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

[Hussar]

I've rarely found a character to be completely shut down. Direct attacks may not always work with, for example, spells and high spell resistance but in every edition, indirect attacks have worked just fine. It's not a question of being neutralized as much as the tactics necessary in such circumstances not being to taste or didn't make use of the character's carefully analyzed min-maxed awesome build.
In the old days, I found that a DM could throw encounters at a set of PCs that forced them to rethink their offense because of the defenses or qualities of the creatures. Now, if everybody's powers work roughly the same most of the time against most creatures, what changes in offense do the players ever have to make? Now, I start to understand why the terrain is now being pushed so hard as an element of making interesting encounters...

Can you give an example of "indirect attacks" that don't require magic?

"In the old days"? Really? Your fighters ever did anything other than walk up and smack the baddy? What did they do in "the old days"? People complain about "spamming attacks" in 4ed, yet, in all the years I ever gamed, I see characters doing exactly the same thing every single combat almost every single time. The only time that changes is if a given character gets completely shut down (no backstab/sneak attack on golems for example).

 

[Remathilis]

Remalthalis - Y'know, it's funny, even before the release of 4e, I took out the restriction on rogue's sneak attack. When my 5 players made characters, I got two rogues right off the bat and third one was planned.

Guess my players don't buy into the idea that "aid another" is a viable option.

I have an artificer in my game who favorite action was "aid another" since he couldn't hit a damn for combat and didn't like burning his infusions/wands on smaller foes.

Of course, he was typically aiding his Improved, Advanced HD Iron Defender personal homunculus, so its NOT like he was sitting idly hoping his +2 let the fighter win the battle.

In my 3.5, I gave every rogue 1/2 SA against immune foes. It preserves the flavor of undead being a rogue's bane without totally crippling him in an undead-heavy adventure.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

No. "Combat" and "magic" use the same mechanical resolution system.

Yes. That is what I was saying. I was being somewhat snarky about it.

 

[Remathilis]

I've rarely found a character to be completely shut down. Direct attacks may not always work with, for example, spells and high spell resistance but in every edition, indirect attacks have worked just fine. It's not a question of being neutralized as much as the tactics necessary in such circumstances not being to taste or didn't make use of the character's carefully analyzed min-maxed awesome build.

I didn't either, after a while. 2-handed power attack, morphing weapons, No SR conjurations, Reserve Feats, Greater Crystals of Undead Bane, and other work-arounds came about with enough regularity that even an adamantine golem wasn't much of a fear.

In the old days, I found that a DM could throw encounters at a set of PCs that forced them to rethink their offense because of the defenses or qualities of the creatures. Now, if everybody's powers work roughly the same most of the time against most creatures, what changes in offense do the players ever have to make? Now, I start to understand why the terrain is now being pushed so hard as an element of making interesting encounters...

Well, there is still resistances and vulnerabilities to energy attacks, creature with reach/range, regeneration (and shutdown), creatures who target poor defenses, tactical movers/flankers, and everyone's favorite: OAs.

Still, I see your point; why should a fighter carry a mace with him if its no longer any better than using your +1 sword against a skeleton? Why learn Acid Arrow (no SR) when scorching ray does more damage?

 

[Hussar]

I have an artificer in my game who favorite action was "aid another" since he couldn't hit a damn for combat and didn't like burning his infusions/wands on smaller foes.

Of course, he was typically aiding his Improved, Advanced HD Iron Defender personal homunculus, so its NOT like he was sitting idly hoping his +2 let the fighter win the battle.

In my 3.5, I gave every rogue 1/2 SA against immune foes. It preserves the flavor of undead being a rogue's bane without totally crippling him in an undead-heavy adventure.

And, let's not forget, he's CONTROLLING that Iron Defender. The player I mean. It's not like the player sits around, rolls one single Aid Another check every round and does nothing else. He's still participating through his homunculus. That's a bit of a different situation.

Meh, I just did away with the immunity to crits completely. To me, the flavor of undead has nothing to do with that immunity, so, dropping it made the rogue players happy and did nothing to change the flavor.

 

[Imaro]

Wow, I love the way certain people are willfully choosing (or maybe just not reading through the entire thread, which is understandable..I guess) to misinterpret peoples statements.

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.

Uhm...no, you jumped on a side that's arguing... BALANCE! how can anyone think balance is bad, balance should be the goal... when they aren't looking at the consequences that arise due to balance being a driving force... as I said earlier in this thread, balance is a tool... and whether it is the right or wrong tool depends on the DM, what is sacrificed to achieve it, the campaign goals, etc.

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

I have Hero Quest... and if I am remembering correctly, how is it balanced since your attribute (I think that's what they're called) has to relate to the particular situation in which you are using it (and it can be anything so as broad or specific as a player wants.)... as judged by the GM....

Guess my players don't buy into the idea that "aid another" is a viable option.

You do know what "viable" actually means right? Here let me help...

feasible: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are

So your players are wrong, regardless of what they "buy" since nothing stops them from using aid another...does it? What I think you meant to say was we didn't like aid another, not that it wasn't viable.

 

[Imaro]

You have mentioned more than a few times that you think "Aid Another" is good enough. Can you not understand that for many people it isn't? Reducing my character to a 1st level commoner is not fun for many people? Plus, in order to Aid Another, I have to expose myself to threats, which means that the enemy that can challenge the fighter can likely kill my rogue in one round.

Where did I ever state aid another "was good enough" for everyone everywhere... never said it, the same way I don't feel a strict adherence to balance is objectively the best thing for everyone, unlike some. Can you admit this?

So, the DM either kills Bats every single time, or he plays his enemies as brain dead. Neither option is particularly appealing to me. Sure, you shouldn't play your baddies at 110% all the time (well, you can, but, that's a particular style of game), but, pretending that Lex Luthor is a drooling idiot is another thing too.

exaggeration is great... I guess the very genre of comics isn't full of idiot villains that make you go huh?... yeah, it actually is, so if I'm emulating them, yeah I guess I would be playing them in character.

I was accused upthread of beating a dead horse. Then please explain where I've missed the point. It seems to me that there are those claiming that imbalance makes a better game. That by having balanced characters, you wind up with homogeneous characters.

The dead horse is that you and some others are trying to claim no matter what...balance is objectively a good goal and design principle for an rpg... without considering the adverse effects it can have on other playstyles.

Going back to superheroes for a second. Which would you rather play with - Superman's powers or Batman's powers? Note, I did not say anything about personality, since mechanics in no way dictate personality (typically). If you could play Batman's personality, with Superman's suite of powers, I'm thinking the vast majority of players would choose that over playing standard Batman.

Again, IMO, Batman is actually a jerk and super "bully" if he has Superman's powers and can't hold himself to a higher standard... at that point the whole "skirting the law because criminals use it to their advantage excuse" becomes whining oh woe is me bull... instead of a necessity to fight evil. I wouldn't want to play that character. Again lack of powers is what makes Batman cool to many.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

You know.. I think more than a few people have come into this thread, reading the title of the thread in different ways.


I, at least, read it as "The Problem of Balance (and how to get rid of it [the Problem])"

It's seeming to me now that many people have come into it having read it as "The Problem of Balance (and how to get rid of it [Balance])"


I have seen stricter and stricter balance cause problems with my suspension of disbelief and my enjoyment of the game, yes. I joined the thread looking for compromise, not anarchy. Why is this becoming a black and white issue?

 

[Aus_Snow]

The dead horse is that you and some others are trying to claim no matter what...balance is objectively a good goal and design principle for an rpg... without considering the adverse effects it can have on other playstyles.

Hm.

OK. So, how exactly does balance - and balance *ONLY* - adversely affect 'other playstyles'?

And which playstyles are those? Also, other than which one(s), to begin with?

 

[Hussar]

You do know what "viable" actually means right? Here let me help...

feasible: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are

So your players are wrong, regardless of what they "buy" since nothing stops them from using aid another...does it? What I think you meant to say was we didn't like aid another, not that it wasn't viable.

No, I meant viable - as in useful in the situation. In that it's an option that will actually help to acheive the goal. For most of the time, we don't feel that it's a viable option, any more than "ready an action to counter spell" against the spell caster is a viable option. It's so far below the level of actually useful that it might as well not exist. Giving someone a +2 to a single attack or skill, except in some very rare corner cases is pointless. Thus, not viable as an option.

I have seen stricter and stricter balance cause problems with my suspension of disbelief and my enjoyment of the game, yes. I joined the thread looking for compromise, not anarchy. Why is this becoming a black and white issue?

What problems? That's a question I don't believe you've answered. The only "problem" I've seen brought up is that somehow (in some way that's never been explained) balance hurts creativity. I've, and other people have, already shown why this is not true. That imbalance actually impedes creativity far more than balance does.

Yes, I believe that in a game, balance is the goal of game design. Even something like Buffy, where you have wildly differing power levels, still balances through the use of Drama Points. Ars Magica balances by trading off roles.

I'm actually drawing a fair blank trying to think of a game published in the last ten years that actively tries to create imbalance between characters without any countervailing rules.

Again, IMO, Batman is actually a jerk and super "bully" if he has Superman's powers and can't hold himself to a higher standard... at that point the whole "skirting the law because criminals use it to their advantage excuse" becomes whining oh woe is me bull... instead of a necessity to fight evil. I wouldn't want to play that character. Again lack of powers is what makes Batman cool to many.

How is being fantastically rich and able to create any gadget you need at a moments notice a lack of powers?

But, again, that's you. You claim that you would deliberately choose to handicap yourself in the face of mechanics that don't limit you. That's fine. I'm saying that the vast majority of players out there most certainly would not. Because deliberately handicapping yourself is generally seen as a bad idea. So, given the option of playing Superman with Batman's personality (Lobo anyone?) would appeal to a pretty wide audience. In the same way that using 2 weapons in 2e appealed to a very wide number of players. Or exploiting the chargen rules in Vampire to create a 7th gen vampire. On and on and on.

Let me turn it around then. How does imbalance lead to more creativity? Can you give me some concrete examples of how imbalanced rules, ones that are clearly superior to other options, creates a more enjoyable experience?