The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Shade]

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

Ditto here. It keeps those "little dictator"-style DMs under control, and gives the players a fighting chance to play the game they want to play, too.

 

[Dragonhelm]

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?

Be careful, as this sounds suspiciously like an edition war. While you may not like older editions, there are others who do.

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

It isn’t that game balance is bad. Far from it. The problem I see is in gamer culture, wherein there is such a focus on game balance that the role-playing seems to get lost in the mix.

It seems like any time I see discussions revolving around a new PrC, feat, spell, or what have you, the first thing people ask is whether it is balanced or not. It isn’t how X rule would fit into Y setting, or what role-playing challenges it might cause for a character. It’s all about power levels. And really, balance is subjective anyway, so what may seem balanced to one individual may be out of whack for another.

Again, this isn’t to say there isn’t a place for game balance. You need to have a certain amount to keep things reasonably fair. I’ve been in those games where other players have uber-powerful characters that make mine look like a wimp. At the same time, I’ve seen games where characters are unbalanced and yet everyone has fun. So it may depend some on the group and the individual characters involved.

Just my two steel.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, what we are not talking about is merely differences of opinion on where to draw the line.

Clearly, if you are playing D&D, you aren't using your pink-and-grey thing to decide everything right? You didn't write the whole game yourself - you're following the rules in the game for the most part. So, you're letting someone else make at least some of the decisions on how the game works for you.

Is there any particular reason why another person should not desire the line to be drawn elsewhere? If not, this is now all a matter of tastes...

 

[Harlekin]

Be careful, as this sounds suspiciously like an edition war. While you may not like older editions, there are others who do.




It isn’t that game balance is bad. Far from it. The problem I see is in gamer culture, wherein there is such a focus on game balance that the role-playing seems to get lost in the mix.

It seems like any time I see discussions revolving around a new PrC, feat, spell, or what have you, the first thing people ask is whether it is balanced or not. It isn’t how X rule would fit into Y setting, or what role-playing challenges it might cause for a character. It’s all about power levels. And really, balance is subjective anyway, so what may seem balanced to one individual may be out of whack for another.

Again, this isn’t to say there isn’t a place for game balance. You need to have a certain amount to keep things reasonably fair. I’ve been in those games where other players have uber-powerful characters that make mine look like a wimp. At the same time, I’ve seen games where characters are unbalanced and yet everyone has fun. So it may depend some on the group and the individual characters involved.

Just my two steel.

You bring up a good point. However, compared to more important issues like the flair of a PrC, balance is reasonably objective an easy to measure, so it can be discussed better. Thus it will be discussed more. I'm not sure that this is necessarily an indicator of importance.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I have no real problem with giving an orc x2 hp and calling it done, but some people have complained as to the amount of work it takes to "upgrade" a monster.

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

See my example above. Just to make sure I'm not sour-graping, I knew other people I later gamed with (who had been playing as long or longer) who complained about the "thief/fighter diminishing returns" syndrome. 3.x players complain about it too, but skill points, rogue abilities and feats have at least even the odds some.

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.

However when "No limits" IS your racial ability, it is sucky as well. Take two player who both want to play fighters. One plays a human fighter, one plays a dwarf fighter. The human has forgone his first racial trait (not playing something a dwarf can't be), might not see his second (depending on if the game goes into really high levels) and may not chose to use his third (dual-classing). The dwarf will continue to use his infravision, bonus to saves, stone-work abilities, +1 to hit orcs, etc. whenever the situation warrants and (unless the game goes beyond 9th/15th level, depending on edition) he'll never see a draw-back.

Granted the CR system isn't a holy grail, but I saw a near TPK from some obscure undead (winterwights?) who the DM thought would be an appropriate challenge cuz the "HD was on par with the party" He really regrets that mistake.

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?

I thought I got mighty confusing. Sometimes the DM would say "You all gain a level". Some DMs used that as the ONLY means of giving XP. However, that was radically different amounts of XP. I prefer (and its a preference) a unified XP chart to 6 or 7 different ones. It only reinforces the inequality of classes (or, a mages level is worth two thief levels)

Never really had a problem with these in play.

I had less of a problem with mighty magic, but there was plenty of examples of plots/encounters going horribly wrong based on one single spell abused.

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

We tried that in 2e. It was a nightmare. Thankfully, 3e balanced everything else so that it works.

Nope, I skipped that.

Lucky you. For a recap: CPHB said a god of magic should grant 7 spheres of magic. F&A said a god of magic should ALL spheres, and wizard spells beside. Neither came close to the cleric in balance.

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.

I guess I have YET to look at anything (plot, PC, or otherwise) and say "Man, that's great. Too bad I can't do it in 3.X because..." Maybe I'm unimaginative, but I can't think of a SINGLE thing I could do in 1e/2e that I can't replocate in 3e.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Wow. That's one of the least apposite posts I've ever seen.

First off, what is "over-balanced"? Please define, as this makes no sense to begin with.

Second, how is producing a balanced ruleset in any way a sign of "arrogance" or "disregard for potential and actual gamers"? Making a game easier to use out of the box seems both a sign of humility (i.e. we want these rules to actually work for the largest possible set of gaming groups) and consideration for potential gamers (ditto).

Third, "general laziness?" WHAT? It's much harder to produce a set of balanced rules for a game than it is to produce unbalanced ones. I can say, for instance, that Cimmerians, due to their barbaric vitality, savage reflexes, exposure to combat from childhood, and skill at surviving a harsh environment, gain a +2 to attack rolls, a +2 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and 4 extra skill points. Done. Easy. What the designers of the Conan game did that was *not* lazy, but quite the opposite, was to actually balance the other races with Cimmerians by giving each race a reasonably competitive set of abilities.

Fourth, designing a balanced game *requires* experience with RPGs, since you need to understand how the rules will work in play and what have been the problems of the past.

To be honest, your post is sort of a "neener-neener" argument, so it probably isn't looking for a response. But I'm writing one anyway...

 

[Raloc]

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.

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?

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

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)

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

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"?

The above is more a matter of consistency than game balance, IMO. I think the way that game balance could be the killer of D&D is if PC classes were to be balanced against eachother for PvP reasons (for those of you that have played 5 or more MMOGs, you know what I'm talking about). If D&D were to have PC classes/abilities balanced against eachother for PvP, you'd end up with a situation much like that of Warcraft (the RTS): each race (PC class) has the same stats, only varying in aesthetics. Something like that could easily kill the fun from D&D.

I think when actually playing 2e, I either house-ruled things to be more logical, or flat-out ignored them in favor of getting a quick game done.

 

[drothgery]

I remember all of those things....fondly.

I'm guessing you weren't the guy playing the 2e thief (even as an Elf Swashbuckler, my character was pretty much useless by 7th-8th level). Or, if you were worried about party dynamics, the guy playing the 2e mage (the only reason the wizard that replaced the aforementioned Elf Swashbuckler didn't dominate the game was because there was another mage in the party).

 

[Remathilis]

To avoid the "edition war" this is becoming, I'll re-phrase the topic.

In Star Wars (d20) a Jedi is CLEARLY a better choice than a non-jedi. With the right feat/skill/prestige class, he can make the solider, scout, noble, or tech-specialist useless. In fact, a group of Jedi (consulars and guardians) does FAR better than a similar group of non-jedi.

Is it fair to allow a jedi in a group of non-jedi? Or a non-jedi in a group of jedi? Should a Jedi be clearly better (as they are in the movies) or rebalanced to allow other classes some measure of ability?

 

[thedungeondelver]

To avoid the "edition war" this is becoming, I'll re-phrase the topic.

In Star Wars (d20) a Jedi is CLEARLY a better choice than a non-jedi. With the right feat/skill/prestige class, he can make the solider, scout, noble, or tech-specialist useless. In fact, a group of Jedi (consulars and guardians) does FAR better than a similar group of non-jedi.

Is it fair to allow a jedi in a group of non-jedi? Or a non-jedi in a group of jedi?

That depends on where the DM...err...SM? NO WAIT...okay, "game master" ) ) is going with things, ultimately.