The Rejection of "Balance" in an RPG

[maggot]

I don't understand those that dislike balance. If you don't want balance in your games, give one player +4 to every stat, or let him play a gestalt while everyone else plays normal characters. Give out extra feats or abilities or whatever.

It is so much easier to unbalance a game than to balance one, I prefer that the rules that I pay for be balanced. I can make unbalanced stuff out of it if I want.

 

[Umbran]

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?

It isn't as if these are mutually exclusive. If the GM has picked his system well, the two should be reasonably aligned, so that the system-imposed balance is in line with how the GM sees fit. If the GM finds he or she is at odds with the system, we can blame either the system, or the choice to use that system.

Balance as in "every character is equal and always at every turn has the same chances regardless"

Now, I don't believe any game has ever tried for such balance, so the question is perhaps a bit hyperbolic.

or balance from a standpoint of a Dungeon Master being evenhanded in die rolls and game management?

Or balance from the standpoint of the DM having to do a lot of work to reach the goal of evenhanded game management?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The game, I think, can't assume considerate players. People aren't always motivated by what is best for the group (the best players and DM's are, but that's not a universal). The game has to do its level best, in design in the rules, to ensure that whatever motivates a person to take a certain class or a certain spell, that the choice isn't disruptive to what the other characters do.

To draw it to my comparison with making a movie, the movie-makers can't assume people will take the fun into their own hands when they're watching. They can't assume that people will want to overlook plot holes or put up with stilted acting or ignore the scene where the mircophones are visible just to "have a good time," because that's what would be good for them at the time. The movie needs to do its level best to provide good acting, good writing, good camera work.

That's why a game needs to pay significant attention to balance, I think. It can't assume that people will just look past the fact that sleep is the uber-spell, because the fact that sleep is unbalanced, like the fact that you can totally see the wires in the action scene, may reduce the enjoyment for those who aren't interested in doing their own work to overlook it.

 

[Psion]

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.

Maybe (though I do tend to think that bards would be better in a game where social interaction is important.) I'm certainly not claiming that all character options in all books are supremely balanced, but classes that overlap in responsibility are more worthy of my scrutiny. But let's presume you are right, and let us get back to my point: if bards universally provide less of a contribution than any other character type, then is this a bad thing?

If you believe balance is important, the answer would be yes.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think the balance question is so important now because of playability. I've played a 1/2 elf Ranger in a game with a twinked out Druid. It isn't fun. That comes from the vast disparity in power even though the characters were the same level.

Now imagine playing a character 2 levels lower than everyone else in the party. Would you have any impact at all in the current ruleset? A little, but not very much IMO.

Just 2 levels and all of a sudden a player's character is at 1/2 power to others. Who wants to play an irrelevant character or be irrelevant when playing a game?

I think the rejection of balance is coming because players want to still have an impact when playing lower level characters. I think they want to remain useful when playing with a powergamed character of the same level.

For some, this may mean "you need MORE balance, not less". In my mind, this means "You need greater flexibility and viability of play at disparate levels".

Perhaps two CR creatures could equal an EL of CR+4 instead of 2? I don't like that solution though, as I prefer larger groups not meaning equivalently larger power. Something where adding more warriors doesn't raise the EL much, but adding a "balancing class" like a spellcaster would significantly affect EL.

 

[Ourph]

The game, I think, can't assume considerate players.

Agreed.

The game has to do its level best, in design in the rules, to ensure that whatever motivates a person to take a certain class or a certain spell, that the choice isn't disruptive to what the other characters do.

I agree that the game designers should do their best. I guess my point is that even the best of the best can't design a perfect system. Game balance is like .pdf security measures, as soon as you design something good a million people who are way more motivated than you are going to set out to break it, and they will succeed. So while keeping that goal in mind is nice, a game that misses the mark isn't necessarily a bad game....it isn't necessarily not fun. Conversely, a well balanced game isn't necessarily a fun game. A perfectly balanced game could very well be unimaginative and boring.

Another way of putting it, if someone told me a game wasn't well balanced I'd still be happy to try it out with the right group of people because it might still be fun (to me, "not balanced" doesn't tell me anything about whether a game is going to be fun or not). On the other hand, if someone told me a game wasn't fun, I wouldn't try it out just because I thought it might still be balanced.

To draw it to my comparison with making a movie, the movie-makers can't assume people will take the fun into their own hands when they're watching. They can't assume that people will want to overlook plot holes or put up with stilted acting or ignore the scene where the mircophones are visible just to "have a good time," because that's what would be good for them at the time. The movie needs to do its level best to provide good acting, good writing, good camera work.

Again, agreed that people putting together a product should do their best to provide a quality product. On the other hand, some of my favorite movies don't have great production values or have plot holes galore. I don't feel I've got to work to enjoy those movies despite their flaws. I think I enjoy them despite their flaws because other portions of the product, quality portions, render the flawed parts less important or unimportant. Imperfections in one area don't necessarily render a product unenjoyable.

I don't think I've ever played an RPG I would consider "perfect" and there are some that I would consider highly flawed but have still enjoyed immensely. WFRP 1st edition, for example, has tons of rules hiccups and loopholes that render it a "flawed" game, but I still love it for its other qualities and don't find it any more "work" to enjoy than more elegantly designed games. I don't feel that I have to fix the flaws in order for it to be enjoyable.

 

[Harlekin]

Agreed.

I agree that the game designers should do their best. I guess my point is that even the best of the best can't design a perfect system. Game balance is like .pdf security measures, as soon as you design something good a million people who are way more motivated than you are going to set out to break it, and they will succeed. So while keeping that goal in mind is nice, a game that misses the mark isn't necessarily a bad game....it isn't necessarily not fun. Conversely, a well balanced game isn't necessarily a fun game. A perfectly balanced game could very well be unimaginative and boring.

I think your comparison is somewhat flawed. While it will always be easy to intentionally break an RPG, we are not really concerned about those extreme builts. It is much more problematic when characters just end up being much better than others, if the game gets broken by accident. If you play a AD&D 1st MU you will be more powerful than everybody else at lvl 10, even if you try to avoid breaking the game. If you play a high attribute (Dex & IQ) GURPS 3rd character you will dominate 100xp later, unless you spend all these points on origami skills.

 

[Ourph]

If you play a AD&D 1st MU you will be more powerful than everybody else at lvl 10, even if you try to avoid breaking the game.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with that assessment. My experience is totally different with 1e and I can only imagine that this dogma that 10th level M-Us in AD&D break the game exists because people were simply altering the rules of the game or playing in an unintended style to the point where the game broke. A 10th level Fighter has all kinds of resources in terms of followers that a 10th level Wizard doesn't have. A 10th level Wizard still operates under numerous restrictions a Fighter never has to worry about. Neither of them can do some of the things that a 10th level Thief can do. Used well and in the context the game assumes for campaigns of that level, the resources of the Fighter and the Thief are just as valuable as a Wish spell.

If you are altering the rules of the game or using the game for a campaign that deviates from the assumed context it's hardly fair to blame the game system for being imbalanced. If I play Monopoly but change the point of the game from driving the other players into bankruptcy to spending the most time in jail, I can hardly blame the game system if it's not supporting my play goals properly.

It might be entirely fair to say "High level AD&D assumes a style of play that's not to my taste", but that is entirely different than the game being unbalanced.

 

[Piratecat]

I have removed the edition-bashing in the initial post. If I had caught this thread immediately, I would have closed it. It seems to have stayed interesting and productive, though, so I'm keeping it open with the edit.

So we're clear on this, "no edition wars for now" doesn't just mean "no insulting 3e." It means no insulting any edition of the game. I played and loved both 1e and 2e, and "no edition bashing" applies to everyone, not just people who prefer earlier editions of the game. Discuss differences in this thread, but without pejorative comments.

As always, gang, when you ee a problem, please don't make snarky comments in the thread; report the post instead. It's much more effective.

 

[thedungeondelver]

To draw it to my comparison with making a movie, the movie-makers can't assume people will take the fun into their own hands when they're watching.

I don't agree. Watching a movie is a wholly passive experience. You react, you do not act. The comparison might be that you get a box from Warner Brothers with a panaflex camera, ten thousand feet of 35mm film, lights, a chair, a typewriter, a clapperboard, a boom mike and a reel-to-reel editor.

At the end of the day it isn't Warner Brother's fault that you decided to press ahead with filming outdoors after dark without any illumination. If a co-Director comes with that kit and he stands around saying "Film it this way! Light that scene that way! Make her emote more!" to make sure your film is more...heh...balanced, then the assumption is that you're some kind of idiot who can't figure out that yes, you should use a Klieg light here, or maybe keeping the boom mike in frame at all times isn't the best idea.

Balance, defined as the act of keeping everything above board, under control and adherent to a set of rules (regardless of whether or not they are 1% house rules and 99% book rules or the exact opposite or any degree in between) that are understood and expected by the players, is the purview of the Dungeon Master and always should be. This is irrespective of whatever "edition" the game is. The current incarnation of the rules is as I have said elsewhere no magical panacea by which everything achives a state of zen calm, nor should the rules of prior editions be branded with the Mark of Cain for giving the Dungeon Master more "rule zero" latitude, or "balancing" in a way that you simply don't like.