The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Remathilis]

I've seen a few (ok, more than a few) people believe that the biggest killer in D&D is "game balance".

On the one hand, game balance ties a DMs hands, forces him to come up with gp costs of magical items or recalculate skill points for monsters when advancing HD. It makes him skim every feat/prestige-class/spell for issues, and requires micromanaging of PCs.

Edition Wars content edited out by admin


So I'll ask: Why is game-balance "bad"?

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm in full agreement with you. Balance is a very nessecary part of any game.

 

[Mark Hope]

While I don't agree with many of your examples (as they run counter to my actual play experience in most cases), I do agree that balance has its place. At the very least the DM has to ensure (to the best of his abilities) that all players are having an equally good time, and that the game can be run without major headaches. From that basic principle proceed all manner of balance considerations, ranging from the general to the specific, according to the tastes of those involved in the game in question.

 

[Umbran]

So I'll ask: Why is game-balance "bad"?

"Diff'rent people have diff'rent 'pinions. Some like apples, some like onions."

Well, as you noted - it does tie the DM's hands somewhat. The players have expectations set by the more balanced rules, and defiance of player expectations can make life a little difficult.

Some DMs and players prefer a more free-wheeling approach to the whole thing, and don't feel they need assistance in keeping everybody happy. For those folks, a game design that doesn't care much about balance can be just fine.

 

[Nightfall]

Because people are dumb.

 

[Harlekin]

Maybe?

You are of course right. Though what I find even more baffeling how everybody opercieves a balanced game as a straightjacket, as if you couldn't move away from the baseline out of fear to unbalance the game.
Actually, if you start out with a balanced game and move away from the baseline, you have tha advantage of knowing what you did and thus estimate the impact on balance. You know that you e.g. made fighters more powerful. However, if you start ou with an unbalaced ruleset, you have no idea what you need to do to make it balanced.
And even if you change a 3.5 a lot, you cannot get any worse balance than most of the older games.

 

[Ourph]

I remember all of those things....fondly. The game was just as fun then as it is today. The only reason balance really matters in a system is that it sets up obstacles for players who are intent on breaking the game in their favor. That's something that anyone can accomplish with any system if they're willing to put in the work - no matter how balanced the designers think they have made the rules. I've played many different game systems with all kinds of people over the years and in my experience, balance isn't much of an issue if people are just interested in having fun.

 

[Harlekin]

Some DMs and players prefer a more free-wheeling approach to the whole thing, and don't feel they need assistance in keeping everybody happy. For those folks, a game design that doesn't care much about balance can be just fine.

But wouldn't even those player be better off with a balanced set of rules? A feature that I don't use much is still a feature.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Why is game-balance "bad"?

It really, really isn't.

When RPGs are not at least reasonably balanced, this is a sure indication of one or more of the following things being present at the creation end of it:

1. Adherance to any number of unhelpful beliefs on the part of the designer(s).
2. A particular kind of arrogance, or some other form of disregard for potential and actual gamers.
3. General laziness (also, see 2).
4. Lack of experience with RPG design, maybe with RPGs altogether. . . and possibly even a partial or complete lack of knowledge concerning such games.

 

[jollyninja]

What it comes down to for me on this subject is that it never bothered me that my thief was not as powerful as the wizard at high levels, or that my human fighter was not the optimal choice. The reason to play a thief was simple: That's what you wanted to play. While i agree that racial level limits and the other issues that were present back in the day were kind of silly, I do not believe that balance should be the first and foremost concern in game design. It's got to be in there somewhere but when the primary activity of encounter design involves a calculator it's a bit much for me. I have not used the CR/EL system of experience calculation in years.

I'm a style over substance person in regards to what I want from an RPG book. I'm not saying I don't want rules, or that I don't want those rules to fit within their own system but if a Prestige class is called "weapon waster" and it's not a better alternative then taking fighter levels, why bother creating it? Some characters should be better then others in conditions that favor their character. While I will grant you that there are spells that can emulate the abilities of a theif how many wizards took them 20 times a day? As long as a thief was consious he could perform his tasks.