Your opinion about houserules inducing a lack of balance

[Turanil]

Well, I have been houseruling C&C and in the end I noticed it would give PCs huge discrepancies in saving throws. In d20 there is only 3 saving throws (For, Ref, Will), but in C&C there is potentially six saving throws, as the DM must choose the most appropriate ability (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha) and then call for an ability check for saving throw. Now, my houserules is satisfactory everywhere except when it comes to saving throws. Depending on the class, and the (houseruled) customization options at the player's disposal, he could come up with very different saving throws. As such, depending upon the circumstances and events during the game, one PC could only fail a save while for the other it will be an almost automatic success; then, next encounter it could be exactly the reverse. In fact, after analysis, my houserule will lead to totally unpredictable results when saves are considered, which will add a lot more randomness to the game.

So my question is: would you accept to play with such a houserule, knowing some outcomes will be absolute randomness? Then, I noticed, that depending on classes and options choices, some PCs may end up more powerful than others, so here also there is a lack of balance. I could only counter this in play, by tailoring the adventures to the PCs. So here also, what's your opinion.

Overall, is lack of balance something really problematic in rpg?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For every rule, there is an unintended consequence.

That is universal, but you can really see it in RPGs because they are so rule dependent and conflicts of rules come up often, sometimes with every roll of the dice.

So even if a houserule is unbalanced, I'd still be willing to play...as long as all PCs and NPCs play by the same rule.

A rule that slants the flow of play in one direction or another- towards or against PCs- is probably not good. If it merely results in some oddball or arbitrary results, so be it.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

I vote for "lack of balance" (as long as it favors me).

 

[Crothian]

Overall, is lack of balance something really problematic in rpg?

Depends on the DM. It doesn't concern me nor do I relaly care about it, but I know others that do and it would impact their ability to run a game.

 

[Remathilis]

In fact, after analysis, my houserule will lead to totally unpredictable results when saves are considered, which will add a lot more randomness to the game.

Here is my general rule, culled from the DMG and expanded upon.

Randomness ALWAYS hurts the PCs. The more random something is, the more likely it will hurt the PCs. Why? Because the DM will typically only control a character for one combat or encounter, but the players control the same PC all the time. So the PCs have more chances of suffering the random effect than any specific monster does.

For example, if you had a critical system where rolling two 20's in a row was instant death for the creature hit, the PCs would be a significant disadvantage. Sure, the PCs could get lucky and take out a kobold or even a black dragon in one hit, but more than likely both of those things would die from typical HP loss anyway so the PCs gain little but a "freebie" kill. However, they will face ten times as many attacks from all the kobolds and dragon in the layer, meaning the DM has 10 times as many chances to kill a PC with a double 20.

And unlike the DM, who shrugs that his random kobold encounter just died (or even his plot-NPC, plots come and go and DMs can recalibrate plots) the PC is usually tied to his PCs and thus suffers more so from the loss of his PC (even if the only loss is the time to raise him or roll up another.)

So randomness tends to hurt the PC more often than the DM. If your players are cool with this, then fine. Typically though, I think most players would want a little more stability in their game than a random chance they cannot ever make their next saving throw...

 

[Turanil]

For example, if you had a critical system where rolling two 20's in a row was instant death for the creature hit, the PCs would be a significant disadvantage. <...> I think most players would want a little more stability in their game than a random chance they cannot ever make their next saving throw...

Hum good point. Well, having also added Fate/Conviction/Action points, these could be used to avoid such an occasional unfortunate event. Otherwise, I have done more analysis, and I may be able to reduce the problem but not truly fix it.

Anyway, lets come more opinion on the subject!

 

[BryonD]

When it comes to game systems I am a major balance guy.
But once you get down to house rules it is all about what makes the game fun for the group.


A good DM can make the game fun regardless of balance.

 

[el-remmen]

If you have a good group of cooperative players, it is never a problem, because if something turns out to be totally skewing the game everyone will basically agree it needs to be changed - even if said changes "weakens" their character.

 

[MJS]

I don't think I like ability checks very much. My 2 cents - there is nothing broken about O/AD&D saving throws, why not use those?

 

[Morrus]

I don't think I like ability checks very much. My 2 cents - there is nothing broken about O/AD&D saving throws, why not use those?

This thread is 7 years old. I don't think you'll get a reply!