|
So after reading a thread on 3pp, it seemed that the most common complaint was game balanced, which was countered by "well Paizo's stuff isn't balanced either!"
So let’s talk about balance then
1) What is "balanced"? What definition do you use?
2) How much does "balance" affect your game?
3) When you see a class/race/feat/spell/monster/ect how do you make sure it is “balanced”?
4) Do you GM or play mostly? Does your sense of “balance” change between the two game styles?
From personal experience I’ve played with some hard core munchkins who could blast through every encounter I made while GMing in a round or two, usually on their own, usually against monsters +5 to the recommended CR. Even so I still allow pretty much anything with only very few exceptions in my games. So from experience it is rare that the problems come up with the published material but from the player using it. Though I admit I wasn’t around 3.0 and the 3pp bloat so that could have changed this statement.
From a GM’s perspective the only problem with game balance is with a group were some players a left out, but I have yet to come up to a situation where a player was to be left out regardless of what they did due to being so underpowered compared to the rest of the group.
Again that’s from my point of view, so to the community, what are your thoughts on game balance?
1.) Balanced is when something is at the expected level of versatility and/or power that the game can generally expect or handle, or somewhere slightly above that (being able to breeze through an AP is not necessarily a sign of imbalance, since they're low optimization). While it can vary from game to game what the "expected" power level is, it's generally pretty obvious when something is at least POSSIBLY imbalanced.
Imbalance is NOT when one character is better optimized than another.
Imbalance is NOT (necessarily) when one Feat/Spell/Ability is mechanically superior to the other options, as long as that superior ability is still not imbalanced towards the game as a whole.
It's pretty hard to put into words, really, without falling back on textbook terms.
2.) I like balance. IMO, the more balanced a game is the more likely to be FUN it is. There's no discontent because one character is better than another, and fiddling with the rules is minimally necessary if that's the case.
3.) If it seems imbalanced in play, and it's "mathable" I math it. Theorycraft is not as useless as some would have you believe, since seeing how something interacts in a vacuum is often a good way to tell if something is imbalanced overall, or just imbalanced for YOUR game.
If it turns out something is imbalanced, and it's easily fixable (by making a small tweak or removing it if it's a Feat or spell or something), I do so, and let the affected character replace the ability in question if they wish, or rebuild the character if it was part of a core concept.
If not, short of implementing a dozen houserules, the only option I usually see for something genuinely imbalancing is to build encounters specifically with the intention of at least mitigating (but not nullifying) the effect of the power.
Gross imbalance is the ONLY reason I will consider removing something from my game, and I've thankfully not had it happen yet (closest I had was a Summoner player, and the only nerfing/banning I did for that was disallowing an ambiguous interpretation of the rules on the basis that it would be giving possibly rules illegal extra power to already the most powerful character in the game).
4.) I'm about 60/40 player/GM. It does not. I'm just as likely to look into something that seems off with my character as a player as I am to take a hard look at another player's character and see what's up under the hood.
"Balance" is when players need to fear that their characters can reliably be hit and occasionally die in an encounter. It also means that player characters will have a reasonable chance to miss their iterative attacks and that monsters last a bit longer than two rounds.
Both factors are, IMO, there until about level 9-11, and after that they evaporate. Monsters and NPC's scale badly after that period and it is difficult as a GM to compensate without going the 4E "The monster just exists that way, period!" route.
Owh, that's new. A balance thread. We haven't got one in soo many time, i was starting to feel bored. I hope my pop corn haven't grow cobwebs.
/sarcarsm
1) What is "balanced"? What definition do you use?
Defining this in any way other than, "I know it when I see it" is a trap. The general goal, however, is to make sure every option has equal opportunity to be strong--you should be able to choose to not be as powerful as you are capable of being, but it should unquestionably be a choice to do so, not something thrust upon you because, say, you can't cast spells.
2) How much does "balance" affect your game?
Extensively--the lack thereof has spawned every houserule I've ever used, and at this point, I use a lot of houserules.
3) When you see a class/race/feat/spell/monster/ect how do you make sure it is “balanced”?
A combination of theorycraft (which does work, sorry, guys who hate math) and the eye test. When you make it your business to know the rules as well as I do, you can get a pretty quick sense of what's good and what isn't.
4) Do you GM or play mostly? Does your sense of “balance” change between the two game styles?
I GM 95% of the time, and I hate it when there's a gap in PC capability. It is very difficult to make sure everyone is happen when not everyone is equal.
As a PC, I try to keep my PC at the general balance point of the group--if they're all rogues and fighters, I won't play a Druid--until and unless the GM is of the brutal killer variety. I've PCed under an abnormal number of them, and generally, the group appreciates me doing all the work more than appreciate dying and losing constantly, so I go whole hog on him, usually. I'm currently playing a Druid, for example.
I also offer to make everyone's characters for them, so we're all equal in power (that offer extends to when I GM as well).
From a GM’s perspective the only problem with game balance is with a group were some players a left out, but I have yet to come up to a situation where a player was to be left out regardless of what they did due to being so underpowered compared to the rest of the group.
I am sorry, but I can't help but feel you must not have ever played a higher level game of 3rd edition D&D/Pathfinder or you never had a non-caster in the party at such a point.
There are lots of situations where a player gets left out because they can't cast a spell or disarm a trap or sunder a door or whatever they're not good at, but in my experience these situations are brief. The only exceptions I can think of being (a) the occasional theoretically melee-focused rogue or bard who can't help fight the dragon because it could kill them in one round and (b) social situations where one player decides he's not going to talk because his diplomacy skill is low.