The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[Ourph]

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.

I'm not a fan of the Frenzied Berserker and I agree that with the right attitude you can compensate for the FB's problems. To me, the "right attitude" is that the Frenzied Berserker PrC can ruin other player's fun and requires them to commit resources to protecting their characters from another PC rather than using them to further their own character's goals. Therefore, I'm not going to take levels in the Frenzied Berserker PrC unless the rest of the group is OK with that choice.

As far as I can see, making a considerate choice doesn't require any more effort than making an inconsiderate one.

 

[tzor]

Balance is in and of itself not bad. However comming from the area of 1E I can also say there is micro-balance and macro-balance.

Micro-balance is common in 3E because of the nature of multi-classing. A 5th level fighter can become either a 6th level fighter or a 5th level fighter / 1st level cleric. Thus not only has there balance among all the classes, there has to be blanace among the levels.

In first edition, class is generally a fixed notion. Balance was generally considered on the macro level, over the span of the entire life of the character. "The monk is horrid at low levels, but when you get to high levels he kicks ... well he is powerful." That was the nature of blanace in 1E where different classes would shine at different levels and even progress at different rates but overall all would balance out in the end.

 

[green slime]

Balance is one of the great myths of RPGs.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

I see the two as being interrelated. Balance provided for by the rules, and the assumptions that balance is based upon being adequately communicated by those rules, is more condusive to allowing a DM to create balance as he envisions it. When the balance of the game, and the assumptions underlying it, are opaque (or entirely lacking) then it is more difficult for a DM to adjust the baseline to where he wants it to be. Where the system is openly balanced at a particular point, and that balance is made transparent, it is much easier to change the set up to one more to a particular DMs liking.

 

[billd91]

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?

Both are good, in general.

The designers need to produce a game of reasonable balance right out of the box because that's how plenty of campaigns will be run and most tournaments as well. They also have to provide a starting ground for DMs to then impose their own brands of balance, should they choose to do so.

Each character needs a reasonably equal chance to shine so that players aren't relegated to supporting characters in someone else's star vehicle. And DMs need to be even-handed and fair in dice rolls and game management.

 

[Remathilis]

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?

last things first. Lets assume the standard adventurer paragrim (four specialists who are good at their chosen profession, we'll call them cleric, fighter, rogue & wizard). The fighter deals/takes damage, the cleric heals, the rogue scouts, the wizard nukes.

Now, lets say the cleric can and does outshine the fighter is dealing/taking damage AS WELL AS filling his role as a healer. Lets assume the wizard can fill the role of the rogue and the fighter with proper spell selection (damage and sneaky spells).

Suddenly, you no longer have four roles covered by four classes, you have two classes covering two roles each and two classes sub-optimally covering one role each. As the game expands (hp and spell number increases) the sub-optimal characters fight for thier place to shine as the other two classes constantly fill not only thier chosen role but also the roles of the other two classes. Eventually, you reach a stage where the other two classes are no longer useful, viable, or needed and the game focuses solely on those roles which DO shine and cover everything, and the game no longer has a level of diversity or "group dynamics", since two characters can shine where four normally should.

Replace "cleric" etc all with "jedi" for the same scenario, SW style.

So lets assume you aren't comfortable with having two characters/classes hogging the spotlight. Your options become.

* Leave it. Its clearly want the designers wanted.
* Wait for the designers to change them.
* Come up with your own fixes.

The problem really becomes when I do the middle, you do the latter, and someone else does the third. Now, lo and behold the designers comes with an "improved" version which fixes all these problems (hypothetically, just run with it for now). I love the new version, you hate it because its not what you would have done, and someone else fails to see the need for it since the old way worked so well.

We have three different viewpoints on balanced then, and no one agrees which one is right.

 

[Quasqueton]

Deriding balance in a game system is like deriding safety in an automobile, or deriding minimal side effects in a medication, or deriding pleasant taste in a drink.

Quasqueton

 

[Ourph]

We have three different viewpoints on balanced then, and no one agrees which one is right.

I think you just answered your own question.

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

When people tout game balance as very important to game design but no one really agrees on what "good" game balance is, the entire concept is bound to get a bad reputation.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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

3rd edition, 3rd edition, 3rd edition, ad infinitum!

 

[Imaro]

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?

Perhaps, dependent on the game.(Though I still subscribe to the fact that it can't be done for an rpg).

something interesting I just thought about was that I think class-based systems have to at least ascribe to trying for game balance. On the other hand point based systems seem more "honest" about game balance for an rpg. In the end both put it on the shoulders of those playing, but pnt-based systems make you outright responsible for it. You can choose to sing insead of hit better or cast spells instead of hide in the shadows, but everyone starts out with an equal amount of points to distribute, and balance is how you decide to spend them.ie(Unisystem)

True class-based systems(of which IMHO D&D is not included, see below) on the other hand are easier to balance by game designers. A class and race give you a limited number of options that can be tested more thoroughly for game balance and will probably have less unforseen quirks. The few that do arise can generally be houseruled or eratta'd easier because there are less things for them to interact with and they are usually narrowly defined.ie(Castles and Crusades)

Hybrid systems that combine the two are IMHO the hardest to balance. Not only must you balance the classes and their abilities but also the fiddly bits that they can select. This problem is only exacberated in the case of D&D where there is an infinite number of fiddly bits being added and there is no mechanism to differentiate the power of these bits.(ex. a feat is a feat. There are no feats that cost two points or three points etc.). So now each of these bits must also be balanced against each other in utility, power, mechanics etc. factored by the interactions of different classes and the possible interactions of skills, other feats, spells, abilities, PrC's... This has to be done for feats, skills, spells, class abilities, racial abilities, conditions...

So yeah I totally think its commendable that they try but own up, don't claim its balanced and don't make your pseudo-balance cause me more time, headaches and calculations when in the end I'd be better off estimating with a nice set of guidelines. Just my oppinions though.