The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Psion]

When playing an RPG, I expect a variety of viable player options, and hope that options that interest me don't suck in play. Ergo, balance is good.

I also expect that the standard challenge the player is faced with is a meaningful, but not overbearing challenge. Too difficult or too easy challenges are both detrimental to the gaming experience. It requires either unacceptable results in game of excessive compensation by the GM. Ergo balance is good.

There is no way a single codified set of rules can compensate for the exact set of circumstances that arise in play. So the rules should be written is a fairly tolerant, flexible way and allow for hand-tuning by the GM. The players should also be tolerant of little imbalances. There is no such thing as perfect balance.

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.

Yeah I can, should, and do use my brain... but there are a lot of variables in a detail rich, fulfilling game.

But if you can utilize a codified, consistent baseline with the benefit of forethought and the benefit of creativity and perspectives of designers, and you forgo that, you are FAILING to use your brain effectively.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The problems Remathilis mentions do seem to be more consistency-related than balance-related.

I tend to think that it is simply better to have a balanced ruleset than an unbalanced one; the same reason that I like playing backgammon, checkers, or chess with the same number and array of starting pieces as my opponent, or getting the opportunity to use the same character generation mechanic as everyone else in Ars Magica. Players should have equality of opportunity.

That said, I also believe that there are good ways and bad ways of balancing a game. To use an extreme example, one way to balance classes against each other in D&D would be to make all the class abilities identical. That would be bad because it's boring. Balancing for PvP would be bad because it's balancing something that isn't about how the game is usually played.

One other point often made about "balance" is that definitions of balance are different depending on the gaming group. While I think that's true, I also believe designers have a much different set of objectives than individual DMs; namely, they have an obligation to create a *default* playing field, and *that* field should be level. If an individual DM wants to have an Elven High Mage prestige class that grants epic spellcasting at 11th character level, that's the individual DM's prerogative, but in the context of game design for a product being marketed to hundreds of gaming groups, it's suboptimal.

 

[Terath Ninir]

But 3e is not balanced. Compare the bard (any bard) with a combat-monster shapechanging druid and tell me they are balanced.

Some people (like me) don't like the talk of balance in 3e because it isn't balanced and it annoys us to hear that it is. Others don't like the way it's balanced and would like some other form of balance. And yet others (especially if they've ever played Rifts) don't give a darn about balance and have fun with totally unbalanced rules.

 

[billd91]

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?

I will respond that this is CLEARLY wrong.
Having played a soldier in a game with mulitple Jedi, I was doing more butt kicking than they were. That was partly because I had plenty of skill points to spend on non-force skills and good ranged weapon skills. To kick butt, those Jedi had to get in close and had a tendency to get munched up. Fortunately, us soldiers have good treat injury skills.

I would say that d20 Star Wars is far better balanced than you think.

Which brings me to a point I would like to make:
Balance is partly in the eye of the beholder and comes in different flavors.

Balance is good in a game, when it comes to mechanics, to prevent the development of dictatorial strategies. Once those appear, there goes the game.

Balance is good in a game, when it comes to play focus, to prevent the development of star players and supporting cast. Relative screen time balance between characters, over the course of a few sessions, is very important.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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?

This is an excellent example of good ways vs. bad ways of balancing the game. Compare this to Ars Magica. In both [your hypothetical] SW and Ars Magica, there exists a "hero PC" archetype: Jedi in the former, magi in the latter. In both cases, game flavor dictates that this archetype come with a set of powers that's just better. However, Ars Magica balances the magus by allowing *everyone* to play both a magus and a bunch of non-magus characters. SW does... nothing.

It seems to me that a rejection of balance hinges around two major arguments:

1) A balanced game is boring. This one is *potentially* legit, but there's no reason it actually should be. As I mentioned, one (bad) way to balance an RPG would be to make all character options essentially identical. However, there's no reason why you can't keep diverse options balanced against each other; it just takes more work. For instance, 3e gives lots of feats, skills, and so on to nonspellcasters to balance them against spellcasters in terms of "spotlight time" and effectiveness; this *adds* to the diversity and interest of the game. Likewise, if feats and other choices are reasonably equally tempting, rather than a single feat choice dominating, the game gets more interesting, not less, since everyone doesn't choose the same overpowered feat, weapon, or whatever.

2) A balanced game deprives the DM of control and limits DM creativity. I really, really don't understand this one, as it is a massive logical confusion: *Needing* to provide corrective measures to fix unbalanced rules is not the same as being able to better tweak the rules to one's own gaming style. In fact, it's the opposite; a balanced ruleset allows you to get tweaking right away on the stuff that suits your own game without having to first fix all the stuff that's simply broken. Moreover, it is easier to create new rules, character options, adventures, etc. when dealing with a balanced and consistent ruleset, since there's an exogenous understanding of how everything works together.

 

[Psion]

But 3e is not balanced.

I don't think you can state that with any degree of generality. For someone's game out there, it's balanced enough for most practical purposes.

The problem is that there is enough variance in game styles and challenges, that balance is at best and approximation.

But whether it's balanced or not is secondary to the issue of whether or not balance is good.

To me, balance is clearly a worthwhile goal that the game should strive to live up to.

 

[Nightfall]

*thinks there must be a good number of failing brains around here.* But Psion's right, codified things makes it easier to play a game.

I mean if you just make up the rules to chess, it's no longer chess.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Compare the bard (any bard) with a combat-monster shapechanging druid and tell me they are balanced.

Compare them how?

-In straight up combat the Combat Monster Shapechanging Druid build would be better (I would hope that it would be since the Druid has built themselves for that)
-In social situations the Bard would likely be better.
-In stealthy and sneaky situations the Bard would likely be better.
-Having the Divine spell list the Druid would have better access to Healing Spells
-The damage dealing spells would likely be about the same. The Druid has more on thier spell list but then if he has focused in being a Shape Changing Melee Chainsaw the Bard would likely be on par with what they have and the Wizard would obliterate them both without breaking a sweat.
-The Bard has the definate advantage in skills.

I'm not saying that the Druid isn't more powerful than most of the PHB classes. The game isn't perfectly balanced but the diparity between Druid and Bard isn't nearly as great as you make it out to be.

 

[Terath Ninir]

I mean if you just make up the rules to chess, it's no longer chess.

Which could only be a good thing. The only games more boring than chess are kiddie games.


Psion -- I'd have trouble finding a game where bards and druids are on equal footing. Hell, bards and anybody. *Everyone* is better at all their schticks. Mages are better caster, rogues are better social skill monkeys, clerics are better party boosters, everyone is a better fighter -- all they've got left is bardic knowledge, and if you've got Unearthed Arcana, cloistered clerics are better at that, too.

 

[Nightfall]

Cyber,

See this is why you will never be considered a military genius, CZ.

*doesn't care if Bards are on equal footing* Dead bards are fun and evil NPC bards = much more fun.