What's The Deal With Balance?

[Crothian]

If you don't think balance is important, you could try a game of monopoly where the other player starts with $20,000 and you start with $10. That'll teach you real quick. (Much faster than reading these posts

Rating balance as unimportant does not automatically asusme the game would be completely un reastically unbalanced either. People seem to think there are only 2 sides to balance when there are mutiple shades.....

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm curious what other people think.

If one character can accomplish a lot more then the other characters it can ruin the fun of the game for the other players. Its all relative and it all depends on the dynamic of the group and the skill of the DM, but I've seen quite a few games (not just D&D) derailed because of poor balance issues.

 

[Stalker0]

Another issue with PCs not being balanced against each other is that CRs don't adequately represent a challenge to all your players at once.

For instance, you have one beef cake cracked out fighter broken PRC out the wazoo. Then you have just joe fighter. In order for the dm to challenge beef cake, he pulls out the really nasty monsters. But that monster against joe smoe may actually be overwhelming, and no Joe gets creamed.

 

[Glyfair]

PC vs. PC balance ensures that no one character thoroughly and blatantly hogs the spotlight, gets all the glory, and receives the majority of playing time. This is, to me, far more important, since everyone deserves their fair share. However, if the group and DM decide ahead of time that one PC is somehow unbalanced, that can be okay, so long as everyone's okay with it and the DM plans encounters and stories to not focus on that particular character. It's exceedingly difficult, and few DMs can do it well, but it can be done.

Indeed, the only book I've seen to adequately deal with this in any setting was Lands of Mystery by Aaron Allston for Justice, Inc.

Certain archetypes in the pulp & lost world genres are more powerful than others. In the system, they were built on different point totals. The strong-jawed hero was at the top of the list with a couple of others at that level, the typical character types were in the middle, the normal "NPCs" were below that (things like the ship's captain).

The balance among players is attained by having players running the lower point characters having multiple characters. The strong jawed hero is only playing him. The player playing the nosey reporter might also play the spoiled aristocrat. The player playing the ship's captain might also play the native guide.

It's more an issue of balancing time in the spotlight, compared to actual character abilities. The strong jawed hero will likely be in the spotlight a majority of the game. The ship's captain might not even leave the ship. Giving that player the native guide gives him someone to run during times the focus isn't on the ship. If someone has a non-combat character, having his secondary character be combat focused gives him something to do during combats.

This works better for the Hero System than D&D, though. The difference in survivability between a low point character and a high point character isn't incredibly high (unless specifically designed that way). In D&D, however, having a low level character be around a high level fireball is a recipe for disaster. You could build the game based on the spotlight principle, still. However, the opportunities to use it are less.

 

[Thanee]

Game balance relates back to the foundation of roleplaying... having fun.

Having fun should be balanced within the group, that means everyone should be allowed to have as much fun as anyone else.

To achieve this, it's often necessary to have the player characters be of equal or at least comparable power, but sometimes it's enough to give each player an equal or at least comparable amount of spotlight time, while the relative power level of their characters is irrelevant.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Wayside]

If you don't think balance is important, you could try a game of monopoly where the other player starts with $20,000 and you start with $10. That'll teach you real quick. (Much faster than reading these posts

If you're playing an RPG like it's Monopoly (unless the RPG is designed specifically to have winners and losers, zero-sum competition between players, etc.), you're already in a world of hurt. I mean, not really, since obviously you can play the game however you want and it doesn't affect me in the slightest, but yeah, what you're playing, if you play like that, is completely unappealing to me. I know balance isn't important, because I do without it just fine--the important thing is a group of players who see eye to eye on just what sort of game they want to be playing. Actually, I've found that the attempt to "balance" a system is what most encourages players to exploit imbalances, but that's a whole nother conversation.

 

[Brimshack]

Interesting topic. On a related note, I would be curious to see how various DMs go about balancing a campaign. Are you willing to actively boost a character if it is below par, help a player who has designed a poor character (and may be compounding that with poor play)? In other words, are you willing to actively work towards balance between different PCs? Or do you prefer a formal approach? Everyone plays by thesame rules and the rules themselves are balanced? What the players make of it then is their responsibility? Are there classes that you feel are out of balance? And how much are you willing to use storyline to help a character? If a campaign is set in a dungeon, do you work to give the Druid a chance? If the campaign is fast pace, what about Wizards who need to study? Etc. It is one thing to say that balance is important, and quite another to achieve it. I hope this is more of a follow up than a derail, but I would like to see other DMs thoughts on the actual issues that go into trying to maintain balance, espcially between PCs.

 

[Griogre]

PC vs. PC balance ensures that no one character thoroughly and blatantly hogs the spotlight, gets all the glory, and receives the majority of playing time. This is, to me, far more important, since everyone deserves their fair share. However, if the group and DM decide ahead of time that one PC is somehow unbalanced, that can be okay, so long as everyone's okay with it and the DM plans encounters and stories to not focus on that particular character. It's exceedingly difficult, and few DMs can do it well, but it can be done.

Indeed, the only book I've seen to adequately deal with this in any setting was Lands of Mystery by Aaron Allston for Justice, Inc.

Ars Magica also does this well - the Wizards are *far* more powerful than the companions or Grogs. Interestingly, the companions and grogs are sometimes funner to role play. The dynamics of Ars Magica are like Paranoia in that there is clearly someone in charge.

 

[S'mon]

PCs need to be fairly balanced vs each other in terms of power & competence so that everyone can contribute meaningfully to the success of the group. For me & most players it's no fun if eg my knight PC is totally overshadowed by the wizard PC because of a broken magic system.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think PC vs NPC balance is a meaningful concept. PCs should have a fair chance to achieve something meaningful within the scope of the game, and be fairly rewarded with XP for overcoming challenges commensurate with the difficulty of that challenge, but that has nothing to do with balance IMO.