What type of balancing do you prefer?

[JohnSnow]

Over my years of gaming, I have come to the conclusion that any form of "balance" other than "per encounter" is a fantasy.

Per encounter balance, implicit or explicit, is the only form of balance that means anything mechanically. And that's what we're talking about - mechanical (or game) balance. So called "per day" balancing just leads to artificially short "days" as characters stop adventuring at 10 or 11 in the morning. Some day. So in other words, in my experience, "per day" balance is really "per 3-4 encounter balance" and essentially becomes a weird kind of per-encounter balancing. Unless the DM enforces story-based balance on top of that in order to make the "day" relevant. Therefore, to me it makes more sense to just make the balance explicitly or implicitly "per encounter" and let the DM institute the level of story-based balance he wants in his campaign.

Personally, I prefer the implicit balance of actions needed to ramp up abilities over the straight "suite of powers" approach. However, I can understand the dramatic, cinematic, and story virtues of making a character use different abilities in an encounter, rather than just firing off the same one over and over again. So I voted for both explicit and implicit encounter-based balance, although I have a slight preference for the latter over the former.

There is story-related (or narrative) balance that should exist to control story-disrupting powers. But that's really about narrative control rather than game balance. And shouldn't be confused with it (even though it is in the current system).

The current system tries to cover both forms of balance with its per day mechanics and spells prepared/known systems. As a result, it ends up doing, IMO, a piss poor job of both mechanical game balance and narrative story balance. It is my hope that the good folks at WotC realize this and intend to fix it.

Per encounter balance doesn't necessarily make for a "wahoo" game. If you think that, I submit that it's probably because you believe that many of D&D's design decisions are set in stone and can't be changed. They can.

 

[Roman]

My problems with explicit per encounter balancing are manifold, such as out of encounter ability use, the artificial joining or splitting of encounters, etcetra, but I see implicit per encounter balancing as much more acceptable.

That said, I still would not want to see a move to entirely (implicit) per encounter balancing. I can see the problems many people have with the current system, but I still dislike the idea of all powers being usable all the time/in all encounters and fights not entailing a degree of holding back just in case or for the bigger fight to come. As such, I would be perfectly fine with implicit per encounter balancing, as long as it was supplemented by some powers being much less frequently usable.

Perhaps a complementary system to 'per encounter balancing' could be called 'per adventure balancing' or 'per campaign arc' balancing. This would be some form of long-term balancing, such that the powers involved could not be renewed in between encounters in a dungeon. I am not attached to the per day system, I could easily see a per month (say 30 days) system functioning here, where month long ceremonies or rituals are required to renew the most potent spells/powers and month long training/recovery periods are required to get the physical classes into peak condition (such 'peak condition' power could act as a major buff, perhaps replacing many currently spell-based buffs). A month is long enough that heroes are definitely not going to be able rest that long between individual encounters, as even adventures that normally have no time pressure will surely acquire it on such time-scales. Characters would need some serious down-time to renew these most potent powers.

 

[Roman]

This is just a post to get more people to vote and post by keeping this on the first page.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted "other," by which I mean I don't prefer any particular method.

In my 30 yrs. of gaming, I've played a variety of systems, each with their own methods for balancing different PC types. Some have differing XP progressions (pre-3Ed D&D), some used point systems (HERO, GURPS), and in some, the concept of balance is a mere fantasy (RIFTS).

My conclusion: they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Glyfair]

I don't have a specific preference yet, because I see flaws at each level and haven't really analyzed the options and specifics.

I believe I would certainly prefer shorter term balancing, I'm sure. Let's look at the extreme of long term balancing, many of the early D&D balancing concepts.

Almost everyone agrees that in AD&D the wizard was by far the most powerful class at high levels. That was specifically balanced by their being the least powerful class at low levels. Non-humans had clear advantages at low levels, and that was balanced by their being limited in level and being virtually crippled at very high levels.

To me, that's unacceptable balancing. The game experience isn't balanced, it's just unbalanced with the balance of power shifting around at various times. So, my ideal game design balance would be something that doesn't shift dramatically over time.

That doesn't mean I'd be a slave to balance, since perfect balance is really close to impossible in an RPG (at least those likely to be attractive options). In fact, many forget that the best way to consider balance considerations is to consider balance of fun should be primary. However, that's a shifting target and isn't something that can be perfectly addressed. Still, I believe it should be the primary consideration and too often isn't.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Over my years of gaming, I have come to the conclusion that any form of "balance" other than "per encounter" is a fantasy.

Per encounter balance, implicit or explicit, is the only form of balance that means anything mechanically. And that's what we're talking about - mechanical (or game) balance. So called "per day" balancing just leads to artificially short "days" as characters stop adventuring at 10 or 11 in the morning. Some day. So in other words, in my experience, "per day" balance is really "per 3-4 encounter balance" and essentially becomes a weird kind of per-encounter balancing. Unless the DM enforces story-based balance on top of that in order to make the "day" relevant. Therefore, to me it makes more sense to just make the balance explicitly or implicitly "per encounter" and let the DM institute the level of story-based balance he wants in his campaign.

Personally, I prefer the implicit balance of actions needed to ramp up abilities over the straight "suite of powers" approach. However, I can understand the dramatic, cinematic, and story virtues of making a character use different abilities in an encounter, rather than just firing off the same one over and over again. So I voted for both explicit and implicit encounter-based balance, although I have a slight preference for the latter over the former.

There is story-related (or narrative) balance that should exist to control story-disrupting powers. But that's really about narrative control rather than game balance. And shouldn't be confused with it (even though it is in the current system).

The current system tries to cover both forms of balance with its per day mechanics and spells prepared/known systems. As a result, it ends up doing, IMO, a piss poor job of both mechanical game balance and narrative story balance. It is my hope that the good folks at WotC realize this and intend to fix it.

Per encounter balance doesn't necessarily make for a "wahoo" game. If you think that, I submit that it's probably because you believe that many of D&D's design decisions are set in stone and can't be changed. They can.

I absolutely, 100% agree with everything you said.

…Nice post.