Game Balance - What's the Big Deal?

[Quertus]

I honestly don't understand why people are so caught up on game balance.

The following is a little piece to explain my PoV, and to either try to convince people to adopt my strategies, or to provide a framework from which they can try to explain to me why game balance is so important to them. Bear in mind, I have nothing against balance per se.

I should explain that I am defining "game balance" as some statistical metric comparing the PCs to one another, or to some pre-defined baseline. It has been pointed out that, if you mean anything else, I may have a different opinion.

My driving goal is fun. A D&D game can be fun without balance, just like it can be fun without combat, or without RP, or without dungeon crawls, or without mysteries, or without a canon setting, or without custom material, or without army-scale combats, or without spelljammer, or even without the planes and/or the gods. These are very different kinds of games, and some of those may not be your cup of tea, but I've spoken with people from groups who had fun with (or, rather, without) any given one of those examples. I've heard many DM's (and players) harp on balance, but when was the last time you sat down at a table and heard people harp on fun? Why does balance get all of the attention?

I have had lots of good experiences with a lack of balance.

I've played in groups where "everybody starts at 1st level" (when they first join the game, or when they die and bring in new characters). No balance, great fun. I've played in groups where the random encounter table wasn't level specific, at all. No balance, great fun. I've spoken with people from groups which have implemented both rules at once - absolutely no balance, they said they had great fun with it.

I've played in parties where the level ranged from 3-17 (2nd edition) or 7-14ish (3rd edition), and had fun playing either end of the spectrum, or anywhere in between (I must admit, I hated DMing such parties in 3.0, because I had to calculate XP for each encounter for each player separately). I've played characters who refused money or items (before Vow of Poverty was a thing), and ones who were given 5 shares of the loot in a 10-man party. I've been in parties where my character was completely outshined, and been in parties where my character was like unto a god (in 2nd edition, that sometimes was as easy is adding my *modifiers* (from strength, magical weapon, etc) to my attack and damage rolls - the rules, character sheets, and training were often exceptionally poor, back in the day). All good times, despite or at times because of the lack of balance.

I have had bad experiences when people utter the phrase, "game balance".

Where the party was perfectly happy being unbalanced, until the DM pointed it out, and beat down the strong. Now the strong were unhappy, because they had been nerfed, and the weak were unhappy, because they were still weaker than everyone else, but now more aware of it, and the average were unhappy, because everyone blamed them. And everyone was unhappy, because none of the party synergy or history worked anymore.

Where the DM harped on game balance, and beat people down, and beat people down, and beat people down... and then TPK 1st encounter. And then TPK 2nd encounter. And then TPK 3rd encounter. And then TPK 4th encounter. And most of the players in that group said they had been under other DMs who did the same thing before, with the "balance mantra + repeated TPK" scenario.

Now, let's talk about roles for a second.

If my role is beat-stick ("striker"), what do I care how good the party Tank is? If he has AC of 100+, and nigh-immunity to magic and to damage, how does that make me any less of a beat-stick? True, the Striker may care if the Tank is too weak, and drops round 1 every fight, just as the Tank may care if the Healer is too weak, and runs out of spells after the first fight - but so what if they are too *good* at their jobs?

Now, when two people have the same role, things get a little different. When I'm a Tank, and someone else is running an auto-taunt, nigh-immune Tank (2e Jester + Stone Skin, IIRC), I'm suddenly 1) completely outclassed and 2) feeling quite superfluous.

There are many options as to what to do at this point.

Sure, one of the options is to scream "Game Balance", and cry to Daddy, until he tells the Mean Man to stop playing Little League with us, and go join a Professional Team. As you can likely tell, I consider this approach to be generally synonymous to failing at "works well with others". I also consider it a failure in part because there are so many better ways to approach it... and in part because game balance has nothing to do with the core problem.

That is to say that the core problem here is duplication of roles - specifically, to the point of characters being superfluous. This problem can happen in a completely balanced game as certainly as it can in an unbalanced game. When the party only *needs* one tank, could use two, but has 3 (or more!) - suddenly, the tank player is underutilized, regardless of party statistical balance, because of issues with party composition. The only difference is, it probably isn't as obvious *which* tank is the "extra" in this example as it is when one tank completely outshines the other.

So when this, or any other problem interferes with the fun of the game, I advocate, either figuring out on your own, or talking with the group about what the core of the problem is (in this example, "I built a tank who can no longer play his role"), and what can be done about it. OK, somebody moved your cheese - now what?

The easiest answer, of course, still involves changing the party composition. If you don't have any use for 3 tanks, don't bring 3 tanks.

If you started with the easy answer, but no one wants to change characters, then see if the characters themselves can play a new role. It was fairly easy in 2e to step off the front line, set down your shield, and pick up a bow - characters usually didn't have all that much, besides concept, invested in a given role. In 3.x, it's a bit harder, what with the investment of feats, skill points, items, and often classes and prestige classes, to fit a character into a given niche. You'll probably notice when a tank decides one day to become a striker.

A more challenging - and to me therefore more fun - option is to develop strategies around this strange party composition. Perhaps one of the tanks is posted as permanent rear guard, while another is tasked with delivering potions to people, or retrieving fallen comrades from the front lines. Or perhaps one of the tanks can fill a role that "anyone could fill", like... driving the Apparatus of Kwalish, or directing minions.

Of course, if everybody agrees, there's nothing wrong with *not* solving the problem, and getting to RP the issues - something you'll never get to do if you always scream "game balance" and handle them OOC. Just like you'll never have the joy of dealing with the tactical challenges of a party of greatly diverse levels while riding the game balance bandwagon. There are so many experiences that you just can't have in a balanced game - why would you want to limit yourself to only balanced parties, any more than limiting yourself to only combat, or only roleplaying, or only naval adventures? I feel sorry for people who enjoy D&D, but who miss so much of the game by doggedly sticking to any one part, be it balanced parties, or mundanes, or "roll-playing", or anything else, just because they believe that anything outside their paradigm must be "bad".

Perhaps worse still, I feel like game balance is used to deceive the world from seeing the real problems in a game. Imbalanced parties get an unfairly bad rap. Worse, people get used to solving problems by screaming "game balance", and fail to build up the tool set they would have if they had looked at and fixed what was actually causing the problem. Thus, when there is a problem that can't just be solved by screaming "game balance", people are more poorly equipped to deal with it. I've had many DM's open discussions about a new game with game balance - but how many DM's have asked you, before a game, why you game, what you find fun about it, and tried to custom-tailor the game to the players' style of fun? How many DMs that look at game balance spend anywhere near an equal amount of time discussing fun?

I've had fun playing in games that would pass for balanced by most modern interpretations, and I have nothing against such games. However, unless everyone is playing carbon copies of the same character sheet, the game is going to be unbalanced. Oh, and I've played that game, too - due to RP and system knowledge differences, the game where everyone was playing the same character was horribly unbalanced.

Until the DM TPKs the party 3 or 4 times in a row, or until the party with a problem has sat down and discussed what they want out of a game, what is fun for them and what is making things not fun, and decided that the ONLY possible way to fix the problem is to bring things statistically in sync, I don't understand why anyone would ever speak the words "game balance" outside of hushed voices in dark corners as part of horror stories of something to avoid - "don't think in terms of game balance - it will rot your brain" or "beware DMs who mention game balance - even if they don't TPK you, their focus is all wrong, and their games won't be as fun".

But, apparently, most of the D&D world is on the game balance bandwagon, and finds it perfectly acceptable and normal to slaughter fun and realism, and to put up barriers to tactical and RP opportunities by enforcing balance. To me, it's as difficult to understand as if most of the world were Slytherin, and thought Voldemort's slaughter of mudbloods to be perfectly normal and acceptable.

Can anybody clue me in as to why people feel this way?

[Hiro Protagonest]

First off, you used realism to describe D&D 3.5.

Second off, balance is not about taking away fun. Quite the opposite. It is designed so that everybody can have fun. If you are useless, that is not fun, unless everybody wants to have a useless character in the party, in which case you have to design the campaign around that. Then it can be fun, but that's the exception.

Can't make a longer post right now.

[Morty]

For all your elaborate arguments that frankly don't have a whole lot to do with the actual issue, the answer is simple - people really don't feel like having to jump through hoops just to make sure some party members don't pull twice as much weight as the other ones. I know I didn't, which is why I moved on to better games.

[NoldorForce]

From a design standpoint, maintaining game balance is about ensuring that all players have a similar ability to influence the narrative, subject to amortization.

From an in-play standpoint, game balance is about this:

Taste the indecision? That’s balance, right there.

Neither, of course, is about making things equal; it's about making things fair.

[A Tad Insane]

I want to play a barbarian! I want to go into a frenzy and murder everything! I want to hear the lamentation of the women! I want to rape the churches and pillage the women!

Cool, I want to play a wizard, summon a demon that can do everything you can do, only better, while I sit back and eat bon-bons.

[questionmark693]

I'm going to second. I enjoy playing an archer, until we get to the point where everything has damage reduction that is impossible to overcome by yourself as an archer. That isn't fun, especially as I watch the rest of the party still be totally capable of overcoming that particular creature. Does that make sense?

[Z3ro]

Neither, of course, is about making things equal; it's about making things fair.

Which is why an RPG, without strick numerical adherance, will never be fair.

Consider a spell like alter-self. It's not powerful just because there are some good forms you can take; I doubt many people would use it if you could only take one form, for example. It's powerful because it's open-ended. As long as someone gets open ended options, and others don't, things will never be fair.

Which isn't to say they can't be fun, but that's another story.

[Tvtyrant]

The problem is one of scale. It isn't a case of one tank overshadowing another, or a striker getting too much spotlight. It is that the casters are better at being tanks than tanks are while being more effective strikers then devoted strikers and lockdown the battlefield all at the same time.

This is especially true in Core, where the Wizard and Sorcerer have not reached their full potential but the melee classes get nothing. Contingency: Force Cage deals with any none-magical (no disintegrate or teleport) threat the party will ever face.

[Nooblet]

I imagine the hive mind that is this forum when it comes to table top gaming is quite different than the reality of actual table top gaming. Honestly I am DMing for the same 6 friends or so, and game balance is never an issue with us.

It really just boils down to how people role play. I think some (like myself) view it as a social activity. Where, "defeating the big bad", or "maximizing your character's potential" is not that important. Our fun comes from the socializing portion of the game.

I think many people on these boards view their fun differently. Where tackling fictitious paper challenges means something much greater to them. In that case, maybe balance is a bigger issue.

If it makes you feel better OP, i agree with your ultimate point. I think sometimes people obsess about things like balance, and miss out on the point of table top gaming. I have had, just like you, many memorable and hilariously fun games that were completely imbalanced. In some cases, it was hard to tell the games even had a rule structure half of the time.

Again, however in other's defense, it is a playing preference. So maybe they have more fun in a "balanced game".

[eggynack]

You seemed to touch on the issue with a lack of balance near the end there, talking about people being overshadowed. And then you started proposing solutions. Why? If there is no problem with imbalance, then there need be no solution. The fact of the matter is, there often does need to be a solution for this, especially when a single character can overshadow every single other member of the party within their core competencies, simultaneously. That can happen. And by overshadow, I mean more than make redundant. I mean that the character is doing better than the other character at these things, because 3.5 is a deeply imbalanced game.

There are solutions to this problem, and you've proposed some of varying levels of effectiveness, but that's the whole point of talking about it. You note where the imbalance is, and you come up with ways to deal with it. If your group's solution is just making the game unfun and not balancing the game, that's why you come here, talk about the issue, and come up with solutions that aren't horrible.

You've also missed one of the problems with a lack of game balance, incidentally. In particular, the issue is that an encounter that will challenge the high power party members will obliterate the low power ones, and an encounter that will challenge the low power party members will be obliterated by the high power ones. It's a serious problem, and it takes real work to solve.

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, let's try this on a board-game scale.

In Settlers of Catan, the fighter-equivalent gets standard resources when rolled and starts with standard pieces. Meanwhile, the wizard-equivalent gets double resources when rolled, can make a road for free every turn, and is immune to the robber.

In Sorry, the fighter-equivalent gets to roll once and move one piece per turn. The wizard-equivalent gets to roll three times, take the best roll, and move as many pieces as he likes that amount.

In Monopoly, the fighter-equivalent gets $200 for passing Go and has to pay people when he lands on their squares. The wizard-equivalent gets $4000, gets to make other people pay when he lands on someone else's square, and gets free hotels.

In Yahtzee, the fighter-equivalent has to roll five of a kind for a Yahtzee and only gets three rolls. The wizard-equivalent gets a free wild-card die, gets to roll five times, and can change the face value of other people's rolls whenever he feels like.

None of these are balanced games. They are intrinsically unfair, and as such they are not fun. Everyone should have the same potential (which is different than having the same ability or having the same power).

[Nooblet]

Okay, let's try this on a board-game scale.

In Settlers of Catan, the fighter-equivalent gets standard resources when rolled and starts with standard pieces. Meanwhile, the wizard-equivalent gets double resources when rolled, can make a road for free every turn, and is immune to the robber.

In Sorry, the fighter-equivalent gets to roll once and move one piece per turn. The wizard-equivalent gets to roll three times, take the best roll, and move as many pieces as he likes that amount.

In Monopoly, the fighter-equivalent gets $200 for passing Go and has to pay people when he lands on their squares. The wizard-equivalent gets $4000, gets to make other people pay when he lands on someone else's square, and gets free hotels.

In Yahtzee, the fighter-equivalent has to roll five of a kind for a Yahtzee and only gets three rolls. The wizard-equivalent gets a free wild-card die, gets to roll five times, and can change the face value of other people's rolls whenever he feels like.

None of these are balanced games. They are intrinsically unfair, and as such they are not fun. Everyone should have the same potential (which is different than having the same ability or having the same power).

These are generally bad examples because the games you are citing are competitive. While RPing is normally not a competitive game.

[Actana]

One thing that I believe might be slightly relevant in the discussion is the area it's being had. Namely, the internet, on a board dedicated to games. And even further, on a specific subforum dedicated to a single edition (and its variants) of a very popular game of its genre. And that colors things you see talked about.

See, game balance issues are easy to discuss. While on the other side "what makes a good game?" is an extremely difficult question to answer because there are too many variables. "What makes a good class?" is a lot easier, since the mechanics are clear and while far from objective, there are easier answers to be had on what is a good class and what is a bad class.

Thus, you see discussions about mechanics a lot more, because they're far more unambiguous than "how to have fun in a game?" or similar questions.


Game balance also matters when you get more into the game. This happens with everything: the more passionate you are about a game, the more you get into it and the more you start to see flaws you didn't even know existed before. And there are a lot of passionate people on these forums. Sure, some people don't have a problem with (the lack of) balance, but others might, and assuming that both people play the game to have fun, their objections (or lack thereof) are directly tied to having fun and thus neither person has a more valid point when it comes to their personal experiences, but balance is still a problem for the other player. Thus, they come to discuss how to have more fun with this certain aspect of the game. Games have a lot of aspects, all of which are discussed on these forums more or less. Balance might be the most discussed, but there are reasons for that.

While the goal of having fun is the main goal of almost any leisure activity, how to reach that fun differs a lot. And, in some cases, it's just easier to reach fun in some specific way. For games, balance is generally an easier way for everyone to have fun than imbalance. Rarely does anyone complain about a game being too balanced. If they do, it's highly likely that they're complaining about the means of making it balanced rather than the balance itself (see one of the many complaints against 4e).

This all ties into the part about discussing mechanics. Discussing mechanics and balance is a big deal here because it's an unambiguous way to make the game better. People then disagree on what is balanced and what isn't, so they talk about it even more. It's generally one of the easier topics to talk about, even if the solutions aren't as easy. Thus, you see a lot of discussion about game balance.

Finally, game balance is a big deal because roleplaying games are still games, and games that are balanced are better than games that are unbalanced.

[Tengu_temp]

I imagine the hive mind that is this forum when it comes to table top gaming is quite different than the reality of actual table top gaming. Honestly I am DMing for the same 6 friends or so, and game balance is never an issue with us.

"You all people are just talking from a hypothetical point of view, disattached from reality. Here, this anecdotal evidence proves it!"
Is there a name for the logical fallacy on display here? If not, there should be one.

Some people don't care about game balance. Most people do, even if they don't realize it. If you feel useless and unneeded because another party member can do everything you can, but better, and you never get the spotlight? Then you actually care about game balance. Because this is what balance in RPGs is about - making sure everyone gets to shine, instead of playing the adventures of Wizard McProtagonist And Sidekicks.

[Nooblet]

"You all people are just talking from a hypothetical point of view, disattached from reality. Here, this anecdotal evidence proves it!"
Is there a name for the logical fallacy on display here? If not, there should be one.

True, however you or me can only really cite their experience. I have played many other games previously before DMing, and again never had real balance issues because the people I choose to game with have always taken it light heartedly. Again though, I pointed out if you read the entire post that it boils down to playing preference.

I guess though, if we always just point fingers and say "well that is a fallacy because that is just YOUR experience", then the conversation can grind to a halt. Since personal experience is all people have to convey.

However, it you felt offended by my comment I apologize, I didn't mean to antagonize.

[Fax Celestis]

These are generally bad examples because the games you are citing are competitive. While RPing is normally not a competitive game.

In Arkham Horror, the fighter-equivalent investigator gets standard starting weaponry, moves via rolling, and is vulnerable to wandering monsters. The wizard-equivalent investigator is immune to insanity, starts with an Elder Glyph of Protection, and can teleport instead of walking.

In Descent, the fighter-equivalent character has to pay for his equipment and only rolls one set of dice. The wizard-equivalent character gets free equipment, draws twice when finding random treasure, and can make the Overlord discard cards instead of playing them.

[Karoht]

"You all people are just talking from a hypothetical point of view, disattached from reality. Here, this anecdotal evidence proves it!"
Is there a name for the logical fallacy on display here? If not, there should be one.Appeal to Anecdote? Small/Irrelivant Sample Size? I'm reasonably sure there is a name for it.


Some people don't care about game balance. Most people do, even if they don't realize it. If you feel useless and unneeded because another party member can do everything you can, but better, and you never get the spotlight? Then you actually care about game balance. Because this is what balance in RPGs is about - making sure everyone gets to shine, instead of playing the adventures of Wizard McProtagonist And Sidekicks.
At higher and higher levels, the mundane VS mundane eventually begin to rocket tag each other. At higher and higher levels, the caster VS caster eventually begin to rocket tag each other... and just about everyone else.

[Fax Celestis]

"You all people are just talking from a hypothetical point of view, disattached from reality. Here, this anecdotal evidence proves it!"
Is there a name for the logical fallacy on display here? If not, there should be one.

This could actually be an ecological fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy) or naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

But it's probably just anecdotal evidence (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal).

[Gnaeus]

Stuff...
Finally, game balance is a big deal because roleplaying games are still games, and games that are balanced are better than games that are unbalanced.

Disagree strongly with above poster. Games that are balanced are not better than games that are unbalanced. I think the imbalance inherent in 3.5/PF is actually a beneficial feature. Returning to Fax's examples, Chess is an inherently fairly balanced game. Yeah, the white pieces have a tiny statistical advantage at high level play, but it is pretty much even. And yet, people play chess sometimes with a handicap. If you are playing a strong player, he may play without his F2 (Kings bishops pawn) or even down a rook. It does not make that game of chess worse when the players "unbalance" it. It may make it better.

More importantly, an RPG is inherently a storytelling game, and not all characters in a story are inherently equal, at all, or even at any point in the story. Pippin is not equal to Aragorn. Not as strong, not as tough, not as learned, not destined to be as important to the grand mechanics of the world (although he has his own part to play in the story). And thats OK.

3.5's problem is NOT balance. It is transparency or forseeability. If I lack system mastery, and I choose a class called "Fighter" I expect to be able to fight things well. When I can't, I am likely to be disappointed. If I choose to play a class called "Commoner", and I suck, that isn't a bug, it's a feature. No one expects the "commoner" to be good at slaying dragons. They are very likely to expect that a Fighter or Paladin would be good at slaying dragons, and will not be happy when they are not.

[OldTrees1]

Game balance is brought up for 2 reasons:

Reason 1: (The most frequent)
I paid money to WotC. I expect them to make a quality game. Where they succeeded, I am happy. Where they failed, I am unhappy. Therefore I praise the design when it is good and criticize the design when it is bad. Balance is one aspect of quality (although some other aspects are much more important [see Gnaeus' post]).

Reason 2: (Fairly rare despite it being the reason you are reacting to)
Dave does not like being overshadowed by the professional athlete in his little league team. The professional athlete would not have fun if they were not trying their best. Dave and the professional athlete probably should not play in the same game.

However Reason 2 is rare. I have only had one player that I even suspected of being vulnerable to reason 2. None of the other players minded or even cared if they were being overshadowed.

[Fax Celestis]

3.5's problem is NOT balance. It is transparency or forseeability. If I lack system mastery, and I choose a class called "Fighter" I expect to be able to fight things well. When I can't, I am likely to be disappointed. If I choose to play a class called "Commoner", and I suck, that isn't a bug, it's a feature. No one expects the "commoner" to be good at slaying dragons. They are very likely to expect that a Fighter or Paladin would be good at slaying dragons, and will not be happy when they are not.

At first I was going to disagree with you, then I actually read this.

[Red Fel]

But, apparently, most of the D&D world is on the game balance bandwagon, and finds it perfectly acceptable and normal to slaughter fun and realism, and to put up barriers to tactical and RP opportunities by enforcing balance. To me, it's as difficult to understand as if most of the world were Slytherin, and thought Voldemort's slaughter of mudbloods to be perfectly normal and acceptable.

Can anybody clue me in as to why people feel this way?

Bolded for emphasis. I think the breakdown is here.

I happen to agree with you on two major points.

1. Fun is fun. If I like my Fighter, and you like your Wizard, and we both manage to have fun despite the fact that my character is completely ineffectual if your character is in the room, that's fine. We're having fun, and all is right with the world.

2. Enforcing balance is not so great. If a DM says "Bob can't play a Wizard, because Carl is playing a Monk, and Monks are super-weaksauce," now Bob doesn't get to play what he wants, and Carl feels bad about playing a rubbish class. (We all know it's rubbish, but you didn't have to point it out.) Conversely, if the DM says "Carl can't play a Monk, because Bob is playing a Wizard, and a Monk will be hideously inadequate," Carl won't get to play what he wants, and Bob may feel bad (if he has a soul, that jerk) for Carl. People aren't happy.

But wait, I hear you think loudly into your monitor, Don't you usually advocate for Tier limits at the table? Well, voices in my head, you're half-right. I advise DMs to encourage their players to play within a band of Tiers with which the DM is comfortable, so that the game is neither too challenging nor too dull. I advise DMs to encourage their players to play within a band of Tiers so that no player needs to feel overwhelmed or outperformed. I do not, however, advise DMs to veto player choices based solely upon the relative power or versatility of other classes. (If a player wants to commit in-character suicide after being warned a campaign is high-op, it's his choice.)

Similarly, where a DM starts tacking things onto classes or builds mid-game in an attempt to balance powers, or starts stealing things for the same reason, it raises hurt feelings and concerns. It's a shabby way to do something that may not even be necessary.

Generally, I find that "enforcing" balance - either by forcing Bob or Carl to play something else, or by nerfing Bob's class or beefing Carl's - will leave sore feelings around the table. I agree, it's a poor choice for a DM to make.

So where's the breakdown in communication? It's here:

and finds it perfectly acceptable and normal to slaughter fun and realism, and to put up barriers to tactical and RP opportunities by enforcing balance.

There is a vast difference between being aware of balance issues, and discussing them and taking them into consideration, and enforcing balance, either by ruling classes out or by nerfing/buffing them. The post above presumes that, once balance becomes an issue, people will take actions in an attempt to fix it, and that these are bad. Ignoring for a moment that not all fixes are bad, the fact is that the system is unbalanced. Period, full stop. Ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away. But discussing it and being aware of it doesn't make it worse, either.

"Game balance" doesn't necessarily mean "all casters are hereby banned from using the following spells, and all non-casters now gain Flight as an Ex ability, and, and, and..." It simply means that there is a gap between classes in terms of power and versatility. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. When players and DMs are aware of balance issues, they can plan around them. This does not require them to dive in and change things, merely to be aware of things. For example, the DM will be aware of the fact that at higher levels, it will become extraordinarily difficult for the grapple-happy Monk to grapple; he may put in some enemies who explicitly lack the usual protections, just to ensure the Monk has something to do. In this way, awareness of balance issues helps everyone have fun.

Tabletop games aren't WoW. Mages don't get nerfed just because Hunters are tired of using their autoattack and raise noise on the forums. Balance means a lot more than what you've described.

[Nooblet]

This could actually be an ecological fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy) or naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

But it's probably just anecdotal evidence (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal).

And as I said before, we can continue to point to other's and say "well that is just your personal experience so it proves nothing", and the conversation grinds to a halt. This also applies to everyone who makes the claim that balance is important. It boils down to personal preference. The hive mind here just believes that it is the single most important element to gaming.

[Fax Celestis]

And as I said before, we can continue to point to other's and say "well that is just your personal experience so it proves nothing", and the conversation grinds to a halt. This also applies to everyone who makes the claim that balance is important. It boils down to personal preference. The hive mind here just believes that it is the single most important element to gaming.

I am not sure I particularly enjoy being referred to as a 'hive mind' for enjoying a particular opinion. In fact, I find it quite offensive, particularly when I have reasons for enjoying a balanced game when I don't find it to be "the most important element" of the game itself.

[Red Fel]

And as I said before, we can continue to point to other's and say "well that is just your personal experience so it proves nothing", and the conversation grinds to a halt. This also applies to everyone who makes the claim that balance is important. It boils down to personal preference. The hive mind here just believes that it is the single most important element to gaming.

... Hive mind? Careful, that might be construed as a bit antagonistic.

I don't see this forum as a hive mind. At times an echo chamber, usually a sounding board, on occasion a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but never a hive mind.

[Theomniadept]

Let me be very clear that the tier system allows for anyone to play a Tier 4 character or above and noticeably contribute to a party, except for a few very specific circumstances.

Your arguments are based on some wild assumptions. First of all, everyone playing this game understands completely that game balance is out the window and that Wizard, Cleric, and Druid ruled this game since 3.5 was created, and they were only later joined by the other gods Archivist, Artificer, and Spell-to-Power Erudite (whatever the heck that is).

The problem is very hard to see at early levels and if you're referencing a game where everyone who dies is reset to level 1 it will be difficult to see since death becomes to prevalent in D&D. At higher levels it becomes the elephant in the room. It also sounds like your players did not optimize or use classes to their full potential.

The problem only comes from players who are unable to do anything. Take this example: The party includes a Wizard, a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Monk. Sounds honest enough right? Wrong.

Wizard can summon creatures that outclass the Monk in literally every way. Wizard can polymorph himself into those creatures too. Cleric casts Divine Power and Righteous Might and now does way more in combat than the monk could dream of. Rogue can TWF and do more than Monk, and TWF is a sub-optimal setup to begin with. Outside of combat the Rogue disables traps, the Cleric can provide support and buff his own skill checks to make himself the best possible party face, and Wizard can Teleport the party across the entire planet, just to name a few things. Monk can....run really fast. Monk can do terrible damage and take a couple hits before running to the Cleric for bandaids.

You can try to ignore this but the moment a player realizes they are useless, they've lost the game. And that's where balance comes in. The players need to agree on a relative power balance, an area within the tiers to play in. If everyone played Tiers 3 and 4 the game would be very balanced. A single Tier 1 player playing Cleric wouldn't upset the balance too much, especially if they played the support Cleric and worked their power from the background.

Problems come from having things like a Druid and a Fighter in the same party. No matter how well he optimizes, Fighter will be out-Fightered by Druid, and that's not counting the Druid's magic and Animal Companion.

It is not an issue of a DM creating a TPK. A professional Wizard player can make his entire party seem entirely superfluous if he really wanted to, and that is 100% possible. Who cares if the DM can't TPK you? That does't mean party balance doesn't matter; if one player is just a waste of resources eating up a treasure share then why do they exist?

Sounds mean, doesn't it? Well imagine when you are that lump that doesn't do anything. Seriously, be a Fighter outside of combat. You can Climb, Swim, Jump, and Intimidate, excluding peasant crafts. Imagine that you have max ranks in your Craft skills for Armorsmithing and Weaponsmithing. Then the Wizard uses Fabricate to create Adamantine Full Plate, achieving in 1 standard action what the Fighter would have taken years to complete, and also making his two max ranked skills useless.

Balance gets a lot of attention because sometimes when two players want to do two things they can clash. If a Wizard really wants to play a summoner then the guy who wants to play Fighter really should consider Warblade instead. The goal is still fun, but in order to have fun you can't be playing a glorified NPC. Nobody wants to play that guy who may as well be a Commoner for all that he contributes to the party.

[Actana]

Disagree strongly with above poster. Games that are balanced are not better than games that are unbalanced. I think the imbalance inherent in 3.5/PF is actually a beneficial feature. Returning to Fax's examples, Chess is an inherently fairly balanced game. Yeah, the white pieces have a tiny statistical advantage at high level play, but it is pretty much even. And yet, people play chess sometimes with a handicap. If you are playing a strong player, he may play without his F2 (Kings bishops pawn) or even down a rook. It does not make that game of chess worse when the players "unbalance" it. It may make it better.

I did mean the part you quoted as a more general "this is how things very often are", not as an absolute statement, but I do also mean it as part of D&D. Balance can mean a lot of different things for different people, and it doesn't mean that all characters should be the same, just that they're of equal usefulness in their respective niches. Myself, I see the level system especially as something that should theoretically equalize power levels between characters. A level 10 fighter should be equal in power and usefulness to a level 10 wizard, but D&D does not do this at all. Equal level characters shouldn't be the same in every way, but they should be at least roughly equal in how they can contribute to the game.

As a side note, handicaps are an interesting thing, as they do exist in a way to make the game more balanced between two players, skill being a big part of the game. This, however, gets into a far more muddled area of what place skill has in tabletop games and I don't really care to go into that in too much detail. :smallsmile:


More importantly, an RPG is inherently a storytelling game, and not all characters in a story are inherently equal, at all, or even at any point in the story. Pippin is not equal to Aragorn. Not as strong, not as tough, not as learned, not destined to be as important to the grand mechanics of the world (although he has his own part to play in the story). And thats OK.
I think it's often a poor thing to compare a novel to a RPG, as nobody is taking the role of Pippin or Aragorn. Sure, you can absolutely play D&D with one player as (an equivalent of) Aragorn and one as Pippin, but I'm pretty sure Pippin's player would be really disappointed that they can't really do many cool things at all (and is likely much happier when Aragorn isn't around), while Aragorn gets to be all sorts of awesome and better at pretty much everything than Pippin.

Plus, Aragorn is likely a much higher level character than Pippin, which makes the comparison a bit invalid. Characters of different level shouldn't be balanced when compared to each other. However, D&D (at least 3.5 and 4e) works on the assumption that characters will be roughly at the same power level which makes the comparison even less valid.


3.5's problem is NOT balance. It is transparency or forseeability. If I lack system mastery, and I choose a class called "Fighter" I expect to be able to fight things well. When I can't, I am likely to be disappointed. If I choose to play a class called "Commoner", and I suck, that isn't a bug, it's a feature. No one expects the "commoner" to be good at slaying dragons. They are very likely to expect that a Fighter or Paladin would be good at slaying dragons, and will not be happy when they are not.

This is a good point and I am in agreement, but I do still stick to my original point as well. D&D would be a better game is characters of equal levels could contribute equally, because isn't that sort of what levels mean?

[Nooblet]

I am not sure I particularly enjoy being referred to as a 'hive mind' for enjoying a particular opinion. In fact, I find it quite offensive, particularly when I have reasons for enjoying a balanced game when I don't find it to be "the most important element" of the game itself.

You were not specifically targeted for that, in fact I targeted no one. That would be on you at that point.

[Elderand]

You were not specifically targeted for that, in fact I targeted no one. That would be on you at that point.

And missiles don't need to target anyone in particular either, doesn't stop them from killing peoples.

[Gnaeus]

I think it's often a poor thing to compare a novel to a RPG, as nobody is taking the role of Pippin or Aragorn. Sure, you can absolutely play D&D with one player as (an equivalent of) Aragorn and one as Pippin, but I'm pretty sure Pippin's player would be really disappointed that they can't really do many cool things at all (and is likely much happier when Aragorn isn't around), while Aragorn gets to be all sorts of awesome and better at pretty much everything than Pippin.

I have never actually played a commoner in 3.5. One of my longest lived and most personally beloved characters, however, was a kinfolk in a long running werewolf game. I actually reached a point years in where I had maxed everything I was allowed to spend exp on, and new players 1 month into the game with less system mastery could still curbstomp me, because they were werewolves, their inherent bonuses were amazing, their powers were more powerful than anything I could achieve. Do I regard this as a failure of the MET system? NO. My character played exactly as I designed him from start to finish. He was a human living in a world of monsters, where everything around him was potentially lethal, including his friends.

So no, I would not assume that Pippin would get angry. If Pippin went into the game EXPECTING to be Aragorn's equal, and the rules made that impossible, then Pippin's player would have every right to be upset. If he went into the game figuring that a tiny person with no combat experience was not and would never be the equal to a wizard and a gang of hardened murderhobos, but chose to play a hobbit ANYWAY, he might have had a blast.


Plus, Aragorn is likely a much higher level character than Pippin, which makes the comparison a bit invalid. Characters of different level shouldn't be balanced when compared to each other. However, D&D (at least 3.5 and 4e) works on the assumption that characters will be roughly at the same power level which makes the comparison even less valid.

Well, you make that assumption, and the game does not correct you, which is its huge fault, I agree. I don't agree that every character type of the same level should be balanced. Look at RIFTS. Player A is a Dragon (class) who can take the equivalent of about 10,000 hp damage, has awesome stats, casts spells, and has attacks that do thousands of damage, and can turn into a human at will. Player B is a scout (class). He has human stats, about 50 hp. A laser pistol which does 1d4x100. No magic. There is virtually no situation where they are equal which is not specifically contrived by the DM. RIFTS is a wildly popular game. No one expects Dragon to be equal to Scout.

[Elderand]

Well, you make that assumption, and the game does not correct you, which is its huge fault, I agree. I don't agree that every character type of the same level should be balanced. Look at RIFTS. Player A is a Dragon (class) who can take the equivalent of about 10,000 hp damage, has awesome stats, casts spells, and has attacks that do thousands of damage, and can turn into a human at will. Player B is a scout (class). He has human stats, about 50 hp. A laser pistol which does 1d4x100. No magic. There is virtually no situation where they are equal which is not specifically contrived by the DM. RIFTS is a wildly popular game. No one expects Dragon to be equal to Scout.

The problem is of course that in dnd 3.5 the game like to pretend that every choice is equal when they really aren't.

Previous editions at least were very clear and upfront on the fact that the wizard was going to own the game compared to other classes at some points down the line.

[The Insanity]

I honestly don't understand why people are so caught up on game balance.


My driving goal is fun.
Here's your answer.

[GolemsVoice]

The problem with D&D is that it incorporates levels and CR, and people expect that two characters with the same level will have roughly the same amount of power, just as two monsters with the same CR pose roughly the same amount of danger. The thing is, however, these assumptions are not true, yet the game acts like they are true, and, for example letting a level 20 wizard fight a level 20 monk would be "fair".

So the thing, at least with D&D, isn't that there is no balance. It's that the game promises balance, and does not deliver.

Another problem I can imagine is that people love different classes. Some love magic-users, some love fighter-types. Somebody who loves fighter-types could be very disappointed that, around the mid-game, he's demoted to a setpiece while casters run the show.

Again, the problem is betrayed expectations. Examples of warriors defeating wizards are plenty in fiction and myth, so people expect to do the same in a game, and the game seems to offer the possibility. The possibility turns out to be a trap, though.


HOWEVER, as somebody else said: if you're having fun, you're having fun. No need to change that.

[ElenionAncalima]

Its all about the personalities at the table.

Some people are laid back and happy to watch someone else be awesome. Other people get bored if they feel their character can't contribute.

Likewise, some people can be overpowered, but still not try to steal another character's thunder. Other player feel a need to steal the spotlight and constantly gloat that they are the best.

[Karoht]

HOWEVER, as somebody else said: if you're having fun, you're having fun. No need to change that.But we can have more fun! We can optimize our fun intake and minimize our suck. We can ensure maximum fun at all times!

*ducks*

There are precisely two feelings I disenjoy at the table when I play. They are actually complete extremes from one another.

1-Feeling like I could have skipped session and done something else.
2-Being depended on for EVERYTHING at every session.

[Fax Celestis]

You were not specifically targeted for that, in fact I targeted no one. That would be on you at that point.

You targeted everyone, not no one.

[eggynack]

You targeted everyone, not no one.
But we are so many, and his words were so few. By the law of averages, it's almost like he didn't target you at all.

[ewoods]

This is just my opinion, but I believe that how someone feels about this depends on if they consider D&D a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game. When I play D&D, I'm more worried about my characters back-story than my stats. I worry more about the actual words I say to an NPC than the result of my diplomacy check.

I'm DMing with a group right now and I have one player who cares very deeply about optimizing his character, and another player who couldn't care less about optimization. In my years playing D&D, I tend to find that the former has less fun than the latter, but that's just my experience. Now, as a DM, I think it's my job to make sure the rules are applied fairly to everyone, and that everyone has the opportunity to shine, so in that sense I think balance is important, but in the sense that all characters should have the exact same level of utility within a party, I don't think balance is really important. It's your job, as a player, to make sure you're creating a character that you have fun with, and if you're not having fun, try something else.

Personally, the most fun I've ever had was in a year-long campaign from 1st to epic level as a single-class fighter. Could I do as much damage as our optimized cleric? Definitely not. But the time when my leg got cut off in an epic battle and the DM let me pick it up and wield it as a club to inspire the army we were leading sure was an awful lot of fun.

[eggynack]

Personally, the most fun I've ever had was in a year-long campaign from 1st to epic level as a single-class fighter. Could I do as much damage as our optimized cleric? Definitely not. But the time when my leg got cut off in an epic battle and the DM let me pick it up and wield it as a club to inspire the army we were leading sure was an awful lot of fun.
I'm just not entirely sure how you can roleplay as a great warrior (Which you presumably were. Perhaps you were roleplaying a crappy warrior?) when your ability to fight is overshadowed by the pet of one of the other players. Your actions in game, and the way you're presenting those actions, don't really work together very well.

[Theomniadept]

This is just my opinion, but I believe that how someone feels about this depends on if they consider D&D a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game. When I play D&D, I'm more worried about my characters back-story than my stats. I worry more about the actual words I say to an NPC than the result of my diplomacy check.

I usually have problems with DMs that expect you to be able to rattle off a speech to diplomacize an NPC. To be expected to do that for every single diplomacy check is insane, and it makes as much sense to me as actually researching ancient magic IRL to make a knowledge arcana check.

The problem with feeling it's more of a role-playing game is that the game doesn't give one crap about your backstory. I could write a 57 volume novel about my demon-slayer, but I'm just playing base paladin then even the most basic of demons will rape my character at every turn and a demonslayer I shan't become.

Ipso facto optimization.

[ewoods]

I'm just not entirely sure how you can roleplay as a great warrior (Which you presumably were. Perhaps you were roleplaying a crappy warrior?) when your ability to fight is overshadowed by the pet of one of the other players. Your actions in game, and the way you're presenting those actions, don't really work together very well.

Because my ability to fight doesn't really have anything to do with how much fun I'm having. Ok, maybe it has a little to do with it, but it's not the source of my fun. The source of my fun is in the story that's being told through my actions. When you read Lord of the Rings, Gandalf's power far outweighs the power of the others in the group, but my favorite part in the whole story is when Sam attacks and successfully fights off Shelob. Sometimes being the underdog is more exciting than being the all-powerful. Sometimes trying to compensate for your obvious disadvantages is more fun than eating bon-bons while your pet attacks something.

[Stoneback]

Basic has it right. Or, more specifically, B/X.

Fighters retire from fighting and become lords right when magic-users and clerics overpower them. Elves and the others might continue, but their progression is different.

Look, I get what the OP is saying. You can have fun no matter what.

But

If you want to stay competitive, then balance is important.

[eggynack]

Because my ability to fight doesn't really have anything to do with how much fun I'm having. Ok, maybe it has a little to do with it, but it's not the source of my fun. The source of my fun is in the story that's being told through my actions. When you read Lord of the Rings, Gandalf's power far outweighs the power of the others in the group, but my favorite part in the whole story is when Sam attacks and successfully fights off Shelob. Sometimes being the underdog is more exciting than being the all-powerful. Sometimes trying to compensate for your obvious disadvantages is more fun than eating bon-bons while your pet attacks something.
See, the problem with that is, I don't think that most fighter 20's think of themselves as Sam. Maybe you do, and it could even be a more accurate summation of the game, but if your average player is roleplaying a fighter, they're not roleplaying Sam. They're a fighter, as in someone who fights, as in someone who fights well. And they don't. I think that these options, the Sam options, should exist in the game. Some folks like playing Sam, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that I, like Gnaeus, think that those options should be clearly labeled as Sam options. Also, I didn't mention it, but that guy whose pet is stronger than the fighter is also separately stronger than the fighter, especially if the fighter isn't high-op. Druids aren't exactly sitting on their ass and eating bon-bons.

[ewoods]

I usually have problems with DMs that expect you to be able to rattle off a speech to diplomacize an NPC. To be expected to do that for every single diplomacy check is insane, and it makes as much sense to me as actually researching ancient magic IRL to make a knowledge arcana check.

This is why I said that it's the DM's job to make sure the rules are fair for everyone, and that everyone has the opportunity to shine. Some people like having a chat with an NPC, some people don't. It's my job as DM to get to know my players well enough to know who prefers what and to make sure that your character has a chance to be good at something so that everyone can have a good time.

[Fax Celestis]

This is just my opinion, but I believe that how someone feels about this depends on if they consider D&D a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game. When I play D&D, I'm more worried about my characters back-story than my stats. I worry more about the actual words I say to an NPC than the result of my diplomacy check.

I'm DMing with a group right now and I have one player who cares very deeply about optimizing his character, and another player who couldn't care less about optimization. In my years playing D&D, I tend to find that the former has less fun than the latter, but that's just my experience. Now, as a DM, I think it's my job to make sure the rules are applied fairly to everyone, and that everyone has the opportunity to shine, so in that sense I think balance is important, but in the sense that all characters should have the exact same level of utility within a party, I don't think balance is really important. It's your job, as a player, to make sure you're creating a character that you have fun with, and if you're not having fun, try something else.

Personally, the most fun I've ever had was in a year-long campaign from 1st to epic level as a single-class fighter. Could I do as much damage as our optimized cleric? Definitely not. But the time when my leg got cut off in an epic battle and the DM let me pick it up and wield it as a club to inspire the army we were leading sure was an awful lot of fun.

Stormwind Fallacy. http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636

[Theomniadept]

Stormwind Fallacy. http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636
If you keep Swordsaging us we're gonna have to ban Tome of Battle.

Also, ewoods, if you tried reading my example you would see your ability to fight (or just ability to do things in general) does in fact translate to fun. What's the fun in playing the guy who goes down in two hits every single combat? What's the fun in trying to set a goal for a character that you continually fail to achieve through your own mechanical ineptitude? There's underdog fighting and then there's being the guy at the game table whose turn may as well not even exist.

[Lanaya]

This is why I said that it's the DM's job to make sure the rules are fair for everyone, and that everyone has the opportunity to shine.

But why must that be the DM's job? Surely ensuring the rules are fair for everyone ought to be the job of the people who wrote the rules, not some poor schmuck who's tasked with cleaning up the mess WotC made. As for making sure everyone has a chance to shine, it can start to feel very weird and contrived when every adventure contains a situation where only the barbarian can solve a certain issue. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman) I mean sure, I can see that maybe there might be one great adamantine wall covered in antimagic fields enclosing an area that cannot by any means be teleported into, while all the high strength elementals and outsiders the wizard might bind are on their lunch break, so only the barbarian can break it down. But if that happens every single adventure it starts to go beyond mere coincidence.

[ewoods]

See, the problem with that is, I don't think that most fighter 20's think of themselves as Sam. Maybe you do, and it could even be a more accurate summation of the game, but if your average player is roleplaying a fighter, they're not roleplaying Sam. They're a fighter, as in someone who fights, as in someone who fights well. And they don't. I think that these options, the Sam options, should exist in the game. Some folks like playing Sam, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that I, like Gnaeus, think that those options should be clearly labeled as Sam options. Also, I didn't mention it, but that guy whose pet is stronger than the fighter is also separately stronger than the fighter, especially if the fighter isn't high-op. Druids aren't exactly sitting on their ass and eating bon-bons.

I might have been too literal with the Sam analogy. The point I was trying to make was towards the end. The fun is in the challenge. HOW you do something matters just as much as WHAT you do. If I throw a dozen goblins at your level 15 fighters, you'll slaughter them easily, but is that actually fun? Sure, that druid might be more effective at killing that dragon than a fighter, but why does that mean he's having more fun?

If my character wasn't capable of doing anything useful at all, then I can't see how that would be much fun for anyone. But just because another type of character is more powerful than mine doesn't mean my character is powerless.

[Theomniadept]

But why must that be the DM's job? Surely ensuring the rules are fair for everyone ought to be the job of the people who wrote the rules, not some poor schmuck who's tasked with cleaning up the mess WotC made. As for making sure everyone has a chance to shine, it can start to feel very weird and contrived when every adventure contains a situation where only the barbarian can solve a certain issue. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman) I mean sure, I can see that maybe there might be one great adamantine wall covered in antimagic fields enclosing an area that cannot by any means be teleported into, while all the high strength elementals and outsiders the wizard might bind are on their lunch break, so only the barbarian can break it down. But if that happens every single adventure it starts to go beyond mere coincidence.
You brought up my all time favorite TV Trope.

[eggynack]

I might have been too literal with the Sam analogy. The point I was trying to make was towards the end. The fun is in the challenge. HOW you do something matters just as much as WHAT you do. If I throw a dozen goblins at your level 15 fighters, you'll slaughter them easily, but is that actually fun? Sure, that druid might be more effective at killing that dragon than a fighter, but why does that mean he's having more fun?

If my character wasn't capable of doing anything useful at all, then I can't see how that would be much fun for anyone. But just because another type of character is more powerful than mine doesn't mean my character is powerless.
But, in a party with the druid, the fighter might as well be doing nothing at all. Or, to put in more accurately, the fighter is taking on the same role as the druid's pet. I'm not really sure how you can roleplay as a mighty warrior when that's the case. Also, I'm not really sure how many hows a fighter can toss at a problem, and there are nearly none that can't be also applied by a higher tiered class. The fact of the matter is, in a good number of situations, your character actually is powerless. If that's fine with you, go right ahead, but I'd rather the class not say, "Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities," because that's just inaccurate.

[amalcon]

The main reason why (combat) balance is important in D&D is really just that combat takes a very long time to resolve. You can easily have a four-hour session dominated by a single long, or two short combats. Unless you're letting the unoptimized Fighter's player read a book during combat (which is generally a bad idea), he's going to want something to acually do in the hour and a half that the combat takes to resolve.

At low levels, this isn't a problem: sure, his individual actions have less impact than a Druid's. That's actually OK. His choices in positioning, target selection, and special attacks can actually make a difference, so even though he's not as powerful as the Druid, he at least has something to think about.

At mid to high (4-9+) levels, this isn't always a problem. Maybe your opponent is the Fighter's old mentor, and there's some good mid-combat RP potential. Maybe there's some hazard on the battlefield that he can work to his advantage. Maybe the Fighter is a carefree type, and he can spend an hour and a half thinking up puns to pun-fight with.

Unfortunately, often none of those things are true. In that situation, the thought process goes something like this: "These opponents are too big and/or strong to reliably Trip, Grapple, Bullrush, or Disarm. I guess I just walk up and attack for 15 expected damage. Oh look, the Wizard just did fifty with a level 2 slot, and the Cleric took two of them out of the battle outright."

Oddly enough, rocket tag kind of helps with this. Pushing optimization levels up to where each character only gets one turn still leaves the Fighter not doing anything meaningful in the combat, but at least "combat" only lasts ten minutes. You do still have the problem that the player who signed up to be a Fighter is redundant in... well, fights, but at least you lose the added insult of those fights taking up half of the session.

[TheIronGolem]

If my character wasn't capable of doing anything useful at all, then I can't see how that would be much fun for anyone. But just because another type of character is more powerful than mine doesn't mean my character is powerless.

What about when another type of character is not only more powerful than yours overall, but specifically better than yours at the thing that your character is supposed to be all about and his isn't? Are you okay with that?

And if you are, then are you equally fine if the reverse is true? If it's okay for the druid to be better at fighting than the fighter, would you be okay with the fighter being better at communing with nature than the druid? Is it okay for the fighter to more easily befriend animals, command the trees to attack his foes, summon lighting from the sky, and so forth, and to do all of this more effectively than the druid does?

If that bothers you, then why is it not acceptable when its reverse is okay? And if it doesn't, then what's the point of even having classes to begin with?

[Morty]

The argument about the DM "making sure everybody has fun" is flawed. Yes, the game won't work without the person running it making sure things to smoothly. No amount of design will make the game run itself. But a good game still helps the DM make it work like it's supposed to. If the person who runs it needs to bend over backwards and jump through hoops to make sure the game works like the rulebooks say it should work - that's a flaw, and a pretty big one.

Using "fun" as an argument is likewise not very meaningful. "Fun" is vague and unquantifiable. It depends on too many things. If you have fun despite the gross imbalance, that's great - but the imbalance still exists and still gets in the way of the way the game is advertised to work.

And finally - imbalance doesn't always boil down to magic and lack thereof. If we have a party in which there's a fighter using two weapons and a barbarian with a big two-hander... the barbarian is going to be just plain better at fighting than the fighter. How is a DM supposed to smooth that one out?

[Rakaydos]

No amount of design will make the game run itself.

Not strictly true. After all, that's pretty much the premice of computer RPGs.

[ewoods]

But why must that be the DM's job? Surely ensuring the rules are fair for everyone ought to be the job of the people who wrote the rules, not some poor schmuck who's tasked with cleaning up the mess WotC made. As for making sure everyone has a chance to shine, it can start to feel very weird and contrived when every adventure contains a situation where only the barbarian can solve a certain issue. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman) I mean sure, I can see that maybe there might be one great adamantine wall covered in antimagic fields enclosing an area that cannot by any means be teleported into, while all the high strength elementals and outsiders the wizard might bind are on their lunch break, so only the barbarian can break it down. But if that happens every single adventure it starts to go beyond mere coincidence.

"Shine" probably isn't the right word because that's not quite what I mean. I don't mean opportunities to shine as in "Here's something your character is good at." I mean, "Here's something I know YOU'LL have fun with." Now and then that might mean your character is going to be really good at something that the other characters aren't, but most often it means there are specific aspects of the game that you enjoy more than others and as the creator of this game world, I'm going to cater to you.

If there's a player who really likes puzzles, throw a puzzle or two into the game now and then. All players can make checks to get hints, and enough hints will solve the puzzle automatically, but the fun is in letting the players try to figure it out. If there's a player who really likes to roleplay, create some roleplaying opportunities that don't necessarily contribute anything of value to the adventure at hand. Let him discuss the history of the kingdom with the duke who is sending them on a quest, just because the history is interesting to him.

I've found that a lot of players really like just the process of exploring, so my dungeons have a lot of rooms (with vivid descriptions to match), filled with furniture and stuff on the shelves and in drawers. If you just want to make a search check for "anything of value" then go ahead, but if you want to open each drawer and ask what's in it, I'll be happy to tell you.

In a previous group I had one player who was really interested in setting up a "home base" in a town and making it profitable, so I afforded him plenty of opportunities to do that, even though his store contributed nothing of great value to their end goal. I had a player once whose goal was to achieve sainthood, not because it was the most optimized thing for his character, but simply because he liked the idea of his character being a saint. So throughout the campaign I made sure to present him with "temptations" that could potentially jeopardize his chances at achieving his goal, and he had fun trying to resist those temptations.

The optimization folks who play in my games are the easiest, honestly. You want to do a lot of damage? Here's a monster for you to attack. Wow, you did a lot of damage! The orc king screams in agony as the fire of your grenade consumes his flesh and he dies in pain. But this one little combat is such a small part of the game that even if the fighter (played by the guy who wrote a 53-page backstory) didn't get to take a swing, he's still entertained by the fact that he finds a pendant in the orc king's pocket that belonged to his long-lost father who he's spent years searching for. And now there's a clue and a mystery and this combat is meaningful to him even though he didn't really do anything.

That's what I mean by it being the DM's job to create opportunities. I don't have to be better at combat or skill checks than someone else to have a good time, as long as the DM is creating a story that I feel like I'm a part of with elements that are fun for me.

[Flickerdart]

I think you're confusing having fun with the system and having fun despite the system. There's nothing D&D-ish about planting a locket on an orc corpse and then reading your players a story about it; it could happen for a do-nothing fighter just as easily as to a competent character who can accomplish things within the system.

[eggynack]

I think you're confusing having fun with the system and having fun despite the system. There's nothing D&D-ish about planting a locket on an orc corpse and then reading your players a story about it; it could happen for a do-nothing fighter just as easily as to a competent character who can accomplish things within the system.
Indeed. Also, consider the entirely logical possibility that it is the fighter who likes beating things up with a high degree of success, and that it is the wizard who likes solving puzzles. The wizard will find happiness within the game, while the fighter will likely be sorely disappointed. Really, if you don't even care about the parts of the game that rely on mechanics, why play D&D, which is a very mechanically inclined game? Why not just free form, or play a rules-light system?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Not strictly true. After all, that's pretty much the premice of computer RPGs.

I've also heard of a GM-less card-based RPG.

[Morty]

Not strictly true. After all, that's pretty much the premice of computer RPGs.

Which is relevant to a discussion about a tabletop game how..?

[eggynack]

Which is relevant to a discussion about a tabletop game how..?
The point is that there's a theoretical design for the game that will make it work without a DM. It probably wouldn't be that difficult to design a non-computer game that operated with most of the rules of a computer game, though it possibly wouldn't be as sophisticated as either the computer game or the normal tabletop game. It's a not-impossible thing.

[ewoods]

Really, if you don't even care about the parts of the game that rely on mechanics, why play D&D, which is a very mechanically inclined game? Why not just free form, or play a rules-light system?

Exactly why I said that this type of thing, in my opinion, comes down to whether you think of D&D as a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game. Whether I've been a player or a DM, I've always sought out (and easily found) groups that use the rules as a framework within which to play a character in a story. In other words, the rules are secondary to the story being told. In my opinion, this is what the game is designed for. That's why the DMG for 3.5, for example, specifically talks about things like fudging dice rolls and creating house rules. I care deeply about the mechanics. The mechanics of 3.5 were more fun for me than of 4th edition, and the mechanics of Pathfinder have been more enjoyable for me than of 3.5. But in my opinion, the difference between good game mechanics and bad ones are that good ones get out of the way of the story.


There's nothing D&D-ish about planting a locket on an orc corpse and then reading your players a story about it.

I disagree. If all you're looking for is a series of encounters to throw dice at, you might as well be playing a video game. Obviously I know you didn't mean it quite like that, but I feel like planting lockets on orc corpses and then leading them through an interactive story about the locket is precisely the point of a role-playing game. It's not specific to D&D, no, but it is what D&D is all about. The stats and dice rolls exist just to add consistency to how each player interacts with the story.

[TheIronGolem]

Exactly why I said that this type of thing, in my opinion, comes down to whether you think of D&D as a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game.

False dichotomy.

[Flickerdart]

It's not specific to D&D, no, but it is what D&D is all about. The stats and dice rolls exist just to add consistency to how each player interacts with the story.
Except by your own admission, the fighter didn't do anything.

[Anlashok]

I imagine the hive mind that is this forum when it comes to table top gaming is quite different than the reality of actual table top gaming. Honestly I am DMing for the same 6 friends or so, and game balance is never an issue with us.

It really just boils down to how people role play. I think some (like myself) view it as a social activity. Where, "defeating the big bad", or "maximizing your character's potential" is not that important. Our fun comes from the socializing portion of the game.

I think many people on these boards view their fun differently. Where tackling fictitious paper challenges means something much greater to them. In that case, maybe balance is a bigger issue.

If it makes you feel better OP, i agree with your ultimate point. I think sometimes people obsess about things like balance, and miss out on the point of table top gaming. I have had, just like you, many memorable and hilariously fun games that were completely imbalanced. In some cases, it was hard to tell the games even had a rule structure half of the time.

Again, however in other's defense, it is a playing preference. So maybe they have more fun in a "balanced game".


Don't you guys just love how snide people can be about something like this?


More importantly though, these people flailing and grasping for points always seem to miss making a critical one: Why is balance bad?

You're here arguing that balance isn't a good thing and that people shouldn't try to make the game more balanced, why?

What about the game would be worse if a Fighter didn't suck?

Nevermind that this whole "Balance isn't important because my DM will coddle me if I pick bad classes" is an absurd premise to begin with. I guess some people enjoy being patronized dead weight?

[ewoods]

Except by your own admission, the fighter didn't do anything.

Consistency doesn't mean all players have balanced abilities and are capable of performing statistically similar actions. Consistency means that all players work within the same set of rules. We don't have one person making an attack roll to hit the orc king and another person making a strength check. Everybody makes the same type of check.


False dichotomy.

"Exactly why I said that this type of thing, in my opinion, comes down to whether you think of D&D as a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game."

Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I'm not trying to convince you that this IS the way it is. I'm saying this is what I think based on my experiences. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my experiences aren't representative of the majority of the gaming community. That's definitely a possibility.

[Rakaydos]

There's a qualitative difference between an Opinion and an Informed Opinion. Knowing what you're talking about and being able to back up opinions with supporting facts makes Informed Opinions better than other Opinions.

[ewoods]

You're here arguing that balance isn't a good thing and that people shouldn't try to make the game more balanced, why?

I don't think the OP said balance is bad. He asked why it's a big deal. (Note that I could be wrong about this, but the title is, "Game Balance - What's the Big Deal?"). Personally, I think it would be great if the classes were more balanced! It's just that I'm not particularly concerned about it. The game is fun without balance, so I share in the OP's sentiment: what's the big deal?

[Rakaydos]

I don't think the OP said balance is bad. He asked why it's a big deal. (Note that I could be wrong about this, but the title is, "Game Balance - What's the Big Deal?"). Personally, I think it would be great if the classes were more balanced! It's just that I'm not particularly concerned about it. The game is fun without balance, so I share in the OP's sentiment: what's the big deal?

Edge of Empire is an RPG that is MORE fun, AND balanced. Coincidence?

[OldTrees1]

There's a qualitative difference between an Opinion and an Informed Opinion. Knowing what you're talking about and being able to back up opinions with supporting facts makes Informed Opinions better than other Opinions.

There's a qualitative difference between an Opinion and an Assertion. It is rude to respond to an Opinion as if it were an Assertion.

[Larpus]

Just to add a new perspective to all that's being said and, just to be sure, I'll go ahead and mention that my stance is that yes, balance is needed most of the time.

If everyone on the table is ok with imbalance, cool, go ahead; but one too many times people might say that before realizing that they actually do care about balance, mostly due to shattered expectations as mentioned mid page 1 I think.

Anyway, about that new perspective; bad balance is not only a problem for the underdog, but might sometimes also be a problem for the alpha dog. Been there once or twice already, where I had to purposely gimp my build or pick sub-optimal spells for the day merely because if I didn't do that, I'd seriously outshine the party's Fighter, Paladin and/or Rogue who just picked bad feats/options (and bad options for them are that much more crippling than for higher tier classes).

At first I was cool with it, but after some time it started to create problems for me, such as be too ineffective by not picking op options (when I was sort of expected to pick them) and/or overshadowing others anyway, because there was just too little I could do to keep them relevant while not completely making a deadweight out of myself.

But again, balance doesn't mean equal, just mean "equally valid".

It is bad game design to give your players options when they're not really valid, most mundane consumable items feels like that, what with cost vs. effect being completely bonkers and quickly out-shined by magical effects; if they're simply not cost-effective (for classes that need money for gear, no less), then why give the option at all if it can't be realistically be used?

Think of games not about stealth that do give players stealth options; specifically those that do the stealth part as a completely different system that requires permanent commitment and/or usage of options that are sub-optimal when not stealthing.

And then make boss battles start with the player in the open and almost always unable to hide. Or worse yet, make the bosses immune to sneak attacks. And for added insult to injury, also make sure that going stealth is downright slower than just walking up to enemies like "what up I got a big sword" and smacking them silly.

That's bad game design right there, don't give options if they're not valid. Also, don't make promises you cannot keep.

No one expects the Fighter to just walk up to everything and obliterate them, but everyone expects the Fighter to fight better than a thing the Wizard can just pull into existence from inside his spell pouch at zero cost and threat to himself.

I know I did when I first started playing and, had the party being seriously unbalanced, chances are I'd just give up on the system.

[TheIronGolem]

"Exactly why I said that this type of thing, in my opinion, comes down to whether you think of D&D as a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game."

Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I'm not trying to convince you that this IS the way it is. I'm saying this is what I think based on my experiences. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my experiences aren't representative of the majority of the gaming community. That's definitely a possibility.

I don't know why you're emphasizing that it's your opinion, since that doesn't change anything. The notion of "you either think of D&D as role-playing or roll-playing" is, objectively, a false dichotomy.

[Fax Celestis]

Consistency doesn't mean all players have balanced abilities and are capable of performing statistically similar actions. Consistency means that all players work within the same set of rules. We don't have one person making an attack roll to hit the orc king and another person making a strength check. Everybody makes the same type of check.

Consistency also means they are all capable of handling the same difficulty of challenges.

As-is D&D and as-is Pathfinder, they are not.

[Anlashok]

There's a qualitative difference between an Opinion and an Assertion. It is rude to respond to an Opinion as if it were an Assertion.

And it's even ruder to try to hide behind "it's just an opinion man" when making assertions like that.


Consistency doesn't mean all players have balanced abilities and are capable of performing statistically similar actions. Consistency means that all players work within the same set of rules. We don't have one person making an attack roll to hit the orc king and another person making a strength check. Everybody makes the same type of check.
Well if you want to be precise. They aren't consistent. The fighter makes a roll against a target defense number and then applies damage and possibly secondary effects, which might require additional rolls.

The wizard snaps his fingers and wins the fight (sometimes the orc gets a roll in return, but that's still not the same system the fighter is held up to because usually if the fighter wanted to do the same he'd have to do both rolls).



If everyone on the table is ok with imbalance, cool, go ahead
Fundamentally I think this is the issue. Imbalance isn't bad if it's intentional: As someone said before, no one expects the commoner to be good. In games like Ars Magicka, it's understood that nonspellcasters are going to be weaker, it's an assumption of the game.

The fighter goes into the game expecting to be able to fight well. If, entirely by accident, the wizard ends up summoning a better fighter, while still being able to do his own thing, it reflects badly on the original character.


Also the issue extends beyond balance: Wizards get huge list of things they can do while fighters, generally, just swing their sword every round. Lacking cool tricks can cause reduced variety too.

[A Tad Insane]

More importantly though, these people flailing and grasping for points always seem to miss making a critical one: Why is balance bad?

Just playing some devil's advocate, but why should the guy who's only capable of being really angry and hitting things good be on equal footing as the guy who can summon demons, teleport faster than the speed of light, and shoot 3 ton meteors from his or her eyes?? Why, as an elf I'm sure most of us know thought, should some creatures be able to ignore the effects of literally universe breaking magics because "lol, spell resistance!" Further more, most table tops, heck, rpgs in general, are suppose to allow you to do the things only possible in dreams, fictions, and religious text. You want to summon a never-ending army of outsiders? Sure! How about go anywhere in existence with a few weird words and a wrist flick? Absolutely! It would be an incomplete experience otherwise, and how could that be balance against being good with a big axe?

[ewoods]

Edge of Empire is an RPG that is MORE fun, AND balanced. Coincidence?

And here's the crux of the issue. If you suggested that I play Edge of the Empire because it was more fun than Pathfinder, I would probably try it! But if you suggested that I play Edge of the Empire because it was more balanced than Pathfinder, that wouldn't be very convincing to me, because balance has never been an obstacle to my enjoyment of a roleplaying game.


I don't know why you're emphasizing that it's your opinion, since that doesn't change anything. The notion of "you either think of D&D as role-playing or roll-playing" is, objectively, a false dichotomy.

Alright, how about this. In my opinion, this most likely comes down to comes down to whether you think of D&D as a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game. There, now other options are considered.

[OldTrees1]

And it's even ruder to try to hide behind "it's just an opinion man" when making assertions like that.

So now the question is whether it was an opinion or an assertion.

[Fax Celestis]

Just playing some devil's advocate, but why should the guy who's only capable of being really angry and hitting things good be on equal footing as the guy who can summon demons, teleport faster than the speed of light, and shoot 3 ton meteors from his or her eyes?

Because the game should be about enabling a fantasy, not denying one.

Because you're asking "Is this realistic?" when it comes to 'mundane' characters and "Is this awesome?" when it comes to 'magical' characters, when the question for both should be "Is this awesome?" and the answer should always be "Yes!"

[A Tad Insane]

Because the game should be about enabling a fantasy, not denying one.

Because you're asking "Is this realistic?" when it comes to 'mundane' characters and "Is this awesome?" when it comes to 'magical' characters, when the question for both should be "Is this awesome?" and the answer should always be "Yes!"

And this is why people want the balance to be fair. Have a cookie!

[Anlashok]

Because the game should be about enabling a fantasy, not denying one.

Because you're asking "Is this realistic?" when it comes to 'mundane' characters and "Is this awesome?" when it comes to 'magical' characters, when the question for both should be "Is this awesome?" and the answer should always be "Yes!"

Yeah something along this line (but angrier and less eloquent) was going to be my point.

[Knaight]

Because my ability to fight doesn't really have anything to do with how much fun I'm having. Ok, maybe it has a little to do with it, but it's not the source of my fun. The source of my fun is in the story that's being told through my actions. When you read Lord of the Rings, Gandalf's power far outweighs the power of the others in the group, but my favorite part in the whole story is when Sam attacks and successfully fights off Shelob. Sometimes being the underdog is more exciting than being the all-powerful. Sometimes trying to compensate for your obvious disadvantages is more fun than eating bon-bons while your pet attacks something.

This is actually a decent example of where balance works. In practice, it's about keeping the focus of the game distributed through the players. In the context of D&D in particular, this involves balancing the characters, but there are other ways to do it. When Sam fights off Shelob, Gandalf isn't there. The focus is automatically on Sam, as Gandalf isn't even a part of a situation. Applied to tabletop RPGs, this could be a method of balance - all of the players play characters who basically don't interact directly most of the time, and are off doing their own thing. The stories that emerge from some will be grander and more epic than the stories that emerge from others (which will likely be more interesting on a personal level), but that's fine, as all of these stories work.

This is, however, not a particularly useful balancing technique. For one thing, it's a lot harder on the GM - I've got a lot of practice with split parties, and handling pacing and spotlight balance, but it still starts causing issues at about four characters, and it is more mentally taxing. People not used to it are going to have yet more trouble. Others include something like Ars Magica's troupe play, wherein all players have multiple characters, and who is playing the major influential character changes from session to session. Yet another is something like Fate, wherein there are ways for a player to influence things beyond just having their character do things, in the form of a metagame resource - which people playing more powerful characters will have less access to.

Back to D&D. The primary way for a player to interact with the game is to have their characters do things. More powerful characters have more ability to actually do things (trying and failing to do things doesn't really count for much), and as such inherently draw more spotlight. This can be counteracted to some degree, but that involves fighting against the system - which is a pain. To add insult to injury, D&D is built in such a way as to focus on what characters do. It works much better for adventure stories than something like comedies of errors in which we watch characters destroy themselves (e.g. Fiasco's entire mode of play).

In that particular context, having a character actually able to do things which are meaningful is very helpful, and what is meaningful depends on what everyone else is also doing. Take the numerous fights in Lord of The Rings - Frodo must live to deliver the ring, and as such just staying alive against those trying to kill him is meaningful. The rest of the non-Hobbits are capable warriors, and as such are all involved in keeping Frodo alive. Sam doesn't do all that much in the fights, but is crucially important elsewhere, and then the Fellowship gets separated anyways. Merry and Pippin though? The only reason they get much in the way of a spotlight is because they are comic relief characters who mostly get in the way. That is a valid way for characters to get spotlights in some context, but D&D is not a game that favors that sort of story telling.

That this is ability to fight is, again, a D&D 3-4 thing. There are plenty of games where balance can involve having one character who is really good with combat, and the rest sucking at at it but being good at other things, where the spotlight still gets passed around well - the combat character just has it for basically all combat. D&D 3.x lends itself to fairly long fights, and as such the particulars of combat ability are relevant here. Though the casters also dominate the game everywhere else, so there is that.

[Brookshw]

Don't you guys just love how snide people can be about something like this?


More importantly though, these people flailing and grasping for points always seem to miss making a critical one: Why is balance bad?
?

while I love the snide comments its even more fun when both sides adopt that pattern! Huzzah!

Thanks to those though that have maintained reasoned conversation.

[eggynack]

Consistency doesn't mean all players have balanced abilities and are capable of performing statistically similar actions. Consistency means that all players work within the same set of rules. We don't have one person making an attack roll to hit the orc king and another person making a strength check. Everybody makes the same type of check.

And then the monk, a character specifically designed to use that roll to hit the orc king in the face, does incredibly badly at it, while the wizard, a character specifically designed to fail at hitting the orc king in the face, does far better at it. In any place where the mechanics are a part of the game, that's where these problems crop up. In a place where the mechanics aren't a part of the game, these problems won't crop up.

[TheIronGolem]

Alright, how about this. In my opinion, this most likely comes down to comes down to whether you think of D&D as a role-playing game, or a roll-playing game. There, now other options are considered.

I think you're missing my point. No matter what qualifiers you add ("in my opinion", "most likely", etc), the core idea of what you said ("role-playing vs. roll-playing") is still a false dichotomy.

I don't know if you're familiar with the term, but in case you're not: A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy in which one presents two (sometimes more, but usually two) options as though they are mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not. Examples include "you're either with me or against me", "you either believe in God or in evolution", and yes, "role-playing or roll-playing".

[GolemsVoice]

Choice is also an important matter. Playing Pippin and not Aragorn as far as fighting capabilities and times in the spotlight goes is ok. However, it should be the player's choice, not the only thing he can do.

Balancing the game by removing options is much easier than balancing the game by adding options. I can choose to not take actions that I could take, but I can not choose to take actions that I can not take.

In D&D, this could mean that the wizard builds sub-optimal, either knowingly or accidentially, and in another game, it could mean that a warrior keeps back because of, say, his character or his race. If I want to play "below" my tier, this is easily possible. Playing above your tier is much harder.

[ewoods]

Knaight, I appreciate your extremely thoughtful response! I agree with you on a lot of points. In the Sam/Shelob example, Sam probably wouldn't have even gotten a single swing in if Gandalf had been there too, that's true. But it's also true that Frodo is a significant focus of the story simply because he carries the ring and stays alive.

I honestly think that our differences of opinion come down to our base approach to the game. I tend to have the most fun with a game like D&D (or really any role-playing game) when I intentionally forgo character optimization in favor of a character "concept." Most people that I have played with over the years seem to have shared similar philosophies (but of course, that doesn't mean that everyone in the gaming community does). That's how I've ended up in groups with things like kobold clerics and halfling barbarians, which certainly couldn't compete with more optimized builds but seemed like a lot of fun to play. There have, admittedly, been builds that ended up being not very fun. I've tried twice to play a tibit beguiler and could never quite find a way to have fun with it, despite the fact that it sounds like a really fun character concept (to me).

So I guess my question is (to the group), when you play role-playing games that have unbalanced classes, do you ALWAYS play the MOST optimal character build that you can? Or do you sometimes have fun with an intentionally flawed or weak character?


I think you're missing my point. No matter what qualifiers you add ("in my opinion", "most likely", etc), the core idea of what you said ("role-playing vs. roll-playing") is still a false dichotomy.

I understand you now. You're thinking that I'm saying that a person can't think of it as both a role-playing game AND a roll-playing game. My apologies if I haven't been clear on that. Role-playing and roll-playing are not mutually exclusive, nor am I intending to present them as such. There are some people who think of D&D as a role-playing game, and there are other people who think of it as a roll-playing game, and there are other people who think of it as a role-playing AND roll-playing game equally, and there are other people who think of it as predominantly a role-play game and a little bit of a roll-playing game, ad nauseum. It's my opinion that how a person feels about game balance depends on which side of this coin they most strongly associate with. For example, a person who thinks it's more of a role-playing game than a roll-playing game (that would be me), isn't going to care as much about balance as a person who thinks it's more of a roll-playing game than a role-playing game. Obviously nearly every D&D session has elements of dice rolling AND roleplay, so it's silly to think it's ONLY one or the other. They're two sides to the same coin. I didn't think I needed to clarify that, so I'm sorry.

[eggynack]

I honestly think that our differences of opinion come down to our base approach to the game. I tend to have the most fun with a game like D&D (or really any role-playing game) when I intentionally forgo character optimization in favor of a character "concept." Most people that I have played with over the years seem to have shared similar philosophies (but of course, that doesn't mean that everyone in the gaming community does). That's how I've ended up in groups with things like kobold clerics and halfling barbarians, which certainly couldn't compete with more optimized builds but seemed like a lot of fun to play. There have, admittedly, been builds that ended up being not very fun. I've tried twice to play a tibit beguiler and could never quite find a way to have fun with it, despite the fact that it sounds like a really fun character concept (to me).
I think that's what most people do, coming up with a concept, and building to that concept. Optimization isn't something separate from that, but a function of it. You say, "I want to be a great warrior," or, "I want to play a druid who is also inexplicably necromancy themed," (the latter might just be me), and you try to make your character match that concept. The problem arises when your concept involves trying to be a guy who's really good at punching people to death, and the game tells you that a monk would be good at that, and then you fail utterly at it. The thing is, most concepts involve being good at some things, and for a class that's good at nearly no things, players are going to often be disappointed.

[Knaight]

Knaight, I appreciate your extremely thoughtful response! I agree with you on a lot of points. In the Sam/Shelob example, Sam probably wouldn't have even gotten a single swing in if Gandalf had been there too, that's true. But it's also true that Frodo is a significant focus of the story simply because he carries the ring and stays alive.
Him carrying the ring is, oddly enough, a fairly good example of the power working to balance the spotlight. He is the only character with the power to hold the ring without things going catastrophically wrong - it doesn't look like a power, as it largely comes from not having or wanting power in general, but it is. This then puts a lot of the spot light on him. Him staying alive has higher stakes, and plenty of the Fellowship's enemies were gunning for him, personally.


I honestly think that our differences of opinion come down to our base approach to the game. I tend to have the most fun with a game like D&D (or really any role-playing game) when I intentionally forgo character optimization in favor of a character "concept." Most people that I have played with over the years seem to have shared similar philosophies (but of course, that doesn't mean that everyone in the gaming community does). That's how I've ended up in groups with things like kobold clerics and halfling barbarians, which certainly couldn't compete with more optimized builds but seemed like a lot of fun to play. There have, admittedly, been builds that ended up being not very fun. I've tried twice to play a tibit beguiler and could never quite find a way to have fun with it, despite the fact that it sounds like a really fun character concept (to me).
Our base approach is the same - though I'd note that optimization and concept are not somehow opposed. I'll use a few example characters I've made in which I did do more optimization than normal, precisely because they were used in playtesting for a game that a friend is developing (Blood Sweat and Steel, which is, incidentally, excellent).

Keso: He's a disillusioned man, formerly military. He's on the run from his past, always resisting the urge he has to settle down with any of the numerous people he naturally gets along with, because trouble follows him. Why? Because his "former military" status was earned when he saved the army he was in from a catastrophic military defeat - by murdering the commander of the army in cold blood before he could lead them to a battle they were guaranteed to lose.

There are mechanics needed to back this concept up. For one thing, he was a sniper with a focus on thrown darts, as bows really weren't much of a thing in the culture he was from. That meant he needed to be able to be reasonable stealthy, be able to traverse wilderness well, and be able to kill things from a distance effectively. In practice, this required some optimization, largely towards using thrown darts on unaware targets from hiding.

Mynra: She's a spy. Or rather, she would be a spy, if the organization that she was a spy for still existed as anything other than a subjugated colony of an entirely overlarge empire. Still, she's part of an independence movement that she thinks is capable of far more than it actually is, and involves herself with that while possible, while making a living in a more adventuresome way.

Again, there's mechanical backing here. Mynra needs to be able to lie through her teeth, and do so successfully. In the system in question this was easy - I just set Deceit as her highest skill, and called it a day. There was also some need of other things where more creativity was needed - for instance, assassination. Sure, I could have just set Melee Weapons (or Knife, depending on game version) as one of her two second highest skills and called it a day, but that really didn't work with the concept, as it would give her combat capabilities she shouldn't have. Instead, I set up a Stunt (basically a Feat) that let her use Deceit in lieu of a combat skill when attacking someone who didn't know she was her enemy, and named it "Look behind you!" for good measure.

Basically, I want to play a role, and it's that side which interests me. Game balance is helpful here though. Keso would have been downright difficult to handle with D&D - ranged combat is kind of sketchy, thrown weapons are sketchier still, and to add insult to injury the classes and prestige classes aimed at ranged weapons tend to work bet with bows, which kind of undercut the whole primitive tribe at the edge of civilization background. Mynra would be easier, but the game is so focused on everything she isn't directly involved in that this doesn't actually help much, even if a high bluff skill takes care of a fair amount on its own.

Put concisely - it's more fun playing a character when what the character does actually has an effect on the game.


So I guess my question is (to the group), when you play role-playing games that have unbalanced classes, do you ALWAYS play the MOST optimal character build that you can? Or do you sometimes have fun with an intentionally flawed or weak character?
Optimization only makes sense in the context of it being for something, there is no singular most optimal build. If we assume that's what wanted is sheer, raw power, then it's worth noting that all of the "most optimal" builds are in the category of theoretical optimization - which are specifically meant to not be played.

It's also worth noting that the preferred balance point is tier 3, and even then balance is largely an inter party thing. It's not about playing the most powerful characters, it's about not having one person playing some stupidly powerful or stupidly wimpy character when the rest of the group doesn't.


I understand you now. You're thinking that I'm saying that a person can't think of it as both a role-playing game AND a roll-playing game. My apologies if I haven't been clear on that. Role-playing and roll-playing are not mutually exclusive, nor am I intending to present them as such. There are some people who think of D&D as a role-playing game, and there are other people who think of it as a roll-playing game, and there are other people who think of it as a role-playing AND roll-playing game equally, and there are other people who think of it as predominantly a role-play game and a little bit of a roll-playing game, ad nauseum. It's my opinion that how a person feels about game balance depends on which side of this coin they most strongly associate with. For example, a person who thinks it's more of a role-playing game than a roll-playing game (that would be me), isn't going to care as much about balance as a person who thinks it's more of a roll-playing game than a role-playing game. Obviously nearly every D&D session has elements of dice rolling AND roleplay, so it's silly to think it's ONLY one or the other. They're two sides to the same coin. I didn't think I needed to clarify that, so I'm sorry.
The role playing part is more important to me than the game part. It's why I don't actually play 3.x much*, as much lighter game systems work much better for me. I still prefer things to be balanced though, precisely because of the spotlight aspect. This is hugely game dependent though, as there are a lot of ways to balance spotlight access.

My favorite example here is Shotgun Diaries, a zombie apocalypse game. The core mechanic is that whenever anyone in the group rolls to do anything, they roll Xd6, where X is the number of people in the group. Splitting up is obviously a terrible idea here, and it incentivizes keeping the group together strongly. There are then a set of simple character archetypes that get a bonus 1d6 when doing a particular thing. There's the strong person who gets a bonus 1d6 for strength related things, the fast person who gets a bonus 1d6 for speed related things, etc. Then there are two special characters. There's the gun specialist, who gets a bonus 1d6 for everything (because in Shotgun Diaries, you don't roll to kill zombies, everything you do is whatever you're doing in particular, and killing zombies). The other is the helpless person. They provide their 1d6 for everyone else, but they don't ever roll. Their goal is also to be a total hindrance on the group. Basically, they model that really stupid person in so many zombie movies that make life difficult for everyone.

Because the mechanics incentivize keeping them around, and because the way their player plays the game properly is to deliberately get them into trouble, they have no problem whatsoever getting their fair share of the spotlight. If anything, it's easy for them to get a bit too much power**. Still, it's a fairly well balanced system, and an example of where balance matters, even if the way it balances things is radically different from the D&D style.

*Technically it's one of many reasons.

**Admittedly, this is based on personal experience with me playing them, and I'm some sort of freak of extreme extroversion by nerd standards and took to that particular archetype like a fish to water, so that might not be a game issue.

[Theomniadept]

Honestly speaking their is a lot of merit to rollplaying. Think of some really bad examples of roleplaying. Anyone can roleplay at any time without any rules. No matter how nerdy it may seem we're still leagues above the people doing things like roleplaying their 'original characters' who are nothing more than recolors of characters like Sephiroth.

When you say you're going to play a Role-Playing Game you are subjecting your character to different possibilities; your original character do not steal 'Grimdark Darkgrim' might have lost the love of his life to the undead and learned to take up the sword but if you're just playing base Fighter your 'awesomely epic' character is going to be force fed boot leather by everything that can beat the NPC class Warrior. Even if you optimize there's a chance you could roll nothing but 1s and 2s and fail at everything.

Optimization and game balance come into play when people want to make a story in an RPG because RPGs introduce the element of failure, and when there is a system of mechanical rules the element of failure can appear much more often in some classes than others. A Wizard has the least chance of failure because there's no check to summon a creature. There's no check to simply say the enemy is trapped in a Forcecage. Contrast Monk who has to throw attack rolls with average BAB and incredible MAD in melee range with his d8 hit die.

Game balance becomes an issue in this case. As was stated many times before (and never successfully refuted I may add) there's no way to balance the game, but players can have fun in any situation where all players are playing within a certain Tier range. I personally argue that if everyone is playing within tiers 1 through 4 that every player will have something to visibly contribute to the party that another player will not be able to, except in specific cases such as a party containing both a Factotum and a Rogue (in which the Rogue will be completely outshined).

You cannot simply roleplay a class into usefulness. The only 'roleplaying' that makes CW Samurai halfway decent is roleplaying the breaking of his crappy code at level 10 and upon leveling to 11 immediately turning into a Samurai 1/Ronin 10. You can't just roleplay a class into usefulness; no amount of writing a backstory filled with angst and fervor will make base monk viable.

Want to know the dirty little secret? If you've ever played anything other than a Commoner with only Spell Focus feats you are a character optimizer. The degree to which you optimize and how useful your optimizations are might vary, but you're still the same as anyone who has tried to increase their damage, whether it is through taking Power Attack or taking that plus Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and Frenzied Berserker.

[TheIronGolem]

I understand you now. You're thinking that I'm saying that a person can't think of it as both a role-playing game AND a roll-playing game. My apologies if I haven't been clear on that. Role-playing and roll-playing are not mutually exclusive, nor am I intending to present them as such. There are some people who think of D&D as a role-playing game, and there are other people who think of it as a roll-playing game, and there are other people who think of it as a role-playing AND roll-playing game equally, and there are other people who think of it as predominantly a role-play game and a little bit of a roll-playing game, ad nauseum. It's my opinion that how a person feels about game balance depends on which side of this coin they most strongly associate with. For example, a person who thinks it's more of a role-playing game than a roll-playing game (that would be me), isn't going to care as much about balance as a person who thinks it's more of a roll-playing game than a role-playing game. Obviously nearly every D&D session has elements of dice rolling AND roleplay, so it's silly to think it's ONLY one or the other. They're two sides to the same coin. I didn't think I needed to clarify that, so I'm sorry.

All right then, fair enough.

[Morty]

So I guess my question is (to the group), when you play role-playing games that have unbalanced classes, do you ALWAYS play the MOST optimal character build that you can? Or do you sometimes have fun with an intentionally flawed or weak character?


I don't think it falls under "optimization" if I decide to play a fighter using two weapons and I end up being hilariously inept at what the game tells me I should do well.

[Arbane]

I am horrified to see that a thread about Caster Supremacy has somehow gotten to page three without the legally-required link to BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

This error has now been rectified.



Put concisely - it's more fun playing a character when what the character does actually has an effect on the game.


Well put.

[Brookshw]

So I guess my question is (to the group), when you play role-playing games that have unbalanced classes, do you ALWAYS play the MOST optimal character build that you can? Or do you sometimes have fun with an intentionally flawed or weak character?


Eh, mid op at best but I spend over 95% of the time dming so probably not a good example.

Could I propose however that there are two axis here while there's a lot of focus on one only. There's the theoretical balance axis for mechanical aspects and the applicable balance aspect for how things work out at the table. The tba is something that we can discuss objectively, but the aba does not have the same luxury as it pertains to particular groups, play styles, the group, expectations, team work, dm, encounters etc. These have significant applications in a particular game and even if the tba indicates the balance is likely to be way off, the aba may very well be balanced. Unfortunately aba is much harder to discuss with its individual nature so you won't hear as much about it unless someone is seeking advice for their particular game.

[Psyren]

So I guess my question is (to the group), when you play role-playing games that have unbalanced classes, do you ALWAYS play the MOST optimal character build that you can? Or do you sometimes have fun with an intentionally flawed or weak character?

This is a bit of a false dichotomy, because the MOST optimal character build is always going to be Pun-Pun. Anything weaker is not the most optimal. But, you can play something that is not the MOST optimal and even has key flaws, yet still is not "weak."

[Rebel7284]

[snip]
That is to say that the core problem here is duplication of roles - specifically, to the point of characters being superfluous. [snip]

High level casters have SO many ways of making characters superfluous though. This is a balance problem inherent in the system. Yes it can be overcome by good in character and out of character choices up to a point. However, it's good to be aware of these things in advance. As others have pointed out, this does NOT mean having to enforce equality with an iron fist while killing off all that don't fit! This is not Stalin's Russia, after all.

[Brookshw]

This is not Stalin's Russia, after all.

In Soviet D&D sword wield you!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Gnaeus]

I am horrified to see that a thread about Caster Supremacy has somehow gotten to page three without the legally-required link to BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

This error has now been rectified.

And I will respond with my legally required response. The problem isn't just Summoner vs. Bandit. The problem is that in D&D, the bandit actually sucks at riding a bike. If you came into a game, and you were all "I'm gonna be badass because look at all the tricks I can do on my bike" and then it turned out that you actually couldn't do many tricks and the other guy whose focus was on something else entirely could actually ride a bike BETTER than you, thats not a good thing.

[Beldar]

I agree with the original poster.

"Fair" and "balanced" games are like the Arthurian Questing Beast, in that some are doomed to forever seek them, while never actually capturing them.

"Fair" is a myth. You will never find an instance of it. If you think you have, look a little deeper & you will see unfairness.
A good example of this is one the original poster said: all players played the very same character, yet it was still unbalanced because of differing game knowledge, different skill levels at tactical thinking etc.

And those who imagine they want "fair" games are actually confused - what they really want is fun games, but they have convinced themselves that "fair" equals fun. This is far from the truth. You can knock yourself out in the search for fairness & have no fun at all. And you have have no "fairness" at all & still have plenty of fun.

As long as there are differences - ANY kind of differences, there is no balance - no "fairness".
But if you get rid of all differences in search of fairness, you are just about guaranteed to lose all fun.

The one group of players I knew who actually stuck with D&D 4e for very long (they played it for about 3 years I think) had a day-long bitch-session about it when they finally gave up on it.
They complained about it all day, at length.
Their central complaint? In the search for "fairness" the game designers had made everything basically the same. The guys said that, though the different classes had different names for their abilities, everybody basically just did 2d6 damage to the enemy every round.
They hated that.
They wanted differences, but could not get them.
They had no fun in a system that had knocked itself out seeking fairness.

Now, to those who say it isn't fun to play a character that is totally overshadowed by another character.
Granted.
But "fairness" isn't the answer.
Seeking special roles you can still shine at is one good answer. Just roleplaying something interesting & ignoring power levels is another. Asking the player of the tough character to help you optimize is another. There are more answers, of course, but this isn't an attempt to answer that.

This post is just to add another voice to the OP, in saying that, if your response to anything that stands up a little higher than the rest is to smack it with a nerf-bat, nobody is likely to have fun in your groups.

Just one more thought - I took over DM'ing for a group that had been running for a good while. They were horribly unbalanced. A couple had multiple artifact-level magic items & easily whacked any monster they met, while at the other end of the scale, about half the players struggled to achieve anything at all.
It was an extereme case of unbalance.

So I continued status-quo for a little while while I figured out what the players liked to do. Then I started dropping targeted magic items & other opportunities, to bring the weak characters up to speed a bit at a time, in a way that agreed with what they liked to do. It took a while, but they are now in the same leagues as my artifact-wielding characters.
I nerfed *nobody*.
I buffed *everybody* - I just buffed the weak ones more.
The formerly weak characters are now my most die-hard players, frequently expressing how much they are enjoying the game.
I had to buff the monsters too, to keep up to the challenge, but that is fairly easy to do.
It took some work, but now everybody is having fun, which was the goal.
If I can do it, you can too.

[The Insanity]

I have fun when the game is fair and balanced. When it's not, my fun decreases.
Making a game fairer and more balanced rarely, IME, makes it less fun. Quite the opposite actually. And it doesn't matter that perfect fairness or balance is unattainable. That doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. The same can be said about world peace.

[Flickerdart]

Beldar, just because it's not possible to get exact balance (without making everything the same) doesn't mean there isn't a massive, noticeable difference between a game that is very unbalanced and a game that is not very unbalanced.

[TheIronGolem]

Just one more thought - I took over DM'ing for a group that had been running for a good while. They were horribly unbalanced. A couple had multiple artifact-level magic items & easily whacked any monster they met, while at the other end of the scale, about half the players struggled to achieve anything at all.
It was an extereme case of unbalance.

So I continued status-quo for a little while while I figured out what the players liked to do. Then I started dropping targeted magic items & other opportunities, to bring the weak characters up to speed a bit at a time, in a way that agreed with what they liked to do. It took a while, but they are now in the same leagues as my artifact-wielding characters.
I nerfed *nobody*.
I buffed *everybody* - I just buffed the weak ones more.
The formerly weak characters are now my most die-hard players, frequently expressing how much they are enjoying the game.
I had to buff the monsters too, to keep up to the challenge, but that is fairly easy to do.
It took some work, but now everybody is having fun, which was the goal.
If I can do it, you can too.

This contradicts what you claim to be your stance on balance, because it is a deliberate effort on your part to make the game more fun by improving balance and thus making it more fair. It's an implicit admission that balance is a requirement for an enjoyable game.

[jedipotter]

And those who imagine they want "fair" games are actually confused - what they really want is fun games, but they have convinced themselves that "fair" equals fun. This is far from the truth. You can knock yourself out in the search for fairness & have no fun at all. And you have have no "fairness" at all & still have plenty of fun.

This is so true. The idea that ''fair'' = ''right'' = ''fun'' is just off the scale with many peoples views.

I guess this is part of ''The Rules are Absolute'' and ''The DM is just a player'' and ''everything gets voted on'' type of games.


I have fun when the game is fair and balanced. When it's not, my fun decreases.
Making a game fairer and more balanced rarely, IME, makes it less fun. Quite the opposite actually. And it doesn't matter that perfect fairness or balance is unattainable. That doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. The same can be said about world peace.

I wonder what your ''fair and balanced'' game is like. Do you pool and divide up hit points? ''Ok, five characters with 100 hit points total gives us 20 hit points each.'' Does everyone take the same damage? ''Ok, the orc hit for five damage..everyone take five damage too''.

[Gnaeus]

This contradicts what you claim to be your stance on balance, because it is a deliberate effort on your part to make the game more fun by improving balance and thus making it more fair. It's an implicit admission that balance is a requirement for an enjoyable game.

No, it is an implicit admission that that table found a balanced game to be preferable. It says nothing about whether games need to be balanced. Indeed, when he took over this "long running game" he found it to be unbalanced, which did not apparently prevent it from running for a long time. Nor does it say anything about whether is is necessary or preferable for the game SYSTEM to be balanced. In this case, the imbalance sounds like it is primarily the result of DM action. Certainly, some groups of players prefer balanced games. This sounds like one of them. That does not suggest that all groups of players have that preference. Nor, given variety in player optimization skill, play skill and play style, does it necessarily suggest that if balance at the table is the goal, that having all their starting options be balanced in abstract with each other will get you there. Nor (given that there is an inherent scale with maximum balance at one end and maximum availability of character options at the other) does it imply that even if balance is a good thing, that it is better than the alternative, here being more possible character options in the game, since balance could then be addressed at the table.

[The Insanity]

This is so true. The idea that ''fair'' = ''right'' = ''fun'' is just off the scale with many peoples views.
Just like the idea that "unfair" = "right" = "fun" is. just because you don't care for fairness or balance doesn't mean that no one should.


I guess this is part of ''The Rules are Absolute'' and ''The DM is just a player'' and ''everything gets voted on'' type of games.
Where'd you get that from? What does that have to do with balance? I don't see the relevance, other than being a thinly veiled insult towards people who have a different opinion than you. :smallconfused:


I wonder what your ''fair and balanced'' game is like.
It's fun.


Do you pool and divide up hit points? ''Ok, five characters with 100 hit points total gives us 20 hit points each.'' Does everyone take the same damage? ''Ok, the orc hit for five damage..everyone take five damage too''.
Why would I? It wouldn't be fair. :smallconfused:

[OldTrees1]

People like fun games. Balance and Diversity are pursued not because they are inherently fun. Rather they are pursued because they enhance the existing fun of a fun game. There is an opportunity cost to improving either Balance or Diversity. This opportunity cost makes different people stop the pursuit at different lengths. We need to recognize that those that pursue it for longer/shorter lengths than us are doing what is fun for them. We should not make a strawman* of their position.




*
Strawman 1: Perfect balance is necessary for fun
Strawman 2: Extreme imbalance is necessary for fun
Strawman 3: Balance means Equality (hint: since both Balance and Diversity are pursued, Equality/Sameness would be undesirable)

[eggynack]

*
Strawman 1: Perfect balance is necessary for fun
Strawman 2: Extreme imbalance is necessary for fun
Indeed. You could plausibly even generalize it out by a lot, to:
Strawman X: X is necessary for fun.

[OldTrees1]

Indeed. You could plausibly even generalize it out by a lot, to:
Strawman X: X is necessary for fun.

True, but I left it specific so those unintentionally making these strawmen, might recognize the specific one they were making.

[Karoht]

Fairness (or the illusion thereof) makes the fun more approachable and attainable, which is one reason why Fair is a desired state.

[atomicwaffle]

The hard truth:

It doesn't fall on the players to make a balanced party where everyone is important and effective. It's up to the players to make characters they want to play.

It's up to the DM to maintain...lets say 'flow and progression' (in lieu of 'balance' and 'fun'). Talk to players out of game. figure out what they want to do, and help them do it, or if they don't know help them figure it out.

Make your encounters varied and different. Fighting a lot of goblins kobolds and orcs at low levels and the fighters/rangers are raping and the wizard is casting magic missile? What's that, an earth elemental? suddenly that magic missile is the only thing doing damage?

Wizard shining too much? Naturally occuring AMF, or, his spellbook got stolen. level 4 and did you take Spell Mastery as a feat? I didn't think you did!

Balance will always be an issue, but the DM has MANY tools at his disposal (homebrews, house rules, specific encounters, blatant thievery, weather etc) to circumvent that.

[Flickerdart]

Sure, because there's nothing that says "flow" quite like arbitrarily shutting down characters. Making someone useless because another character sucks is a great way to make both of those players have fun.

[TheIronGolem]

Yeah. Caster Supremacy is bad, but forcing the casters to take a timeout is a poor solution. Not only does it unnecessarily frustrate the casters, it also just rubs it in the martials' faces that they only get to contribute when the situation is contrived in their favor.

[Karoht]

Yeah. Caster Supremacy is bad, but forcing the casters to take a timeout is a poor solution. Not only does it unnecessarily frustrate the casters, it also just rubs it in the martials' faces that they only get to contribute when the situation is contrived in their favor.This. I have no idea how to emphasize this further, but so few DM's seem to grasp this.

Arbitrarily nerfing the Spellcaster with DM Fiat does three things.
1-It annoys the caster with a big fat NO button that they have no options to deal with, akin to being told to sit in another room for the duration of the enounter.
2-It annoys the mundanes, because they know that they only way they get a moment in the sun is if the DM hits the caster with a serious nerfbat/fiatbat.
3-It creates an environment that doesn't encourage teamwork. It encourages the spotlight to shift from one thing to another thing, sharing the spotlight is unlikely, and sharing the spotlight is not the same thing as teamwork.

Now one might counter with "but it was like that for plot reasons" which only serves to make the plot feel contrived and pointless and railroad-y.

[Knaight]

"Fair" and "balanced" games are like the Arthurian Questing Beast, in that some are doomed to forever seek them, while never actually capturing them.

"Fair" is a myth. You will never find an instance of it. If you think you have, look a little deeper & you will see unfairness.
A good example of this is one the original poster said: all players played the very same character, yet it was still unbalanced because of differing game knowledge, different skill levels at tactical thinking etc.

Perfect fairness isn't going to happen, sure. That you can't quite reach it doesn't mean that variable approximations are somehow useless. To use a mathematical analogy x/(x-1) will never reach the point = 1. It does not exist at that point. That doesn't mean that the point (1.001, 1001) and (1001, 1.001) are equally close to x being one.

[eastmabl]

I honestly don't understand why people are so caught up on game balance.

...

Can anybody clue me in as to why people feel this way?

Try playing a game like Rifts, where there's a party member that's a dragon with a win button installed, and you're just a human holding a rifle and waiting around for the dragon to press the button.

If you're not given a chance to shine or contribute, there's probably not any reason why you would want to even be there.

[Snails]

My observations are: (1) players care more about having "cool moments" in the spotlight where their character shines than any notion of mechanical balance, (2) players are highly tolerant of the spotlight not being shared equally, provided their PC mostly lives up to their expectations.

Gnaeus nails it on the front page. It is not a problem that the mystical guy in robes is "more powerful" than my knight in shining armor. But if I built a knight in shining armor, I expect to take charge when there is a dragon to be slain. Anything less and the player feels cheated.

As I see it, this expectation is just a natural, even inevitable, outgrowth of playing a roleplaying game, rather than a war game. (And if D&D is really nothing much more than a war game, it is a very bloated and ponderous one. I have many a good war game on my shelf to play instead, thank you very much.)

[Morty]

I think this is the case of the Nirvana Fallacy or Perfect Solution Fallacy in one of its forms - because we can never remove the problem entirely, we shouldn't bother! Which is, of course, ridiculous. Perfect fairness and parity aren't really possible, but there's a lot of middle ground between some unavoidable discrepancy and the absurd differences in capability D&D 3rd edition allows for. If I'm playing a fighter with two weapons in the same party as a druid, or even a barbarian with a two-handed weapon, I'm not suffering due to some necessary imbalance for the sake of variety - I'm suffering because those characters are strictly superior at doing the one thing I'm supposed to be good at. And, of course, the druid can do things my character can only maybe do if he blows tons of gold on magic items. And what, exactly, is a DM supposed to do about it? Slap an arbitrary 10 extra damage onto my every attack?

[Gnaeus]

Fairness (or the illusion thereof) makes the fun more approachable and attainable, which is one reason why Fair is a desired state.

Ahh. Fairness. Congratulations, you found a term less universally agreed on than balance.

Game A (Warhammer FRP, or Elric) is fair. We all rolled randomly to see what kind of character we got to play. No one had an advantage in that roll. If player A (Melnibonean Warrior/wizard) got something better than player B (Beggar), its just what the dice decided. Thats Fair.

Game B (Rifts, 3.5) is fair. We all got to pick from the same selections to make our characters. If player A got something better than player B, that is just because they are better at playing the game. Thats Fair.

Game C is fair. The DM made us play characters with radically different abilities (maybe he made pregens), then he gave everyone spotlight time to do their own thing. Everyone got equal time, regardless of player choice. Fair.

Game D is fair. We used the TWERPS system, where everyone has only one stat (Strength) but we modified it so that we all had the same strength, so every character sheet was identical. Thats fair.

Game E is fair. Its just like game B, but the GM has instituted balance at the table, so that the monk and wizard are running on the same power level because the monk got the Golden Artifact Sword of Awesome. Thats Fair.


Fairness can mean equality of spotlight. Equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome. It is unfair for player A to be penalized in play for his superior optimization skill. It is unfair for his decisions not to matter. It is unfair for player B to have a worse character than player A. It is totally impossible to make a game that meets all the definitions of fairness while allowing any player choice in character whatsoever.

[Rakaydos]

Edge of Empire deliberately obfuscates their high end optimization.

Low end optimization is easy- black dice are countered by blues, which are worse than Purples and Greens, which arnt as good (or bad) as Reds and Yellows. More good dice lets you have good things happen despite more bad dice.

But unlike the easilly computed 5% increments and DPR of D20 systems, it's hard to calculate a "best" option, because of the way Success, advantage, threat, and failure break down. You can eyeball situations easilly enough, which is good enough for gameplay, but you'll never see a "total optimization" thread for Edge of Empire.

[Morty]

The issue has nothing to do with optimization, or one's skill in it. Choosing to play a druid instead of a fighter or a wizard instead of a rogue isn't optimization. Or rather, it shouldn't be. Because picking your main class is the most basic choice there is.

[Snails]

The issue has nothing to do with optimization, or one's skill in it. Choosing to play a druid instead of a fighter or a wizard instead of a rogue isn't optimization. Or rather, it shouldn't be. Because picking your main class is the most basic choice there is.

Exactly. That there are rewards for system mastery is inevitable in any complex system. That need not be a problem, because moderate variations in power can easily be adapted to.

But in a roleplaying game certain basic choices carry very very strongly implied promises. If the system causes the DM to renege on those promises, that is a flaw in the mechanics, and it undermines the roleplaying aspect of the game at a very fundamental level.

[Karoht]

The issue has nothing to do with optimization, or one's skill in it. Choosing to play a druid instead of a fighter or a wizard instead of a rogue isn't optimization. Or rather, it shouldn't be. Because picking your main class is the most basic choice there is.
This. This right here.

I rather enjoy taking a non-tier 1 class and pushing it through my optimization choices to being higher than it's tier. IE-Trying to turn a Tier 3 into a Tier 2? Quite fun, decently challenging. Trying to turn a Tier 2 into a Tier 1? Extremely challenging, but doable, or at the very least approachable.

But when I go to a new group and I ask what everyone else is playing as before I make a character, I kind of chuckle when someone mentions that a Tier 1 caster has been selected already. Because I know what I'm in for. I'm in for either that person being Mr/Mrs save the day, every day. Or I'm in for watching this person make terrible choices and be no better than the party Fighter. And there is very little in the way of middle ground.
The first I can work with, because a Tier 1 caster with support appropriate to their build can be even more awesome than a Tier 1 caster alone.

The second is much more painful. I don't want to play for someone else, I don't want to tell them how to play their character, I don't want to try and fix their character (unless they ask, and even then I'm hesitant out of politeness). But I don't want to sit there and watch them failsauce it up and make the party's life harder either.

Optimization in 3.5
T2-5
Stats, Feats, PrC's, etc. [insert longwinded guide involving several books worth of source material and some convoluted readings of certain rules]
T1
Pick Wizard, Cleric, or Druid.
Grats, you're done.

[Melcar]

I think its important to define what someone is trying to balance, and why. But I also think that in every game, players acknowledge that different classes have different limitations, powers, strengths and weaknesses. Meaning that if an archer simply does not damage enough to kill the enemes, the archer should train more (take the right fighter feats to break more DR or do more damage), or realize that his adventuring day are over(retireing the character, because he was unable to face and win against the threads as an adventure).

The above mentioned options might not be fair, but i think its important to recognize when gaming starts.


EDIT: I also want to point out, that in a long running game the balance usually, in my experience, get skewed anyways. But that ok, because of group synergy, concepts and role-playing (wich i find increases as the group evolves). I have a character we started in 2002, a level 30 wizard, and let me tell you, the balance left the game a loong time ago, but we still have tons of fun doing our thing. Sometjimes going solo, sometimes colaboration for greater victory. What I meant to say was, that balance is more important in the start of a game. Me thinks!