I have heard all sides of this arguement.
But I have swayed back and forth on the subject.
In the intrest of full disclosure I believe that balance is a myth.
How does invisibility relate to flight?
We it comes down to it you can not balance those two things out regardless of duration, 'power' level or any other means flight brings its own advantages that invisibility does not and visa versa.
But more importantly does it matter?
Now I have had a game 'destroyed' by a player playing a concept/character design, he was playing it wrong and some other things but that is beside the point.
The point is I know designing encounters levels whatever.
But you know what that player who made that character.
He came to the next session with a different character, one which was easier to understand and less broken.
A good player will be able to self regulate and so by the other hand so should a good DM.
but does that mean that 'bad' players need the collar of 'balance' to stop them from destroying game or do they need to be taught to be better player?
I was wondering peoples thoughts.
I think that balance is an important element of a good game.
But to me balance is a system with enough flexibility that the DM can create fun challenges.
If balance is about some form of true equity, then I agree with you.
Put another way, balance is not within the rules of the game, it is in the playing of the game. Looking for balance between the covers of a book only provides a portion of the equation.
Of course, balance can never be perfect. If such a thing could be achieved, the result would be a rather dry game.
However, I feel that some degree of balance is fundamentally important. If you disagree, try playing Basic D&D, and play a 1st-level magic user. Then cast your one spell, and spend the rest of the game day twiddling your thumbs. Eventually, you'll get sick of it, try entering combat, and get yourself killed, long before you get to 2nd level. Then you'll say "F--- this! I'll just play an elf! Who cares that I can't advance beyond 10th level! At least I'll survive that long, assuming the campaign even lasts that long!"
I often rant about aspects of 3.X I don't like. Yet I regard 3.X as the D&D, primarily because of balance.
In the intrest of full disclosure I believe that balance is a myth.
Ultimate and total balance isn't a myth. It's just so hard to achieve without making everything ultimately and totally boring - if everyone's the same, nothing's unbalanced. I think some game system recently tried that approach.
Anyway, while it's hard to make things perfect, the way is the goal, so to speak.
Just because it cannot be complete doesn't mean you should ignore it.
But more importantly does it matter?
I think it does.
One of the advantages of a level-based system (as opposed to one of the free ones where you raise what you want when you want it) is that the level gives you a good idea of what the character can face.
A 1st-level character won't be able to withstand the assault of a couple of erinyes, while a 20th-level character will squash them and their sisters as well.
I think trying to make that work is important for a system that puts up with all the disadvantages of level-bound systems.
Just don't overdo it, is all.
A good player will be able to self regulate and so by the other hand so should a good DM.
A good player might. A not-quite-so-good player might not. A bad player will strive not to do it. Sure, those latters should be force-fed laxatives and whipped through the streets, but as with everything, taking away the easier ways to do bad stuff will result in fewer people doing that bad stuff.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think all classes should have about the same... call it "amount of appeal" to them. Not the same appeal, but no class should just be better than the other.
but does that mean that 'bad' players need the collar of 'balance' to stop them from destroying game or do they need to be taught to be better player?
I say both.
The "collar" thing has a big advantage: until you teach those 'bad' players how to be good players, you won't have inadvertent apocalypses.
Sometimes people are 'bad' because they just started and don't know any better.
What am I even talking about?
Well, to sum it up: Balance is a good thing, just don't make it the only goal.
|
To me the aspect that needs to be balanced isn't character power, but the rough amount of time it takes each player to take their turn in a round. Not withstanding individual player skill levels, nor the occasional round where a player is doing something particularly complex, but the averages. If one player moves, attacks, says a witty quip, and then is done, all in 5 minutes, where as another player handles the actions of half a dozen summoned creatures, as well as their own earth shattering spells, each requiring a large number of rolls, even if each monster only moves and attacks (reserving its clever remarks) you can still have one pc take 15-20 minutes to resolve their action.
The unbalance between the PCs can really ruin it for the ones who have short actions, and can often lead to sectors of the table getting lost in mini-conversations while one player resolve their actions.
I have heard all sides of this arguement.
But I have swayed back and forth on the subject.
In the intrest of full disclosure I believe that balance is a myth.
How does invisibility relate to flight?
We it comes down to it you can not balance those two things out regardless of duration, 'power' level or any other means flight brings its own advantages that invisibility does not and visa versa.But more importantly does it matter?
I think balance IS important, but I also believe that balance does not equal equality for all.
As a player, it doesn't bother me when things aren't equal, but it does bother me when they are unfair. Its a subtle difference that will differ from individual to individual, so in a sense, I agree that achieving a satisfactory 'level of balance' for everyone is virtually impossible. But I agree with Kae Yoss that even if the grail is mythical, the quest is no less real.
I think that 'aiming for balance' is not so much an issue as 'defining what balance is'
'findel
I think "balance" is relatively important between classes and races so that one player does not feel continually outshined or useless compared to other players character choices. Certainly each class and race will excel in certain areas, as well they should, but if one class or race is continually outdone by some other class or race, in many common situations, then players will feel it is pointless to play the class or race that just plain can't compare to the other choices.
If one class can handle the role of several others, then it needs a tweak. If any one class does not excel in one way or another, in relatively common situations, then people will just plain not want to play it. Each player wants their turn to feel that they contributed something meaningful to an encounter or session but if their character is constantly overshadowed by some other character, then perhaps that class or race needs a boost. Alternatively, perhaps it is the other class, the one that is constantly outshining others, that may just be too good in more than one area. Each class and race needs to have something they are good at as well as something they need other characters for. That, to me, is the nature of teamwork. If you eliminate the need for one character or another, there is no need for a team, and one character just handles it all. No single class or race should be able to do it all. That's why this is a cooperative game where people rely on their teammates to fill in their weaknesses. If you have no weaknesses you have no need for teammates, you are a one man army. If your goal is to play alone then cool, make Mr. One Man Army, but if your goal is to play in a group, its cool to let others have their time to shine.
So, while "balance" should not be slavishly pursued, it should be paid attention to. If something stands out as obviously "unbalanced" then it should get looked at. Also, not every class and race should always be perfectly balanced in all ways at all times and trying to make it so is a waste of time.
Not to start (or stoke) a flame/edition war, but for me, the slavish pursuit of balance can ultimately lead to blandness and sameness... and I can think of one example where it was taken too far. I know I personally, don't want that level of balance. It removes all of the flavor for me.
I feel like balance is an ideal, not a reality. On the whole, 3.0 -> is much more balanced than previous AD&D, IMO. But, it's still not perfect, nor should we need to make it so. Aim for balance, but don't let it control your game or ruin it. It should be about fun.
To me the aspect that needs to be balanced isn't character power, but the rough amount of time it takes each player to take their turn in a round.
So you'd be okay with it if fighters had one attack that dealt one point of damage on a successful d20 roll and wizards could kill everyone in sight on a successful d20 roll, you'd be okay with that because it both only takes a d20 roll? ;-P
Everyone should be able to contribute equally. Not the same (i.e. all is the same, just with different names to the powers), a fighter is still more about fighting and a bard more about performance. But there should be no class that is inherently less useful than other classes.
If one player moves, attacks, says a witty quip, and then is done, all in 5 minutes, where as another player handles the actions of half a dozen summoned creatures, as well as their own earth shattering spells, each requiring a large number of rolls, even if each monster only moves and attacks (reserving its clever remarks) you can still have one pc take 15-20 minutes to resolve their action.
Well, if you're a summoner and have half an army, things are bound to be a bit slower.
If you don't want that, don't allow summoners.
"Minion Grinder: you make take 10 in combat against creatures with a CR of less than 1"Also saves the embarrassing "A goblin rolled a twenty, I rolled a 1 on my save and the poison on the dagger killed by 10th level fighter." Never cared much for the 20 is automatic success and 1 is automatic failure anyway.
Then do away with the natural 1/20 rule, or change it (1 means -10, 20 means 30), and/or have a general rule that if a roll is always successful, you don't need to roll, and if it's futile, you don't get to roll.
Of course, if your level 10 characters go up against level 1 characters, things are going terribly wrong, anyway. Why do you even have to fight that fight?
Unless it's a whole army, of course. In that case, I think mass battle rules make more sense, anyway. Use something akin to swarm rules. BAM!
And if you die by a goblin's poison dagger, you deserve the embarrassing death! }>
If you don't like balance, can you just not allow it?
I consider balance to be a gm issue; players should play anything they want and it is up to the gm to create a game that is enjoyable. Granted players have to be aware that playing an evil race, even one not evil, among good creatures that have warred with that race in the past; well, it is not always going to be pleasant; but that is part of the game; part of the enjoyment of the diffent facets of play that are available and that is a good thing to expand the games horizons. My only rule is that we dont play things out of a book I dont own; for obvious reasons. I dont worry to much about this character being more powerful that that character as gm I can change the gaming scenario at will to make any character more viable than another; thus giving all players a chance to show their worth.
I take any balance issues as a gming fault; thus; gm needs to make a correction not with rules; but with the scenario to adapt to the needs of the players; thus; gm's do your job.
...gm's do your job.
GMs already have a lot on their plate. What responsibilities do you think the players have at the table?
I consider balance to be a gm issue; players should play anything they want and it is up to the gm to create a game that is enjoyable. Granted players have to be aware that playing an evil race, even one not evil, among good creatures that have warred with that race in the past; well, it is not always going to be pleasant; but that is part of the game; part of the enjoyment of the diffent facets of play that are available and that is a good thing to expand the games horizons. My only rule is that we dont play things out of a book I dont own; for obvious reasons. I dont worry to much about this character being more powerful that that character as gm I can change the gaming scenario at will to make any character more viable than another; thus giving all players a chance to show their worth. I take any balance issues as a gming fault; thus; gm needs to make a correction not with rules; but with the scenario to adapt to the needs of the players; thus; gm's do your job.
Valegrim, you incorrigble rogue, it's good to see you post!
However, it disheartens me to disagree with you. Balance is not necessarily solely the provision of the DM and the world they have created, players have a role to play as well. While I wholeheartedly agree that the DM should have the final word, players need to realize that balance issues can also stem from their actions out of game- i.e. a player with a min-maxed character (low charisma) wondering why/complaining that they need someone to be the face of the party. I don't see it so much as everyone doing their job so much as everyone working together.
|
A good player will be able to self regulate and so by the other hand so should a good DM.
N'eer truer words spoken. 100% Perfectly said.
Game balance is more a dichotomy and a paradox than it is a myth. I can point to many balancing elements of good game design. Something as simple as... one player shouldn't have a +5 everything, while the other players walk around in their starter rags. So, for me at least, balance of game design, and even within fantasy role-plaing games in not a myth.
It is however, a bit of a trade secret, passed on from a good GM to another by word of mouth, or through observable demonstration in-game. This the great secret that belies the industry of game developers. The big secret is, a good game product must do everything it can to be coherent unto itself and the game system, but no purchased product can ever know, or predict, or guarantee, the unique context of the actual game at your table.
So, we know quality products demonstrate balance, and are useful insomuch as a good GM is judicious in the use of said gaming widgets in her game. Further, without self-regulating players, the game will ultimately dissolve into a power grab bag rather than the unfolding of a campaign in its full sense.
I know what a munchkin or a min/maxer is. And, even within the most wholly balanced systems and rulesets, these magnificent breeds of players will find ways to break an otherwise brilliantly crafted suite of balanced factors, by assembling certain ones inevitably in that particular sequence that escaped game designers, or wasn't somehow safe-guarded against during game design without causing damage to another area of the game.
In life we make choices, and things are greatly imperfect, and hardly quantifiable. Now, gamers try to do that with an entire imaginary world - and with good reason. But ultimatly, the gamemaster is, was, and always shall be the great arbiter of balance. You said it well..... when you suggested trying to compare invisibility to flight is like comparing apples and oranges. Context matters - and only the GM knows the full context of any game. Period.
That said, the traditions and 30+ year history of the world oldest roleplaying game continues to develop better balance with Pathfinder RPG because gamer feedback was helpful to refine the already good ruleset into something better. And, statistics suggest that the Law of Large Numbers may have helped influence Pathfinder RPG as Jason pined through more than 100,000 posts to see the trends of feedback from the numbers of gamers and make the game better, but also backward compatible.
Now, this is not meant to be an advertisement for Pathfinder RPG, but if my point is that context matters, I really needed to provide a specific example of a game. And, finally, I would suggest that the ultimate balance of any game.... is really a question of scale - and at which level the GM feels she wants to make the "fairness" or "balance" happen.
For example:
One could throw the rule book out the window, and say that as long as each player gets to do one thing they want to do, and does not get to do two things they want to do - that the game is fair and balanced. But this would be a balancing act at 64,000 feet. This is, of course, a level of play that is free form, imaginative, and unbounded.
Alternatively, one could select from various "industry-accepted" levels of rules in the game, deferring to the idea that the game rules enhance game balance and also act as a social contract amongst the players as well as the GM. Some examples would be:
>Basic / Primer / Rules Light style (OSRIC/1e/Castles & Crusades/Microlite, Mutant Future)
>>Medium (AD&D 2e / GURPS / etc.)
>>>Ultimate (v.3.5/Pathfinder RPG)
Now, individual gamers may have different preferred games or systems. Some might play Corporation RPG, while others are playing Iron Heroes, or whatever... the point is each system suite provides as much or as little definition in the game ruleset as desired. There are probably as many advantages or disadvantages within these choices as say when driving a compact, mid-sided or luxury car or truck.
In every case, the rules can only enhance game balance to a point. Even the most sophisticated of rulesets e.g. v.3.5/Pathfinder RPG can take a game table to the edge of balance, but without the judicious mind of the GM to make things fun/fair/balanced (or not as preferred), the rules will not get the group there alone.
Any attempt to create a system that writes-out the GM, or creates a game that is not governed through a single GM, has probably become a different kind of game, like a board game, or a video game. And, in those cases, if a gamer defines balance as each person gets the same starting money, the same power points, one token on the board, and we take turnd rolling dice and building houses and hotels - then I would not disagree that "game balance" is very real, and not a myth, but rather it must have been a serious design choice, and imho a serious role-playign game flaw. The idea of classes, like the idea of teamwork or the concept of human synergy, implies that some of us are greatest at different times than one another, and in different contexts. Each of us have different strengths, and the class system brings out these differences and embraces them. The converse would make everything a bit bland, and life is not that way, and everyone is not equally powerful at all times. So even the story context matters to the player characters in how stong they can actually be.
The extreme edge of game balance is essentialy equality. And fairness does not necessarily mean, nor should it mean equallity. The classic tropes of any medieval genre should have kings as well as peasants, wizards as well as rogues, who need each other in the fantasy ecosystem.
I've probably gone way far off on tangents by now, so I will sum up by saying. I think game balance is real; rules get you half way there and the GM can take the game the rest of the way. Sometimes balance is not always desired by the GM or the players. Sometimes a player wants to play a defective miscreant - we should let them. Sometimes, the GM wants a story arc to focus on just 1 player for a few sessions - let her do that. We should, as a community, come to recognize this essential and marvelous aspect of ambiguity in our game as a feature, not a flaw. After all, it is the creativity and imagination of GMs and players that matter to this art, not the codefied and quantified widgits of rule parcels that make the fantasy world go around. Although.... again one needs the other.
Hope that was worth the read!
-Pax
First. Thank you all for your responces.
Second. One day I will post in the correct area with out my subject being moved one day :(
Laurefindel, wrote.
As a player, it doesn't bother me when things aren't equal, but it does bother me when they are unfair...
I think that strikes at the heart of it alot.
Say for example you don't mind if your say a melee style fighter whom can't fly or do any sort of ranged attack (keeping it very basic)
You don't mind because when it comes to melee, it's all you.
But say for example all your fights involve some sort obstacle to getting there almost every time, thats just unfair.
Or on an even more basic level just being that style of character punishes you for your choice, don't deal as much damage in an encounter as a whole ect.
I think for the first part of that example, I think that would just be bad DMing.
But yes I understand some times a poorly designed system can really punish a player for making bad choices.
I will agree that there needs to be enough balance so that people should not always choose one option purely out of it being the best by far.
I agree that should be 'enough' balance so that people shouldn't just be forced in one direction.
jreyst,
I pretty much agree.
Only once something is unbalanced does it become an issue.
If everyone does 2D6 damage it doesn't matter if it's subtype is magical or melee.
It just become very boring.
And this is the same problem I have the idea of balance, is it a goal worth striving for?
Weylin,
This gets back to my point.
How do you balance racial prejudice?
Is it worth more or less than natural talent?
This is where I think the concept of balance should be thrown completely.
Valegrim,
On the otherside of that what if players contuine to confound the DM with inventive way to over come any threat that has been thrown there way?
Does this make them great players or the DM a bad DM?
Also by the same token what if the players have a favourite strategy they enjoy?
Classic example the 'tank' players spend a alot of time buffing a single character so that s/he maybe launched at the enemy?
Should a good DM seek to disrupt this always?
After all it takes all semblance of balance away from the game.
I would often let them have there fun because, fun seems more important than balance.
Pax Veritas wrote
The extreme edge of game balance is essentialy equality. And fairness does not necessarily mean, nor should it mean equallity.
Yes it was worth the read however I will not respond to all of it as some it I just agree with and I would prefer not to look like a sycophant.
I think there is not much I can add to that.
:(
I was going to say something or in this case type something but it just didn't come.
Pax you also wrote
...but no purchased product can ever know, or predict, or guarantee, the unique context of the actual game at your table.
See this is the thing I was refering too.
In the land where locked doors are plentaful and traps lay around every corner the Rougue is a god and everyone else are merely idle worshipers.
Though that just seems like bad DM on my part but anyway back to the point.
I am not sure I want balance.
Take the wizard for example.
I wouldn't mind playing a first level wizard in AD&D 1 to 20.
A first level wizard in AD&D is terriable but once they get up there oh my good lord they nigh unstopable.
But for me I see a story there.
You start outcast no longer learning from your master you strike out on your own but the world is a harsh and dangerious place and now you must seek the aid of others.
After many long journeys, the people you went to for aid and shelter now look to you.
Sure a two sentance story there but tell me it's not a classic troope?
This is what I fear the quest of balance brings about something that we're not looking for.
Personally rises and falls seem much more interesting the status quo.
|
|
To me the aspect that needs to be balanced isn't character power, but the rough amount of time it takes each player to take their turn in a round.So you'd be okay with it if fighters had one attack that dealt one point of damage on a successful d20 roll and wizards could kill everyone in sight on a successful d20 roll, you'd be okay with that because it both only takes a d20 roll? ;-P
Everyone should be able to contribute equally. Not the same (i.e. all is the same, just with different names to the powers), a fighter is still more about fighting and a bard more about performance. But there should be no class that is inherently less useful than other classes.
If one player moves, attacks, says a witty quip, and then is done, all in 5 minutes, where as another player handles the actions of half a dozen summoned creatures, as well as their own earth shattering spells, each requiring a large number of rolls, even if each monster only moves and attacks (reserving its clever remarks) you can still have one pc take 15-20 minutes to resolve their action.Well, if you're a summoner and have half an army, things are bound to be a bit slower.
If you don't want that, don't allow summoners.
Maybe I should have said the aspect of balance that I feel the game is missing from the game isn't the capabilities of the classes, which feel close enough to balance, but the amount of time budgeted to each class.
Example: Tieflings in Cheliax live under conditions similar to blacks in America before the civil rights movement. So if a game was going to be set mainly in Cheliax I would personally lower the ECL/LA/XP Debt (whatever mechanic you decide to use for non-standard races) for a tiefling. He has a non-mechanical drawback that is going to majorly effect the character. A drow on the other hand would not get such a break because most people dont even know what he is.
Let me get this straight - I get to gain levels faster because I'll be in the spotlight role playing more often then my friends at the table. Sign me up!
I consider balance to be a gm issue; players should play anything they want and it is up to the gm to create a game that is enjoyable. Granted players have to be aware that playing an evil race, even one not evil, among good creatures that have warred with that race in the past; well, it is not always going to be pleasant; but that is part of the game; part of the enjoyment of the diffent facets of play that are available and that is a good thing to expand the games horizons. My only rule is that we dont play things out of a book I dont own; for obvious reasons. I dont worry to much about this character being more powerful that that character as gm I can change the gaming scenario at will to make any character more viable than another; thus giving all players a chance to show their worth.
I take any balance issues as a gming fault; thus; gm needs to make a correction not with rules; but with the scenario to adapt to the needs of the players; thus; gm's do your job.
I agree to an extent. The problem lies when one player makes really powerful builds, and the other make normal builds. As a DM I would rather face a party of super-builds than one super build in a normal party because whatever challenges the super character kills everyone else, but if I provide a normal challenge the super character will take care of it to easily.
I consider balance to be a gm issue; players should play anything they want and it is up to the gm to create a game that is enjoyable. Granted players have to be aware that playing an evil race, even one not evil, among good creatures that have warred with that race in the past; well, it is not always going to be pleasant; but that is part of the game; part of the enjoyment of the diffent facets of play that are available and that is a good thing to expand the games horizons. My only rule is that we dont play things out of a book I dont own; for obvious reasons. I dont worry to much about this character being more powerful that that character as gm I can change the gaming scenario at will to make any character more viable than another; thus giving all players a chance to show their worth.
I take any balance issues as a gming fault; thus; gm needs to make a correction not with rules; but with the scenario to adapt to the needs of the players; thus; gm's do your job.
I dunno - this sounds like a babysetting gig to me. I'm to old school for this approach - I make challenges and my players overcome them. The idea of constantly having to change the story or its encounters simply to accommodate the players is anethma to how I want to run the game.
I don't want to spend my prep time poring over my players characters, in fact I like to build my adventures without even taking my players characters into account. The idea that the slave takers desert fort is full of flaws in its defenses specifically keyed to the things certain of my players can do strikes me as a very inauthentic way to run a world. I prefer to just make the slave takers fort as if it were one that could exist in the fantasy world and I'll leave it to my players to figure out how to handle the situation.
This does mean that I look to the system itself to do a good job of balancing the game since, if I'm focusing on authenticity within the setting, then I'm not spending my time making sure that each character in the game gets equal amounts of attention.
This is why I think the players have some responsibility to the entire group not to be the monkey wrench in the campaign. That is not to say I do not think the characters can be good at anything. Quite the contrary. I want the characters to excel in so much as everyone gets a chance to have some spotlight time and the group faces some challenges which are difficult. Not every challenge needs to be difficult. Not every challenge should be a cake walk either.
I consider balance to be a gm issue; players should play anything they want and it is up to the gm to create a game that is enjoyable.
Only after you thoroughly brainwash them so they won't take advantage of you.
By the way, do you have a free spot for me and my Dragon Overgod character?
I have a breath weapon that destroys 1d4 multiverses per age category, and his age category is infinity.
Maybe I should have said the aspect of balance that I feel the game is missing from the game isn't the capabilities of the classes, which feel close enough to balance, but the amount of time budgeted to each class.
I don't think that can be helped. You would have to destroy the game to get that sort of balance: Either you'd have to disallow simple attacks so everything is a special attack, or you'd have to just ban everything that is inherently more time-consuming.
Summoners, for example, take more time, because they have their own actions AND their help's.
|
Personally i think it matters on what you consider balance. To me balance in something like a RPG is when one class, race or character option isn't so much better than the rest. Either at the beginning or later on. So much so that the one character over shadows the whole or most of the group. That makes it unfun for the other players.
So to me balance just means each class, combo or what have you should have it's own niche in which to shine.
That actually is only true of summoners who aren't propperly organized and prepared.I played a malconvoker (pretty much devoted to summoning at the lower levels and a mix of planar binding and summoning at the upper levels) and often times my turn would take less time than the party Knight's.
"X Y and Z move into position and launch their attacks against B, M takes total defense near me to protect me, G casts (insert spell or SLA), and I'll cast (insert spell)
Boom, done :) You just have to know what your doing and know your creatures and tactics.
Well, put that into perspective:
"X, Y and Z move into position and launch their attacks against B" *makes attack rolls, potentially several per creature, and damage rolls if attacks are successful*
"G casts spell" *a roll is made to determine spell success, maybe damage is rolled as well, or the result otherwise determined and noted*
"I cast spell" *same as above*
That's 3+ attacks and two spells.
Compare to a fighter:
"I hit him with my full attack" *1 or more attack rolls, maybe damage rolls"
Attack rolls could be about the same (high-level fighters will have more, low-level fighters will have less, but there's those two spells.
Or a wizard:
"I cast a spell" *One spell is resolved*
That's one spell less than the summoner, and all those attacks aren't there, either.
Sure, if you have some really complicated class/build, and a disorganised player to boot, the summoner can be faster.
But if we're talking about a more average class, and players that are equally organised, the summoner will take more time.
Not horribly so maybe, but it is there.
Plus, imagine a disorganised summoner versus an organised fighter (one that goes the "boring" route and just boosts his attack stats to the high heavens and beyond instead of going for fancy stuff").
The horror, the horror.
Speedster in Hero anyone?
Could you elaborate?
In Hero System, combat is broken up into 12 Phases. Your Speed determines which Phases your character may go on. Speedsters frequently have much higher Speeds which means they are going much more often than anyone else.
So, everyone is sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the Speedster zips around bopping everyone.
|
More rules don't imply more balance, as at the end of the day rules are constructs of a group of people (other than you) who decided what balance is and published it. Does it work? If it did we wouldn't need endless errata would we. On the other side a rules-light system leaves a lot of work for the DM/Players to do. D&D in particular has classes that fill specific roles. 3e attempted to condense these roles so that everyone did "combat things", 4e continues the trend to a greater degree. If you think game balance in D&D is being able to deal similar amounts of damage in combat then you would be hard pressed not to play 4e.
Balance = everyone does something
Unfairness = only a couple of people do everything
S.
Dark_Mistress.
I think it has been summed up a bit here like Stefan Hill, says below.
Stefan Hill.
I think your pretty much spot on.
But like I said with the old D&D party in AD&D the warrior slot.
He is a god for like the first five? levels.
However after that it becomes a very different game for him.
The wizard, well he is the paper mache to the warriors god until about fith level then he starts to come out on his own.
This is unbalanced.
The wizard is not as good as the fighter.
But levels on he is much better.
But if the fighter or the wizard is always better it not fair and it's not fun.
I agree with that.
If you ask me... moderation in everything, and that includes balance. Whatever game I play must be flexible enough to be limited only by my (and my players') imagination, and congruent enough to portray the genre it belongs to; I have no use for a system I can't use to narrate my favorite stories of that genre.
Still, regardless of what I think, the industry leader decided that balance matters (okay leader only in America at least, I know little of Europe's scene). The 800-pound Gorilla is bound to influence the rest (as it happened already with WW's new Storytelling System) and, like it or not, balance is all we'll get at least for the next five to ten years or so of RPG products.
Make of it what you will, if you're a fan of "fair and balanced" then congratulations, you're on the winning side, enjoy a whole generation of games written just for you. Now, if you need a greater flexibility in your games than what the current trends offer then well, sucks to be you, I hope your current gaming table lasts for a good while, because with most of the new tables you may come across it will be either learn to like Black Boxes or skip on the hobby for the next ten years.
Now, flexibility and balance aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive, and the best systems are those with the right mix of each. Sadly, true Game Designers* are actually scarce, and it's a lot easier to write a balanced Black Box than a balanced -game-... AAAAAND before anyone takes this statement the wrong way, while 4E's default flavor may be "black box-ey" and in fact the game is sold as one, the system has enough potential to be played a lot different, and is actually friendlier to tinkering and houseruling than many give it credit for. In fact, if for some reason someone managed to erase all existing d20 OGL material from every house on earth, physically and digitally, my next fantasy game of choice would probably be 4E.
* The actual title of "Game Designer" entitles a lot more than one would think. Not everyone who works designing games is a true "Game Designer".
Prime example of extremely flexible and very balanced is Mutants and Masterminds.
<snip>
Only place it really becomes unblanaced is if you have a rules lawyer-powergamer combo. but even then the system has limiters to check them some...overall power level limits the maximum BAB, abilities, ranks in powers, etc.. Those limits include any bonuses from feats, abilities, etc.
Mutants and Masterminds, GURPS, Hero... all have a kind of balance. Balance of initial conditions, the equal points and guidelines you all have when looking at a blank character sheet.
But it doesn't take a rules lawyer-powergame combo to generate wildly divergent characters that lack all sorts of balance with each other. It just requires two players with substantially different goals for their characters' designs. That's why, while balanced at the start, characters in point-building games need GM input and advice to reach their final forms.