TheRPGSite

Whether as a DM or a game designer, you get told by "experts" that "game balance" is important. That's wrong; balance will almost always make for a worse experience.

Yes, no, Maybe.

AD&D had a certain balance to it. But it was not in any way the same as the balance of say 4e.

AD&D balances mostly with the power curves of the classes and the rarity curves of gaining some classes. And in the Druid and Monk cases for example, defined level limits. And so on. Nuance.

4e feels very homogenized. Very board game-y.

5e feels balanced in a way, a bit of 4e a bit of A. It works where 4e failed.

3e is the tough one. I have the least experience with. It feels to me like it works... but only as long as no one is trying to break it. But that is a problem with every edition. Just 3 and 5e lend too well to being broken if the DM did not say "No"

Game balance is an important part of maintaining a campaign. The balance is what keeps the campaign from becoming a Monty Haul joke with little challenge or a soul crushing meatgrinder that makes gaining level two an impossibility. Taking an analogy from Mr. Miyagi, balance  not just for combat. Balance is for whole campaign. When one tries to apply balance on the micro level, turn by turn, move by move, you get too much board game design philosophy in the rpg. Balance on a macro level is what is needed to keep the game challenging and engaging.

This macro approach to balance is a factor that drives player engagement. For example, players love to come up with strange & outrageous ideas and approaches-but only if there is a change that they will work. If there is too much balance applied at the micro level, then all such attempts will get watered down to fit within the tight rule parameters of things the rules were built to handle. As a consequence, players will cease trying to think of cool stuff and just use the bog standard menu of options because the rules will reduce anything else down to one of them anyway. This is how balance at the micro level can kill player engagement.

Macro level balance takes the campaign as a whole into account and doesn't concern itself with a few incidents of creative play resulting in big wins for the players here and there. Maintaining challenge and engagement over the campaign course is the goal, not making sure that each individual trial or challenge has that perfect balance. From experience I know that players who know that their creativity and ideas can really impact outcomes, are more focused and engaged in the game. That is well worth a little imbalance here and there.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 19, 2025, 07:58:24 AMGame balance is an important part of maintaining a campaign. The balance is what keeps the campaign from becoming a Monty Haul joke with little challenge or a soul crushing meatgrinder that makes gaining level two an impossibility. Taking an analogy from Mr. Miyagi, balance  not just for combat. Balance is for whole campaign. When one tries to apply balance on the micro level, turn by turn, move by move, you get too much board game design philosophy in the rpg. Balance on a macro level is what is needed to keep the game challenging and engaging.

This macro approach to balance is a factor that drives player engagement. For example, players love to come up with strange & outrageous ideas and approaches-but only if there is a change that they will work. If there is too much balance applied at the micro level, then all such attempts will get watered down to fit within the tight rule parameters of things the rules were built to handle. As a consequence, players will cease trying to think of cool stuff and just use the bog standard menu of options because the rules will reduce anything else down to one of them anyway. This is how balance at the micro level can kill player engagement.

Macro level balance takes the campaign as a whole into account and doesn't concern itself with a few incidents of creative play resulting in big wins for the players here and there. Maintaining challenge and engagement over the campaign course is the goal, not making sure that each individual trial or challenge has that perfect balance. From experience I know that players who know that their creativity and ideas can really impact outcomes, are more focused and engaged in the game. That is well worth a little imbalance here and there.

Greetings!

Absolutely right, Exploderwizard! Balance emphasis on too micro of level gets tedious and can really grind a game in bad ways. On the macro level, as you said, maintaining balance from that level is critical and essential for the game as a whole.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Interesting vid. I was struck by the highly individualistic ethos in this endeavour to make all characters equal in their ability to contribute across all situations. I've never played a game with this design approach, but I take your word for it. I think it is ironic though, given that the political ethos of these game companies (e.g. WOTC) is allegedly left wing.

In a collaborative, cooperative model of play, where players are willing to pass the torch around, waxing and waning in terms of their (mechanical) efficacy at times, each character's distinctive abilities benefit everyone (e.g. when the thief pulls off that backstab or the fighter delivers a devastating blow).

But the individualistic approach to game balance you described operates on the assumption that players will not be able to abide being in the background sometimes, or that other players might enjoy a temporary limelight (mechanically) when a situation fits their distinctive capabilities.

In other words, these game designers treat players as fragile and assume they need to experience a 'group equality' that's thoroughly individualistic.

Balance is crucial but not on the nuts and bolts, turn by turn level in combat.

Actually imbalance on smaller level is better so that everyone can do awesome stuff under different circumstances both in combat and outside it. If no ability/spell stands out the characters will all be the same just as if a fighters abilities feel identical to a wizards all characters become the same and that was a common complaint for 4e.

Balance to strive for is that looking over a session or a few sessions, everyone gets as much bang for their buck even if it is unevenly distributed in different encounters. Let the wizard be great at room clearing while the fighter shines in one on one fights and so on.

Balance between characters is important, it just shouldn't be balance by symmetry - which is the easiest/laziest method of balance. (The D&D 4e method.)

Even in combat, if it's a combat heavy system then everyone should be in the same ballpark. Not equally powerful overall, but feel like they're pulling their weight.

As a classic one example - clerics with undead. Against undead traditionally clerics are kinda OP due to their specifically anti-undead abilities. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the party is worthless.

A Rock-paper-scissors system can be helpful for this to have characters be useful at different times and never really feel like they're being carried.

Balance should be a concern but not THE priority.   Or more accurately, there shouldn't be a notable or obvious imbalance between player options.

This title is kinda clickbait.  Pundit's actual argument isn't even that balance is bad (he spends much of the video arguing for what I understand as balance), it's pointing out that there's a definite trend (and if it was just D&D 5e that would be enough, but Pathfinder 2 does it as well, and so did D&D 4e, and many of the modern smaller games with celebrity access trying to kidnap some of 5e's audience are doing this too) of trying to force everyone to have roughly equal power in almost every situation.

I think the big deal is combat- most games have relatively detailed combat minigames (for D&D, some players just care about that, it's the draw for them), and out of concern that a character can undercontribute, supply more and more options for even the least combat-oriented character to provide a relatively high baseline of contribution.

Is this a big enough issue in practice?  I don't think Pundit bothers to make that case very strongly.  Homogenization of actions is a problem in 5e, but the game tries to have enough mechanical complexity that it's at least interesting- big effects with low chances of success, various defenses to target with weaker attacks so that you can choose something consistent, effects with riders, all of which tend to allow for a character whose main concern isn't combat to do something that can be good, but probably isn't as good as a fighting-oriented character. 

The big advantage of avoiding this is that the interactions between characters are much more interesting if they have different specialties.  Additionally, if you're playing a game that is not tailored directly to you (as in, the challenges in a given location would be the same regardless of your party composition and level), having a bunch of guys that are similar means that you will get totally wrecked should you need something else (a pile of mages against magic resistant monsters, for instance), which provides built-in incentive to have a wide pool of talents.  And the emergent play from this is way more interesting- and these are points Pundit expands on and makes a solid case for in the video.


==
I had two thoughts not strictly related to the video but related to the idea of characters who are specialized in non-combat things.

1- What are good ways to avoid the "we have a guy who is good at repairing hyperdrive engines, and look what breaks in the middle of combat" situations, wherein a specialist / rogue / expert / engineer character ends up with a situation just crafted for him?  It's well within the kit of a fantasy game to have a locked door, but as a general trope how can these situations be constructed so as to not be forced?
2- A social situation often results in many players speaking their mind to an NPC.  Modern games have a variety of dice mechanics here (they usually lack many details as to how to apply them, however), and older games often give no guidance, or very minimal (Charisma and reaction roll).  Is "I'm good at talking" a valid thing to spend character build concept on in OSR games at all?  Is there a way to make this work in a modern game without trivializing what is actually being said by the players?

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2025, 12:10:28 PM1- What are good ways to avoid the "we have a guy who is good at repairing hyperdrive engines, and look what breaks in the middle of combat" situations, wherein a specialist / rogue / expert / engineer character ends up with a situation just crafted for him?  It's well within the kit of a fantasy game to have a locked door, but as a general trope how can these situations be constructed so as to not be forced?

As a general principle, I'd say "provide rich environments", full of possibility, and let the specialists create their own situations.

Another thought: have critical misses (or other fighter-generated events) trigger environmental issues for the specialist to deal with.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2025, 12:10:28 PM2- A social situation often results in many players speaking their mind to an NPC.  Modern games have a variety of dice mechanics here (they usually lack many details as to how to apply them, however), and older games often give no guidance, or very minimal (Charisma and reaction roll).  Is "I'm good at talking" a valid thing to spend character build concept on in OSR games at all?  Is there a way to make this work in a modern game without trivializing what is actually being said by the players?

There's lots of talk on this forum about this subject. Folks go both ways. I'm in the camp that prefers social interaction to be entirely on the players. Alex Macris has a nice clear explanation about how he uses a hybrid approach that I've heard or read a few times (somehwere on this forum, maybe also on his YouTube channel).

The problem is the martial/caster disparity. Casters are given spells for every imaginable problem, while martials are extremely specialized  in just hitting stuff while standing still. They're not nearly as useful in any capacity as a spell. A rogue has to make skill checks to detect traps or pick locks, whereas a caster can cast a spell that automatically does so without a roll. Martials have to deck themselves in new magic items every level to address problems, leading to the Christmas tree effect. Etc.

This is stupid design. Sure, 4e "solved" it with a chainsaw, but at least it tried. 3e, 5e, etc. just put their fingers in their ears and pretend there's no problem.

Numerous solutions have been proposed over the years like allowing equipment to level up with martials, give them fighting styles and martial maneuvers, access to ki, etc. Nothing ever sticks. In fact, martials have steadily lost advantages over the editions, such as strongholds being dropped in 3e and never coming back since.

"Balance" is relative to rules describing how the world operates presumably post-hoc to the setting conceits.

"Balance" in terms of running a game is the GM making sure the implementation of those rules are consistent to the aforementioned conceits AND bends those conceits to the will of the players based on their agency within the game. The corollary of this is that the GM should be willing to change those conceits to match exceptions they introduced, organically. The only limitation on this is the skills of the GM in question.

Dumbasses that think by numerically balancing all options within the rules will produce a perfectly balanced game on the table, magically on their own, are delusional. It will neither work, nor be fun.

The only balance needed in D&D is encounter against the PCs. And that is not an absolute. it is supposed to provide enough to challenge the PCs to a certain degree. But not overpower them.

No, it always makes for a better experience. Try good systems some time.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on February 20, 2025, 02:45:28 PMThe only balance needed in D&D is encounter against the PCs. And that is not an absolute. it is supposed to provide enough to challenge the PCs to a certain degree. But not overpower them.

Obviously false. Intraparty balance is the only balance that matters. The GM can do whatever he wants, so the idea of a balanced encounter is nonsensical, and not desirable in any case.

If some classes fail a same game test, then those classes are objectively bad and should either be re-written or removed.

Balance is a fool's errand, and also basically pointless. It's why 4E (at least on the PC side) sucked balls.

Quote from: Green Demon on February 19, 2025, 06:50:02 PMInteresting vid. I was struck by the highly individualistic ethos in this endeavour to make all characters equal in their ability to contribute across all situations. I've never played a game with this design approach, but I take your word for it. I think it is ironic though, given that the political ethos of these game companies (e.g. WOTC) is allegedly left wing.

In a collaborative, cooperative model of play, where players are willing to pass the torch around, waxing and waning in terms of their (mechanical) efficacy at times, each character's distinctive abilities benefit everyone (e.g. when the thief pulls off that backstab or the fighter delivers a devastating blow).

But the individualistic approach to game balance you described operates on the assumption that players will not be able to abide being in the background sometimes, or that other players might enjoy a temporary limelight (mechanically) when a situation fits their distinctive capabilities.

In other words, these game designers treat players as fragile and assume they need to experience a 'group equality' that's thoroughly individualistic.

Yup, that's right. And its such an error because it makes overall game play much less interesting.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on February 20, 2025, 09:01:14 AMAs a classic one example - clerics with undead. Against undead traditionally clerics are kinda OP due to their specifically anti-undead abilities. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the party is worthless.

But that's actually an example of niche protection, as I pointed out in the video. Clerics can fight in any battle, and contribute, but when Undead show up it allows the cleric to play a special role.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2025, 12:10:28 PM1- What are good ways to avoid the "we have a guy who is good at repairing hyperdrive engines, and look what breaks in the middle of combat" situations, wherein a specialist / rogue / expert / engineer character ends up with a situation just crafted for him?  It's well within the kit of a fantasy game to have a locked door, but as a general trope how can these situations be constructed so as to not be forced?

I use mixed encounters with a variety of creatures. The simplest example i can think of right now is that while the fighters are taking on the bigheat threat i also include weaker, but fast enemies who will try to target the spell casters. Skirmishers/outrider etc. They don't require as much combat prowess to take out so the thief is still useful for fighting those and also things like finishing off weakened enemies to less of the fighters damage output is wasted.

Theres also the idea of gimmicky weapons like something like a pepperball to blind enemies. The fighter could use it but the party is missing out on more if he does because he'd do more damage otherwise (thief will have good to-hit with missles and melee combat is more damaging due to adding strength bonuses. Its reasonable the thief will match or exceed the Fighter's Dex, or Agility in my case).

Granted, not every battle uses intellegent creatures, but i think its okay for the less combat focused character to have combats where they're less useful. Though even then ive had times where the fighter gets disarmed and then the thief throws their weapon back or carries the flammable oil to stop regeneration.

If I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

In general, I agree with the early posts that macro level balance before the campaign starts should be considered - but going to the micro level is counter-productive.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 21, 2025, 08:25:55 AM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on February 20, 2025, 09:01:14 AMAs a classic one example - clerics with undead. Against undead traditionally clerics are kinda OP due to their specifically anti-undead abilities. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the party is worthless.

But that's actually an example of niche protection, as I pointed out in the video. Clerics can fight in any battle, and contribute, but when Undead show up it allows the cleric to play a special role.

The balance of this critically depends on how often undead show up. For example, if I have an AD&D campaign about the war against the Deathknight lord, where most enemies fought are undead, then I might want to tweak how clerical turning works - like having it work only a limited number of times per day.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

That's presuming that the spellcasters fight duels separate from what the barbarian is doing. Conan was written as the hero of his stories, but that's not necessarily how things will work in an RPG.

In my AD&D experience, at high level the spellcasters would often make mundane action irrelevant. Spells like Teleport or Mass Invisibility meant we didn't have to fight our way through the guards or lift the gate. We could potentially just scry the enemy leader, jump to him, and wipe him out there.

On the other hand, low-level magic users were often reduced to just throwing darts as a minor aid to combat.

This balance made sense for long-term campaigns, but for one-shot adventures, I was tempted to tweak things for high or low level.

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 01:19:49 PMThat's presuming that the spellcasters fight duels separate from what the barbarian is doing. Conan was written as the hero of his stories, but that's not necessarily how things will work in an RPG.

In my AD&D experience, at high level the spellcasters would often make mundane action irrelevant. Spells like Teleport or Mass Invisibility meant we didn't have to fight our way through the guards or lift the gate. We could potentially just scry the enemy leader, jump to him, and wipe him out there.

On the other hand, low-level magic users were often reduced to just throwing darts as a minor aid to combat.

This balance made sense for long-term campaigns, but for one-shot adventures, I was tempted to tweak things for high or low level.

Okay, so the wizard scrys (scries? can scry...whatever) the bad guy, teleports the party there, then the fighter kills him. That's what I would expect from high level AD&D, though. Even if the wizard then cast a fireball to kill the dude, any sort of threat that requires high level wizards probably has magic resistance and/or lots of contingencies to deal with magic, hence the "mundane" fighter can whack him with a club if necessary. Also I have brought this up before, but technically in AD&D, MUs can't do shit against a high level fighter in a real combat situation. Well, NO characters can due to how initiative works. A fighter with 2 attacks per melee goes first, every single combat round. Hits the MU trying to cast a spell (or cleric, illusionist, druid, whatever) because no dex bonus when casting and a high level fighter doesn't even need to roll to hit AC 4 probably (without ANY bonuses), 1s don't miss! Good luck trying to have some evil wizard beat Conan. Hell, if you do not have a high level fighter in your group, again due to how initiate works, facing any monster with multiple attacks means your party is essentially fucked.

So, okay, "mundane actions" are EASIER, they are not irrelevant. Just using your example, eventually the Bad Guys are going to start using anti-magic shells to keep out the PCs from murdering them in their sleep. It'd be easier and cheaper to just hire a 15th level assassin to do that sort of thing, which again means "mundane actions" still matter.

I don't even know what I'm arguing here, because I agree that at high levels AD&D does become much more magic-focused, I just don't think that means there has to be some sort of "balance". I have only played one campaign where anyone was using 9th level spells, and my character was the aforementioned assassin. My character had PLENTY to do that would be considered "mundane".

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 02:42:08 PMI don't even know what I'm arguing here, because I agree that at high levels AD&D does become much more magic-focused, I just don't think that means there has to be some sort of "balance". I have only played one campaign where anyone was using 9th level spells, and my character was the aforementioned assassin. My character had PLENTY to do that would be considered "mundane".

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're arguing either.

The issue isn't whether a fighter can beat a wizard in melee combat. The issue is that high level magical abilities become so far-reaching that individual melee combat stops being as important.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 02:42:08 PMGood luck trying to have some evil wizard beat Conan. Hell, if you do not have a high level fighter in your group, again due to how initiate works, facing any monster with multiple attacks means your party is essentially fucked.

Charm, summon, illusion, polymorph, and other spells give spellcasters tons of options for melee capability without ever needing to get within melee range personally - this over the base defensive guard of henchmen and hirelings.

I ran an AD&D tournament adventure with only a bunch of high-level magic-users as PCs. The idea was the first half would take place within a huge anti-magic field, so they were forced to rely on their wits without spells. The second half was completely chaos with all the page-flipping and spell-casting, and it was interesting to see what they came up with.

Greetings!

Hmmm. I don't think "Balance" between Character Classes is really all that important to many players. As my commentary earlier, on the "Macro" level of the campaign, various degrees and elements of balance are important and meaningful for a great variety of reasons. At the "Micro" level, I don't think "Balance" is very important at all. Intellectually, many Players comprehend that Wizards, for example, are uber powerful, especially at high levels. That consideration alone, however, doesn't seem to be very compelling, let alone the dozens of arguments about what high level Wizards can do, compared to a similar, high level Fighter. Players just want to play whatever Character Class they are in the mood for, or otherwise are excited and jazzed about.

For example, I have one friend that just *loves* playing Wizards. He really gets jazzed about researching spell effects, and different min-max rules combinations, spells, and magic items so that he can ride around like a humanoid nuclear weapon. *Laughing* Yes, roleplaying is also important to him, characterization, being faithful to his Character background and personality, and so on. But no matter what, he always wants to find the angle where he can maximize his battlefield efficiency and impact.

Another Player is just always into playing Druids or Witches. She is at heart, a kind and gracious woman that just loves the whole forest-witchy-healing-cute animals thing.

Another Player loves playing Barbarians, Paladins, or Fighters. Just humble, otherwise ordinary men that are courageous and skilled with armour, weapons, fighting, and tactics.

Maybe I am cursed or blessed with rather normal gamers, but *most* of them don't care about min-maxing that much, or certainly ideas about what Wizards can do compared to Fighters. For the one particular Player, he loves Wizards, and enjoys min-maxing. Others though? They are entirely low-key uninterested. They are interested in what they like, almost in spite of whatever the rules are.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 04:17:51 PMMaybe I am cursed or blessed with rather normal gamers, but *most* of them don't care about min-maxing that much, or certainly ideas about what Wizards can do compared to Fighters. For the one particular Player, he loves Wizards, and enjoys min-maxing. Others though? They are entirely low-key uninterested. They are interested in what they like, almost in spite of whatever the rules are.

A lot of players are like that, as long as the thing they are interested in gets to shine sometimes.  And I don't even mean every hour or every session, as long as the shine when it comes pays off for the delay.  Furthermore, gets to shine means something different to each one of them, as you elaborated in the post.  Being sneaky and getting to scout out where the enemy is and thus avoid ambush is all of that and a bag of kittens to one player, while the next one sees the value to the party but has no interest in doing that themselves. 

Also, there is a kind of perverse enjoyment out of being a somewhat weaker combatant and getting the finishing shot.  About once every 3 sessions or so, I'll have some tough monster just refuse to go down, absorbing hit after hit, sometimes critical shots.  I know it's almost gone, but the players are starting to wonder even as I describe it as reeling. Then the wizard tosses a dart, rolls 1 point of damage, everyone groans waiting for its next round of attacks, and then burst into cheers as I describe it tottering and falling. 

Yeah, it's cool when you get that massive critical and practically one-shot some creature.  It's also cool when it goes the other way.  If you don't have somewhat unbalanced abilities in different areas, no one at the table gets to experience that.

Min-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

The point is the GM establishes what "balance" is at the table.

The elements of the game that are playable and interactable are (and should) be determined by the GM in accordance with the setting's conceits. The setting should, *ideally*, established what degree those elements that exist from the rule are extant in the setting.

This is how "D&D" has mutated into the freakshow it's become. By removing itself from the conceits of its setting(s) the core rules now tries to include everything without giving express guidance on expressing those rules within a setting.

So if everyone could be a Wizard - how would the world look? Why would Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms appear as it does in their original boxsets if "Good" Drow and Orcs were perfectly normal? If Wizards could and *would* dominate those settings?

Balance among classes has never *really* existed beyond certain small assumptions - the Glass Cannon of Spellcasters, vs. the HP-Bag of Tanks. But in-setting, those memes are subject to the realities of the rules in actual play. Which spawned other memes like the "Linear Fighter/Quadratic Mage".

Among all these things is the one single person - not the system - that determines *what balance is*. It's the GM.

The degree to which the GM can make these things work is dependent on their experience and skill with the system. This is partially why some systems "click" with you more than others. It's also why discussions of balance are almost always relegated to discussing "rule systems" because most people never actually GM. Their experiences of Balance or Imbalance are equally at the feet of GM's that have done their games dirty, either by misusing or not understanding the implementation of the rules and lacking GM-skills, or the opposite: They understood exactly how to apply the rules and express them in their games to make their setting come alive.

Balance is a dirty word because most people think rules alone are what makes game work. They don't. They never will in an RPG. They can only describe how things in the setting which they're used *might* work. The GM has to enforce those expressions, and if done right, no one will complain and everyone will say "ahh... this is balanced."

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 21, 2025, 05:20:58 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 04:17:51 PMMaybe I am cursed or blessed with rather normal gamers, but *most* of them don't care about min-maxing that much, or certainly ideas about what Wizards can do compared to Fighters. For the one particular Player, he loves Wizards, and enjoys min-maxing. Others though? They are entirely low-key uninterested. They are interested in what they like, almost in spite of whatever the rules are.

A lot of players are like that, as long as the thing they are interested in gets to shine sometimes.  And I don't even mean every hour or every session, as long as the shine when it comes pays off for the delay.  Furthermore, gets to shine means something different to each one of them, as you elaborated in the post.  Being sneaky and getting to scout out where the enemy is and thus avoid ambush is all of that and a bag of kittens to one player, while the next one sees the value to the party but has no interest in doing that themselves. 

Also, there is a kind of perverse enjoyment out of being a somewhat weaker combatant and getting the finishing shot.  About once every 3 sessions or so, I'll have some tough monster just refuse to go down, absorbing hit after hit, sometimes critical shots.  I know it's almost gone, but the players are starting to wonder even as I describe it as reeling. Then the wizard tosses a dart, rolls 1 point of damage, everyone groans waiting for its next round of attacks, and then burst into cheers as I describe it tottering and falling. 

Yeah, it's cool when you get that massive critical and practically one-shot some creature.  It's also cool when it goes the other way.  If you don't have somewhat unbalanced abilities in different areas, no one at the table gets to experience that.

Greetings!

Yeah, Steven Mitchell, great commentary. It's good to know I'm not alone in playing with some normal players. Most of my players seldom argue with me, certainly not on rules judgments. Most of them are just fine playing whatever Character Class, and they don't really bother with the minute details. They are content with my judgments or interpretations on what they can or can't do. Most of the time. Same thing goes with race selection. I tell them what races they can choose from for the starting area or whatever, and they are good with it.

I don't have to worry about any unexpected or stupid race and class combinations. For 5E for example.

And, Steven, you are definitely preaching there, man. I have several players that *LIKE* the "Underpowered" Character Class. They enjoy being mostly "Normal" with just a few extra tricks. I think you are right. There is definitely a emotional payoff for "Punching above your weight" you know? They enjoy having the odds kind of stacked against them. They like being given the beat-down. *Laughing* You really see them come alive when they struggle, and fight back, and TRIUMPH. They practically have a party when that happens. I admit, that is also contagious, even inspiring, you know? I enjoy it immensely when they crawl and struggle and achieve victory, despite odds being against them most of the way.

With Shadowdark, it has been refreshingly brief and much truncated in both rules, but also core game assumptions and overall campaign "Tone." I am free, then, to specifically create and add whatever I feel is apprropriate, say for races or even Character Classes. In Shadowdark, to be honest, all of the Character Classes are somewhat fragile, even at higher levels. They never become super heroes, or just as importantly, become so wacky and unbalanced as to cause the campaign to look like a weird Sci-Fi "Kitchen Sink" more than a more traditional, Dark Ages campaign setting. Which, is generally what I strive to maintain for Thandor.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 22, 2025, 08:58:47 AMMin-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

Yeah. I think there's some mixing up of what happens in game design versus what happens at the table by the GM. A game designer makes some roughly balanced choices at the macro level, and as a result, there are some micro-level more or less popular choices. Just because everyone doesn't take the top option doesn't mean that some basic balancing shouldn't be considered.

Some posts cited AD&D as an example, but Gygax was outspoken in favor of game balance as a principle - which makes sense coming from wargaming. From Dragon #16 (1978):

Quote from: Gary GygaxWhy can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Later in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2025, 01:59:14 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 22, 2025, 08:58:47 AMMin-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

Yeah. I think there's some mixing up of what happens in game design versus what happens at the table by the GM. A game designer makes some roughly balanced choices at the macro level, and as a result, there are some micro-level more or less popular choices. Just because everyone doesn't take the top option doesn't mean that some basic balancing shouldn't be considered.

Some posts cited AD&D as an example, but Gygax was outspoken in favor of game balance as a principle - which makes sense coming from wargaming. From Dragon #16 (1978):

Quote from: Gary GygaxWhy can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Later in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Yes Gary was certainly concerned about balance for the game as a whole. Sometimes players would make the argument that since all weapons do 1d6 damage, why not just let magic users wield swords? Well the answer to that question was presented in the magic item tables-not something a player deals with. 20% of ALL magic items found are magic swords. Magic swords are where the fighting man comes into good power ups. This is an example of how game rules can look non-sensical to the players but are actually integral to the game as a whole.

White-room concerns about spellcasters often come from the perspective that:

1. The game system perpetually adds more spells (due to publishing-creep)
2. The PCs have virtually unlimited access to more spells
3. The PCs have all the spells at any given point and no other limitations (material components, time to prepare, relationship with Deity, etc)

When you're only playing with ~25% of the game rules (selectively chosen) then it's understandable when the game seems a bit off-kilter.

This is an area where you have a lot of issues going on, mostly stemming from poor GM-Player communication and establishing mature table etiquette. If we're playing my homebrew "Wrath of the Badgers" campaign I'm not letting your level 1 "Immunity to Badgers" spell that you got from Mordenkainen's Splatbook of Horrors completely trivialize 80% of the campaign (and as a mature GM I'm going to tell you that up-front, not rug-pull you halfway into the campaign).

In terms of system design, I found it very useful to establish a ruthless balance in class design initially.

That made it a lot easier to then introduce imbalances into the system where the effects of each imbalance on how it plays are better understood.

For example, magic in the system uses a "build-up" system where the caster gathers energy to cast their spells.

One of the three casting classes uses the baseline of building X points a turn by taking actions.

The second class makes a check each turn to see how much power they draw... from 0 to 2X points each turn. The average is still 1X like the first class, but the dice will give it ebbs and flows where sometimes they can barely cast anything and others it has phenomenal power available.

The third class gets all its power, typically about 6X, front loaded during a rest and pre-spends their power into each of their magic devices, but gains no power outside of that. 6X is actually more than the "steady state" caster will build up in a typical encounter, but if they charge the wrong devices or reinforcements turn up they have no way to build more power to keep up their casting.

In play they all feel different and have different strengths (how they build up power is just one difference) and weaknesses that make them better or worse for different scenarios.

But because each of their imbalances was considered in relation to a balanced baseline none are so superior to the others as to render other classes worthless in comparison.

Quote from: Zelen on February 23, 2025, 10:06:06 AMWhite-room concerns about spellcasters often come from the perspective that:

1. The game system perpetually adds more spells (due to publishing-creep)
2. The PCs have virtually unlimited access to more spells
3. The PCs have all the spells at any given point and no other limitations (material components, time to prepare, relationship with Deity, etc)

When you're only playing with ~25% of the game rules (selectively chosen) then it's understandable when the game seems a bit off-kilter.

With AD&D 1E, everyone played with selectively chosen rules. Some parts especially -- like Grappling/Overbearing, Weapon-vs-Armor mods, and psionics -- were routinely ignored. Further, many people argued that the DM was supposed to use those rules as suggestions rather than trying to follow 100% of the rules as written.

I don't think these complaints were at all "white room". I've heard them lots of times from people who actually played AD&D.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

Why would I want my friend to sit around doing nothing during a game they were invited to participate in that occupies their valuable free time? That sounds pretty boring and lame. If my friend is Conan, I certainly want him sneaking around the flank to stab the sorcerer or ruin his ritual while I'm engaging him with magic. Teamwork is fun, and makes the game better.

A session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

A game system doesn't have to sacrifice fun for balance. They're orthogonal.

4e sucked ass. Fortunately, there are lots of good games that aren't 4e or D&D.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 07:59:06 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

I think their argument is that, "if the cleric's solo ritual consumes an entire weekly session, it sucks for everyone else but the cleric who could have saved gas and pizza money for all they matter to the session."

I've got no problem with the cleric solo-casting the ritual or how long it takes in in-game time, if it only sidelines the other PLAYERS for 5-10 minutes. If it's long enough they could grab dinner somewhere and be back before their characters can do anything, that's what I'd call a problem.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 08:25:12 AMI think their argument is that, "if the cleric's solo ritual consumes an entire weekly session, it sucks for everyone else but the cleric who could have saved gas and pizza money for all they matter to the session."

I've got no problem with the cleric solo-casting the ritual or how long it takes in in-game time, if it only sidelines the other PLAYERS for 5-10 minutes. If it's long enough they could grab dinner somewhere and be back before their characters can do anything, that's what I'd call a problem.

Fair enough, but if you're playing a real RPG, there will be times this sort of stuff happens and makes perfect sense in-game. MY point is that if it naturally occurs, trying to come up with dumb reasons to include other PCs makes the game meaningless. Now, an entire session, yeah, that's horseshit if you exclude everyone, but doing things in-game isn't the only way to participate.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 07:59:06 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

No, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:17:07 PMNo, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Yes he should. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Did I do it right?

EDIT: Nevermind, just a troll. I fell for it...sorry, guys.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 04:19:27 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:17:07 PMNo, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Yes he should. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Did I do it right?

EDIT: Nevermind, just a troll. I fell for it...sorry, guys.

No, I'm not trolling. I explained earlier in the thread why the cleric might want assistance. You haven't explained why he wouldn't.

So, why should he do it solo? What is your reasoning?

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 18, 2025, 08:30:34 PMWhether as a DM or a game designer, you get told by "experts" that "game balance" is important. That's wrong; balance will almost always make for a worse experience.
...

A rare disagree here.

What is wrong is the tolerance for bad game design. There is a lot of bad game design. To the point that games like WHFRP 4e ship with known mechanical issues on release. Same with CPRed.

But in RPG land, RPG's can exists on a lot of sizzle, relying on the GM to smooth over the mechanical rough patches on the system steak.


Game balance, is Good.

If an essentially one man shop like Alexander Macris can make a balanced game like ACKSII; there is simply no excuse for anyone else.

Game balance is demonstrably achievable.

Game designers that are not up to the task are the ones to be held at fault.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 04:19:27 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:17:07 PMNo, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Yes he should. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Did I do it right?

EDIT: Nevermind, just a troll. I fell for it...sorry, guys.

Greetings!

Reminds me of Domina in posting style. Snarky, acidic, slightly confrontational. Not serious in discussion or thought at the end of the day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:37:08 PMNo, I'm not trolling. I explained earlier in the thread why the cleric might want assistance. You haven't explained why he wouldn't.

So, why should he do it solo? What is your reasoning?

You are trolling, whatever. To directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot. FOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that. We had been playing this campaign for a while so not one player cared that they were sidelined for a bit while I got to take center stage. I will admit if it had been the entire session that might have been annoying, but then again, if it was the culmination of several years of gaming, we were all invested and it would make sense. I never had an issue with a player getting to basically do solo stuff for a while, within reason, if it made sense in-game. Sometimes it's fine to check out for a bit and get some Scotch and order a pizza while a singular PC is the focus. Sometimes their actions will dictate the entirety of the campaign, so you watch intently. Either way, the idea that every single fucking encounter and session has to be shared in reasonable amounts with all PCs is retarded as fuck, and THAT idea comes from a complete lack of actually playing RPGs at any reasonable level. You are asking the impossible for the GM to ensure all characters have shit to do all all times; that doesn't even make any sense. This is like getting mad that Scotty got to dominate an episode because Spock was laid up and no one else knew enough about the warp engines to be anything more than supporting cast.

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2025, 01:59:14 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 22, 2025, 08:58:47 AMMin-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

Yeah. I think there's some mixing up of what happens in game design versus what happens at the table by the GM. A game designer makes some roughly balanced choices at the macro level, and as a result, there are some micro-level more or less popular choices. Just because everyone doesn't take the top option doesn't mean that some basic balancing shouldn't be considered.

Some posts cited AD&D as an example, but Gygax was outspoken in favor of game balance as a principle - which makes sense coming from wargaming. From Dragon #16 (1978):

Quote from: Gary GygaxWhy can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Later in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Most of the wargames I like are not actually balanced, because they reflect historical battles.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AM

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

Why would I want my friend to sit around doing nothing during a game they were invited to participate in that occupies their valuable free time? That sounds pretty boring and lame. If my friend is Conan, I certainly want him sneaking around the flank to stab the sorcerer or ruin his ritual while I'm engaging him with magic. Teamwork is fun, and makes the game better.

A session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

A game system doesn't have to sacrifice fun for balance. They're orthogonal.

4e sucked ass. Fortunately, there are lots of good games that aren't 4e or D&D.

As I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Rifts. It has zero "balance" in class construction, rules consistency*, or narrative balance of the setting.

Yet, it's been actively played, and is still going strong for decades. I'd suspect its more popular now than ever.

Now I'm sure there are those here that don't like Rifts for whatever reason, but saying it's "imbalanced" shouldn't be one of them. It's a feature not a flaw. But I would ask, if balance is that important, how do we even explain the existence of Rifts?

I will say that without a GM that has a strong hand, Rifts can get out of control. But this is kind of my point upthread. "Balance" is an illusion. But it's something that has to be curated by the GM in expressing the setting as they want it, not by the rules alone.


*Rifts rules have morphed over time via many splatbooks, and simply by dint of age of the system without many revisions.

Quote from: tenbones on February 25, 2025, 10:56:42 AMRifts. It has zero "balance" in class construction, rules consistency*, or narrative balance of the setting.

Yet, it's been actively played, and is still going strong for decades. I'd suspect its more popular now than ever.

Now I'm sure there are those here that don't like Rifts for whatever reason, but saying it's "imbalanced" shouldn't be one of them. It's a feature not a flaw. But I would ask, if balance is that important, how do we even explain the existence of Rifts?

Because the balance tends to happen at the table level.

You don't see parties where a Vagabond and a Cosmo-Knight are in the same party outside of parody. The GM lays down parameters like "no Glitterboys, Dragon Hatchlings, Godlings, and absolutely no Cosmo-Knights" -or- "Cosmo-Knights and Godlings are absolutely allowed, pick you OCC/RCC accordingly." I

The last game I was in had, corebook OCCs (no Glitterboy or Dragons) only as a limit. We ended up with a Ley-Line Walker, Mind Melter, Dogboy (tracking/combat specialist), Body-Fixer, and a Robot Pilot (using a Flying Titan; one of the weakest power armors in the game); all humans except the Dogboy.

I actually talked to Kevin one year at Origins over lunch and the subject of game balance came up. He agreed with all of the above. He's designing a world and lots of things in a world are just unbalanced. It's up to the GM to decide the balance of his own campaign by allowing and disallowing things.

So, even Rifts has its balance, it's just not in the authorial tier world-building, but the GM-tier campaign building.

My favorite Rifts character was a vagabond...it actually worked out because he was the only non-magic/mutant PC in the entire party so the only one who could talk to CS soldiers and not get blasted into oblivion. My favorite Stormbringer PC was a beggar with a club who turned out to be the best combatant in the party. Maybe I just like making "unbalanced" characters useful.

Quote from: tenbones on February 25, 2025, 10:56:42 AMRifts. It has zero "balance" in class construction, rules consistency*, or narrative balance of the setting.

Yet, it's been actively played, and is still going strong for decades. I'd suspect its more popular now than ever.

Now I'm sure there are those here that don't like Rifts for whatever reason, but saying it's "imbalanced" shouldn't be one of them. It's a feature not a flaw. ...

I disagree; Rifts is a prime example of objectively bad game design.

It sells a lot of Sizzle, but the Steak is severely undercooked.

Most everyone here familiar with the system is well aware of its issues

Quote from: tenbones on February 25, 2025, 10:56:42 AMBut I would ask, if balance is that important, how do we even explain the existence of Rifts?

100% Legit question.

Fist, Rifts benefits hugely by being one of the first games of its type. In RPG land first mover advantage is huge, and nostalgia sells

It has also been demonstrably proven through other game lines like Shadowrun, or 1st ed Vampire, that gamers are ridiculously tolerant of bad game design if they otherwise like the core concept of an RPG.

Once you realise that most Palladium RPGs are really just a series of cool setting books, a lot of their popularity makes sense.

Gamers like Rifts as a concept. And gaming nerds being what they are, always think that they can make it work...

I reject the whole 'Balance at the table' conceit, because if I pay for a rules-set I don't think it unreasonable that it actually does what it says on the tin.

I do not like paying for the privilege of doing the game designers work for them.

The hard truth is that the RPG hobby as a whole has been far too tolerant of crap game design.

We have too many examples of good game design now to justify making excuses.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 02:58:05 PMI reject the whole 'Balance at the table' conceit, because if I pay for a rules-set I don't think it unreasonable that it actually does what it says on the tin.

I think you may have misunderstood my point about 'balance at the table level.'

It's not "GMs are expected to make the mechanics work to balance things."

Rather, its "this is a setting where everything from gods to vagabonds exist. The GM decides the range of options he wants at his table. If he wants to make a campaign of the gods warring with the Horsemen of the Apocalypse in Africa, you can do that. If he wants to do a campaign about underequipped merc infantry having to hold a town against bands of roving bandits and monsters, you can do that too."

Its like saying "You can start your D&D campaign with the PCs at whatever level makes sense for the campaign start point and its end point" only in this case its which character options are you choosing because Rifts has a relatively slow linear progression relative to D&D.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 25, 2025, 03:15:53 PMRather, its "this is a setting where everything from gods to vagabonds exist. The GM decides the range of options he wants at his table. If he wants to make a campaign of the gods warring with the Horsemen of the Apocalypse in Africa, you can do that. If he wants to do a campaign about underequipped merc infantry having to hold a town against bands of roving bandits and monsters, you can do that too."

You can do that with any RPG.

That's just GM's choosing to curate the game to make it work for them.

Still no excuse for objectively bad game design, which is what I am talking about.

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that "Balance" is mostly WotC trying to raise a barrier to entry for indie designers by blowing the smokescreen around their game that they have exhaustively playtested it. They didn't even fully proofread D&D's 2024 PHB to ensure features work Rules As Written, much less playtested it exhaustively. It's...a lie. They want indie game designers to spend millennia trying to playtest exhaustively because the more time they spend playtesting, the less likely this competing game will ever make it to market.

I'm not saying there's no use for playtesting, but that playtesting is far more about checking core functionality than anything else. No one actually uses it to systematically hunt down system flaws because that's just too expensive.

I think there are some legitimate concerns with balance and there are concerns you should ignore. Balance can mean PC spotlight time, PC raw power, or the chances that the PCs will win a specific encounter. I don't think that it makes any sense to say PC spotlight time or raw power need to be equally distributed. The design decisions which make it so the GM can use a Challenge Rating to guarantee the players will win does so by removing almost all player skill input, which makes the game aspects of the RPG boring.

This is why RPGs tend to have terrible combat compared to wargames, and rarely have interesting gameplay compared to board games; the quest for balance has shrunk the player skill and system mastery aspect of the game to the point that players listlessly dribble their fingers through the gameplay rather than putting effort in.

So far from being a good thing, balanced design is actively a bad thing.

Some balance is fine and some imbalance is fine.  What is not fine, is schizophrenic imbalance or obsessive compulsive balance.

Another way to think about that, is the mechanics should do what you say they do.  If your balance is wizards start off weak but get stronger as they go (balance over time), then the game should work that way.  Some people won't like that choice, but they'll be able to see it clearly, because you outright tell them it works that way. 

It may not be everyone's choice, but it is a better design than:

- You said that wizards start weaker and get stronger, but they don't start all that weak or they don't get all that strong.

- You made everyone the same so that you didn't need to wrestle with the question at all.

Instead, the designer should pick their balance and imbalance carefully, whether that be to reflect the setting, spotlight time, or whatever. 

The main problem with "balance" is that the very concept is out of control, driven by OCD mechanics uber alles, setting be damned.  Stop listening to those people, and a moderate dose of targeted balance is a useful, if not primary concept.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 25, 2025, 11:21:30 AM

Quote from: tenbones on February 25, 2025, 10:56:42 AMRifts. It has zero "balance" in class construction, rules consistency*, or narrative balance of the setting.

Yet, it's been actively played, and is still going strong for decades. I'd suspect its more popular now than ever.

Now I'm sure there are those here that don't like Rifts for whatever reason, but saying it's "imbalanced" shouldn't be one of them. It's a feature not a flaw. But I would ask, if balance is that important, how do we even explain the existence of Rifts?

Because the balance tends to happen at the table level.

You don't see parties where a Vagabond and a Cosmo-Knight are in the same party outside of parody. The GM lays down parameters like "no Glitterboys, Dragon Hatchlings, Godlings, and absolutely no Cosmo-Knights" -or- "Cosmo-Knights and Godlings are absolutely allowed, pick you OCC/RCC accordingly." I

The last game I was in had, corebook OCCs (no Glitterboy or Dragons) only as a limit. We ended up with a Ley-Line Walker, Mind Melter, Dogboy (tracking/combat specialist), Body-Fixer, and a Robot Pilot (using a Flying Titan; one of the weakest power armors in the game); all humans except the Dogboy.

I actually talked to Kevin one year at Origins over lunch and the subject of game balance came up. He agreed with all of the above. He's designing a world and lots of things in a world are just unbalanced. It's up to the GM to decide the balance of his own campaign by allowing and disallowing things.

So, even Rifts has its balance, it's just not in the authorial tier world-building, but the GM-tier campaign building.

Yeah that's my point upthread. The Rifts is the example of why the whole "balance" in gaming doesn't *ever* happen in the rules. It's all done by the GM. But that's something that people who are "forever players" probably don't click with unless they really give it some thought.

People that chase game-balance in the rules, or worse, design around that idea, end up with games that feel more boardgamey *at best*. 4e is a good example of this. And there is nothing wrong with this in a skirmish game. But for RPGs? Its an inferior concept that produces an inferior product.

We should be talking about how one "balances" their games from the GM seat as a more relevant discussion, imo. Not everyone approaches things the same way. I know my Realms games feel nothing like what most other people's Realms games I've played in. But that's because as GM's we emphasize the things we find important. The more skill you have as a GM the more bandwidth you can focus on those details. The world in motion is larger, and extends much further than what players and through their PC's can guess.

When people rely on the written product as the primary arbiter of "balance" you're ceding your own agency as the GM to express the setting as *you* want it done for your players to run wild in. MOST written content for RPG's be it a singular adventure, or even a dedicated sandbox of material can't contain everything the PC's might do, or attempt to try. And if you value player agency, which one should, otherwise we're all talking about very different definitions of RPG's and why we play them, then we should get our hands dirty with our settings and make them our own. "Balance" will emerge from that. And slowly as the GM gets more experience, those experiences will get better for their players.

Of course... this is the surest path to becoming the Forever GM... you've been warned. heh.

I think there's an interest point of balance being in service to the setting, from Pundit's example of historical wargames.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 25, 2025, 09:21:43 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2025, 01:59:14 AMLater in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Most of the wargames I like are not actually balanced, because they reflect historical battles.

My impression of historical wargames is that they will try to set balanced victory conditions such that an overmatched side can technically "win" by achieving certain goals. I didn't play historical wargames much - but I did a fair amount of Star Fleet Battles which had some fictional-history scenarios like this.

Some RPGs encourage certain options by making them favorably unbalanced in order to reflect the setting. I think of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, say, which deliberately made the "Slayer" option stronger than other hero options. An RPG can also look at alternate ways of balancing. Like how in the Ars Magica setting, mages are simply more powerful than non-magical characters, so it balances by having players take turns who plays their mage rather than gimping mages.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 26, 2025, 11:06:10 AMInstead, the designer should pick their balance and imbalance carefully, whether that be to reflect the setting, spotlight time, or whatever. 

The main problem with "balance" is that the very concept is out of control, driven by OCD mechanics uber alles, setting be damned.  Stop listening to those people, and a moderate dose of targeted balance is a useful, if not primary concept.

You imply that it's better to start from the setting, which I often enjoy though it maybe isn't the one true way.

One of the peculiarities of D&D is that it started from the rules and built its settings around the rules, rather than the setting coming first. This led to oddities in balancing, like clerics not using edged weapons without thought of who their god is. Or magic users not being able to wear armor in original AD&D, which left unexplained what happened if someone tried to put a magic user into armor. In 3E, this was back-justified with armor proficiencies and spell failure chances.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 04:18:06 PMYou can do that with any RPG.

That's just GM's choosing to curate the game to make it work for them.

Still no excuse for objectively bad game design, which is what I am talking about.

Yeah. I should add - there *is* bad game-design. The ability to overcome that is commensurate to the GM's skill. The funny thing is I've been *that guy* for decades, running systems like d20-based ones simply for no other reason than "tradition". There is a kind of two-way-street on that where familiarity of even BADLY designed systems: LOOKING AT YOU 3e will build tremendous inertia. And many of us languished there for far too long (granted I was trying to make it work.

At some point, much like those early OSR folks, you either go back to what worked for you, or like me, you realize you've spent so much time and energy trying to fix something you've created a Frankenstein that is effectively a fantasy-heartbreaker for your own group. And then you have that moment of clarity - you've been spending way too much time and energy trying to capture something that the system in question was never designed to do. This is what the OSR got right, to me. That less is more.

But I jumped ship from d20 altogether, because of my history with systems that did a LOT of things that d20 doesn't do well but does do "D&D style fantasy" just as well if not better. Talislanta's system is one of those. MSH showed me what a light system could do with power-scaling. The notion that D&D itself is just a bunch of tropes, nothing prevents anyone from using those tropes with a different system.

It's like driving a new car for the first time. Nope, its not a '71 Plymouth GTX OSR-edition. But it's going to take you to the same places you go regularly, just with different handling.

Today? If you're not into designing your own systems - there is really no excuse to find a system out there that *isn't* badly designed enough for you settle on beyond what is shoveled in front of you.

Gotta fight that D&D Brand inertia.

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2025, 04:30:32 PMI think there's an interest point of balance being in service to the setting, from Pundit's example of historical wargames.

Balance in service to the setting is *only* for the snapshot of time in which that setting is to be engaged with. Further the assumed scale of the game is to be addressed in the design - playing a War game ASSUMES the forces are balanced for the purposes of the conflict to be decided by strategy more than just mechanical stats.

Axis and Allies is a brilliant design for this reason. Case in point - you're not going to bother (unless you're just doing it for lols) stat out a division of German WWII Wermacht magically appear at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and play it out. Yay, the "Germans" win... but then what? I'm not trying to make a strawman here, I'm just illustrating that wargames and skirmish games play with this balance in design for an entirely different reason than RPG's.

RPG's are different in that they're designed for ad-hoc changes to the setting at the discretion of one source: the GM. In that the GM is sole-arbiter of changing the conditions of the setting as they see fit (or don't see, and fuck everything up).

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2025, 04:30:32 PMSome RPGs encourage certain options by making them favorably unbalanced in order to reflect the setting. I think of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, say, which deliberately made the "Slayer" option stronger than other hero options. An RPG can also look at alternate ways of balancing. Like how in the Ars Magica setting, mages are simply more powerful than non-magical characters, so it balances by having players take turns who plays their mage rather than gimping mages.

Never ran Buffy (or watched the show), but you're describing what people call "The Jedi Problem". Where one PC is a Jedi, and I can't count how many forum discussions have groused about this supposed "problem". When clearly as you point out there are whole games where by design there are going to be a single player that is "out of balance" with the others. I've *have* run Ars Magica a lot in the past. The funny thing is, my players always tossed out the "troupe style play" which is totally arbitrary and artificial, and instead they all just played mages and had a pool of minion npc's they bossed around or played as necessary.

The reality is - "balance" is a player concern. The "troupe" method exists because some players feel insecure when someone else is playing something else more "powerful" then themselves. It's an illusion. Characters with more power should have more responsibilities.

This is precisely how I run Supers campaigns that go on and on forever, where someone plays a Batman-like character on a team where someone else is playing a Thor-level Demon-trying-for-redemption. The Demon character has *WAAAAAY* more problems than the other PC that is dealing with super-spies, and stuff the Demon-character could put the kibosh on, like Superman would if Captain Cold was on the rampage.

The *GM* is the one that makes it work with their ruleset of choice. But if you relegate everything to just the rules, you get exactly what you described above: a wargame/skirmish-game that makes for a very sanitary RPG experience. Manicured for maximal blandness because individual PC's aren't armies or squads trying to do some singular strategic objective - unless you run your RPG's with that arm's distance. I don't. I want my players to sweat in the skin of their PC's.

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2025, 04:30:32 PMYou imply that it's better to start from the setting, which I often enjoy though it maybe isn't the one true way.

One of the peculiarities of D&D is that it started from the rules and built its settings around the rules, rather than the setting coming first. This led to oddities in balancing, like clerics not using edged weapons without thought of who their god is. Or magic users not being able to wear armor in original AD&D, which left unexplained what happened if someone tried to put a magic user into armor. In 3E, this was back-justified with armor proficiencies and spell failure chances.

And how did that work out? This gets back to how bad design can make it difficult for a GM to express a setting the way they need to because the rules get in the way. It can be done, but there is a differential ratio of GM skill and ruleset capacity to adapt. 3e is *pretty bad* at that.

"Balance," as the term is usually used is a crock, and an obsession with it leads to something like 4E.  Having characters with a variety of power levels in varying situations is a plus, it makes play more interesting.  There is one type of balance that I think in important, though, which I call "spotlight balance."  Everyone should have their moment to shine, and everyone should almost always have something to do, even if another character is the star at that moment.  The system can help a bit, but this is mainly on the DM.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 25, 2025, 03:15:53 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 02:58:05 PMI reject the whole 'Balance at the table' conceit, because if I pay for a rules-set I don't think it unreasonable that it actually does what it says on the tin.

I think you may have misunderstood my point about 'balance at the table level.'

It's not "GMs are expected to make the mechanics work to balance things."

Rather, its "this is a setting where everything from gods to vagabonds exist. The GM decides the range of options he wants at his table. If he wants to make a campaign of the gods warring with the Horsemen of the Apocalypse in Africa, you can do that. If he wants to do a campaign about underequipped merc infantry having to hold a town against bands of roving bandits and monsters, you can do that too."

Its like saying "You can start your D&D campaign with the PCs at whatever level makes sense for the campaign start point and its end point" only in this case its which character options are you choosing because Rifts has a relatively slow linear progression relative to D&D.

Thank you. This is exactly it. This is precisely what I mean by curation.

Quote from: tenbones on February 25, 2025, 10:56:42 AMRifts. It has zero "balance" in class construction, rules consistency*, or narrative balance of the setting.

Yet, it's been actively played, and is still going strong for decades. I'd suspect its more popular now than ever.

Now I'm sure there are those here that don't like Rifts for whatever reason, but saying it's "imbalanced" shouldn't be one of them. It's a feature not a flaw. But I would ask, if balance is that important, how do we even explain the existence of Rifts?

I will say that without a GM that has a strong hand, Rifts can get out of control. But this is kind of my point upthread. "Balance" is an illusion. But it's something that has to be curated by the GM in expressing the setting as they want it, not by the rules alone.


*Rifts rules have morphed over time via many splatbooks, and simply by dint of age of the system without many revisions.

RIFTS is a fantastic game, and the lack of balance is a big part of that.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 28, 2025, 07:56:17 AMRIFTS is a fantastic game, and the lack of balance is a big part of that.

I want to add to this... specifically about "bad design" and "GM skill" - there is another leg of this stool: internal consistency within the setting.

Ideally, the consistency should be part of the setting narrative. But it can also come from the GM glomming on to *something* that they can make hay out of because it's in there interest. Rifts is definitely that. It's not balanced in terms of rules, or even in the narrative assumptions. But it is consistent in its conceptual execution. It requires the GM to pick the elements they want to curate into their game. And there is no lack of options for them to choose from. High and low concept elements that all work with one another with the GM's deft hand.

Quote from: tenbones on February 28, 2025, 05:56:32 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 28, 2025, 07:56:17 AMRIFTS is a fantastic game, and the lack of balance is a big part of that.

I want to add to this... specifically about "bad design" and "GM skill" - there is another leg of this stool: internal consistency within the setting.

Ideally, the consistency should be part of the setting narrative. But it can also come from the GM glomming on to *something* that they can make hay out of because it's in there interest. Rifts is definitely that. It's not balanced in terms of rules, or even in the narrative assumptions. But it is consistent in its conceptual execution. It requires the GM to pick the elements they want to curate into their game. And there is no lack of options for them to choose from. High and low concept elements that all work with one another with the GM's deft hand.

Absolutely agreed!

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 02:58:05 PMI disagree; Rifts is a prime example of objectively bad game design.

The only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.  Everything else is just someone's opinion.  If according to some theory a game is bad but lots of folks are enjoying it, the only reasonable thing to do is change the theory.

RIFTs sold like a gazillion books. It was definitely not bad design.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 01, 2025, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 02:58:05 PMI disagree; Rifts is a prime example of objectively bad game design.

The only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.  Everything else is just someone's opinion.  If according to some theory a game is bad but lots of folks are enjoying it, the only reasonable thing to do is change the theory.

This is always a tricky question with reviews. Is Harry Potter really the best written novel? Or did it become popular for other reasons?

RPG reviews should take into account people's experience with actually playing the rules, but they can also suggest that there are things other than pure rules quality that go into how popular a game is. Pure popularity means that current-edition D&D is always the best design, but many people would say that isn't because of the design - it is because of things like marketing and art and reach. The same goes for lots of other popular games, including Rifts.

As long as in things that come up regularly in the campaign everyone has a chance to be effective (at least in one area) that's fine.

Something that manages to resonate with people, as Rifts and Harry Potter did, absolutely has something going for it.  It may not be a high water mark of quality, but to claim that it's a bad product is to be trying to deny the simple reality of the situation.  If something was irredeemable garbage no amount of advertising would make up for it, as evinced by the other properties that tried to catch the lightning in a bottle and abjectly failed.

Quote from: Valatar on March 02, 2025, 07:10:13 PMSomething that manages to resonate with people, as Rifts and Harry Potter did, absolutely has something going for it.  It may not be a high water mark of quality, but to claim that it's a bad product is to be trying to deny the simple reality of the situation.  If something was irredeemable garbage no amount of advertising would make up for it, as evinced by the other properties that tried to catch the lightning in a bottle and abjectly failed.

There's a medium in between "Harry Potter is irredeemable garbage" vs "Harry Potter is the best writing ever, because the most people like it".

One can critique parts of Harry Potter while still acknowledging that it has "something going for it". Likewise, with Rifts, I think someone can potentially critique the balance of its character creation while still allowing that the game as a whole has something going for it.

To be clear, I'm not siding for or against any particular critique. I own and read Rifts a while ago, but never played it. I don't remember it well enough to have a solid opinion on it. In the bigger picture, though, some people liking Rifts doesn't settle the general question of balance in RPGs.

QuoteThe only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.

This can't be true, because advertising works.  If you advertise and a product is more successful, it will have more players, and therefore, more people will have fun playing it.  If you hadn't advertised, it wouldn't reach as many players.  Did the game design change?  Of course not.  Many other things that are less obvious that advertising are here too- something can be timed just right (on purpose or by accident), price point, the creator being liked (or disliked), etc.

I mean, terrible things won't normally be very successful, and extraordinary things will not normally be total failures.  But you can't just trust the market to be an oracle on something as specific as "game design".  You'd need a more general term, such as "product design, implementation and delivery", something that the market actually can give you a good answer on. 

The Palladium system is hot garbage. It's creator is infamous for not using it as written.

The RIFTS setting is good, juvenile, gonzo fun.

Balance in RIFTS has rightly been pointed out to be in the setting and situation, and not the rules.

Quote from: Venka on March 03, 2025, 12:28:25 AM

QuoteThe only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.

This can't be true, because advertising works.  If you advertise and a product is more successful, it will have more players, and therefore, more people will have fun playing it.  If you hadn't advertised, it wouldn't reach as many players.  Did the game design change?  Of course not.  Many other things that are less obvious that advertising are here too- something can be timed just right (on purpose or by accident), price point, the creator being liked (or disliked), etc.

I mean, terrible things won't normally be very successful, and extraordinary things will not normally be total failures.  But you can't just trust the market to be an oracle on something as specific as "game design".  You'd need a more general term, such as "product design, implementation and delivery", something that the market actually can give you a good answer on. 

That's a good point, actually.  The number of people playing the game is not a perfect measure, but at least it's objective:  we can count it.  Marketing influences a certain number of people to try, and if it's good enough, they stick.  So that's important too.

So, back to first causes.  What makes a game good?  If a game is fun, then it's good.  Sadly, we don't have a fun-o-meter to scientifically measure how fun each game is.  We can try to measure how fun a game is in three ways (that I can think of).  1)  Count the number of folks playing.  Simple, easy, objective, but as you noted not perfect.  2)  Survey players as to how fun it is compared to other games they play.  This is probably the best, but it's expensive and difficult.  I've done market research professionally, and I would guess that the cost of such research compared to the marginally better information vs #1 would be worth it to WOTC but nobody else.  Also, less objective than #1 because how a survey is done can greatly influence the results.  3)  Come up with theories as to why games are fun and then compare new games to the criteria from our theories.

Most people are using #3 when they say a game is good or bad, and a lot of the time it works.  The problem is that sometimes those theories are wrong.  If you think a game is bad but people are having fun playing it, there's something wrong with your approach.  Or maybe it's just that the things you're looking for make the game fun for you but not necessarily for others.  In any case, such theories are certainly not objective.  They're subjectively made by specific individuals according to what's fun for them, and whether or not they conform to a theory is a subjective judgment as well.

Taking the example from upthread, is Harry Potter good?  I enjoyed reading it (except for parts of the last book) so I would say yes.  Is it beautiful written word?  Not so much, if you want that go read Stephen King or Roger Zelazny.  I suppose it depends on your definition of good.  Does good equal fun or does good equal poetry?

So back to the point, does balance make for a good game?  My experience says sometimes, but it's not essential.  I've has D&D games become less fun due to imbalance.  On the other hand 4E is the most balanced RPG ever, and I didn't enjoy it.  And RIFTS is way out there and the sheer number of folks playing shows that it's good.  Bottom line, I think balance is useful to think about but not as important as a lot of other elements of RPG design.

Quote from: BradYou are trolling, whatever.

No I'm not. I provided reasoning. He didn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: BradTo directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot.

No. It's a team game. You aren't playing fiction, you're playing a game.

Quote from: BradFOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that.

Terrible game design, then.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Right, and in the situation with the cleric and the barbarian, both characters get opportunities to shine. Because they're playing a good game instead of a bad one, so no one's time is wasted.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:21:09 PM

Quote from: BradYou are trolling, whatever.

No I'm not. I provided reasoning. He didn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: BradTo directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot.

No. It's a team game. You aren't playing fiction, you're playing a game.

Quote from: BradFOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that.

Terrible game design, then.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Right, and in the situation with the cleric and the barbarian, both characters get opportunities to shine. Because they're playing a good game instead of a bad one, so no one's time is wasted.

Sounds like the issue here is not lack of good design, but your lack of understanding and imagination.  It's a "you" problem, if you can't figure out how rotating spotlights can lead to a better experience than bland sameness of "balance."

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 03, 2025, 10:06:30 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:21:09 PM

Quote from: BradYou are trolling, whatever.

No I'm not. I provided reasoning. He didn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: BradTo directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot.

No. It's a team game. You aren't playing fiction, you're playing a game.

Quote from: BradFOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that.

Terrible game design, then.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Right, and in the situation with the cleric and the barbarian, both characters get opportunities to shine. Because they're playing a good game instead of a bad one, so no one's time is wasted.

Sounds like the issue here is not lack of good design, but your lack of understanding and imagination.  It's a "you" problem, if you can't figure out how rotating spotlights can lead to a better experience than bland sameness of "balance."

False. The issue is bad design.
No amount of imagination has any effect on the rules written in the book.
"Spotlighting" (which is something you shouldn't be doing anyway) has no effect on the rules written in the book.
Games are defined by their rules, and the rules either result in characters that can equally contribute to the game, or they do not. It's not subjective and how you feel about it is irrelevant.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 03, 2025, 10:06:30 PMSounds like the issue here is not lack of good design, but your lack of understanding and imagination.  It's a "you" problem, if you can't figure out how rotating spotlights can lead to a better experience than bland sameness of "balance."

It's just some dumbass fucking troll, don't bother replying. Literally waffles between "the fiction" and "it's a game" depending on whatever supports their "argument". Just obvious horseshit.