The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[JRRNeiklot]

Hmmm. I guess that thread at the top mreally means no edition wars unless you're bashing AD&D.

 

[Quasqueton]

Hmmm. I guess that thread at the top mreally means no edition wars unless your bashing AD&D.

You should report the OP to the moderators. I did.

The discussion of balance is acceptable fodder for this forum, but the reference to older editions as inferior is an Edition Insult that should be edited out.

Quasqueton

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't really think this is bashing AD&D that much. People are far too thin skinned on this subject IMO.

Anyway on the subject of balance in SWD20 to be true to the source material the Jedi should be more powerful in combat and many other areas than non-Jedi, at least if the class levels are comparable. Personally I don't have a problem with it, and if I am running a SW game I can make sure the other classes have plenty of thier own time to shine in areas that the Jedi are lacking. A game that isn't as balanced does require more of the DM I think.

 

[Harlekin]

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.

You misunderstood. Those games were a lot of fun. You see I played an Elf in oD&D. They were less fun for the fighter though. And today I wouldn't ever want to play in this munchkin, monty haul, kill everything games again. There was no story and no point. they were fun back then, but my tastes matured (so did my understanding of game theory and statistics).

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. [/QUOTE]
You misunderstood. Those games were a lot of fun. You see I played an Elf in oD&D. They were less fun for the fighter though. And today I wouldn't ever want to play in this munchkin, monty haul, kill everything games again. There was no story and no point. they were fun back then, but my tastes matured (so did my understanding of game theory and statistics).

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.[\QUOTE]

So you are saying if nobody is a powergamer, you don't need balanced rules? That is simply false. Take e.g. GURPS, an investigation game. One player wnats to play a mage, one player want's to be a detective (Sherlok Holmes). If the game is based on 150 pts mages are a lot better than skill-users in interrogation, clue finding etc. The only way for the mage not to completely outshine the skill-user is to play his PC down, i.e. "forget" about useful abilities etc. Otherwise, if the detective's player enjoys affecting the direction of the story he will be disappointed. The unbalanced rules force one concept to be weaker than the other concept.

 

[kaomera]

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

Personally, I think you're asking the wrong question. IMHO a better choice would be "When is game-balance bad?"

I've played through all of the "bad old days" you brought up, and with the wrong group of players it could, indeed, be a poor gaming experience. But at the same time I've played with groups that had a hell of a lot of fun, without anything you mentioned ever becoming any kind of problem. I can say pretty much the same thing with 3.x D&D (although I have fewer different experiences to compare in that case).

Game-balance only becomes a problem when it disrupts the game. And it usually only disrupts the game when there's a big difference in expectations between the players and the DM. However, I have to say that for all of the effort 3.x expends on trying to maintain game-balance, it does a fairly poor job. There are still (and, IMHO, always will be) a lot of "builds" that just plain have bigger numbers than others. Sometimes playing a certain character means making one or more sub-optimal choices for your character (mechanics-wise), and there really isn't anything that balances that out for you. Likewise, there are some players who will not "build" a character so much as just grab whatever looks cool, and in any case how a character is played trumps "build" any day, at least from what I've seen.

So, yeah, I don't think "game-balance" is any more (or less) of a problem than "lack of game-balance". Arguing that "My drow bard / favored soul / soulknife isn't as powerful as Bob's dwarven druid" loudly during play, or the DM stepping down because he just can't handle all of the book-keeping he feels obligated to keep up with, or players who walk out of a game because you hit their fifth-level party with what they assume to be a CR9 encounter, or a DM who doesn't understand why the party he forced to be all Magic-Users (because "it's a high-level game, other classes are useless) TPK'ed in the first encounter ~ those, IMHO, are problems.

 

[Ourph]

So you are saying if nobody is a powergamer, you don't need balanced rules?

Sorry, that's not what I said at all. In fact, this is the second time I've told you that I'm not addressing the issue of powergamers in any way. I'm addressing the issue of "people who want to make the game fun" vs. "people who want to break the game". If you've got a game full of people cut in the former mold, balance isn't that important. If you've got a few people cut from the latter mold sitting at the table, the most balanced game system in the world isn't going to keep them from wreaking havoc with the game.

If you equate "selfishly breaking the game at the expense of other people's fun" with powergaming, then we have a very different understanding of that word.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Hmmm. I guess that thread at the top mreally means no edition wars unless you're bashing AD&D.

QFT

 

[Imaro]

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

I believe it is "bad" when it is not actually there but is stressed as being an intrinsic part of a game. It can cause too much faith in a system, by the DM, that may result in more dependence on "rules" than what makes sense or even what is enjoyable for his players.

It can make players feel entitled to options that, with an "if its in the rulebook it must be balanced" mentallity, aren't really balanced and, when the DM bans it, makes the player feel unfairly picked on or hampered by the DM.

I think that D&D with its focus on new mechanics, classes, PrC's, feats, skill tricks etc. has found a product structure that sells very well, but is doubly problematic for trying to make claims of any type of inherent balance between all the fiddly parts. But then again like I said earlier, I don't think roleplaying games can really achieve this model of "balance" because of their inherent nature.

 

[Wolv0rine]

What really gets me is that so many people apparently played 1E using the racial/class/level limits. I never once played a 1E (or B/XD&D) game using racial level limits, or racial class limits. I took one look at those rules and formulated one of the fundamental rules of Role-Playing I hold as sacred to this day: Life ain't fair, all creatures are NOT created equal. Suck it up.
And yeah, I've played Human Thieves, at all kinds of levels. Your role (unless stymied by your DM) almost always what you make it.

 

[Harlekin]

Sorry, that's not what I said at all. In fact, this is the second time I've told you that I'm not addressing the issue of powergamers in any way. I'm addressing the issue of "people who want to make the game fun" vs. the issue of "people who want to break the game". If you've got a game full of people cut in the former mold, balance isn't that important. If you've got a few people cut from the latter mold sitting at the table, the most balanced game system in the world isn't going to keep them from wreaking havoc with the game.

If you equate "selfishly breaking the game at the expense of other people's fun" with powergaming, then we have a very different understanding of that word.

We clearly do, as you have just give a very concise definition of powergaming (my version)

I still think, that you can unintentionally break the game, even if you're building your character with the sole intention of making the game fun. If certain concepts are plainly more powerful than others (say Jedi are more powerful than warriors), characters will have very different ability to affect the story and to be cool. I think we agree that with the right attitude, you can compensate for such problems. However, I think that having to compensate requires extra recources (GM Brainpower, Player's good will etc) that are better spent elsewhere, especially if the gaming group is not a circle of long-time friends.