Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4655956" data-attributes="member: 467">I'm coming in a little late, so some of what I have to say has probably already been said.  If so, count it as "I agree with you, Mr. Poster!"That said, there are two main issues when it comes to balance in D&D:1) D&D is a game, but it is a game unlike most traditional games (of course this goes for most RPGs, but we're talking D&D here).  Game balance is an important design consideration for most traditional games because they tend toward the competitive-- you're trying to own the most property or win the hand or reduce your opponent's life to 0. Without balance in the game design, these competitions can quickly become absurd exercises in "gaming the system", finding the right rules or options and running over the competition.  if balance is preserved in the design, however, the competition is between the players and their play-skill.  This makes those kinds of traditional games more fun, not only because they are fair but because one can learn and get better.  D&D, by contrast, is primarily cooperative.  Sometimes it is a cooperative narrative, sometimes it is a cooperative simulation and sometimes it is a cooperative exercise to Killing Things and Takings It's Stuff.Outside of arena combat "PvP" (which, admittedly, is a whole lot of fun) D&D doesn't lend itself well toward competitive play.  The players, generally, are not in competition with the DM even -- that's a lost cause because, really, it is no contest (on the whole; in any given encounter there might be competition and it might even be a "fair" one, maybe).  So player-player balance isn't important in the same way it is important in Monopoly, Poker or Magic.Where "balance" can be important, though, is in enjoyment and engagement, which leads me to:2) The idea of balance between players and/or PCs, as it relates to D&D, is highly dependent upon playstyle and preferences.  Obviously, these vary wildly between and even within groups.  however, if we look at various editions of D&D and what amounts to "balance" in them, we can start to see where the basic unit of play or "fun" becomes a key component of any given editions attempts at balance.4E and late 3.5 identify the basic unit of play as the encounter and it shows in the nature of those editions' balance in game design.  PCs, it follows, must be balanced in any given encounter for there to be a balance of enjoyment and engagement.  This was, I think, an emergent aspect of 3.5 through its life cycle and very much an intentional element of 4E. So while the PCs in 4E don't need to be the same or even have the same options available to them, they must have the same ability to impact the encounter (power level) and range of options.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.AD&D is different yet, with the campaign serving as the basic unit of play and fun. Each character class goes through an arc of "value", each differently, and contributes, or not, not just in certain scenes of an adventure but through whole chunks of the level progression.  We see it most distinctly in the Magic-User, whose contributions (mechanically, anyway) are severely limited throughout the early levels and then "hockey stick" up through the mid levels and into the high.  Conversely, the fighter and cleric contribute a lot in the low and mid levels but later on lose their luster; the fighter because he ends up very dependent on gear and incapable of keeping pace with the wizard, and the cleric because his primary contribution, healing, becomes less and less effective as hit point totals increase.  The thief in those days was best off, with the widest "sweet spot" through the mid levels and not "capping out" until after most campaigns had already ended or moved on to non-adventuring activities like castle/temple construction and guild leadership.  Inherent in this kind of balance was the need to protect the weak mage so that he could reach the point where he does the protecting.As to my own preferences, I prefer the AD&D approach in thoery, but as I am no longer a teenager/twenty-something-er who can devote 10 or 20 hours  a week to playing, the 3E approach is the one I prefer from a practical perspective.  And only this if a given adventure is only a few sessions long (at most) and those sessions happen to follow one another closely (weekly or biweekly for longer periods).  The reality is that when you can only play once a month or so for 4 or 5 hours, the 4E approach works best from a time investment to enjoyment relationship (i.e. no one wants to drive an hour or more to sit around an twiddle without ever having spotlight time because the "rogue scene" isn't until next month's game, assuming the group doesn't get sidetracked).All that having been said, I do believe that a good portion of engagment and enjoyment to be gotten from D&D comes from the social aspect, particularly if you play with good friends. It's fun to watch Bob shine talking to the king because he's such a ham; it's awesome watching Sue tear through the opposition because she's a mad tactical genius with just a touch of power gamer in her.  So, sometimes, if I come to play and not end up being able to do a whole lot, I still come away feeling satisfied (i.e. there wasn't really a better way i could have been spending that Saturday) because I enjoyed the game despite or inspite of my lack of "equal contribution".</blockquote>

Verification