The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Harlekin]

QFT

You may want to change your sig, if you are concerned about edition wars.

 

[Quasqueton]

You may want to change your sig, if you are concerned about edition wars.

Wonder Woman will french kiss the next person who mentions 3rd Edition.
I'm grateful that D&D3 revived my dog from a gunshot wound.



Quasqueton

 

[Harlekin]

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.

Fair enough, though I am not sure if the often lamented sense of player entitlemant is a result of WOTC marketing books to players or D&D's focus on game balance.

Nevertheless, would you agree that game balance is a (one of several) design goals when building an RPG?

 

[Umbran]

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

If you have a problem with moderation, please report the post or write to one of the mods.

Despite the optning post, the vast majority of this thread has been constructive, edition (and even system) independent stuff. People are starting to veer from that. Please keep it on track, or the thread will be closed.

 

[Harlekin]

Wonder Woman will french kiss the next person who mentions 3rd Edition.
I'm grateful that D&D3 revived my dog from a gunshot wound.



Quasqueton

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This is The Correct Post.

I mean, for support, look at the Frenzied Berserker thread. The FB is probably unbalanced, though not horrendously so. With the right attitude, you can compensate for the FB's problems (items that boost Will saves, spells that will stop him, just lovin' the chuckles). However, having to compensate requires rescources that many feel are better spent elsewhere -- they'd rather not deal with the problems the FB craetes in the first place.

This is my own argument about why Warforged are unbalanced. With the right attitude, you can compensate for the WF's problems. However, having to compensate requires rescources that I feel are btter spent elsewhere -- I'd rather not deal with the problems the WF create in the first place.

3e is very concerned with balance, to a point that I feel can sometimes get in the way of fun, making things like a construct character or someone who can ignore damage for several rounds unbalanced, and thus less fun to have in the game for some people. A better-balanced game might be able to accept these outliers, and it seems that most groups accept these outliers without much problem or concern.

 

[BryonD]

Balance in a game rule set is important because it gives an equal footing to the players and GM from which whatever variations, tweaks and outright re-builds they want can be established.

 

[Remathilis]

One More Try

Boy, talk about "posting while angry" syndrome.

AD&D (and my experiences is with 2e, not 1e) seemed to be the best example of how "rose-colored" the good-old-days can be. I have lots of fond memories of them myself. I used to love my first car too, but I don't want to put the time and money into keeping a old car running, so I'd like a shiny new one. However, whenever I see a car resembling my first car, I still remember the fun we had and wouldn't mind driving it again, but I don't think I could go back and make that my primary car again.

Hopefully, my SWd20 question (and really, its the same in ANY RPG. Glitterboys in RIFTS, Mages in OWoD, Jedi in WEG, etc) tried to move it beyond 1e/2e vs. 3e, but my original point is still valid. So I'll go for one more attempt at this.

The idea that "balance" stymies creativity has been bandied about. I'd like to know how. Is it merely the idea that "you can't do that by the rules" or "it infringes on my right to make judgment calls" or "it forces me to view the game a certain way" etc.

I'm still curious, why is balance in an RPG so bad-fun?

 

[Ourph]

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 agree that there are certainly badly designed games where rules don't work well together and you can get unsatisfactory results. Maybe we also have a different understanding of the word "balance". When someone brings up balance it seems to me that they are usually talking about character effectiveness, not character role. IMO, as long as a character has a unique role to play in the party, their level of effectiveness compared with the other characters doesn't matter that much. If the Fighter's role is to give/take damage in melee combat and he is "70% effective" in that role it doesn't really matter that the Thief's role is to scout for ambushes and traps and he is only "45% effective" in that role, because each character is still a necessary part of the group. Each contributes. Where you run into a problem is in a campaign where the DM doesn't include ambushes or traps. Then the Thief sucks, not because his effectiveness is different but because his role in the group has been excised from the game.

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.

I'm not sure that I would agree that "player goodwill" requires any extra effort if you have the right kind of players.

IME, we all understood when playing B/X D&D that Sleep was the optimum 1st level M-U spell. However, we also understood that the game became less fun if the M-U character loaded up his 1st level spell slots exclusively with Sleep. The guy playing the M-U just didn't do that because the game wasn't as challenging and fun if every encounter was settled by dropping "the nuke". I don't think those kinds of decisions require any extra effort.

 

[thedungeondelver]

The idea that "balance" stymies creativity has been bandied about. I'd like to know how. Is it merely the idea that "you can't do that by the rules" or "it infringes on my right to make judgment calls" or "it forces me to view the game a certain way" etc.

I'm still curious, why is balance in an RPG so bad-fun?

Well here's the sixty four dollar question then: balance as imposed by and insisted on by the rules, or balance-as-the-DM-sees-fit?

Balance as in "every character is equal and always at every turn has the same chances regardless" or balance from a standpoint of a Dungeon Master being evenhanded in die rolls and game management?