Uh...Balance? (Rant, Querey, General Moaning)

[Jibar]

Now then, something that's constantly been thrown at me by these boards is balance.
Apparantly every class is either underpowered or overpowered, no matter if it's D&D or World of Warcraft. Every class beats another, every class gets killed by every other, this class can't do that, that class can't do this.
And it's this eternal talk of this mythical "balance".
Apparantly, this "balance" is a state of equilibrium between everything in the game. Where the game apparantly boils down to winning via skill.
Ah. Bad word.
Win.
Because, of course, you can't win at these games. Sure, you can kill somebody, or you can retreive some item, but no, no you can't win.
In order to win, there must be "balance".
And because of this "balance", every game without it is therefore terrible, unwinnable, frustrating, and just a bad game, right?
Wait. This is strange.
Since when was a game bad because you can't win?
I'd been lead to believe games were about fun, abut enjoying yourself, regardless of this mysterious "balance".
Hmm...balance. Is that a good word for this?
Everybody here seems to think this "balance" let's them win.
Anyway.
So, I have been lead to believe that if a game is not "balanced" it sucks.
What the hell?
Seriously.
If you're so obsessed with winning and gaining your legendary "balance" that you can't enjoy this game, you shouldn't be playing in the first place.
So what if this class beats another? Why the hell should that ruin the game?
I played World of Warcraft for a year. I still play D&D on the side. And the only people I have ever heard talk about "balance" are the ones who are complaining. Everybody who wasn't complaining was busy talking about what they were going to do next. How they were going to enjoy themselves.
Maybe this is a flaw with me. Maybe I'm so focused on playing a game that I'm neglecting my gamer duties of whining on and on and on.
Or maybe, people should actually slap themselves, look at a game without complaining, and suddenly realise, "Hey, this is fun!"
So. "Balance"?
Screw it. It's overpowered.

[Penguinizer]

Oh so right you are.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Like I said (approximately) before in re D&D:

Most balance arguments boil down to the following:
I'm paper.
Rock is fine.
Nerf scissors.

To answer your concerns some, in WoW and many other online games, people are concerned with balance because of the emphasis on Player-vs-Player content. Competitive games are no fun unless they're fair. People complain too much about balance in WoW in particular, but it is important.

Now as for D&D, a mostly cooperative game...balance is important because people like to play different things and still be effective. If someone wants to play a master swordsman in 3.5, they aren't going to be as effective as a reasonably well-built Archmage at high levels. But the goal is to make them close enough that both players can have fun, and one doesn't render the other redundant. Again, people complain too much, but that's the nature of people.

[Rex Idiotarum]

I'm not doing so well, my class is underbalanced, his class is broken, and don't get me started on that cheese this other person is using...

Of Course, if you switch it up, My class is still underbalanced, it must be the system, because I'm infallible.

[Dausuul]

Everybody here seems to think this "balance" let's them win.
Anyway.
So, I have been lead to believe that if a game is not "balanced" it sucks.
What the hell?
Seriously.
If you're so obsessed with winning and gaining your legendary "balance" that you can't enjoy this game, you shouldn't be playing in the first place.
So what if this class beats another? Why the hell should that ruin the game?

It isn't about "winning the game" (at least not in the scenarios we're discussing here), it's about everybody having fun. Most players like to feel that their characters are contributing; nobody wants to feel like a fifth wheel. In a scenario where one character is vastly more powerful than another, the player of the less-powerful character often feels like a fifth wheel, because the more-powerful character can do anything the less-powerful one can do plus a whole lot more.

Therefore, balance is important, in cooperative games like D&D as well as in competitive games--although cooperative games can tolerate much more imbalance than competitive ones.

I played World of Warcraft for a year. I still play D&D on the side. And the only people I have ever heard talk about "balance" are the ones who are complaining. Everybody who wasn't complaining was busy talking about what they were going to do next. How they were going to enjoy themselves.

Well, in a well-balanced system, people don't talk about balance much. I mean, what are you going to say? "Yup, still balanced?" It's like electricity. Nobody comments on how their electricity is still working. You only notice it when it isn't there.

Maybe this is a flaw with me. Maybe I'm so focused on playing a game that I'm neglecting my gamer duties of whining on and on and on.
Or maybe, people should actually slap themselves, look at a game without complaining, and suddenly realise, "Hey, this is fun!"
So. "Balance"?
Screw it. It's overpowered.

People do complain about balance more than they should. And in many cases, the perceived imbalance is in fact a result of the complainer playing in a less-than-effective way. However, that doesn't mean balance isn't important, or that all balance issues are illusory.

Of course, some of us here are gearheads for whom tinkering with the rules is a joy in itself, and the quest for perfect Mechanus-like balance is its own reward. For us, debating the finer points of sorceror versus wizard or how many skill points to give fighters is a form of entertainment. :)

Still, no game ever suffered from being too well balanced.

[Pronounceable]

Amen, brother! Preach it!

[zeratul]

its actually not that unballanced its not like ranger beets rogue rogue beats barbarian ect. its more complicated than that