D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Bayushi_seikuro]

One of the best pieces of wisdom I think about when I hear talk about 'balance' is something the game designer John Wick said:

Often, people talk about 'balance' when really what they're talking about is 'spotlight' being shared between the characters.

 

[schneeland]

I see mainly two forms of balance:

1. A fair distribution of spotlight between the players
2. A comparable mechanical output (e.g. damage) between different character options given the same mechanical input (e.g. experience points)

I care a lot about the former, and not so much about the latter (not unless it impacts the former).

Edit:
Forgot about the third form: preparing opposition for the players in a form that it presents a meaningful, but manageable challenge. Similar to point (2), I don't care much about this.

 

[beancounter]

For me, balance is providing a challenging encounter that may or may not be deadly depending on their tactics and dice rolls.

However, the players should also know when they are in over their heads, and have the sense to run away.

 

[Lyxen]

Often, people talk about 'balance' when really what they're talking about is 'spotlight' being shared between the characters.

It's one kind of balance, but technical balance often underpins that spotlight balance for combat orientated tables.

As for me, the only kind of balance that matter is that of fun for the players.

 

[ECMO3]

Really balance is about characters at the table having equal opportunities and fun.

Mechanics can certainly tilt that one way or another with "OP builds" and optimizers but the DM can easily tilt it back to center most of the time.

In the official rules the only think I can think of that is really unbalanced is the Strixhaven backgrounds, if you apply them elsewhere. If you keep them in strixhaven (where everyone is a student) even they are fine.

 

[bloodtide]

As an Old School DM I don't use the concept of balance at all in a game. Balance as a game design thing is just silly. Ask anyone to "balance" and they will do so. Some might agree to the "balance"...but some, maybe most won't. Balance is an unattainable goal.

A lot of balance problems that people have are because of play styles. People play the game one set way they choose, and then find that way disrupts ("unbalances") game play. But when this is pointed out to a gamer, they will simply ignore it.

The classic example:

At a high level, past say 10th level characters might encounter a flying ghost like foe. A mundane fighter that can't fly and has no magic at all can't do anything in this combat. So the player will just sit and do nothing. Many will say this is normal and acceptable and part of the game, while also saying they greatly dislike this. But as this is made into the rules, most feel nothing can be done.

At high level, say past 10th, characters might encounter an anti-magical glade with savage foes. The high magic spellcasters can't do anything in this combat. So the players will just sit and do nothing. Except here nearly everyone will be screaming that not only is this wrong, but it must never be done in a game.

So, why the difference? Why is it that doing massive negative things to a mundane character so they can't even play the game perfectly fine. But even the idea of doing anything to effect spellcasters will never even be considered?

Why is it fine to say to a player of a fighter or rogue character to just sit back as they can't play the game for a couple minutes? But it's unacceptable to tell the player of a wizard or cleric that they can't play the game even for just a couple seconds?

And that is one of the big "balance" problems right there. But the problem is the decisions of the gamers, not the game rules. Everyone plays the game how ever they want and that is all good and fine. But when you only drive your car on a rough rocky roads and find the ride quite bumpy....you don't stop and say that the cars tires must not be balanced.

 

[teitan]

I am very old school on balance, it is my job to maintain balance and know my players and what they can and can not do so that one does not overpower the rest. I much prefer games that help with that but when it comes to encounters mine are concocted with the idea that my players aren't stupid and won't fight everything they come across. I find encounter design that focuses on a mathematical balance to be artificial and narratively janky. My players know when they are fourth level not to fight the Titan or Great Wyrm. They know not every creature they encounter requires blood, in fact, none of them do and they get the XP for overcoming the encounter without bloodshed. The same people who seem to take umbrage with DMs who run encounters with 5th level characters finding groups of stone giants seem to also be the ones who question violence and violent encounter design. Shift your play expectations. My Starfinder game is action heavy. My D&D game is roleplay heavy. We rarely roll for combat.

 

[jmartkdr2]

On encounter balance:

One of the big differences I notice between players/dms is where the encounter starts.

For some players/dms, the encounter starts as soon as the first evidence that a monster might be present is given - in which case, the players should take into account that said monster might be present and make choices based on that information. Other players/dms assume the encounter begins when initiative is rolled. The disconnect this can create is: if the encounter begins with evidence, than an unfightable monster that can be avoided is entirely fair. After all, the players had the information they needed to not get killed. Either don't go there or be sneaky if you do. This does assume avoid-ability, but that's usually assumed in these cases.

If players/dm's don't think of the encounter as starting before initiative, than all monsters need to be fight-able. Which is a much narrower set of monsters, based on pc levels.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The right balance is a nice mix of entertaining roleplaying and blatant powergaming.

 

[cbwjm]

For me, balance is 'close enough'. I'm not worried if one option seems more powerful than another or one option seems weak when you look at some non-combat feats compared with combat feats, for instance. So long as things are close enough, people are having fun, then the game is balanced.