Following on from this thread .

Should there be game balance at all? And if so, should it be mechanical (within the rules); through role-playing (cultural differences) and/or through the GM?

Game balance should be through the rules.

Why? Because for those who don't care about game balance, it doesn't affect them in the slightest. But for those that do, it's there for them to enjoy the game as well.

Game balance through a GM or role-playing is far to subjective to be fair to everyone at the table, or to everyone in every game.

Short answer, it depends.

If it's a game where the characters don't particularly matter.  Like sandbox AD&D, Paranoia or Cthulhu, then I'd advise against worrying too much about it.

If it has a charop metagame, like 3e, then heck yes.  Likewise if it is a tactical board game.

I suppose a big indicator would be how much time is spent on the 1" grid.

I like my games to have some rough edges and for choices to matter. So if balance means everyone is equally good, regardless, then it isnt something I have much interest in. Balance in terms of making sure the system isnt broken, is something to weigh in design. But it has to be balanced against things like the flavor of the game and keeping things fun (too much balance in my opinion can reduce excitement).

Further, doesn't mechanical (that is in game balance), suggest that the game is individual; that each player is against the other or at the least competitive rather than being in unison?

Yeah, mechanical game balance is unquestionably a good thing. It isn't in conflict with the effects of good roleplaying or a good GM and in fact it helps support those things rather than obstruct them.

Game balance doesn't mean that you have to have equally powerful characters or 'fair, winnable' encounters - it just means that if you want to, you can. And if you don't want to, ideally the game can explain how its dials work so you can deliberately aim for a big character imbalance or a really tough encounter and make sure that's what you end up with.

To me the main advantage of game balance is actually that it reduces metagame thinking and encourages players to do what seems interesting without having to worry that they are gimping themselves as a result. You don't want players put in the dilemma of 'I want to play a characterful elf with a cool longbow, but by the rules crossbows are way more effective so I'm more likely to be alive at the end of the session'. A system that introduces this situation is in effect punishing good or verisimilitudinous(?) roleplaying. Or 'I want to play a fighter because fighters are cool but once we get to level ten I'm worried I will just be a henchman to the casters'. A system that does this is in effect punishing certain archetypal choices for no good reason.

Sometimes when people rail against game balance what they are really railing against is game balance done badly or in a way they don't like.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;679745I like my games to have some rough edges and for choices to matter. So if balance means everyone is equally good, regardless, then it isnt something I have much interest in. Balance in terms of making sure the system isnt broken, is something to weigh in design. But it has to be balanced against things like the flavor of the game and keeping things fun (too much balance in my opinion can reduce excitement).

I think even the most balanced game in the world is still only going to be a fair eyeball of balance. Which is to say, there will still be a lot of room for cleverness and imagination to tip the scales. In any event balance would be an overall thing and certain characters would still have strengths and weaknesses in different circumstances. A game where eg every characters had exactly the same stats just different visual imagery would be an example of game balance done in a boring and unhelpful way.

I'm sure this has been chopped to death in other threads, but I find it interesting to ask what we're balancing?

The characters are have equal ______________________ (what?)

• relevance to the outcome of combats
• relevance to each sphere of action (e.g. everyone has something to do in combat, in diplomacy, in exploration, etc.)
• power, but in different spheres
• access to spheres that are most relevant to their character
• numbers of decisions to make
• connection to the campaign's events through their backstories or game history
• ability to affect what happens in the campaign
• focus around the playing table
• power in the game world in some absolute sense (e.g. political)
• some subtle combination of all these things, and more, that differs player by player

Quote from: fuseboy;679756I'm sure this has been chopped to death in other threads, but I find it interesting to ask what we're balancing?

The characters are have equal ______________________ (what?)

• relevance to the outcome of combats
• relevance to each sphere of action (e.g. everyone has something to do in combat, in diplomacy, in exploration, etc.)
• power, but in different spheres
• access to spheres that are most relevant to their character
• numbers of decisions to make
• connection to the campaign's events through their backstories or game history
• ability to affect what happens in the campaign
• focus around the playing table
• power in the game world in some absolute sense (e.g. political)
• some subtle combination of all these things, and more, that differs player by player

In my experience any attempts at balance are futile. That is because a player's own natural 'outgoingness' (charisma if you like) and even intelligence will mean that they get more game time and are more capable than others.

Secondly, in fantasy settings, races may well be better than other races. In terms of 'race' balance then I see no reason why for example an Elf couldn't be stronger, smarter, more gifted in general against a human. Further, I've no problem with people who wish to have the extra hassle of being magic-users being more 'powerful' at higher levels.

In all its should always (and does anyway) come down to the DM/GM.

Quote from: soviet;679750I think even the most balanced game in the world is still only going to be a fair eyeball of balance. Which is to say, there will still be a lot of room for cleverness and imagination to tip the scales. In any event balance would be an overall thing and certain characters would still have strengths and weaknesses in different circumstances. A game where eg every characters had exactly the same stats just different visual imagery would be an example of game balance done in a boring and unhelpful way.

I think part of the problem with balance discussions, is everyone means something different when they say balance, especially because we are speaking in vague generalities and not offering concrete examples. Does balance mean a lack of power disparity? Does parity over time count as balance? Does it mean infrequent character death? Does it mean power is properly contained according to some kind of progression like levels?

How you answer those questions will affect whether you think balance is a good thing.

I think balance as a general concept is important, but for me it isn't the only thing. It needs to be weighed against other aims of the game. A game like 4E is what I mean when I say taking balance too far (i dont think it was balance done badly, it was balance taken too far).

Quote from: elfandghost;679771In my experience any attempts at balance are futile. That is because a player's own natural 'outgoingness' (charisma if you like) and even intelligence will mean that they get more game time and are more capable than others.

It's funny, I've seen both sides of this - in one campaign, one of my players was super keen to do everything, and through clever character creation had wound up with an edge in both combat and socially.  He was at the forefront of every challenge, setting the tempo and taking names.  Eventually I took  him aside and asked him to support the other players' efforts a little more, which he jumped on with equal enthusiasm.

Another time, at a con game, I saw what's almost the total opposite - one player spent a lot of the session complaining that his character didn't have any good skills, that everything he might do was a foregone failure, that he had no good options because of his character.  This, despite the fact that our characters were all maladapted to the situation (zombie survival game).

My problem with balance rules are twofold:

One, there's too many variables for them to take into account...I threw a Type VI demon at a party of avg. 3rd level types and they beat it.  Same group almost died facing 8 huge spiders.  Was a 3rd level party facing a demon with a host of unholy powers and 40-some hit points overmatched?  Were they more than a match for a bunch of spiders?  Yet there's the outcome...

Two, I worry "as optional" rules for new DMs means that these new DMs will stay stuck on those rules and they'll wind up as fetters not as an aid.

I don't need, or want a game to focus on this mythical balance. The only thing I need is for the game to have a solid set of rules, allowing me to "balance" it as I see fit.

I can see people coming from hardcore D&D and the like being concerned with this, but that is only because they're coming from a game where levels, CR's, optimalization and DPS are real things. Step away from that kind of game and balance is not an issue.
Some people are better at some things than others. Some people will be absolutely worthless in certain situations. Picking a fight with a scarred brawler twice your size is a bad idea, no matter how high your DEX is. Bringing a knife to a gunfight is an equally bad idea. Trying to scale a sheer surface using your "Air Guitar"-skill and a fatepoint simply isn't going to work.
If a game devotes pages trying to "fix" situations like this mechanically, chances are I won't be interested much.

Quote from: mcbobbo;679744Short answer, it depends.

If it's a game where the characters don't particularly matter.  Like sandbox AD&D, Paranoia or Cthulhu, then I'd advise against worrying too much about it.

If it has a charop metagame, like 3e, then heck yes.  Likewise if it is a tactical board game.

I suppose a big indicator would be how much time is spent on the 1" grid.

This.  Obviously a horribly balanced game will be disruptive, so a level of balance is good.  But it doesn't need to be perfectly balanced.  Too often in these types of discussions, and people railing against the "horrible balance" of games keep ignoring possibly the biggest thing ever about RPGs: they are played in free-form world.  RPGs are not played in an arena were each combatant is a set distance apart and regenerates all resources after every battle.

That has to be the stupidest way to judge an RPG that I've heard, and yet is what their argument almost always comes down to.  It is only true if you ignore how the game is actually played: in a living, breathing world that is constantly moving.

I'll give some examples of what I mean.

a) "Doing more damage per round is objectively the best because killing the creature faster is always better."

Wrong.  I have 22hp and deal an average of 5 hp per round,and my opponent has 22hp and does 5 hp per round.  I could increase my damage by 5 points, killing my opponent in 3 rounds instead of 5, taking 15 hp myself.  Or I could decrease the damage taken by 5, killing the opponent in 5 rounds, but not suffering any damage myself.  It's an argument dependent on refreshing all resources (hp) after every battle.

b) Gaining attribute bonus (+1 to attack, AC, and damage) is objectively better than taking a feat that gives you advantage on spot/listen checks and +5 initiative.

Wrong.  Those choices aren't happening in a vacuum.  That feat is easily paired with a class ability that says you get advantage to attack whenever you have the higher initiative.  And that ability is also paired with a class ability that allows you to add +xd6 damage whenever you give yourself disadvantage.
So instead of a flat +1 bonus to hit, AC, and damage, you have the choice of getting a +5 to hit and double chance for a critical (advantage), or to add +1 thru 5 d6 of damage (depending on sneak attack) roughly 75% of the time (the bonus to initiative making you go first most of the time)

c) "the wizard can do an average of 22hp damage per round with his spells.  The fighter can do 10.  The wizard also can replicate any ability of any other class.  Obviously the wizard is a lot better."

Wrong.  This argument often ignores things that mitigate the wizard's weaknesses.  Does the wizard have access to all of these spells to cast to begin with?  Did he learn them successfully?  Did he happen to memorize the right ones?  The wizard can't cast knock (or any other spell) indefinitely, so what happens if you have 4 locks that need opening in your session?  Is the wizard never in danger of being hit, with his low AC and HP?  Are his spells never interrupted?  Etc.


TL;DR: In a game where anything can happen and how we roleplay in that game is vastly more important than arena style balance where everything has to be perfect in a vacuum.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679791TL;DR: In a game where anything can happen and how we roleplay in that game is vastly more important than arena style balance where everything has to be perfect in a vacuum.

Yeah.
"Fighters rock at low levels, wizards rock at High levels, clerics and thieves don't really rock but Are damn handy to have around" is balanced enough really, add "demihumans rock at low level but never Even get to High level unless thieves in wich case they on't rock that much anyway" and it's good to go.

I mean take the thief. Easily the weakest combatant. But, Even in 2e thieves still got XP for gp (and for using their skills) wich means a 2e thief, especially once his skills Get good (and in 2e this is less of an issue than in older editions) he doesn't really need to fight. A mid level thief with good Dex and focused skills can just waltz into the Dragon's lair, steal the best Treasure and run off, wich equals Treasure AND XP without a single round of combat (and if the Dragon avenges himself by torching the nearest village, well, the thief's a thief, he doesn't give a good goddamn ).