| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty new to Pathfinder, and a little less new to D&D in general. I've been keeping an eye on the advice board to get better acquainted with the community and ask a few newbie questions.
Recently, a discussion was minorly hijacked to discuss some 3rd party material and the company (and designer) that develops it. There were people who thought the stuff was overpowered, and people who thought it was remarkably balanced, and people who thought it was laughable that Paizo material was being held up as the standard of 'balance' to which everything else was being compared. That last line made me stop and think. I wondered if the core material of the game could even be considered 'balanced.'
Here is a game where you can choose between a variety of different classes. A player can choose between a wizard and (deliberately avoiding the 'M' word here) a rouge, and the central theme of the game says "these two classes do different things, but overall can be considered equal." Everyone in a party will bring something to the table, and somehow we'll all be 'balanced' with each other.
But the classes AREN'T balanced. That's not Paizo's fault- it's a deliberate function of the game that all these editions are based on. In fact, the struggle to 'balance' each of the classes was no doubt one of the driving forces behind 4th edition.
But really, how can a game be 'balanced' when the people that play it all want different things out of it? That's the difference between role-play and roll-play, right? There are 5 to 10 different motivations for people to play, and different people can have any combination of them. Some of these motivations directly contradict each other. How do you 'balance' between the guy who thinks he's a young Lord Byron, the reincarnation of Genghis Kahn, and the clown sitting between them who can't go 3 minutes without doing something silly?
And can a game be called 'balanced' when every DM/GM is going to describe it differently, and every group is going to come up with a different solution? When the same character classes are being used within an infinite number of imaginary worlds and cultures? How do you balance something meant to be an individual experience?
In watching the boards, I've seen an uncountable number of discussions involving cheese and power creep. Everyone has their own opinion on what's overpowered and what's not, and seemingly the only unifying opinion is 'the designers are doing it wrong' which really means 'they should be doing it My way.' And very little of this discussion would be going on if there weren't people looking through rules and items mostly intended for flavor and putting them all together in ways nobody could have possibly conceived of beforehand in order to get 'MAXIMUS THE INVINCIBLE!!!' And the designers just have to shrug and say "hey, what can I do? Those guys need to have fun too."
But really, how far does the duty of the game designer go? It's not like they can go off somewhere and use arcane mystic-designer rituals to bring us the game that Everyone can play, Everywhere, and is Fun All The Time. That's what Rule 0 is for, right? It's the GM's job to see to all that stuff for their particular group. And it's the GM's job to decide what to do with Maximus The Invincible.
The Quest for Balance is a lot like the Holy Grail- a made up construct that encapsulates an unreachable ideal. Yet so many posts that I've read here seem to have as an underlying theme an unspoken expectation. "I want you to continue to expand a growing library of options for my character, and ensure that it cannot be abused when used in combination with every small detail in every product that you've ever released, and ever WILL release. Also, take into account that I might combine it with every product these other guys have released. Oh, and it should be fun and interesting, and not a copy of something that's already been done."
Of course that expectation is ridiculous, and we all know it. It's not something we would ever verbalize, or even hold anyone to. But surely the designers should be responsible for SOME sense of 'balance' within the game, right? It is, after all, their game. So questioning this one small thing would be reasonable, right? And that one small, perfectly reasonable question leads to another until suddenly The Expectation is there again and someone is piping up to say "if you don't like it then don't use it." And you wonder if this particular shade of gray is more white or more black, and shouldn't it be someone else's job to clear up the confusion?
As a mostly new player, I haven't learned all the tricks to Pathfinder yet. I don't know the must-have spells, or which variant of warrior will yield the highest DPR, or which skills can be cleverly used both inside and outside of battle. None of the classes seem particularly overpowered to me, because the genius ideas that turn one spell/item/skill into that old classic that everyone uses haven't occurred to me yet. To me, a rouge looks just as useful as a fighter or wizard, or a vivisectionist or a samurai. And all of those classes are going to grow or diminish in usefulness depending on party construction and the GM. To the rookie, everything is still new and undiscovered. That's a kind of balance all on its own.
(And suddenly I realize that visiting the advice forum for tips is a lot like spoiling dinner, or a child trying to grow up too fast. Hmm...)
As for all you 'old hands' reading this, I can only say that Paizo seems to be doing a fine job from my angle. The line between 'cool enhancement' and 'easily abused' is going to be different for everyone. Is it really a rational thing to complain that some feature is overpowered when the guy down the virtual street thinks it's the perfect addition to his character? Maybe the board needs some clever phrase or acronym to remind us that it all boils down to Rule 0 in the end.
|
Most of what is said in the OP is good and true.
I do have to chime in though and say that a minimum level of "balance" has to be maintined for fun to be had. If as a player I create a fighter, that means that I want to be the Guy that's Good at Fighting.
that is, by choosing a class, a player gives up on evrey single one of the cool things that other classes can do, and it's important that people will feel rewarded for their choice, not punished.
If (for example) the ranger could out-fight the fighter easily (that is, without being built specificaly for it by an expirienced player), then people who chose fighter will feel outshined by the guy who does not only make them less useful by being better at their job, but also gets a ton of stuff that they don't.
Roleplaying is not a competition, but it's still a better expirience when players feel they contribute to the success not only of the game but of the "in play" adventuring party. If I chose to be The Guy Who is Good At Fighting and went with the fighter, but then find out that three other players created a wizard, a rouge and a cleric and each of them is better at wielding a weapon then I am, I will be rightfully disappointed - I was deprived of an aspect of my character by the rules. and that's bad.
I'm pretty new to Pathfinder, and a little less new to D&D in general.
Welcome to the community!
But really, how can a game be 'balanced' when the people that play it all want different things out of it?
You’re right, of course. People play for all different reasons and in all different ways. Most of the discussion on game forums relates to rules, which are a minor part of the play experience for many players.
In watching the boards, I've seen an uncountable number of discussions involving cheese and power creep. Everyone has their own opinion on what's overpowered and what's not, and seemingly the only unifying opinion is 'the designers are doing it wrong' which really means 'they should be doing it My way.' . . .
Don’t forget that everyone in the forum has already made the decision to play Pathfinder, which is the ultimate endorsement of a game! Thousands of RPGs exist, and by buying, playing, discussing, and even bickering about Pathfinder, we’ve all tacitly agreed that it’s among the best of them. Personally, having played a dozen versions of D&D by different names, not only do I think Pathfinder is the best one available, but I think the designers do an incredible job.
The Quest for Balance is a lot like the Holy Grail- a made up construct that encapsulates an unreachable ideal.
Yes, and like questing for the Grail, seeking perfection in anything does lead to improvement. No one has yet made the perfect game, perfect car, perfect computer, or perfect mouse trap, but that doesn’t stop people from trying.
Yet so many posts that I've read here seem to have as an underlying theme an unspoken expectation. "I want you to continue to expand a growing library of options for my character, and ensure that it cannot be abused when used in combination with every small detail in every product that you've ever released, and ever WILL release. . .”
Of course that expectation is ridiculous . . .
That expectation is neither unspoken nor ridiculous. It’s exactly what we want. We know there will be imperfections and even mistakes along the way, and that’s fine.
Maybe the board needs some clever phrase or acronym to remind us that it all boils down to Rule 0 in the end.
Above All, Have Fun? AAHF
Something to keep in mind whenever you look at the forum: We’re a small sampling of Pathfinder players, and you’re only seeing a small sampling of our gaming lives. For me, it’s the place to talk rules, because I like geeking out about rules sometimes. I keep my roleplaying oriented discussion among my local friends and gaming group. I imagine many of my fellow posters are the same.
Here's another idea:
Let's say there are two games. Game A has bad balance. Game B has good balance.
In Game A, people who want balance will be unhappy. People who don't care about balance are indifferent.
In Game B, people who want balance will be happy. People who don't care about balance are indifferent.
Is there a group that actually wants imbalance? That looks at two classes in a similar role and is upset that one is not obviously better than another?
My experience has been that the ones who argue for game balance the most vehemently are those who for a variety of valid reasons may feel shafted by how the game is being run. For instance, the old "point buy vs rolling" argument. Those who tend to like point buy are usually (but certainly not always) the ones who feel the dice tend to roll poorly for them. Whereas those who like the rolling method most often have never had to play a character that rolled up poorly, either the dice are with them all the time or the GM has let them re-roll a poorly rolled stat spread.
Balance, in my experience, has come into question most often from players mainly interested in mechanics. Any time another class/character/race/monster can out-do their character, the balance-player starts to turn into the whiny-player. But, this is only my experience. Perhaps I just happenned to game with the "bad" gamers in the past. I'm sure there are plenty of balance-players who argue balance for balance's sake, and not their own character's sake. My current group tends to be more laid back. Then again, they are a lot older than high school.
As for all you 'old hands' reading this, I can only say that Paizo seems to be doing a fine job from my angle. The line between 'cool enhancement' and 'easily abused' is going to be different for everyone. Is it really a rational thing to complain that some feature is overpowered when the guy down the virtual street thinks it's the perfect addition to his character? Maybe the board needs some clever phrase or acronym to remind us that it all boils down to Rule 0 in the end.
This was more or less my attitude during my early gaming years. "It's all pretend, so what's the big deal?"
But then 3e came out with newfangled balance ideas like the unified XP chart and Challenge Rating, and I asked myself "Why not switch to a game that's easier to run smoothly? Why resort to Rule 0, when the 3e writers have done some of that work for me?" So I bought 3e, and didn't look back. And then I asked myself the very same question in 2008, and I bought 4e and am still happily playing it.
For my part, I think the Quest for the Holy Balance is a worthy one, even if it will never be achieved. Why? Because when I DM, I don't like having to constantly invoke Rule 0 to ensure that everyone has fun. If I wanted to use Rule 0 that often, I'd still be playing 2e.
As a player, I like playing casters and I don't like having to hold back so as not to ruin everyone else's fun. My kind of casters are wise and/or intelligent, so it makes it very hard for me to immerse myself in him if I have to intentionally ignore the best spells for sake of other players' fun. I do hold back, mind you, and it makes for a poorer role playing experience.
Much can be said about the benefits of seeking perfection for oneself. In that context, the Holy Grail is a great analogy. I get nervous when we start demanding perfection in others.
The real quandary, and one of the things I touched on in the original post, is how do produce a 'balanced' game when everyone has an individual definition of balance? Questing for the unreachable is a noble pursuit... but don't you have to know what you're looking for first?
I've never worried about game ballance for my players' characters as each character class, and sometimes the character races, each have their own strong points. Without a range of skills, the character party is doomed.
The real quandary, and one of the things I touched on in the original post, is how do produce a 'balanced' game when everyone has an individual definition of balance? Questing for the unreachable is a noble pursuit... but don't you have to know what you're looking for first?
If you're a game writer, you pursue your own vision of balance, and if others share that vision you make money. If you're not a game writer, you try new games until you find the kind of balance you want. And/or you p!ss and moan in online forums, because there are always differences in opinion and improvements to be made.
In short, give yourself a few years of gaming, and you'll know what you're looking for. :)
Incidentally, the work of mine that has been published, I did not like the balance of.
Incidentally, the work of mine that has been published, I did not like the balance of.
Tragic, man, so tragic! I'll write a fantasy heartbreaker someday, so I'm curious what you feel you didn't get right?
As to your previous question about who doesn't want game balance? I have heard certain gamers assert that a wizard isn't a wizard unless he sucks at level 1, and dominates at level 20. I've never heard anyone say that a samurai isn't a samurai unless he sucks everywhere...but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that somewhere, someone gets their ya-yas from beating up imaginary samurais.
To put it briefly: I hate everything. My own work is not exempted from this.
As a game design researcher (though more in computer games than other types) I should mention that there are two types of balance, static and dynamic, that roughly form a continuum. (At least, assuming I'm remembering those terms correctly.)
Static balance is where the choices are all basically equal. Consider Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no right choice. All are equally likely to win or lose.
Dynamic balance is where the choices are significantly different and only conditionally better or worse than the other choices. Consider the races in Starcraft. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and in the end, your choice depends on your preferences instead of one being strictly better.
IMO, static balance should be avoided in most cases. It's too simple and leads to bland games that will end up being compared to Rock-Paper-Scissors. It's tempting for designers though because it's provably balanced. (Also IMO, 4th edition went too far in this direction.)
I think the classes in Pathfinder are fairly well balanced at the upper end. There's no one class that everyone plays. (That is, there's no class so OP that everyone would play it over everything else, or that every GM would outright ban it.) On the lower end, I don't know. There may be a few classes or options that are too weak and leads to people passing it up (or houseruling improvements). Of course, a few too-weak options is less bad than a few too-strong options.
I'll admit I only skimmed the topic, but I don't think anyone addressed the point that "Paizo material was being held up as the standard of 'balance' to which everything else was being compared."
It's true, Paizo's Pathfinder isn't perfectly balanced within itself. But because it's made/reviewed by the same people, it stays within a boundary of balance more or less. They understand the design rules of their system, while 3rd party developers often don't understand them, or they break them intentionally to create an alternate version of Pathfinder, moving the balance boundaries. Sometimes they have a concept they really like and want to put down on paper, as they think it would be cool. But in doing so, they skip balancing it within the existing boundaries.
Consider this 3rd party class, the Dragonrider:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/dragon rider
This class is full BAB, all good saves, 4 spell levels in casting, and in fact rides a dragon. There are other perks too.
Is it balanced? Maybe, maybe not. It sounds pretty powerful on paper. But you can also tell the class isn't made by Paizo just by reading some abilities.
There's the Summon Steed ability. "This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one third the dragonrider’s level." Why does this ability count as a spell with a variable level? That's really weird for Pathfinder.
Compare to the Summoner's Maker's Call: "At 6th level, as a standard action, a summoner can call his eidolon to his side. This functions as dimension door, using the summoner’s caster level. When used, the eidolon appears adjacent to the summoner (or as close as possible if all adjacent spaces are occupied). If the eidolon is out of range, the ability is wasted. The summoner can use this ability once per day at 6th level, plus one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 6th."
It seems to me that in this case, the 3rd party didn't have a solid grasp of the Paizo style for Pathfinder.
Just quickly browsing through 3rd party feats, I found http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/combat -feats/extremely-thick-skull-combat
So we can have a 7d4 natural attack? What if we toss in Vital Strike? We've got a 14d4 natural attack. Shouldn't a headbutt just be an unarmed strike or a dirty trick in the first place? Would Paizo make something like this?
Ahem. Paizo is at least more cautious about the content it makes than 3rd party publishers often are. Not to say there aren't some weird things in the Paizo content (the Sound Striker Bard's Weird Words for example, and I'm not just making a cheesy joke here. I really do think that ability is not within the standard balance boundaries).
As people have mentioned, they often feel a need to fine tune the system with houserules. And that's fine. Some people will find that 3rd party content is the right way to tweak balance (while some think that 3rd party is within the standard balance), while others don't.
It is not about balance, it is about being able to make a choice among the options presented and not being screwed over.
At this moment Pathfinder does not offer that.
Here's another idea:
Let's say there are two games. Game A has bad balance. Game B has good balance.
In Game A, people who want balance will be unhappy. People who don't care about balance are indifferent.
In Game B, people who want balance will be happy. People who don't care about balance are indifferent.
Is there a group that actually wants imbalance? That looks at two classes in a similar role and is upset that one is not obviously better than another?
You're missing a group of people. In Game A, people who don't agree that Game A has bad balance, and doesn't agree with the so-called "balance-seekers" because they have a completely different concept of what the game is.
Transplant that same group to Game B, and this third group is unhappy with the bland, washed-out attempt of a game.
See, that third group doesn't want imbalance - it just recognizes and accepts that there's a reason for disparate power levels between classes at different levels (among other things that some try to identify as "bad balance"), and it recognizes and accepts that the game was designed in such a way for a reason. It doesn't accept that this game has "bad balance" and instead believes the game functions just fine like this, and has for over 35 years.
I'll bet there's a 4th group and a 5th group (and so on) that have different ideas, too.
You're equating balance to blandness. Is that a necessary conclusion?
Negative. You've missed the point.
I'm equating one group's perception of attempts at so-called "balance" as blandness.
I'm saying that there's plenty of people that do not agree that a particular game has "bad balance" and that overall, people don't even agree on what balance is.
Your question of "is there a group that actually wants imbalance" suggests that people who prefer your suggested "Game A" above would be those who "actually want imbalance" - who's definition of imbalance?