I would say that a desirable goal for any given game is that each of the major archetypes or character builds that the game supports or encourages mechanically each contributes roughly equally to solving the problems that the game's design supports being posed to the player characters.

That does not mean that each such archetype or build needs to contribute equally all the time in all situations; only that, over the course of a typical campaign, the sum total contribution from any given archetype or build is about the same as any other, while avoiding, say, the Shadowrun decker problem.

It also doesn't mean that every single ability player characters can wield needs to be balanced against all the others (your once-per-day super attack is allowed to be way better than a commonplace swing of a weapon, for instance), just as long as they all mostly even out over the long run.

Now, archetypes or builds that the game doesn't encourage don't need to meet that standard. D&D games, for instance, heavily support combat in their mechanics and don't support other activities to the same extent mechanically. So a character archetype or build that was poor at combat in those games isn't going to contribute as effectively to a D&D game played to design expectations - and that's fine.

Likewise, if a player isn't interested in contributing to the same extent as others, that's fine, too.

Quote Originally Posted by MonstarDM View Post
A party does not need to be balanced. This is a common RPG myth.

The biggest problem with the balance idea is that it assumes that there is ONLY one type of player: The Hyper Active Selfish Demanding Dominating Competing Action type. And, of course, not all players are like that.

The second biggest problem with the balance idea is that it assumes that there is ONLY one way to play the game: The Use the Mechanical Rules to Show, Display, and Prove your Personal System Mastery of the Mechanical Rules.

The third biggest problem with the balance idea is that it assumes that there is ONLY one way to have fun: Being the above type of player playing the game only the above type way.

Now, there is NOTHING wrong with anything above: if that is the way you like to play a RPG, that is fine. There is no right way or wrong way to play an RPG.

Though the problem comes in when you play the game only the above way....and then complain about balance.
Do you... you know, actually read what other people write on the topic of character balance in RPGs? Because I can't think of a single argument made by anyone supporting better-balanced games, including in this very thread, that comes even close to matching your assumptions.

Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
I would say, perfect balance is not only unnecessary, it is impossible. What is far more important is that all the players are enjoying the game and aren’t feeling envious at the other players.

It is entirely possible to have a great deal of fun playing a character 10 levels lower than everyone else. I’ve done it. Because it made sense for the character I was playing, and I had him work extra hard to effect the course of the battle in significant and fun ways. But I knew what I was getting into when I decided to play as a previously stated low level NPC in a mid level game.

I’ve had players who were completely fine being a “Chewbacca” where they mostly just watched the other players do the whole roleplaying and story business. But when it became time for her to do her thing she did it. Smiled contently and went back to passively watching.

Imbalance really only becomes a problem when the player actually starts questioning why they’re even there. This I’ve also seen happen. To use an example I’ve previously used before. In my first even D&D game, I was a DM playing 3rd edition. I had one player as a fighter and another as a Druid (and three more who are not important to the story). Now all of us were new to the system and I can now tell you all the ways this guy’s fighter was built completely sub-optimally. But at the time we didn’t really know. Anyway after a few sessions, it became a joke that the druid’s animal companion was a better fighter than the fighter. After a bit the fighter and the Druid decided to hash it out and had a duel. And the fighter lost.

The next session he declared that his fighter had choked to death in his sleep and came with a sorcerer.

This is where balance comes into things. When the other player’s characters make the player feel insignificant by comparison in a way that they did not sign on for. If the game sells you on playing Druss, and you follow all the rules of the game. It better let you play Druss, not some chump that gets beat by a class feature.

But if a player stats up a fighter fully understanding that by mid-level he’ll basically just become a luggage carrier for the mages. Well, that’s fine. So long as they’re happy carrying that luggage.

The other solution is simple gentleman’s agreements. Sure the fighter knows the cleric can do his job better than him, and the cleric knows he can do the fighter’s job better than the fighter. But the cleric has decided not to. And that can work just as well, too.

Really the key is just knowing what everyone wants to do, and as a GM help all your players get to do what they want to do, so long as it isn’t ruining other players fun. Communication, respecting each other, a sense of fair play. This is all way more important than balance.

Though all that said. Do wish games were a bit better balanced. I wanna play a mundane guy that wrecks mages faces, dammit.
Erm, slight problem: your two examples of imbalances that were okay are examples of gameplay choices, not examples of mechanical imbalances built into the game design. At least, that's how they came across based on the level of detail you've provided.

Your example of a mechanical imbalance, of the party fighter being invalidated by the druid’s class feature, is the kind of problem that people arguing for better-balanced games want games to avoid: when, no matter how players play their game or build their characters, some more or less standard (not necessarily optimised) character builds just invalidate others.

If a player wants to play meatshield or pack mule for the party wizards, fine, let them. When it's a problem is when the game's mechanics are designed such that that is their only option unless they pore through piles of sourcebooks and online guides. That's my takeaway of most arguments in favour of better balance in game design.