What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?

[arscott]

Agreed.

The downside, though, is that all of that careful balancing went into creating a combat system that was mechanically balanced and fine-tuned toward whiffy, dragging encounters--which I think was a major reason for its commercial failure.

Balance is important, but don'g forget that you're balancing so everyone has more fun. If your balance point significantly reduces the fun, you have other, more pressing problems.

 

[nijineko]

I'd argue that balance is just as important in DW and Cortex+ as it is in D&D. It's just that the nature of those other two systems makes balance easier.

i feel that game balance is a fallacy.

seriously attempting to achieve a balance between all the player and character options is not an optimal design choice, and will always result in a mechanically flawed game. (some less so than others, but inevitably flawed, nonetheless)

 

[arscott]

Consider the following goals:

1)each player at the table should have the opportunity to enjoy role-playing their character
2)a player that makes a choice of ability during character creation should have the opportunity to be satisfied with that choice rather than being regretful he didn't make a different one
3)a GM who wants to present her players with a fight against a foe they can easily defeat should be able to do so without a high risk that the fight will instead be a TPK--and conversely, a GM who wants to present her players with a fight they cannot win should not have a high risk of giving them a cake-walk fight instead.
4)warriors shouldn't always be inferior to spellcasters
5)or perhaps warriors should always be inferior to spellcasters

Each of those goals may not be appropriate for every game, but certainly each of them is appropriate for some game. In each case, the design work used to accomplish that goal is called balance.

I don't think cooperative Pen and Paper RPGs particularly benefit from the version of balance used for competative video games such as FPSs and MOBAs. But I don't think any RPGs have actually been subjected to that version of balance, including very tightly balanced games like D&D4e.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Agreed.

The downside, though, is that all of that careful balancing went into creating a combat system that was mechanically balanced and fine-tuned toward whiffy, dragging encounters--which I think was a major reason for its commercial failure. (snip)

A problem, I would argue, that was exacerbated by the piss-poor adventures that were, by and large, released for 4E. Maybe if 4E had been released on schedule instead of six months ahead of schedule, the designers and developers might have got a better handle on the game.

Because most of the HPE adventure really highlight those "... whiffy, dragging encounters..." as you put it. Imagine, instead, if designers who grokked 4E and actively ran their own campaigns at home had designed those adventures and "whiffing, dragging" had become "exciting, cinematic, flavourful, EPIC!" instead. (As is the case in the campaigns some of us are running right now! )

Pardon my tears; I just noticed the spilt milk....

 

[Diamondeye]

Balance, in general, is severely overestimated in terms of importance in D&D - and for that matter, any other human-run tabletop game. Despite claims of a "rule 0 fallacy" where the game is thought to be inherently unbalanced if the DM has to intervene contrary to the rules, in reality this "fallacy" itself is a Stolen Concept Fallacy - the entire GAME is designed to be run by a human who can adapt and change things. Rejecting this in order to focus on the letter of the words is selectively rejecting one aspect of the system while accepting the rest and then complaining about a problem that creates. While this can be true for a particular campaign or game group, it's based on the idiosyncracies of that group and how it plays. A game group that plays exactly according to the rules as written and allowing every official supplement but no house rules or third party supplements at all is a theoretical standard and reflects how almost no one actually plays, much like balance comparisons at level 20.

That said, it is important for each character to feel useful. This, however, is the job of the DM. Don't allow characters that can do anything to do anything. If you have a rogue with good lockpicking abilities, don't grant the wizard a 'knock' spell in random loot, for example. If he really insists on buying one, ask why. Point out that if he's using it he may be taking away a major role from the rogue. (Note I'm not being edition-specific here, but talking in large generalities). Tabletop games are played with friends around a table. If one person is insisting on doing things that make the others obsolete the problem isn't with the game system it's with him powergaming at the expense of friends.

If a player insists on making an ineffective character for roleplay reasons, people should explain to him that he'll... be ineffective. If a player is inexperienced, others should take him in hand and show him how to avoid pitfalls of character creation, and the DM should be generous in allowing reversion of choices for the inexperienced.

Balance is about balance in your group. Sure, some rules are ill-considered, but mostly the problem isn't the systems; it's the people that want the system to compensate for their poor social skills.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What makes us care about combat balance? The fact that the stakes are so high and that it's a massive proportion of what the game provides.

Balance, in general, is severely overestimated in terms of importance in D&D - and for that matter, any other human-run tabletop game. Despite claims of a "rule 0 fallacy" where the game is thought to be inherently unbalanced if the DM has to intervene contrary to the rules, in reality this "fallacy" itself is a Stolen Concept Fallacy - the entire GAME is designed to be run by a human who can adapt and change things.

What I see when I read this is an excuse for half-assed badly playtested designing and the game designers using the presence of a GM as an excuse to not do their jobs.

Balance is about information. And about the game telling the truth. No one is upset in a game of Ars Magica when it turns out the wizards are more powerful than the grogs. That's because this is part of Ars Magica's premise. No one is upset in a game of Call of Cthulhu when they have to run away from the Shoggoth - that's what the game tells you will happen. No one playing Batman is upset that despite his martial arts he can't punch out Superman (unless using a Kryptonite knuckleduster). Again, this is part of the premise.

When people get upset about balance issues what they are really upset about is the game misrepresenting itself. There is an implicit claim, especially in 3.X that the power of the various classes is roughly equivalent at the same level. Because of the levels, the XP curve, and the multiclassing rules. If you think a level 13 monk is a match for a level 13 wizard, I've a bridge to sell you. The game doesn't follow through on its promises. And because the game designer failed to make a game that follows through on its promises, in addition to all other parts of GMing, the GM needs to force their adventures to fix the designer's mistakes.

And frankly I've got better things to worry about as a GM than fixing the game designer's mistakes.

 

[Jessica]

I agree with Neonchameleon here. Back in the 3.X days, I made characters based on my character's concept under the assumption that all classes were roughly equal in terms of viability and was repeatedly shown how wrong I was for that assumption. I don't think I ever felt more worthless in 3.X than when I tried playing an axe-and-board Dwarven Fighter in a campaign that started at level 9. I think I went through the entire first session not getting to do anything because everyone else ended fights before I even got to the battle. The one time I played Pathfinder was when I was taking over someone's Rogue for a session in a campaign that my ex-bf played in. I just consistently felt like I was kind of a waste of space at the table since all of our problems seemed to be solved by casters in our party and when it came to combat I was kind of a joke. Those kinds of experiences from time to time strongly re-affirm my commitment to game balance as an important aspect of game design.

 

[arscott]

As Zeuel said.

And importantly, these experiences don't really happen in D&D4e. It's damned hard to make an ineffective character.

Similarly, although the systems are hugely different, I haven't seen it happen in Dungeon World or any of the other PbtA games either. Nor Cortex Plus. (Though, IIRC, Cortex Plus Heroic doesn't actually have fleshed out character creation rules. So given that attempts to play outside the Marvel Superhero universe will involve a bit of fudging, it's possible that the sort of unbalance being described will sneak back it).

 

[Diamondeye]

The error in your thinking is summed up in matching a 13th level monk against a 13th level wizard, and severely compounded by ignoring what I posted about interplayer relationships. 2 PCs of should never be contesting each other; matching them up in that way is a red herring. If someone feels unimportant or a fifth wheel that's something wrong with the DM or the group dynamic. There is no fundamental assumption that all classes are equal. Its been clear since 1E that they were not; casters started weaker and became the most powerful. The idea of implicit balance was imposed by the MMO community.

It's not a flaw in the system when the DM alters it - its the way its supposed to work. 4E was designed wrong because it tried to be balanced. Balance is not a goal in a tabletop system. It's not needed with a human DM. If fights are ending before they start, the fight is designed wrong. If everyone else is doing your roll, they are being dicks. Systems that are designed to not need house rules are done wrong. Those are not the designers job, they are your job.

 

[pemerton]

There is no fundamental assumption that all classes are equal. Its been clear since 1E that they were not; casters started weaker and became the most powerful. The idea of implicit balance was imposed by the MMO community.

This is not true at all. There were discussions about class balance back in the earliest numbers of White Dwarf, and in Dragon throughout the 1980s. Roger E Moore's article undertaking a mathematical comparison of the classes was published in Dragon 69 (Jan '83).
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], I answered number 2 because I thought I might be able to subsume 1 under it. For me it's the complexity of the mechanical systems, including action economy as one element of those, that makes balance in D&D a big deal. (I think that 2 can also subsume elements of 4 and 5 - it is the complexity that makes combat rules carry more heft, and that makes combat an attractive site of D&D combat resolution.)