, if my character cannot contribute at all times, then the game is not balanced

Yet skills aren't balanced, at first level, the Rogue can do more, in a wider range of situations than a fighter can...so is it balanced? My Striker does more damage and is way more useful in a solo fight than my controller (sort of like the rogue vs. undead) is that balanced? How does one achieve balance without everything being the same? Especially given the inherent flexibility and lack of limitations a rpg has for adventures?

 

[Remathilis]

So if everyone is "useful" (whatever this nebulous term means...I mean honestly even using aid another in 3.5 every round in combat is of some "use") on the battlefield, their usefulness outside the battlefield doesn't matter. Well both are useful just at taking on two different types of enemies.

IMO, what you're talking about is not game balance it is specifically combat balance and impossible to nail down unless usefulness is defined.

How bout this...

Lets say You have Three Colors (Red, Yellow, Blue) and I have Three Colors (Green, Orange, White). Your colors represent PC classes, mine represent typical D&D encounters (combat & non-combat).

Now, lets set up a simple RPG. Yellow defeats Green, ties Orange, and fails against White. Red Defeats Orange, Ties White, Fails against Green, and Blue defeats White, Ties Green, and is defeated by Orange.

In theory, all colors are balanced. They defeat one, tie one, are defeated by one. However, this assumes that the game, over the course of the length of play, has equal parts Green, Orange, and White. In a game where (lets say) Green is 2x as common as White, than Yellow has a distinct advantage over Blue and Red, (esp Red). If the game features plenty of Green and little or no White, than Yellow is the most desirable, Blue is not a bad choice but will pale in comparison to Yellow, and Red is worthless in all but the occasional Orange situations and the once-in-a-lifetime White ones.

Of course, you switch Green and White around, and the whole thing inverts and Red is king, Yellow is useless, and Blue is stuck and the perpetual Brides-maid.

Would not a better solution to create a system where Each color has a 50/50 chance of defeating two colors, and a 90% chance of defeating the third?

For example, Yellow nearly always beats Green, but has a 50/50 chance of defeating Orange or White. Blue is the same way with White, and a 50% chance against Green and Orange. Red finishes it off with a near-perfect rate against Orange, but a 50/50 chance against White and Green.

Now, the game isn't so skewed. A Red stuck in a world of constant Green isn't stuck sucking, he has just as much of a chance as Blue. Yellow is still King, but Red and Blue still can handle themselves. Yellows "less than 100%" chance is also a key; he can fail and allow Red/Blue to occasionally shine.

More importantly, each class keeps it "niche" (defeats a certain color) without being shut out if their antithesis color comes up.

What's this got to do with D&D?

D&D (pre 4e) is pretty much R/Y/B if you replace them with Spellcasting/Combat/Skills. Orange/Green/White is Spell Resistance/Traps/Damage Reduction. It shutsdown one, ignores the other, and is trumped by the third. However, if your DM focuses on one element (say, lots of traps) than the skill PCs are more important, the spellcasters can mimic (or even supercede) the skill users, and the combat machines are hanging out waiting for ambushes. You can jigger the colors as you want to shut-down any or all of the PC colors.

A much better solution is what 4e tries: PCs excel at something (fighters are good combat, rogues at skills, wizards at magic) but nobody is locked out of the game for being the wrong "color". For someone who was familiar with high SR monsters, Trapfinding, or DR (for example) this is a shock and it can feel like the classes are the "same" but I assure you, being competent at most things (and better at one) is an all around better experience than being great at one, ok at the another, and utter FAIL at the third.

 

[Imaro]

A much better solution is what 4e tries: PCs excel at something (fighters are good combat, rogues at skills, wizards at magic) but nobody is locked out of the game for being the wrong "color". For someone who was familiar with high SR monsters, Trapfinding, or DR (for example) this is a shock and it can feel like the classes are the "same" but I assure you, being competent at most things (and better at one) is an all around better experience than being great at one, ok at the another, and utter FAIL at the third.

See this isn't how I see it... the Fighter isn't objectively...the best at combat, he's the best at taking damage, the worst at skills and the worst at using any magic...or do you disagree?

 

[Umbran]

What are we arguing for here Umbran, an evenly matched, tactical battle game or a "fun" roleplaying game?

For the moment, we shall set aside the matter of whether or not that is a false dichotomy.

I am arguing for a simple recognition that intentional imbalance takes some significant work and thought - that it actually has difficulties and pitfalls, just like any other particular way to run a game.

If you say something like, "Well, yeah, actually, it takes a lot of work to make everyone feel challenged, but I find it worth it," then fine. But so far, I haven't heard that.

You guys talk as if they moved to balanced structure for no particular reason, rather than because for many folks unbalanced structure posed a major challenge.

 

[Starbuck_II]

wait a minute...the kryptonite is used as a macguffin not to "nerf" superman in my example he would still have to handle the super-being before trying to save himself anyway, because that's Superman.

It is one scenario. Look, the investigative stuff can happen together (perhaps Superman can't get a thug to divulge info, but Batman scares it out of him and of course they have their "moral discussion moment" for roleplaying purposes). I mean even the battles can happen within the same area, with them fighting different foes (I'm not writing a whole module out to answer a question on a forum). Or do you feel they have to be fighting the exact same enemies in the exact same place at the exact same time... now that's limiting.

Which Superman are we talking here?
Superdickery one?
The thematic one (like the movies)?

Or the Real Superman? He had telepathy (yes he can read minds), he was a genuis, faster than the flash, immune to magic, able to go back in time as he willed, Super Strength, etc.

I mean, sure he can't beat a thug to get info, but he doesn't need to: he can read the guys mind in a second. And now everything he wants to know.

See, most people think of movie Superman, but that isn't him. He is Epic. They made him the perfect Greek Hero (Smarts and Strength).

So he doesn't even need Batman for most cases.

 

[Jasperak]

Yet skills aren't balanced, at first level, the Rogue can do more, in a wider range of situations than a fighter can...so is it balanced? My Striker does more damage and is way more useful in a solo fight than my controller (sort of like the rogue vs. undead) is that balanced? How does one achieve balance without everything being the same? Especially given the inherent flexibility and lack of limitations a rpg has for adventures?

You don't in an RPG. Hero Quest was balanced if I remember correctly.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

A much better solution is what 4e tries: PCs excel at something (fighters are good combat, rogues at skills, wizards at magic) but nobody is locked out of the game for being the wrong "color".

Well.. except that now "combat" and "magic" are all exactly the same. Now EVERYONE has "spells".