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

[billd91]

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

I said indirect attacks, I didn't say indirect attacks without magic. An indirect attack against something that's magic resistant: transmute rock to mud on the floor and it can mire in. Cast it on the ceiling and you may start a cave-in. Falling walls of iron. Monster summoning. Projectiles flung by telekinesis. Flame arrow. blah blah blah

 

[I'm A Banana]

I joined the thread looking for compromise, not anarchy. Why is this becoming a black and white issue?

Well, the closest compromise that I know if is my post upthread: Balance is good, hegemony is bad.

4e combat is fairly balanced without being extremely bland.

4e non-combat is fairly balanced while being extremely bland.

The difference is mostly in the details (four roles, maps, hit points, turns, and die rolls...versus....what, three skill checks?).

To get rid of the problem of blandness in balanced noncombat encounters in 4e, apply some measure of the combat task resolution there: turn them into combats.

 

[billd91]

1

Speaking of faulty memory. Villains and Vigilantes specifically points out that characters with less abilities should be given far greater latitude than those with many abilities. That you should balance the game by letting the guy with 3 powers have those three powers count for a lot more than the guy with 6.

With dice rolls determining the strength of plenty of powers. Yadda yadda. Still a HUGE amount of variability (particularly if someone with a lot of powers already gets animal/plant powers). Far more than most other games.

Overcoming devious tricks and traps? Really? What devious tricks and traps are there in the Caves of Chaos? Queen of the Demonweb Pits? A1? B4? Other than the S series, "devious traps" weren't really a staple in that many adventures.

A1
temple level 1, spike door and trap
temple level 4, treacherous floor
temple level 8, cemetery (a few tricks)
temple level 17, temple doors (glyph of warding)
temple level 18, temple chamber (statue's swinging blade)

...and that's just the first level of the site.
Trap and trick encounters were part of the standard formula for tournament modules, particularly for the AD&D Open.

Q1
Encounter area 2 - glyph of warding
Encounter area 5 - magnetic chamber
Encounter area 6 - gas trap on chest
Encounter area 7 - mirror of opposition, chest with poison trap
Encounter area 10 - glyphs of warding galore

Do I really need to go on? I can.

Not exactly a major part of any game. "Hey, Jim, remember that passage we walked down last session. Man, that was a high point of the game."

Yeah, that's a good reason to redesign the game for everyone: because you find it boring.

Like I said, start a D&D game where one player gets a 40 point buy and everyone else gets 15 point buy and tell me that game balance is not interesting.

I have my players roll. It keeps a lot of problems associated with min-maxing and the difference between high and low stats to a minimum. And I'd rather see skew between PC base points with a high probability of characters needing to compensate for weaknesses and a high probability that the difference between a PC's typical offensive stat and the typical defensive stat will be smaller than with point buy.

 

[billd91]

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?

I find it more of a case that certain play styles don't have balance problems just because characters aren't relatively equal in combat or aren't relatively equal out of combat.
I do find that the balance that 4e struck makes certain circumstances and group dynamic unlikely to impossible. If those should happen to be integral to play style, then those play styles would be adversely affected.

 

[Spatula]

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?

They have to adapt to the tactics and abilities of their opponents.

 

[Alex319]

Like a lot of these types of discussions, there are really several different issues being discussed here, and several different types of things people want to do. I will try to summarize these issues, and solutions from the associated discussions, here. I will also offer some of my own thoughts and suggestions.

Issue 1: I want one particular character class to be more powerful than another, because in my fiction/world/milieux, that character class is more powerful (e.g. wizards as more powerful than fighters.)

Solution: This is very easy to fix in 4e. Simply make the characters of that character class higher level than the others.

Issue 2: There's a specific ability I want my character to have (e.g. ability to control a creature and have both me and that creature attack every round) that was possible in 3e, but they took out in 4e because it was unbalanced.

Solution: First of all, observe that there are lots of "specific abilities" that weren't in 3e - or any edition - because of game balance. For a trivial example, "the ability to cast a spell at-will that automatically kills someone with no save" is not in any edition, so you wouldn't be able to play a character with this ability, in any edition, if that's for some reason what you wanted. So these limitations on abilities are not unique to 4e. (If there were no limitations on any abilities, there would effectively be no rules at all, and it would just be free-form roleplaying.)

But, anyway, if the specific ability you want does fall into the category of "in 3e but not in 4e", there are a few options. One is to just put it back in with no alterations - say, make a houserule that you don't have to spend your standard action to cause the monster to use his standard action. (This will of course make that build more powerful and "unbalanced," but if you don't mind it being "unbalanced" then that's not a problem.)

If you want to have the extra ability but want to maintain "balance," then one solution is to design a new character class that is exactly the same as the character class you want to base it off of, except with the extra ability but then with something else less powerful as a trade-off. For example, say you can have both you and your animal companion make an attack every round, but your animal companion is less powerful than the animal companion of a regular beastmaster ranger. (And, of course, if you want a character with the extra ability, but with nothing taken off as a trade-off, and you also want it to be balanced, then you are asking for something self-contradictory. By definition adding an extra ability without taking anything away makes a character stricly more powerful.)

Issue 3: I don't like the fact that all characters can contribute in all situations. I would prefer if characters were more specialized - that there are some situations where a character can't contribute at all.

Solution: First of all, why do you want this? Why is the game more fun or interesting (or whatever quality you are looking for) if some players have to sit out for part of the game? The only thing I can think of is that it helps the suspension of disbelief if a character "realistically" wouldn't be able to help in a given situation.

But be aware that if you do try to do this, you'll have to make sure that you actually include challenges that challenge each character. The problem with this is that it often requires some wonky adventure design (the so-called "Eigen Plot") which could potentially wipe out any gain in suspension of disbelief from before.

Issue 4: There's a specific ability or set of abilities that I want to be more (or less) powerful than would be "balanced", because it seems that "realistically" or "logically" they should be more (or less) powerful, and the way they are hurts the suspension of disbelief.

I've seen this type of complaint before (e.g. AngelTheTechrat's most recent post) but I haven't heard many specific examples. If we could talk about more specific examples then we could get closer to figuring out solutions.

One possible solution might be to change the given power however you want, but also make a compensating balance change to another power of the same class/build/etc. For example, supposed you think it's "unrealistic" that rogue's sneak attack works on undead. Then what you could do is make sneak attack not work on undead, but give rogues some other power that's designed to fight undead. Then rogues won't have to hide in the corner every time undead show up.

Issue 5: I want to create scenarios that deny my players the primary uses of their abilities, in order to force them to be creative and find alternative ways of solving their problems.

Solution: If this is your goal, then what you're effectively wanting to do is design your own custom encounter that restricts the players' abilities. If you want to do this, then it's your encounter, your dungeon, so put in whatever immunities, special rules, etc. you want.

The main difference between systems in which balance is not a primary goal and systems which are is that in the former, you often have to actively AVOID designing an encounter that denies some players opportunities to use their abilities. In the latter, you still can do that if you want to, you just have to actively try to do it.

 

[Imaro]

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?

Again...it is balance without consideration for how it is achieved that messes up certain playstyles or goals other than "equal tactical combat", I've said this over and over again and yet you come along and say just balance... again without discussing what is lost or gained in the trade off for it.

As an example, I have every edition of Stormbringer/Elric that has been published and the game started off very true to Moorcock's work... Sorcerer's and Melniboneans were hands down better than other classes and races... but as time progressed Chaosium strived more and more for balance until it became a good game for Dark Fantasy/Swords and Sorcery but not really the "Stormbringer" game to many fans. Their last edition (before loosing the license to Mongooose did horribly, Michael Moorcock was unsatisfiesd with both the way their business transactions went and their more and more divergent vision of the game, and in the end I don't believe it sold very well. I also believe this had everything to do with trying to achieve balance, instead of trying to achieve a game that was true to the Young Kingdoms as a world. I wanted to play in Moorcock's world with all it's idiosyncracies... not a balanced S&S game with a coating of Moorcockian influences. YMMV of course.

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.

So, you're stating subjectively, for your group... it doesn't help enough to be viable for you all. My group believes otherwise. You can't state this objectively however. I mean do your player toss a +2 weapon into the garbage because it isn't viable?... or never take Weapon Focus? Just curious.

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.

It's not about purposefully creating imbalance either... I never said imbalance in and of itself was a good thing either. What I don''t necessarily want is a game where everything must be so meticulously balanced that you aren't allowed to do this or that... or this and that don't exist... because it imbalances the game, if it's a trope, trapping, etc. of the genre/world/whatever that you are playing in.

Exalted is a good example, fun game but you're playing reborn god-kings... no everyone is not going to be equal in everything and they shouldn't be. Yet many people have...Gasp!... fun with the game, and are actually able to run it without it imploding. I personally think creating a strict box into which all Solars will be equal in combat and outside of combat... would suck, and actually diminish the game.

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?

You're avoiding the real issue Hussar by making balance this thing that can be achieved without tradeoffs. Simplifying it to a point that's almost absurd. I am not stating... "I don't like balance ever.", I am stating that I don't think the sacrifice of certain things, for me are an equal tradeoff for ultimate balance. I believe that with some games I will deal with imbalances in order to have an experience more true to the genre tropes, or closer to simulating a certain type of world. Maybe I'm weird like that but I liked Aragorn much more than Legolas, and even though humans are weaker in Decipher's LotR rpg... I chose to play one.

I have played plenty of games where the PC's weren't totally balanced... but it was still fun. Cyberpunk 2020, Decipher's LotR, Scion: Hero, Scion: Demigod, Exalted, Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, In Nomine, Armageddon, etc.

I also believe some groups probably do have problems playing with games like these... but that doesn't mean every group should suffer because of it. Yes there should be some balanced games for those groups, but that doesn't mean "balance" is objectively better or even objectively desirable and doesn't create certain problems with other playstyles... too bad you can't see that.

 

[Imaro]

IMO, "balance" is like training wheels on a bike. They're great if you don't know how to ride a bike, or if you want to make sure you don't fall. But after awhile you either learn to ride without them, or depend on them for the rest of your life... there's some things you just can't do on a bike (that are dangerous, but fun) with training wheels on... and just because you like them or need them doesn't mean every bike should have them as "good" bike design.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I've said this over and over again and yet you come along and say just balance... again without discussing what is lost or gained in the trade off for it.

There needn't be anything lost in this so-called 'trade off'. There needn't be a trade. . . of any kind, IOW. Zero sum / either or? Nuh uh.

This is what you don't seem to believe is possible.

Well, it is, as far as I'm concerned. IMO, IME and all that. Also, that goes for many other gamers.

Increased balance without awareness of/consideration for other things that might change in the process? Well yeah, that's just daft. But replace 'balance' with almost anything else that can go there, and the verdict is the same. Duh. So what. :/

 

[Imaro]

There needn't be anything lost in this so-called 'trade off'. There needn't be a trade. . . of any kind, IOW. Zero sum / either or? Nuh uh.

This is what you don't seem to believe is possible.

Well, it is, as far as I'm concerned. IMO, IME and all that. Also, that goes for many other gamers.

Increased balance without awareness of/consideration for other things that might change in the process? Well yeah, that's just daft. But replace 'balance' with almost anything else that can go there, and the verdict is the same. Duh. So what. :/

But there was something traded off, at least in many peoples opinion, in 4e's greater drive towards balance.

But then why come into a thread about the "problems" with 4e's "balance" and proclaim "why would anyone not want balance in their game???" without considering the totality of everything that was done to accomplish that balance... it is either purposefully ignoring the real issue or threadcrapping.

I guess, apparently it isn't as "duh" a situation as you proclaim it since many apparently believe it doesn't matter what was traded or that anything was traded to accomplish this in 4e and these same people need to come into a thread about it to make sure everyone else acknowledges the error of their ways...in not accepting balance (without consideration of the problems it has caused some with 4e) as an objectively good design principle... and agian I've given examples where it shouldn't be the driving force in an rpg.