What's The Deal With Balance?

[helium3]

I know it's pretty much a given that most gamers (including myself) think game balance is something that's at least worth mentioning if not one of the most important things in the game, but why is that so? Why is balance so important? What happens when the game isn't balanced? Why is that bad? Why is it that the concept of game balance also seems to imply a limit to the amount of power that a given character has? Wouldn't the game technically be balanced if all the PC's had the power of gods? Are there actually two different concepts at work here that tend to get rolled up into the same category? I'm curious what other people think.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think it's important to realize that there are two types of balance:

PC vs. NPC/monster balance, and

PC vs. PC balance.

For some, they're of equal importance. I personally don't think so. I think it's okay if, on occasion, the NPCs or monsters can clearly do something the PCs can't. I trust most of the DMs I game with, and I know that if something seems unfair, there's a plot-based reason for it, and we'll eventually have the chance to do something to even the odds.

If the NPCs/monsters are too unbalanced, however, it leads to a sense of frustration, like the PCs can't accomplish anything.

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.

Bottom line? Many people play games, at least in part, for the sense of accomplishment. Frustration, and feeling like you're second-best, is never a fun thing. Game balance is a major tool for avoiding that sort of thing. Is it the most important? Nope; the most important is a good DM and fellow players who can work things out so everyone's having fun. But balance is, perhaps, the most important tool for avoiding frustration that the game designers can include in the book.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I know it's pretty much a given that most gamers (including myself) think game balance is something that's at least worth mentioning if not one of the most important things in the game, but why is that so? Why is balance so important?

I played in some terribly balanced 2e campaigns. Sometimes they were busted because of horribly unbalanced kits or odd stat distributions, and twice I had a DM who used blatant favoritism towards certain players. It's not fun for the weaker character. A game with balanced classes/roles in the game gives each player more opportunities for fun.

The same thing happens in 3e, although it's not usually so bad as in 2e.

What happens when the game isn't balanced?

The players don't seem challenged, the DM goes on a killing spree, or some players feel left out. Sometimes players continue to use the same tactic over and over again as it's really powerful and the DM must specifically metagame his NPCs to avoid it. (Harm 3.0 was a nasty example of that. Haste was even worse.)

Why is that bad?

It leads to a boring game, or a DM-vs-player mentality.

Why is it that the concept of game balance also seems to imply a limit to the amount of power that a given character has? Wouldn't the game technically be balanced if all the PC's had the power of gods? Are there actually two different concepts at work here that tend to get rolled up into the same category? I'm curious what other people think.

It's easier on the DM if power is limited. It also helps to prevent him going over-the-top. (I know if I let my PCs get too strong, I tend to overcompensate.)

 

[scourger]

When I first started playing 3.0, balance meant that the PCs were balanced against each other and the foes. Now, I mainly want the PCs balanced against each other. I don't mind if they overmatch their foes (they should win hands-down sometimes) or are overmatched by the foes (they should run away once in a while). Balanced PCs keep each character and each player relevant. Each PC should have a niche, an area in which to shine, but no PC should dominate all the action.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Another quick thought, inspired by something in the other thread.

It's not possible to have "balance" between players and DM. By definition, the DM wins. Even if he restricts himself to the RAW--and he's not necessarily obliged to do so--he can keep throwing things at the PCs. If the DM wants to overpower the party, he will.

The trick is for the DM not to blatantly abuse his power, and to keep things balanced in terms of the encounters he chooses to throw at the party. That doesn't mean the PCs must be able to beat everything they come across, just that the DM should avoid opponents specifically designed to make the players feel useless. That, and only that, can "balance" things between players and DM.

 

[Herobizkit]

D&D, at its core, is supposed to be a "team" game. As such, it is important that each player character has the same relative amount of strength/abilities. If one PC is better than the rest, that PC tends to overshadow the rest as said PC always succeeds, kills the most enemies, and renders the other PCs more or less useless.

By the same token, the PC's must also be balanced against the challenges that the DM offers. PCs tend to have a plethora of special abilities and spells that are not always readily available to monsters and other opponents (at least, not without reworking them). So, it is a DM's responsibilty that the challenges he creates are neither too easy nor too difficult to overcome. Too easy, and the PCs get soft and may even grow bored with each encounter; too hard, and the PCs may get frustrated and give up trying to win, or end up dead.

That said, I don't worry much about 'balance' in my campaigns.

 

[Agback]

What happens when the game isn't balanced?

1) If options presented to the players are not balanced, then players will tend to choose the powerful options and regret their sacrifice of cool, variety, or novelty. Or they will choose the new, cool otions that increase variety, and regret their sacrifice of power. Regret is not fun.

2) If imbalance issues between different characters lead to one player missing out on [what he of she considers to be] his or her share of [what he or she considers to be] the fun stuff, that player will become resentful. Resentment and being resented are not fun.

 

[Crothian]

All you need is a good DM, trusting and fair players, a rules system that basically works and you are set to go. Balance is not as important as it seems, but the more out of wack the balance the better the players and DM need to be to have fun with it.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

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

 

[shadow]

On one hand I think that game balance is a good thing so that some players aren't vastly more powerful than other. Unbalanced characters can lead to a lot of bitterness and rivalries.

However, too often I have seen a lot of things sacrificed on the almighty altar of game balance. I see this a lot in 3.5e where many spells have been "nerfed" to the point of being useless. The attitude of game balance also forces a certain feel on the game. Try doing a campaign where wizards are very powerful figures. Standard D&D assumes that a wizard is roughly equivalent to other classes on the same level.