The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Remathilis]

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.

Example: See Palladium Games.

 

[Harlekin]

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 thing they've made the rules. I've played many different 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.

No, it wasn't as much fun at least not initially. It was fun, because after learning all the bad mistakes in the game design, each of us developed methods to cope. The strenght of RPGs is that with some enthusiasm and experience you can make any game work. And I clearly remember a long Dragonlance game folding bc the players of Flint and Tika became very bored of being Raistlins' henchppl.

The idea that balance has anythig to do with powergaming is faulty as well. Balance helps players that follow the rules to be able to contribute to the flow of the aventure without the GM twisting himself into Prezels.

Game Balance is certainly not an end-all. But a balanced game can reduce the GMs workload, and increase the fun of every player, especially if they are new to a system.

 

[thedungeondelver]

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

Because I don't need the intellectual crutches. I've got this pink-and-grey thing up between my ears that works just fine, and I devote some of it to making decisions on how my DUNGEONS & DRAGONS games should work.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

I'm not sure how much it constrains the DM. Do I have to add up all the skill points of a monster I throw a few more HD on? It doesn't break the game to say these are tough orcs, and just give them 3hd.

However, does anyone REALLY remember the alternative? Elves were the su-per-i-or be-ing! Thieves lost any reason to exist past level 10 (level 6 in a mage-heavy party). Fighter's and thieves were balanced against clerics and mages with by saying "You will be needed in the beginning while the caster's are weak, then you suffer diminishing returns as you advance."

You know I never noticed that in earlier versions of the game. Thieves were still fun into the higher levels in our games.

Remember level limits for demi-humans? Remember human's "great advantage" (ooh, I can be a paladin!) Remember how monsters had NO gauge of power but "hmm, this might kill the PCs"

Level limits were sucky, but restricting classes on race was a good idea, and I do it still. Monsters were given by level in charts but overall the DM had to gauge things himself since no party is the same. Now 3e assumes that all parties are equipped according to the suggested wealth guidelines, and I think that isn't a great option. So the CR system really does very little for me in practice since I would tweak wealth quite a bit to lower the level of magic in the game.

Remember everyone leveling at different rates? (I'm a 3rd level thief! "I'm a 2nd level mage! We have the same XP!) or how "uber-classes" like ranger or paladin were balanced by making you cheat roll well on your ability scores?

Don't have a problem with this, and it still works fine when we play C&C. What is the problems with this in your mind?

Remember when sleep was a 1st level Power Word: Kill? Or when harm was touch-and-die?

Never really had a problem with these in play.

Or how clerics got bonus spells and mages didn't? (I assume those spell slots were to counter the fact that a cleric needed more slots to prepare healing, considering every 2e cleric I saw had a 2:1 healing:non-healing spell ratio)

Didn't have a problem but I like the addition of bonus spells to 3e for magic users.

Remember specialty priests? Remember the ones in Complete Priest's Handbook vs. Faiths and Avatars?

Nope, I skipped that.

I can't rationalize why anyone would want to go back to those "nostalgic" times when the playing field was horribly unequal for PCs and flagrantly superior options?

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

It's not bad, but it isn't the be-all, end all of games either. I don't think every class should be balanced for combat for example. Classes should be balanced to a degree, but throwing flavor or fun things out due to slavish devotion to balance could be a bad thing.

 

[thedungeondelver]

It really, really is.

When RPGs are over-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.

 

[Arnwyn]

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

However, does anyone REALLY remember the alternative? Elves were the su-per-i-or be-ing! Thieves lost any reason to exist past level 10 (level 6 in a mage-heavy party). Fighter's and thieves were balanced against clerics and mages with by saying "You will be needed in the beginning while the caster's are weak, then you suffer diminishing returns as you advance."

Remember level limits for demi-humans? Remember human's "great advantage" (ooh, I can be a paladin!) Remember how monsters had NO gauge of power but "hmm, this might kill the PCs"

Remember everyone leveling at different rates? (I'm a 3rd level thief! "I'm a 2nd level mage! We have the same XP!) or how "uber-classes" like ranger or paladin were balanced by making you cheat roll well on your ability scores?

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

Uh... actually, those were game balance rules.

(They were also poorly implemented and not well-thought out - but they were game balance implementations nonetheless. Because of that, no wonder some people might think game-balance is bad! )

Okay, facetiousness aside, game-balance isn't bad. I even appreciated those example you just gave above way back when I played 1e/2e, because I had immediately recognized the need and importance of game-balance. OTOH, I also didn't cry when those were changed, because other forms of game-balance were included. As long as some form of balance continues to exist, I'm happy.

 

[RFisher]

Imbalance is only a problem when it is a problem. Perfect balance in a fun game is impossible (or nigh impossible), because a fun game turns on too many axes.

& often, imbalances aren't a problem.

So, it's better to try to correct imbalances that cause problems for your group as they arise rather than to spend too much effort trying to keep everything balanced proactively. Of course, a small amount of proactive attention to balance is wise, but you don't want to carry it too far. (Which I have certainly been guilty of.)

 

[Remathilis]

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 conscious he could perform his tasks.

I guess my take on that was askew based on a my own D&D 2e experiences. Thieves were routinely unnecessary, and by-and-large the bulk of them either dual-classed, re-built to be multi-classed, or were dumped for something else upon entering level 9+.

I DID play a 2e elven thief (my handle) for better than 15 years on-and-off, but I found that typically the party wizards (we had 3 elf mages, 1 human fighter/dualed mage, and me) could sneak better (invisiblity), open doors (knock), climb (levitate or spider climb) and decipher (comp languages) better than I could. My saving grace? Find/Remove Traps. And once we got REALLY high level, that was negated by near-constant True Seeing. Also, the cloaks/boots of elvenkind, rings of invisibility, and other magical trinkets allowed near constant use of said abilities.

Eventually, the mages got together and promised NOT to keep memorizing said spells so as to give me something to DO! That's charity, and I constantly felt I couldn't pull my weight in my primary focus. Eventually, I was going to rebuild him as a fighter/thief just to be useful in combat, but 3e came around and allowed rogues something unique to keep me a single-classed rogue.

The reason the human fighter Dual-classed? He felt he never got to kill anything anyway (the three mages did that for him) so he might as well join em.

Thankfully, since 3.X, the group is much more balanced and people no longer feel blocked out of their role (or that they have to play with one-arm tied behind there back to keep other players having fun).

 

[Harlekin]

Because I don't need the intellectual crutches. I've got this pink-and-grey thing up between my ears that works just fine, and I devote some of it to making decisions on how my DUNGEONS & DRAGONS games should work.

And after 10 or more years on the game, I'm sure you developed your personal set of crutches that works for you and some of the ppl you play with. And given the emotional investment you have in your personal crutches, you surely think they work better than crutches made by anybody else.

However, I take professional crutches, and not for a lack of gray matter.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It really, really is.

When RPGs are over-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.

Cute. (imitation. . flattery. . aw ).

But anyway, what is this "over-balanced"-ness to which you refer? If you could provide some examples, that might prove informative. Or at least, expand on the term. . .?