"3.x Gamers Don't Worry About Balance" [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sucrose

2012-03-22, 10:21 PM

Not really true for either of my present groups. In one, we all have areas of specialty that see reasonable play, and different things to do during combat, and so we don't directly compete against each other most of the time, but we still all make a point of aiming for about the same level of power in those things that we do step on each other's toes about.

In the other, a campaign actually wound up in a bit of trouble when I brought a moderately-decently-built DFI Bard into a pretty low-op world; because I overestimated the efficacy of enemies against a group enhanced by my creation, the DM wound up having a lot of trouble, and eventually went to pretty extreme lengths to negate my power.

In short, we worry about balance, but on the level of a single game, rather than systemic balance. So long as everyone within the game we're playing at any given time has about the same amount of narrative power, everything is fine, whether we're playing demigods or average joes.

Telonius

2012-03-22, 10:32 PM

I'm concerned about balance to some degree. Gamebreakers on the top end are banned, and lower-end classes get a leg up. As long as the power levels are roughly in the same ballpark, I don't worry that one person is doing an average of 15 damage per hit versus somebody else's 18.

Coidzor

2012-03-22, 10:55 PM

That seems a rather strange generalization.

The arguments we have on that subject alone would seem to illustrate this.

navar100

2012-03-22, 10:57 PM

The only balance that matters is everyone has their share of spotlight time. A player in my group is playing a monk in our Pathfinder game, and she's having a blast. Two sessions ago she had a major moment in the sun rescuing someone from a prison of air while the rest of battled the banshee guard. She could have fought the banshee as well without a problem. She just felt it better to do the rescuing while the banshee was occupied, and she was right.

I'm playing a Sorcerer and casting Benign Transposition to great effect in many a combat. The Paladin player noticed he has a spell that does the same thing, but it's a 4th level Paladin spell (Knight's Move) he couldn't cast until much higher level even if he wanted to. His reaction? He cheers me on casting Benign Transposition, doesn't think about Knight's Move at all, and we keep playing. The Cavalier charges with his lance against one opponent and he's happy. The fact that I cast Glitterdust blinding several enemies or Hypnotic Pattern to keep a dangerous opponent or two out of the combat for a while does not give him conniption fits of how "more powerful" spellcasting is. I don't resent casting Displacement on a warrior party member so that he has an easier time going one-on-one against the BBEG. I'll cast Invisibility on the rogue so she can scout easier in known enemy heavy areas. I don't resent using the spell slot. She does not resent not doing her roguish things all by herself without any help from anyone.

Hallelujah no one else in the party knows anything about Tiers to use it as a crutch for what classes to play. In our ten years of gaming we've had fighters and monks in the same party as clerics and wizards (even a Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric) without any problems whatsoever. If anything players not knowing the rules as well as me asked for my help on improving their character, but now they don't even need to ask anymore. They take two-weapon fighting and like it, get to use it, and don't give a damn about two-handed weapon Power Attack.

HunterOfJello

2012-03-22, 10:59 PM

Who the hell would ever say that?

Balance is one of the top worries of 3.x DMs.

huttj509

2012-03-22, 11:12 PM

I dislike being the guy doing nothing all the time.
I dislike being the guy doing everything all the time.

In the Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit scenario, I'd feel frustrated as either.

There are people who feel differently than I do about that, which I think is great. Heck, rarely I WANT to basically be the hireling pack carrier, but on purpose.

Thus, I feel that power/flexibility, and balance should be more obvious, so fewer end up in the AS/BB situation without intending to.

Coidzor

2012-03-22, 11:15 PM

For one thing, why would we have endemic rebalancing houserules surface or have had people come together to make Legend if there was truly a consensus that agreed with the title's presumption?

Hylas

2012-03-22, 11:22 PM

As a DM it's always a worry because you want encounters to be challenging and fun for everyone. Overall, people seem to have more fun when spellcasters act as enablers and buffers for the rest of the party than when they own everything with a thought.

Though I tend to play in groups so low-op that it would make this board cry. The last game I played (PF) I dominated an entire dungeon by playing a barbarian with 20 STR at level one with a greatsword and I used... power attack to do 2d6+10 damage. All of the players cried foul and no one had fun because I killed everything in one hit. In fact in all of my time playing with these guys I don't think anyone has ever taken power attack unless I made their character for them.

Then in another group one player (DM's friend special treatment kind of scenario) was some lizard race with a ridiculous strength score dervish that did over 200 damage a round somewhere around level 5.

The lesson here is that it doesn't matter what class is "powerful" and what class is "weak" so much as how the group plays.

MukkTB

2012-03-22, 11:44 PM

I play tier 3 characters. Not too weak or too strong.

My group on the other hand has only a vague idea that 3.x is terribly balanced.

Morithias

2012-03-23, 12:20 AM

My group worries about Balance....but we worry about balance in a different way.

In my setting the world is very hi-op, constantly developing new weapons, new techniques, and new spells.

So in general the rule is "You can do anything that isn't able to break the game world in two (pun-pun, persist time stop, etc), but once you use a build, the DM has the right to a. Look and record the build, and b. Use it against you later."

So there is balance, but my players have to be careful, you can play a shadowcaster who can gate in a pit fiend that's 160% as strong as the real thing.....but five campaigns down the round you might be facing the same opponent, and in World 1 the heroes don't always win....I actually wrote and DMed a campaign whose whole point was to TPK the party to drive that point home.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-03-23, 12:41 AM

[Group of People] has [Quality or Opinion].

Some do, some don't.

Acanous

2012-03-23, 12:48 AM

I think there's a "Scale" of balance here.
I mean, a Combat Reflexes/Robilar's Gambit/Stand Still/Cleave/Great Cleave/Improved Trip/Pounce/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack Spiked Chain barbarian is balanced pretty high on the scale of T4, and will outperform some sorcerors if they don't optimize.
(That's at lv 15, of course. 9th level spells are 9th level spells)
Each party member has a role, and how well they do that role pegs them for how "Balanced" they are with the rest of the party. If one person is tanking, DPSing, pulling battlefield control, and making skill checks, he's very much overpowered. If you do one or two things very well and the rest of the party can count on you for it without needing help, then you're about where "Balanced" should be.

Knaight

2012-03-23, 01:07 AM

[Group of People] has [Quality or Opinion].

Some do, some don't.

Unless the quality or opinion defines the group. "Gamers play games" and similar fail the some don't category.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-03-23, 01:15 AM

Unless the quality or opinion defines the group. "Gamers play games" and similar fail the some don't category.Haters gonna hate as well. I wasn't counting tautologies.

Heatwizard

2012-03-23, 01:20 AM

Who the hell would ever say that?

Balance is one of the top worries of 3.x DMs.

The logic might be:

3.x is notoriously off-balance.
3.x gamers like 3.x.
Ergo 3.x gamers must not find 3.x's balance to be an issue.

I could see that happening. The punchline would be 'If you cared about balance, you would play 4e/Legend/pet system of choice', I imagine.

Coidzor

2012-03-23, 01:23 AM

I actually wrote and DMed a campaign whose whole point was to TPK the party to drive that point home.

Wow. That is a whole crock of disingenuous hooey.

I mean, unless you were up front about that. But why they'd actually want to play that is kinda baffling considering how ultimately trivial it would be.

Hunter Killer

2012-03-23, 02:01 AM

I'd say that's not true. I worry about Balance. I need at least 5 Ranks in it so I'm not caught Flat-Footed when the Wizard casts Grease... :smallamused:

Seriously, though, I don't care a lot about mechanical balance. I agree with navar100: The only balance that really matters is spotlight time.

That said, as a DM I always try to give the melee characters Nice Things. My players generally don't care, because they understand casters have semi-phenomenal nearly-cosmic powers and melee does not.

Morithias

2012-03-23, 04:34 AM

Wow. That is a whole crock of disingenuous hooey.

I mean, unless you were up front about that. But why they'd actually want to play that is kinda baffling considering how ultimately trivial it would be.

Well it wasn't just a "rocks fall, everybody dies" campaign. It involved them trying to find three rare items (Demon poison, water element essence, and nymph's hair) that were required for curing a plague that turned people into wights and wiped out a quarter of the planet.

They got the first two alright, everything is going according to plan....then they went to the brothel where there was a half-nymph there to get a lock of her hair.....and it happened to be full of vampires.

They killed the "Head" vampire, but the Nymph was locked up in a cage insane from lack of feeding, so they gave her some fruits that acted like blood (plasma fruits), so she gave them her hair and offered them a drink. The party was a conjour, a dragon shaman, and a frenzied berserker.

Needless to say the wine she served being in a brothel and all was laced with a drug from the BoEF called "Black out" which has a DC 20 fort save, and if you fail does 1d4 wisdom damage and makes you act under Suggestion if someone asks for something sexual (basically it's a date rape drug).

Wizard fails his fort save. Half-Nymph takes him to the bedroom and sleeps with him, then she crawls up his body...puts her hand over his mouth and bites him.

Now here's the REALLY ironic part, the wizard had a way out of this, but the player decided "You know what let's go vampire and see where this leads in the future", so the wizard dies.

Then the half-nymph gets dressed walks downstairs, and in her surprise round dominates the berserker.

The dragon shaman (who had the cures on him at the time) wisely decides to jump out the bloody window and run like hell.

So I didn't just kill them with an impossible fight, I actually out thought them, and yes, had they beaten the nymph or gotten out alive, I would've let them live.

The point of the campaign was, "Evil does win in this setting occasionally, there are no evil gods, and even the underworld isn't a place of torture, but there are still evil people and they will occasionally get victory."

It was to show them that although the World is idealistic overall, there are still dark patches, which is why we need heroes and adventurers.

They enjoyed the campaign, and they are all looking forward to seeing where the wizard, berserker and nymph end up showing up again.

Rejusu

2012-03-23, 04:38 AM

In 3.X balance is relative.

If you have a bunch of high-op players then you balance the game according to their abilities, if you have a bunch of low-op players then you do the same. If the DM wants to make the game harder they can do that, if they want to make things easier they can do that too. If they want to restrict a player from building certain things into their character because they'll end up upsetting the balance then that's another option they have.

In a nutshell the 3.X system is not balanced, but nor does it need to be. Just because the system isn't balanced doesn't mean the games can't be balanced. Ultimately the DM is the arbiter of balance and frankly I prefer it this way.

A system that focuses too much on balance looses an element of fun. And the biggest problem with focusing on balance is it often leads to homogenization because poor designers can't figure out how to balance things without making every class able to do what every other class can do.

Ceaon

2012-03-23, 04:39 AM

My group cared so much that we quite 3.x for a while. The DM had to rebalance encounters because we kept finding out new tricks to completely destroy encounters without even trying that much.
Well, the spellcasters did. The melee guys would get bored because they never did anything useful the more tricks we found out.

And of course, the worst flaw I find in 3.x is that you can not have a climactic battle between the party and a single BBEG - something which I enjoy immensely.

Averis Vol

2012-03-23, 06:11 AM

Yora

2012-03-23, 06:14 AM

In all my years, I encountered only one player who I would think would put some thought into optimization. But he played a warmage, so that probably doesn't count. :smallamused:

NineThePuma

2012-03-23, 06:32 AM

I actively restrict my character building so that I don't accidentally overshadow my IRL group.

DeAnno

2012-03-23, 06:47 AM

I find in most high OP games (PO, not TO), low and high tier characters actually tend to coexist pretty well in 3.5. The economy of actions means that it is generally smart to invest resources in the party such that the action resources of PCs, even low tier ones, are not wasted. Beatsticks will get buffs prebattle and a decent amount of support in battle, as well as specific gear to compensate for weaknesses so they don't need as much babysitting.

Of course, this actually tends to work better with laissez faire DMs who give the party lots of resources to spend, lots of options for spellbooks, and lots of splat and dip options which tend to help lower tiers relatively more. As long as a character has a good schtick, generally they will do useful things and feel good about themselves.

Of course, if one character has become so powerful that there are few challenges in the campaign at all, this will break down. But generally when the challenge level is kept ramped up to the point where people are struggling, they all struggle together.

danzibr

2012-03-23, 07:16 AM

Who the hell would ever say that?

Balance is one of the top worries of 3.x DMs.
I understood it as the players rather than the DMs. But yeah, agreed if we are talking about DMs. No DM wants to see one player waaaaaaaaay better than another (maybe some do, but that's weird).

As for my groups, there's a little strength difference, but everyone has their niches. We've also never played really high levels though (I mean like, 15+). So yeah, we keep it somewhat balanced. Nobody optimizes too much.

DigoDragon

2012-03-23, 07:17 AM

My players don't worry about balance or optimization. They'll build whatever they want for characters, even including dips into monk. I think sometimes they purposely do that to make optimizers on these boards cry. :smallbiggrin:

But really, I think the balance issue is more of a concern for the DM since you want to ensure the party is properly challenged with encounters yet that everyone in the group can contribute to the team.

Kurald Galain

2012-03-23, 07:20 AM

True for you? True for your group? To What degree?

Sure. Balance is overrated, and nothing a competent DM can't deal with.

Acanous

2012-03-23, 07:27 AM

Actually there IS a way to have the party fight an epic BBEG encounter, but it requires a few opaque or painted-over walls of force, the BBEG to have Etherial Jaunt and Plane Shift handy (Easy to do as soon as Lesser Planar Binding comes online) and preferably a Belt of Battle and some item that grants Celerity.
Chained Dispel/Greater Dispel/Disjunction will also make the fight last a lot longer.

Oh, and the BBEG is also a dragon.

Gnaeus

2012-03-23, 07:36 AM

"Balance" by itself is meaningless.

Does it mean that all PCs are equal? If yes, 3.5 is terribly balanced. And probably very few people who play 3.5 care a lot about it.

Does it mean that all PCs have their moments in the sun? If yes, lots of players and DMs care about it.

Does it mean that PCs are able to fight appropriate environmental challenges? If yes, lots of players and DMs care about it. At least enough to know how not to make encounters too easy or TPKs.

Does it mean that all the classes perform as advertized? This isn't so much balance as predictability, but many players care a lot about it.

Also, it isn't a yes/no binary. It is a matter of scale and priorities. For me, in choosing a system, Character options > Predictability > Balance. That doesn't mean that I don't want the game to be balanced, only that I am not willing to sacrifice much diversity in character building to get there.

dsmiles

2012-03-23, 07:38 AM

Nah. I really don't care about balance, as long as I'm having fun. Character creation is an organic growth process that isn't necessarily driven by the mechanical bonuses (and/or penalties) that may (or may not) accrue. For me it's about building a character that appeals to my sense of who the character is. Yeah, bonuses are nice, but if I take non-optimal feats or classes or spells or whatever, it's not going to hurt my feelings any. I just don't worry about that stuff anymore.

Suteinu

2012-03-23, 07:51 AM

I generally play in small groups (except at MechaCon in NOLA; I've been running 10 PC games the past couple of years!), and Balance is of little concearn. So long as the story is good, the players are creative, and the DM can improvise, we have a dandy time.

Of course, broken things like Truenamer (cool concept, lazy execution) do send me right to the Forum...

Krotchrot

2012-03-23, 08:32 AM

I'm pretty concerned with it. Being an optimizer (one dedicated enough to browse this forum regularly) I play really strong characters. I don't want other people to feel redundant or useless, so I always offer them help in making their character concept into its mechanical best.

Some players choose not to let me assist them. That's fine too, if it's what they enjoy.

This. I as well optimize but suggest to my friends what they could do with their characters.

ShriekingDrake

2012-03-23, 09:03 AM

In my groups, we rely on the DMs to make the game great (and the players as well, but the DM really holds the reins). Each player comes to the table wanting different things. Some want to optimize, to maximize their character's potential within the rules (and house rules). Others want to role-play, to experience adventure from the perspective of an iconic (or less iconic) character. Still others want to hack and slash without having to think too mu8ch and some want to avoid rolling the dice as much as possible. Our DMs are great because they can serve all these needs. They throw problems at each character that that character can handle and that that player can enjoy.

It's a game; it is supposed to be fun. It's about playing together, making memories, and having a good time. And while we each have things that appeal to us, the game is flexible enough to accommodate all.

chaotician375

2012-03-23, 10:30 AM

If anything 3.x player HAVE to worry about balance because the system doesn't. Think about it, a level 20 fighter with good gear and stats is churning out 30 damage per hit on average, and usually doesn't get the chance to get a Full-attack for a theoretical 120, while having to deal with a full AC. On the Flip side a level 20 wizard can be soaring above the battlefield casts time stop and uses 2-5 empowered delayed blast fireball to deal 210-525 damage, without dealing with AC at all, just a reflex save (which still results in half damage) while the fighter is stuck with nothing, for 2-5 turns. Then the next day when the group needs to infiltrate a stronghold to free the princess (Who is in another castle:smallwink:) the wizard uses other magics to teleport or invisible his way into the dungeon while the Fighter dies distracting the dragon.

It is a system that can be broken, even with all its rules. I know it is possible for a fighter to be more effective than I stated above, but for a wizard it just takes levels. The game is definitely fun and I love it, but the developers most definitely missed the mark on game balance, something that they kind of went overboard on in 4e (but no game is perfect). Because of this, the Players HAVE to consider balance. The wizard chooses the role they wish to fill and chooses not to do all of the party members jobs, from defense to damage to stealth. It is up to players to keep balance in mind, and if they don't, the DM needs to step in and tell the player who wants to play a wizard to either rein it in, or play a sorcerer to limit what he can do.

Anyway I'm rambling the player must, and usually do, worry greatly about game balance.

dsmiles

2012-03-23, 11:11 AM

Anyway I'm rambling the player must, and usually do, worry greatly about game balance.I disagree. If the player is a high-op player, he/she should seek out a high-op group, instead of having to "rein it in" in a low-op group. Nobody's having fun in this scenario.
On the flip side, a low-op player should similarly avoid high-op groups so that neither the group's fun , nor the individual's fun, is ruined by having to "carry the monk dead weight."

I'd honestly rather not game than game with a group where I'm not having fun.

Gnaeus

2012-03-23, 11:23 AM

I disagree. If the player is a high-op player, he/she should seek out a high-op group, instead of having to "rein it in" in a low-op group. Nobody's having fun in this scenario.
On the flip side, a low-op player should similarly avoid high-op groups so that neither the group's fun , nor the individual's fun, is ruined by having to "carry the monk dead weight."

I'd honestly rather not game than game with a group where I'm not having fun.

This assumes that all gaming types are equally available and otherwise equally fun.

In my experience, most games I have joined have been for either social reasons (I like the DM, I like the other players) or environmental reasons (the time is convenient, the location is convenient) or both. Most games I have left have failed for either environment or social reasons. I would rather go to a low-op game with people I like at a convenient time and just have to rein in my character, than a high-op game that was inconvenient or otherwise less fun, even if it was closer to my optimization style.

Rejusu

2012-03-23, 11:26 AM

yea i'm an avid 3.x player, i know theres very little balance but something i learned from trying 4th ed...... i take miserable imbalance over the worst same character syndrome game i have ever seen. i played two games, figuring it might have just been the DM, but even the second game the fighter played like the wizard played like the avenger. yes i can only hit you like this once a fight for some reason and yes its going to do a d10+wis.

to the point yes i understand how broken some things can be but as long as your playing with friends whos really going to exploit the obvious flaws unless everyone is? and the whole "gentlemans agreement" is pretty much standard in any game.

Also, it isn't a yes/no binary. It is a matter of scale and priorities. For me, in choosing a system, Character options > Predictability > Balance. That doesn't mean that I don't want the game to be balanced, only that I am not willing to sacrifice much diversity in character building to get there.

These pretty much sum up the majority of my complaints with 4th edition. It's also why it bugs me when people bring up "balance" as a selling point of 4E, when I actually consider it to be one of the problems with it.

If anything 3.x player HAVE to worry about balance because the system doesn't. Think about it, a level 20 fighter with good gear and stats is churning out 30 damage per hit on average, and usually doesn't get the chance to get a Full-attack for a theoretical 120, while having to deal with a full AC. On the Flip side a level 20 wizard can be soaring above the battlefield casts time stop and uses 2-5 empowered delayed blast fireball to deal 210-525 damage, without dealing with AC at all, just a reflex save (which still results in half damage) while the fighter is stuck with nothing, for 2-5 turns. Then the next day when the group needs to infiltrate a stronghold to free the princess (Who is in another castle:smallwink:) the wizard uses other magics to teleport or invisible his way into the dungeon while the Fighter dies distracting the dragon.

This is also part of the DM's job though. While you can't go around telling people what they should play, you can encourage them to do other things or restrict them from going overboard. Like if I was DMing and a player told me they wanted to make a Monk (just a straight Monk) I'd recommend they check out something like the unarmed swordsage or a tashalatora psychic warrior instead. Similarly if someone told me they were making a level 1 Kobold Psion with a suspiciously boosted "Knowledge (the planes)" skill I'd tell them to get out.

You also reminded me of a point I should have made before, and it's an important one:

D&D is NOT a competitive game.
At least in most circumstances.

Most people don't seem to get that it's not a race. You're working together, not against each other. Who cares if the Wizard does a million more damage than you do when you're playing the king of pong and throwing enemies into each other? What matters most is that your character is FUN to play.

Balance helps towards this as it means you're not constantly overshadowed, but it is by no means essential for fun in a co-operative environment. In a competitive environment balance is essential, no one likes being curb stomped because the opponent is winning on the strength of their character rather than on their own skills.

Sadly though while you can take the competitive nature out of the game, you can't take it out of the players.

Lucy Land

2012-03-23, 11:48 AM

The logic might be:

3.x is notoriously off-balance.
3.x gamers like 3.x.
Ergo 3.x gamers must not find 3.x's balance to be an issue.

I could see that happening. The punchline would be 'If you cared about balance, you would play 4e/Legend/pet system of choice', I imagine.
Yeah this seems to be the prevailing logic, when this statement pops up. Obviously balance is an issue for some gamers; mostly those who frequent gamer forums like this one. But it seems to me that it's also a question of degree. Because like Averis Vol says, there are better-balanced games out there that 3.x gamers could be playing. (Post 25) So balance must not be their top priority.

My group cared so much that we quite 3.x for a while. The DM had to rebalance encounters because we kept finding out new tricks to completely destroy encounters without even trying that much.
Well, the spellcasters did. The melee guys would get bored because they never did anything useful the more tricks we found out.
So how was the issue resolved? Or was it...?

Anyway I'm rambling the player must, and usually do, worry greatly about game balance.
You've had a very different game experience than I have, then. IME, most live DMs and players don't think about it much. And if they do, they often have pretty strange ideas -- "warlocks are so cheesy!" See also Yora's comment in post 26.

Lucy Land

2012-03-23, 11:49 AM

Double post.

chaotician375

2012-03-23, 12:18 PM

I disagree. If the player is a high-op player, he/she should seek out a high-op group, instead of having to "rein it in" in a low-op group. Nobody's having fun in this scenario.
On the flip side, a low-op player should similarly avoid high-op groups so that neither the group's fun , nor the individual's fun, is ruined by having to "carry the monk dead weight."

I'd honestly rather not game than game with a group where I'm not having fun.

The thing is people usually seek to play with friends, not high-op or lo-op groups. In my group, I know how to make an extremely powerful melee combatant because i know the system. On the flip side my new to D&D friend makes a rogue/wizard/arcane trickster, and feels like a crappy rogue, crappy wizard. so I made a different character so that the they had fun. The system rewards people who know how it works, and punishes people who don't, and because its inherently unbalanced. So both players, and DM's must activly sek to Balance it for the group.

dsmiles

2012-03-23, 01:41 PM

The thing is people usually seek to play with friends, not high-op or lo-op groups. In my group, I know how to make an extremely powerful melee combatant because i know the system. On the flip side my new to D&D friend makes a rogue/wizard/arcane trickster, and feels like a crappy rogue, crappy wizard. so I made a different character so that the they had fun. The system rewards people who know how it works, and punishes people who don't, and because its inherently unbalanced. So both players, and DM's must activly sek to Balance it for the group.

Maybe I'm different in the fact that I would rather go find a new group (of strangers) that fits my playstyle than play in a group (of friends) where I'm not having fun because my playstyle doesn't mesh with their idea of 'fun.'

Greyfeld85

2012-03-23, 01:52 PM

Maybe I'm different in the fact that I would rather go find a new group (of strangers) that fits my playstyle than play in a group (of friends) where I'm not having fun because my playstyle doesn't mesh with their idea of 'fun.'

That's a valid viewpoint (and I understand where you're coming from, because I have the same problem when I play MMOs with friends who don't know what the hell they're doing), but it should be noted that many RL tabletop games are played between groups of friends who gravitate toward roleplaying as a way to hang out.

nedz

2012-03-23, 01:59 PM

I dislike being the guy doing nothing all the time.
I dislike being the guy doing everything all the time.

In the Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit scenario, I'd feel frustrated as either.
...
This really

Balance is one of the top worries of 3.x DMs.
And this, very much.

I disagree. If the player is a high-op player, he/she should seek out a high-op group, instead of having to "rein it in" in a low-op group. Nobody's having fun in this scenario.
On the flip side, a low-op player should similarly avoid high-op groups so that neither the group's fun , nor the individual's fun, is ruined by having to "carry the monk dead weight."

I'd honestly rather not game than game with a group where I'm not having fun.
Or you should pick a low op class and see what you can do with it.
Or play in a group of low tier classes: Monk can be fun if everyone plays one, and there's none of that rocket tag business either. Combats last ages - 30 rounds is typical.

D&D is NOT a competitive game.
At least in most circumstances.

But some players are competative, some aren't. Its in their nature, its what they want, and its how they will play.

Balance has always been an issue even in 1E. Player 1 rolls 18-18-18-x-x-x, Player 2 rolls 16-15-x-x-x-x; stats were that much more important. I heard they fixed balance in 4E, did it help ?

It can be hard to create challanging encounters in an unbalanced party, Its a thin line between walkover and TPK. I ran a couple of games in 2E where this was a real problem, though at least if you gave the casters enough rope ... :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles

2012-03-23, 02:01 PM

That's a valid viewpoint (and I understand where you're coming from, because I have the same problem when I play MMOs with friends who don't know what the hell they're doing), but it should be noted that many RL tabletop games are played between groups of friends who gravitate toward roleplaying as a way to hang out.

Nah. I see them every day at the office. Fortunately, we're all low-op players (and like it that way!). If they suddenly went high-op, I'd throw up the deuces and find a new group. We'd still hang out. (As it is, I'm close to finding a new group, as I'm burnt out on Fantasy RPGs, and they ONLY want to play DnD. :smallsigh:)

Greyfeld85

2012-03-23, 02:09 PM

Nah. I see them every day at the office. Fortunately, we're all low-op players (and like it that way!). If they suddenly went high-op, I'd throw up the deuces and find a new group. We'd still hang out. (As it is, I'm close to finding a new group, as I'm burnt out on Fantasy RPGs, and they ONLY want to play DnD. :smallsigh:)

You should take a small step back and re-read my post. While these may be your circumstances, I said "many" games, not "your" games. I was speaking in general, not to your specific situation.

Gnaeus

2012-03-23, 02:20 PM

It can be hard to create challanging encounters in an unbalanced party, Its a thin line between walkover and TPK. :

Heck, even in a balanced party.

My current group is mid-high op. Tier 3, but higher edge tier 3.

Our damage dealer easily churns out 250 damage in a round. My buffed damage is less than 1/3rd that. I either rely on save or lose or no-save-just lose effects, or I can't hurt anything he is fighting.

On the other hand, my AC is more than 20 points higher than his. Anything that can hit me at all only misses him on a 1. That is before my miss chances and other defenses.

And we are at similar optimization levels.

Coidzor

2012-03-23, 03:47 PM

But some players are competative, some aren't. Its in their nature, its what they want, and its how they will play.

Well, yeah, if you can't convince them not to try to devolve the game into an endless round of pointless teamkilling they will, but most DMs are capable of preventing that or at least kicking someone who is an unrepentant troll.

Sitzkrieg

2012-03-23, 03:52 PM

It seems like there's always a lot of debate on the boards about balance but I've never really understood why. Once you have 5 ranks it really shouldn't come up all that often.

nedz

2012-03-23, 04:45 PM

Well, yeah, if you can't convince them not to try to devolve the game into an endless round of pointless teamkilling they will, but most DMs are capable of preventing that or at least kicking someone who is an unrepentant troll.

That wasn't quite what I was thinking, more their desire to outshine the rest of the team.
Pointless teamkillers are just an antagonist for the party, a monster I don't have to run. This gets old very fast. I would expect most parties to resolve this without my intervention.

Rejusu

2012-03-23, 05:05 PM

But some players are competative, some aren't. Its in their nature, its what they want, and its how they will play.

Balance has always been an issue even in 1E. Player 1 rolls 18-18-18-x-x-x, Player 2 rolls 16-15-x-x-x-x; stats were that much more important. I heard they fixed balance in 4E, did it help ?

Yes I know, that's why I noted that you can't remove the competitiveness from the players even if you can remove it from the game. However you can remind them that the goal is to have fun, not to see who can do the most damage.

Did it help even out class power? Yes. Did it help the game? No, not in my opinion. It made it less fun and less interesting to play, your character feels no different from anyone else's character, you have precious few things that only you can do, and despite each class seemingly having more options you feel like you have even less options than before due to how samey they all feel.

Well, yeah, if you can't convince them not to try to devolve the game into an endless round of pointless teamkilling they will, but most DMs are capable of preventing that or at least kicking someone who is an unrepentant troll.

That wasn't quite what I was thinking, more their desire to outshine the rest of the team.
Pointless teamkillers are just an antagonist for the party, a monster I don't have to run. This gets old very fast. I would expect most parties to resolve this without my intervention.

Yeah this is pretty much what I was talking about. Not all competitions involve directly facing off against one another Coidzor. :smalltongue:

People will treat it as a race though, they'll want to one-up everyone else and show their character does the most damage, their character can solve the puzzle, their character can rescue the princess by dinnertime.

It seems like there's always a lot of debate on the boards about balance but I've never really understood why. Once you have 5 ranks it really shouldn't come up all that often.

This is brilliant, thank you. Also what's the source of your avatar?

Lucy Land

2012-03-23, 06:28 PM

All this talk of "D&D isn't a competition" misses the mark, IME. Optimizers who I've met and played with don't do PvP, and they don't do it for bragging rights. They do it because combing through books, combining options in new [and terrifying] ways, and bringing their research together onto one character sheet is fun for them.

High-op PCs often lead to feelings of inadequacy and resentment in 'mixed company,' but that's never the goal in my experience.

Balance has always been an issue even in 1E. Player 1 rolls 18-18-18-x-x-x, Player 2 rolls 16-15-x-x-x-x; stats were that much more important. I heard they fixed balance in 4E, did it help ?
Oh, yeah! 4e ain't perfect, but it's 90% more balanced than 3.x. And while 4e detractors tend to get caught up in the basic power structure that all the core classes adhere to, I've found that each class is unique and fun in every way that matters.