The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Quasqueton]

The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

Perhaps it is not really a rejection of balance in the RPG, but rather a rejection of the RPG, blamed on balance [a core design philosophy of that RPG].

Quasqueton

 

[Terath Ninir]

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.

Who's going to have more fun? The uber-powerful munchkin druid, or the bard that gets outshined by everyone else? Sure, you can always find some individual thing that the bard does better than some other party member, but it's trivialy easy to make characters that are better at doing the things bards do best. Which is why they suck, and is part of why 3e isn't balanced.

 

[Nightfall]

Quas,

It's entirely possible. But I'd hate to see D&D being rejected. It suffered a lot because of all those crazed religious infused people.

 

[drothgery]

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?

Well, WotC clearly believes the latter; it's an explicit goal of Star Wars Saga Edition to 'power up' the non-Jedi classes (and tone down Jedi slightly).

 

[Ry]

Balance is about 2 things:

1) Where the camera is during the action. If it stops on one PC too often, or we only care about the camera when it's on one PC, it's not balanced.

2) What the GM can predict he can add to the game without wrecking it. If a GM adds a monster that the rules say should be an appropriate challenge, but it isn't, it's unbalanced.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I think this is the key for a lot of people who favor balance: they don't want what they want to play to also *suck*. Or, to put it in another light, why would that be what you wanted to play if it couldn't do anything special of its own?

No, balance is good. It's like acting: it's essential for a good movie, and when it works like it should, you shouldn't be aware anyone is trying hard to achieve it.

There's other stuff that is essential for a good movie, too: directing, script, cameras, budget, producers, etc., but acting is part of the heart of any good movie.

There's other stuff that's essential for a good game, too: stories, character options, threats, etc. But balance is part of the heart of any good game.

D&D's complexity demands balance be paid more attention to than I would like. I like that balance is something the designers are focused on, but I would also like to be able to create a 16th level wizard NPC without spending an hour working on it. If some complexity were removed, we'd loose some options, but gain an easier way to balance the game. It's not *nessecarily* worth it, though I'd like to see it (I don't use half the options I have anyway!).

Part of why I'm a fan of True20...

 

[Ourph]

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.

My first games of D&D were some of the most fun games I've experienced during my involvement with this hobby. That sucks if yours weren't.

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.

I didn't say anything about powergaming. IMO, a powergamer doesn't necessarily try to break the game. In fact, most of the people I know in this hobby who consider themselves (or whom I would consider) "powergamers" are some of the first to point out and want to fix loopholes and inconsistencies in the rules that lead to game breaking situations. It's one thing to break the game as a theoretical exercise in order to highlight poorly designed rules and another to take that character to the table for an actual game. My point was that I've never played a game where a creative player couldn't break the game if he tried (I've seen it done, for example, in every edition of D&D I've played), but that people who are interested in having a fun game simply avoid doing that. As a result, game balance isn't that important to me because I see a lack of balance not as a system problem but as a player attitude problem.

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).

My experience with 2e was extremely limited, but Thieves are one of my favorite character classes to play in B/X and 1e AD&D. The Thief fills a role that no one else in the party can fill. Especially in 1e, where (as some other posters were pointing out in one of Quasqueton's threads the other day) by the book surprise is such an important part of strategic and tactical thinking, the Thief can be one of the most invaluable members of the party as a scout and high-Dex ranged combatant. I can see how, in certain styles of play, a Thief character might be less useful and more boring to play. But in any campaign that continues to focus on old-fashioned, dungeon crawl-style play even into high levels, the Thief remains an essential member of the party and always has something worthwhile to contribute IME.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

it's trivialy easy to make characters that are better at doing the things bards do best.

And what -exactly- do Bard's do best?

Sucking!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Seriously now...

My answer is that what the Bard does best is making everyone else rock even MORE than they could without the Bard. And this is from someone who is currently playing a 20th level Bard and is one of two players that still have the original character from 1st level.

Am I as good at combat as the fighter? No.
Am I better healer than the Cleric? No.
Do I cast more damaging spells than the Warmage? No.

But I'm a better Healer and Damage spell caster than the fighter.
I do more in my damage dealing spells than the Cleric.
I do more damage in melee combat and heal better than the Warmage.
The Bard isn't the best at anything but he is the second best at everything (or, at least, that is what is attempted).

If sticking with a certain character is any indication then by the number of times various players have changed out PCs I am having A LOT more fun than some of the other PCs (including a Rogue, Barabarian and a Cleric) and I'm at least having enough fun that other players have tried Bards in different games because of my character.

*Sees that he has left on a huge tangent and decides to try and get back on the tracks of the thread that are at least 2 to 3 miles from where he is*

Where was I? Oh, yes.

Balance isn't the bee-all and end-all of a system being good. Being a 'balanced' system doesn't mean that it is a good system. But everything else being equal - give me a system that has at least attempted balance any day over one that didn't even try. If nothing else it gives a starting point. If you want to change something that at least you know how you are changing it and have an idea of what will happen because of it.

I've seen people saying that they are having/had fun with weaker characters (and from some view points I am apparently one of them) so balance isn't NEEDED. But is balance a bad thing in these cases? Doesn't it just help give you more stable ground as everyone else? I don't see where balance takes anything away.

 

[Imaro]

First let me say that I don't think any rpg can really be balanced. Inherently the DM designs the challenges etc., so really in the end it still falls on him/her to maintain the "balance" that he wants.

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."

But now we have half-orcs and half-elves as sub -optimal choices. A mage actually can do almost anything better than or equal to another character at higher levels. For raw damage capacity to total number of opponents they outstrip fighters at higher levels. I think this is the nature of magic though. Still think its balanced like above since wizards are almost a hindrance at lower levels but outshine most at higher levels.

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"

Still don't believe the EL/CR system is the end all and be all. Everyone says its just an estimate, well isn't that what you were doing before? The nature of freedom in roleplaying games makes it seem unlikely that there is any quantifiable way to tell what is an average encounter for a party. Too many variables...classes, feats, skills, player personalities, player understanding and interpretation of rules, among others. I think in the end creating encounters boils down to guesstimation, common sense and the occasional fudging of opponents.

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?

You still get advantages for having high rolls in certain scores, in my oppinion a cheater is going to cheat. Leveling at different rates was a balancing tool that was no better or worse in my oppinion than the Level Adjustments used now.(which actually don't seem all that balanced either)

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

We still got save or die spells, don't really have a big issue with them as long as there are other spells of utility that a wizard would be willing to take and has to choose between loading up on these or being versatile.

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)

Now you can just instantly turn a spell into a healing spell. Should wizards have a "default" spell they can turn to as well?

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

Optional add-on, and even in this addition it becomes harder and harder to maintain this supposed balance with the numerous rules-adjsutments, add-ons and new rules being produced.

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"?

Not saying I want to go back but come on, don't fool yourself into thinking 3e is all that balanced. Like I said earlier, balance is maintained by a DM/GM in any game. You create and tailor challenges for your group, you decide the treasures gained and you decide when fudging(or not fudging rolls is good). Want a bard to be balanced make and adventure that utilizes his strengths.

 

[Storm Raven]

Who's going to have more fun? The uber-powerful munchkin druid, or the bard that gets outshined by everyone else?

I don't know. Are we playing a combat heavy wilderness campaign or an urban game invovling politics and intrigue?