Why does the party need to be balanced?

[Satinavian]

It is a misconception: armor does not makes someone tanky.
There is so many things that ignore armor from rays (only touch ac counts)(and many other magical things) to lava and fire and falling damage you will feel as frail with a full plate than without.

Yes, D&D armor rules are incredibly bad. Not a discussion i wanted to start.

And of course there are other defenses and a good tank should not rely on only one. Which is also true in many other systems. But there are many concepts that don't cover all bases and don't try to tank every enemy and those are viable as well.


But my point was about how balanced systems are often even better at allowing tanky wizards than the unbalanced D&D class system with its rigid idea about what a wizard is suppossed to be. And how even in D&D that concept is not exactly hard to pull off even without deep diving into splats.

[patchyman]

Lots of posts here cover interesting ground, so I will only bring up a point that I don’t think has been discussed.

DM decides to run a module for 4 to 6 characters. He has 4 players (common situation, happens every day). The players are all reasonably attached to their characters.

Example 1: two of the players pick “weak” classes, the other two pick “medium” classes. It seems to me that the party is going to have a tough time, and probably TPK, not because of the actions they took, but because they chose weaker characters (often unintentionally). This does not seem like fun or good design to me.

Example 2: two of the players pick “weak” classes, the other two pick “strong” classes. The players of the “strong” characters feel forced to overshadow the “weaker” characters, because no one wants a TPK. The players of the weaker characters are frustrated because their character feels weak, and also because they feel overshadowed. Once again, this does not seem like fun or good design to me.

[Cluedrew]

If it would be used that way, it would be fine.

Instead the talk about what is wrong in D&D nearly always moves on to how to tweak D&D while keeping it D&D. And then it is about D&D minutiae and sacred cows of D&D and people argueing against change because they don't want to give up specific things.

I'm not saying the Playgrounder's Fallacy is good but I've been seeing it happen for years.

But yeah I haven't even mentioned the Common Folk backgrounds because no one knows what that means and even if they did they are probably going to get swept under the rug by people just focusing on D&D. But I have a sudden urge to be proven wrong so let me give this a shot.

So this is from a homebrew system (I might never actually make) where backgrounds serve as classes, but they mostly go away after character creation. It is also a game about gifted individuals and highly trained professionals. The Common Folk backgrounds are neither of these things. They are normal people caught up in events. So they are much weaker than the other backgrounds, to use a simple combat example instead of being a commando with modern weaponry you might do martial arts as a health thing. The one interesting twist that they have that is that they have catch up mechanics. That is they can choose to undergo a period of rapid growth to catch up with the main classes. They are some cases where you could use different power levels to tell a story but at the same time I don't want to lock anyone into that or trick them into it. So the Common Folk backgrounds should all explain what they are and the catch up mechanic means that you can take the basic lessons the others took a long time ago and close the gap once the weak character story has been told.

Thoughts?

"balance means everything is dull and boring" strawman

In a well balanced game (one with the maximum viable options) you can actually have more interesting options because unviable options are necessarily boring because they can't be used. Even within the balance to the table context there are likely many characters you can't play because they are too strong or too weaker for this group.

[Morty]

In a well balanced game (one with the maximum viable options) you can actually have more interesting options because unviable options are necessarily boring because they can't be used. Even within the balance to the table context there are likely many characters you can't play because they are too strong or too weaker for this group.

Also very true; balance frequently increases options rather than takes them away. Core-only 3E D&D isn't varied at all because many options just aren't viable. It doesn't really matter that they're there if you'll be bad at your job if you try to pursue them. Pitting balance and variety against each other is a false dichotomy to start with.

[Mechalich]

So this is from a homebrew system (I might never actually make) where backgrounds serve as classes, but they mostly go away after character creation. It is also a game about gifted individuals and highly trained professionals. The Common Folk backgrounds are neither of these things. They are normal people caught up in events. So they are much weaker than the other backgrounds, to use a simple combat example instead of being a commando with modern weaponry you might do martial arts as a health thing. The one interesting twist that they have that is that they have catch up mechanics. That is they can choose to undergo a period of rapid growth to catch up with the main classes. They are some cases where you could use different power levels to tell a story but at the same time I don't want to lock anyone into that or trick them into it. So the Common Folk backgrounds should all explain what they are and the catch up mechanic means that you can take the basic lessons the others took a long time ago and close the gap once the weak character story has been told.

This sounds like it's a sort of zombie apocalypse model. As in, all characters have a background for one sort of situation, but now they're all in a completely different situation. Unfortunately, a situation like this is one that's inherently unbalanced. There are always going to be people whose life skills for circumstance A map better than others towards circumstance B and pretending otherwise is going to break verisimilitude in half. In that scenario you pretty much have to just declare that 'PC backgrounds points must be spent on useful skills' and move on and that when the zombie apocalypse happened you somehow gathered together mechanics, nurses, and soldiers and not accountants, painters, and stock brokers (if the party was actively assembled by some third party there's a built in excuse for why this is the case). Now, you can have characters whose backgrounds unexpectedly translate into useful skills - there's a scene in the movie Defiance where they're interviewing new arrivals to the camp and one guy says he's a 'clockmaker' - something they don't need - but it turns out that this translates surprisingly well into 'gun mechanic' - which they totally do - and this broadens available concepts.

[Cluedrew]

This sounds like it's a sort of zombie apocalypse model. As in, all characters have a background for one sort of situation, but now they're all in a completely different situation.

All of the common folk backgrounds yes, but not all characters. There are also backgrounds you can choose to be the heavily armed commando, the spy, the inventor, the psychic (sort of) or the bullet dodging monk from the start. Those are the professionals I mentioned before.

On the other hand within these characters, yes definitely they are not really balanced and are supposed to be on the whole the low side. I hadn't thought to much about transferable skills but it would definitely serve at least as narrative justification for picking up new skills. Who knows maybe I will hard code the idea into some of the common folk backgrounds. If I make the system.

Really although feedback on this concept is useful for me, its value is for this thread it to talk about how a system could embrace unbalanced concepts in a meaningful (and not trap option) way. With sign posting to help you make sure you know what you are getting into and an escape hatch for when it starts wearing thin.

[Satinavian]

So this is from a homebrew system (I might never actually make) where backgrounds serve as classes, but they mostly go away after character creation. It is also a game about gifted individuals and highly trained professionals. The Common Folk backgrounds are neither of these things. They are normal people caught up in events. So they are much weaker than the other backgrounds, to use a simple combat example instead of being a commando with modern weaponry you might do martial arts as a health thing. The one interesting twist that they have that is that they have catch up mechanics. That is they can choose to undergo a period of rapid growth to catch up with the main classes. They are some cases where you could use different power levels to tell a story but at the same time I don't want to lock anyone into that or trick them into it. So the Common Folk backgrounds should all explain what they are and the catch up mechanic means that you can take the basic lessons the others took a long time ago and close the gap once the weak character story has been told.

Thoughts?

Sounds nice.

Have not seen exactly the same thing yet, but other rules that could be used for similar thing. But i think your model would work reasonably well an i might play it if it was present in a system i would play and would fit my character idea.

[Quertus]

This is hardly unique to 3e. It's an issue of a system permitting too many concepts without thinking about how power interactions work. The Allip vs. Tarrasque is actually a tolerable example here - because it illuminates how sometimes the numbers are irrelevant because one ability simply 'paper covers rock' another. This happens a lot of fights between single-power characters (ie. most superheroes and shounen anime characters) because it is extremely common for one power set to either autowin or autofail against another power set to the point that it becomes difficult to setup interactions where characters can plausibly role dice against each other - which is why video games that put superheroes up against each other Marvel vs Capcom style have to distort actual abilities in massive ways.

D&D's conceptual base is functionally 'everything in fantasy ever' which is madness. It'll never work out unless you artificially constrain the inputs and outputs to the point that you're running a fighting game (which isn't necessarily a bad idea if you're willing to just ad hoc everything else). To even begin to make game balance work you have to decide which concepts you'll support and then stick to them, and it helps if all PCs share a specific core concept that helps provide them with a viable 'floor' level for the principle sorts of challenges they're expected to face. For example, if your game is about a group of military personnel, everyone should start with a package that represents having been through basic training. D&D characters are assumed to be 'adventurers' and they should all probably start with some sort of shared set of adventurer skills, but they don't.



TTRPGs are a cooperative game, and for the most part cooperative games flow the most smoothly when everyone is around the same level of capability. This minimizes inter-player fiction, reduces the number of stoppages in play, and provides everyone with the opportunity to have measure accomplishments in game. Now, capability includes both the variance between concepts supported by the rules and player skill, but at the design level you can only control for the former. Since there's going to be variance in the latter no matter what you do, it's best to try and minimize the variance in the former. It is, of course, expected that the game will be actively managed to mitigate player skill based imbalances. Large scale games like MMOs use leagues and other gatekeeping devices to try and segregate players according to skill level. That's not possible in tabletop, but it reveals how the GM needs to fill that role instead.

One important caveat here is that balance is far more important is you're playing the game straight. That is, if the players are actually invested in the story and the characters and trying to have an experience that makes at least some amount of narrative sense. A significant margin of tables aren't doing this. Instead they're a bunch of friends gathered together to mess around and have a good time and the game is just as interesting for the wacky hijinks and absurd situational comedy that ensues during play rather than any actual outcomes ('camp' roleplaying as it were). Balance is much less important in such a game because the gameplay has ceased to be about the game at all. A system or setting that is designed to embrace this style of play (like Planescape, which is intended to advance wacky philosophical brainstorming through a theater of the bizarre) or one that is clearly ridiculous no matter how serious the product design (like RIFTS) can laugh in the face of balance because the game has ceased to be about the game.

Huh. That's kinda the opposite of my experience.

I find that if I'm invested in the game and the character, contrived balance is rather detrimental to my fun. I want my character to feel like my character, not like an assembly line playing piece.

I find that cooperative games are an ideal time for disparity. If I'm playing soccer with someone who's way better than me - or, heck, if I'm role-playing with a vastly superior roleplayer - I can learn from them. Whereas, if we're all equals, there's less opportunity for me to learn. If we're cooperating, I can play a Sentient Potted Plant. Do you think I'd want to do that if we were competing? Would you?

I think 3e is fairly unique in both supporting such a broad range of concepts, *and* providing so many unbalanced options that you can instantiate nearly any of these concepts at nearly any balance point, simply by mixing and matching appropriately.

Which is why, whenever anyone talks about "limiting" or "restricting" 3e, I feel that they've missed the beauty of the system.

3e supports almost everything, and does a brilliant job at it. How many other systems can one play a Pokemon Trainer next to a Physical Adept, a Dragon detective, a possessing spirit with an undead army, and an invisible faerie warrior, and have them be as balanced or as unbalanced as the players choose to build them?

You say that balance us easiest if everyone's skills are the same; cluedrew says it's easiest if they're incomparable. Me? I think both are good.

I think it's good to have plenty of toys that everyone can play with - trees that everyone can climb, questions that everyone can ask, etc - at the system / module level. I don't want the character sheet cluttered up with what makes me the same - I want that bandwidth reserved for what makes me different. So I don't want a bunch of samey buttons on all the character sheets - I want that solved at a different layer.

The other way I want to ensure that everyone has the chance for measurable accomplishments in game is to make the characters capable of distinctly different things, make them play different games, etc.

Lastly, I believe that a good design goal is to make the variance in potential characters greater than the variance in player skill. Otherwise, you guarantee that the less-skilled player cannot have "the opportunity to have measure accomplishments in game".

[Quertus]

Okay, if we're going to bring in bovine-fecal theoretical-optimization stuff, then sure, you're right. You will always be able to achieve literally anything with 3e's rules,

Good. So, if you agree that one can achieve a balanced Fighter, then why don't you? And why is whatever answer you give not the problem?

if it conflicts with something of great importance to her or her campaign.

Sounds like you have multiple competing goals. Why are you not willing to sacrifice those other goals for the sake of balance?

So...remind me exactly where we're at, here.

I'm just guessing, but I think I was answering someone else's question of "how does it work at your tables?".

So I'll need to reread the thread carefully to see how much of your reply is actually Germain to our conversation, and how much is crosstalk with another conversation, and how much of that is actually interesting to discuss.

Because I'm not at "EF, a tale of memories" yet, but I'm pretty confused about where we are in our conversation, too.

[Satinavian]

I think 3e is fairly unique in both supporting such a broad range of concepts, *and* providing so many unbalanced options that you can instantiate nearly any of these concepts at nearly any balance point, simply by mixing and matching appropriately.

I think GURPS could match it. But that is even more commonly restricted than D&D because "everything goes" rends to not be what players of crunchy systems want.

3e supports almost everything, and does a brilliant job at it. How many other systems can one play a Pokemon Trainer next to a Physical Adept, a Dragon detective, a possessing spirit with an undead army, and an invisible faerie warrior, and have them be as balanced or as unbalanced as the players choose to build them?

Out of my head :

- GURPS
- Shadowrun (But yes, that are not exactly common builds and you probably have to use a dragon shapeshifter in place of a full dragon)
- TDE 4 (Myranor rules supplements)

Not coincidently all of those are not class based systems. It is as if without classes it is easier to combine things and also to add new building blocks, who would have guessed.
Of course, you could also use the multitude of rules-light systems that don't bother to actually simulate those characters and just refluff stuff.

We really don't have to have D&D3.5s imbalances to get its options.

[Morty]

If there is one thing that's unique about 3E, it's how it supports various weird gonzo concepts better than several basic fantasy/heroic character archetypes. I still don't know why it's good or desirable for dual-wielding to be terrible...

[ezekielraiden]

Good. So, if you agree that one can achieve a balanced Fighter, then why don't you? And why is whatever answer you give not the problem?

That's not what I said. I said you can "achieve anything"--meaning that, because 3e's system is so utterly broken and unbalanced, there is no such thing as "a thing you cannot accomplish while, technically, obeying the rules." That's not saying that all state-able characters are something that exist within the ruleset. It is saying that, for any stated goal (like "kill the tarrasque," "steal from the literal god of watching and perception," or "erase the universe"), a character almost surely exists. You cannot assume, from that, that every describable combination of character traits is possible.

But that only happens BECAUSE 3e is so horrifically, mind-bogglingly unbalanced. Because you literally can take a class designed to be incapable of doing anything meaningful, and bovine-feces-tricksing your way through a thousand-year splat dance that lets you kill gods or upend creation. I know you have spoken positively of "rules lawyer" stuff previously, so the term doesn't have a negative meaning to you. But it does to me. 3rd edition D&D is by far the most painfully rules-lawyer-able system I have ever seen. It positively invites the (as I described in the "why do rules lawyers have a bad reputation" thread) officious, pretentious, unscrupulous, selfish, and grasping behavior that is so despised by those who use the term "rules lawyer" pejoratively. It's a morass of incredibly dense (in both senses of that term) rules, with literally n-th order exceptions and a penchant for producing transfinite arithmetic.

I would, in fact, argue that 3rd Edition D&D, particularly once you get into double-digit levels, is antithetical to the very concept of balance. It's so buggy, nonsensical, self-contradictory, and stuffed with insane troll logic, that nearly anything is possible, probably including actual logical paradoxes.

Again, just so we're absolutely clear here: I was saying that 3e is fundamentally, inherently unbalanced, and will actually prevent creating balanced characters. Balanced characters are nearly impossible to create in its system, for a host of reasons. (One of the biggest being that every metric of difficulty is completely useless, so there literally is no metric whatsoever to be meaningfully "balanced against." There is no "range of acceptable results." There is no "testable design goal" (past level 6 or so, aka the limit of what they playtested. Skill DCs are whack, and a regular Fighter typically cannot be "level-appropriate" good at all three of swimming, climbing, and jumping, let alone the host of other skill things. DCs are a gorram joke, regardless of origin, and saving throw bonuses are nearly as bad. The entire CR system has to be ripped out and replaced, because it just flat-out doesn't work. LA is very nearly arbitrary, as are several metrics for how classes and races should be made. And that's not even touching the enormous library of badly-designed spells!)

Sounds like you have multiple competing goals. Why are you not willing to sacrifice those other goals for the sake of balance?

I do not. The goal is to create an effective system for producing cooperative roleplaying game experiences where the players are equipped (a) with the tools to contribute meaningfully, within reasonable statistical boundaries, to every relevant axis of play, and (b) to learn from prior choices without suffering immediately game-ending consequences and thus enable an experience feedback loop (that is, you can identify both good choices and bad choices, and get the opportunity to understand both and correct the latter when possible). These two conditions apply just as much to the DM as to the players. Thus, since DM choices include things like "permitting certain behaviors," the rules not only can but should both enable (as much as possible) making the consequences of such DM choices clear and readily reasoned, and equip DMs to address adverse consequences before they become fatal errors. Hence, the DM not only can be but should be empowered by the rules to allow creative mixing and application of the listed rules, but should also be empowered to decline such things when the foreseeable consequences are not acceptable.

A game designed with balance makes such foresight a natural consequence of using the rules, within limits anyway. (No one has infinite processing power; even the impossible "perfectly balanced" game can only enable foresight to the limit of human capacity.)

I'm just guessing, but I think I was answering someone else's question of "how does it work at your tables?".

That would be something of a problem, then, since I was talking about how to make, aka design, effective cooperative roleplaying games that produce (with reasonable certainty) desired outcomes. I was not talking descriptively of any specific game or experience, except as illustrative examples of design in action. How you conduct play at your table is your business, and I have neither right nor interest to tell you whether that's right, wrong, or flarfignyuten.

Hence why I have (for example) repeatedly talked about the ways game designers talk, the ways they go about designing their games, and the ways they choose to present the options within the game. And why I keep talking about things like design, testability, etc. I'm not talking about "what I do at my table" and have little interest in such a discussion, because it can't go anywhere. It can't even rise to the level of sharing recipes, where you can at least swap ideas for substitute ingredients or alternate cooking times. "How I run my games" is as personal a thing as...well, any art. A discussion of "this is the way I do it" would be about as useful as two artists discussing their pen-holding techniques. You might, maybe possibly, pick up something...but odds are pretty good that you'll spend an awful lot of time not really grokking what is said and not really seeing any benefit to doing something you don't currently do (or stopping something you do do).

[Cluedrew]

Sounds nice.

Thank-you. This might be left behind already but thank-you, and to Mechalich, for reading and replying to it.

I find that if I'm invested in the game and the character, contrived balance is rather detrimental to my fun. I want my character to feel like my character, not like an assembly line playing piece.

What makes balance "contrived"? A mercenary, a naïve mystic and a reality TV show host (with camera crew) walk into a bar. And they were balanced, as were the local hunter/guide and the wild life photographer and no one talked about their characters ahead of time.

The system was just well designed, every character felt alive and was able to contribute in big and small ways. Is that contrived? Or is contrived what you have when you try to force an unbalanced peg into a balanced hole? As the leading question may have suggested, I think it is more the latter.

Lastly, I believe that a good design goal is to make the variance in potential characters greater than the variance in player skill. Otherwise, you guarantee that the less-skilled player cannot have "the opportunity to have measure accomplishments in game".

There are two arguments being made. First that balanced characters in the hands of unevenly skilled players we inevitably - as in without exception - lead to the stronger players negating or overshadowing the accomplishments of the weaker players. Second that unbalanced characters can prevent this from happening. Which when everyone ends up with a character that adjusts the player + character power to the same band and no one has a character they hate for other reason (which feels like it would require a lot of knowledge of the system, players and the events of the campaign before they have happened) than I suppose it could.

So about player skill. In my experience initiative more to do with contribution than player skill. The contributions come out the way you would expect more often with high skill, but they are contribution. Of course as I write this it occurs to me you are might be assuming some failure is nothing happens system, of course I was sort of assuming the opposite so that could be an important difference. Another important difference is the design of the system, so in a very highly player-skill focused system it might be more of an issue. Even then the only times I have seen it matter so much is with meta-game knowledge, knowing secret weaknesses of monster and that sort of thing. I don't think that is going for.

But OK this is not quite my area, I don't play fail-still or player-skill systems very much. So if you have a good argument as to why, some examples would be nice, I could believe that would happen in such a system. Even then though I don't think it expands beyond those systems very much. In my experience once someone knows the basic rules they are good to go for changing the rules, as long as their character provides the tools to do so.

(Oh right I was also discounting character creation skill because once the game starts that's just character ability.)

Good. So, if you agree that one can achieve a balanced Fighter, then why don't you? And why is whatever answer you give not the problem?

Personally:

1. Mastery/Systems Knowledge: Its a great thing to have it but we should not assume a "Ph.D." level of mastery just to play the game properly. Being able to get more out of the game with mastery is to be expected. Requiring a high level of mastery - not just competence - to get what the game says on the tin is a failure of design.
2. Time: Most the time would be gaining the mastery above. But even with that constructing a character with elements scattered across a large system (most of the content of which you shouldn't use because it is unbalanced, at least compared to this came) does take more time and energy than having a nice list of options laid out in front of you, all of which could be chosen and all of which do what they say.
3. Cost: Literal dollars spent on source books. Not nessasarily a problem but with the way a lot of systems (especially the one I expect you are referring to)

In conclusion, I maintain that balance is the default, most systems should have most of their options balanced and any exceptions should be clearly labeled.

[Cluedrew]

Sorry, something occurred to me after my last post which is I got an answer to a question I asked and forgot to respond to. Especially since it is an important question I figure I should come back to it.

I have lots of different points, as I'm trying to build a more holistic picture of a larger thing than just one point. But, if I had to pick one as my "main" point, it would probably be

TL;DR: You don't have to make a game that generates balanced parties. But if you tell people your game is balanced, it kinda should be balanced.

OK first off I think this point is not the one we have been talking about the last few pages, in fact I think this one has been settled in it is agreed that systems don't have to be anything but should always communicate what they are.

So of your whole image of balance, describe the part that is revenant to this thread. If that is all of it, describe all of it. Or but if a different way I'm cool if your "main point" is a bit complicated, I think it is still important that it is said. Especially since I haven't yet figured out what it is yet and all these asides feel kind of pointless if I can't get the important part of it.

[AdAstra]

Quertus The idea that game imbalance is in any way an ideal way to compensate for player skill is laughable. Powerful characters (especially DnD spellcasters) are often difficult to play effectively, and even building them requires a level of system mastery less competent players are unlikely to have. In many cases, 3e's easier classes are weaker, since "fewer buttons to push" is usually synonymous with "weaker" in that game.

How a "noob" class or build should operate:
-It should be fairly clear from the outset that it's a simple class with simple abilities. Explicit labeling as such can be good, but could also lead to negative perception of the class being, well, for noobs.
-"when in doubt, just x" In combat (or any well-fleshed-out conflict resolution mechanism), the class should have one or two primary abilities that are almost always useful and easy to use, and match up reasonably well even to more complex options from other classes. Other options should be available, and ideally should offer advantages of their own, but they should never be necessary in most situations. The obvious example is a Fighter's attacks.
-Ideally, it should be easy to build. While the ideal of every gaming group is to have those nice people that are willing to help you build your character step-by-step, those people will not always be available to help for whatever reason. The stats that will help the class/build the most should be delineated, the choices should be meaningful and obvious in what they do.
-The above two points amount to: The class must require a minimal amount of system mastery to get a lot out of it and otherwise be effective compared to other options.


Even regardless of that point, balance in a non-competitive game is often less about wanting numbers to match up, and more about making everyone feel interesting, feel active, and feel like they're contributing to the team's success, even with only basic skill. That's of course, assuming they want those things, but the ones that do will benefit greatly, and those that don't won't be hurt. You can never compensate for player agency though. The player who actively tries to do things will always accomplish more than the player who goes out of their way to be useless, no matter how many overpowered class features you stack on them. And that's fine. Using deliberate game imbalance as part of some fanciful plan to "balance" the players' interest in succeeding will only cause problems for everyone else. As callous as it sounds, designers should not care about the needs of someone who wants to play a potted plant, nor should they cater to someone who doesn't want to play. That person will have fun/be bored anyway, and it doesn't take much effort to homebrew a potted plant character.

[ezekielraiden]

Sorry, something occurred to me after my last post which is I got an answer to a question I asked and forgot to respond to. Especially since it is an important question I figure I should come back to it.OK first off I think this point is not the one we have been talking about the last few pages, in fact I think this one has been settled in it is agreed that systems don't have to be anything but should always communicate what they are.

I did say this several times before...I guess I just had to be as blunt as possible about it. *shrug*

So of your whole image of balance, describe the part that is revenant to this thread. If that is all of it, describe all of it. Or but if a different way I'm cool if your "main point" is a bit complicated, I think it is still important that it is said. Especially since I haven't yet figured out what it is yet and all these asides feel kind of pointless if I can't get the important part of it.

Balance means:
1. The rules are designed to maximally enable making informed choices and learning from both success and failure (which means avoiding unclear or actively deceptive/confusing elements).
2. The game text includes, in addition to the rules, both tools and advice on how to modify them for a variety of uses.
3. The rules-options provided to the players are effective at bringing about the design goals they were created to achieve, and this effectiveness has been confirmed through statistical testing: the majority of the range of likely outcomes lies where the designers desire it to be, unless and until the players choose to push that range elsewhere (see point 2).

Balanced games should provide, not as target goals but as naturally-arising phenomena as a result of play:
1. Non-commensurate choices and inconclusive strategy. Unbalanced games almost always have generically optimal strategies. Balanced games rarely admit generically optimal strategies and, as a result, encourage creativity and diversity in player choices
2. Intelligent play naturally produces the desired range of behaviors. Unbalanced games almost always have perverse incentives that result from simply playing intelligently and strategically. "Balance" means the removal of perverse incentives. Smart, strategic play is thus doubly encouraged.
3. Players are encouraged to pursue their preferences, even if they personally couldn't do that. Unbalanced games often unfairly disparage some options over others (optimal vs. suboptimal strategies), and often make success dependent on player attributes like personal charisma, social confidence, or on-the-spot creativity. Balanced games, by ensuring a baseline of equanimity, encourage players to do what they like, not what is "best."

Among other things. This isn't an exhaustive list.

Likewise, as an actual design goal, they should provide extensible framework rules and guidance on when to deviate from them. For example, 4e's "Page 42." It provides specific information on (a) the numerical difficulty value (DC) of any easy, moderate, or hard task for a character of whatever level; and (b) expected damage expressions for every level. Though (a) is often taken to mean that "locks scale up to your level," that is not its purpose; it exists so that the DM can fairly say, "this task should be Easy at your level, so we'll call it DC [X]." Exactly the same argument applies to (b), though most people don't accuse the game of making "the same stunt do more damage if you're higher level." That is, the scaling-damage effect is advice on how to make stunts and creative behaviors be ACTUALLY worthwhile, that is, keeping up with the value of just regularly Doing A Thing.

To give an example of a rule that addresses a chronic balance problem in a clever, effective way: 13th Age's Escalation Die mechanic, which often gets stolen for other systems. After the end of the first round of combat, the DM places a d6 on the table with the 1-pip face pointing up. Each round thereafter, the DM rotates the next highest-valued face to the top until it shows 6, and then it stays that way. The player characters (and certain Supposed To Be Scary monsters, like dragons) add the Escalation Die to ALL hit rolls. If the fight does not actually advance toward its end for a round, the Escalation Die does not increase; if the party actively avoids combat, it may reset altogether, and a particularly epic/exciting/surprising opener or event (or ability!) may advance it faster. Some abilities key off needing a sufficiently high Escalation Die value, and some monsters regain powers or get stronger/weaker as well.

This rule is nearly a perfect storm of design traits. It's very simple, and easy to see its direct effects: it does one thing, that one thing is obvious, and anyone can check the status instantly by just looking. It addresses a long-running problem: "nova rounds" are a well-known optimal strategy and widely held to be a perverse incentive with no solutions, but the Escalation Die directly addresses it by creating a natural trade-off between "greater effect but greater risk" in early rounds, and "lesser effect but more reliable" in later rounds. And it directly enables making informed choices and learning about consequences: players can test and see that nova tactics are now not clearly optimal, but may give way to other strategies, and player experience can and will result in better play over time.

It's easy to use for both players and DMs. It can create as well as relieve tension. It fixes an old, thorny problem. It feels good, particularly when you play one of the classes that can speed it up. And it's very easy to balance, because it has a clear mathematical effect. It's pretty much impossible to say anything bad about the Escalation Die...other than, I guess, trying to force it into a setting where it's just not appropriate (like a dice pool system or DW or something).

[CharonsHelper]

Quertus The idea that game imbalance is in any way an ideal way to compensate for player skill is laughable. Powerful characters (especially DnD spellcasters) are often difficult to play effectively, and even building them requires a level of system mastery less competent players are unlikely to have. In many cases, 3e's easier classes are weaker, since "fewer buttons to push" is usually synonymous with "weaker" in that game.

Which is also why many tables don't have the level of balance issues that theory-crafting would get you. The whole ceiling vs floor for each class. The ceiling of 3.5 wizards is crazy high relative to any martial character, but if you're closer to the wizard's floor (which is probably most tables), the difference isn't too bad.

[ezekielraiden]

Which is also why many tables don't have the level of balance issues that theory-crafting would get you. The whole ceiling vs floor for each class. The ceiling of 3.5 wizards is crazy high relative to any martial character, but if you're closer to the wizard's floor (which is probably most tables), the difference isn't too bad.

Indeed--hence why people often explain many of 3rd edition's...eccentricities by saying that the designers presumed 100% of people would play the game in a pretty rigidly 2e-and-earlier way. Clerics would consistently sacrifice spell slots to heal allies--particularly in combat. Wizards would prepare lots of fireballs and chain lightnings, and would only prepare glitterdust if they really really knew it was going to be useful. That doesn't explain all the problems (e.g. how did they not realize they were making the Fighter suck at saves when it had been awesome at saves), but it covers a lot of them.

[AdAstra]

Indeed--hence why people often explain many of 3rd edition's...eccentricities by saying that the designers presumed 100% of people would play the game in a pretty rigidly 2e-and-earlier way. Clerics would consistently sacrifice spell slots to heal allies--particularly in combat. Wizards would prepare lots of fireballs and chain lightnings, and would only prepare glitterdust if they really really knew it was going to be useful. That doesn't explain all the problems (e.g. how did they not realize they were making the Fighter suck at saves when it had been awesome at saves), but it covers a lot of them.

I mean that’s a huge problem in and of itself. If your balance is entirely predicated on players playing in a very specific way, that completely skewers the idea of choice. If the classes were reasonably balanced for a variety of playstyles, then a players are free to play their characters how they actually want without caring about interparty balance as much. In many ways, this is WORSE than having each class’s “expected” playstyle be the only optimal one, because it’s basically another, unintentional trap. Mechanics should enforce/encourage the theme, not actively drive players away from it. Emergent mechanical interactions are fun! But your base mechanics should still be sound.

While this is not inherently a bad thing, I would posit that if most players/tables are at the bottom end of system mastery for a given class/ group of classes, that does not speak highly to ability for the game to make its mechanics understood. And of course nothing stops even a low-skill player from looking up some bonkers combos/builds/strategies online. The nightstick-cleric exploit is pretty game changing with even a basic understanding of metamagic, which can also be acquired through guides.

Not to mention the fact that blast-focused wizards and especially healbot clerics sound like insufferably stifling archetypes. I’m sure a lot of people like them, but I shed no tears for those expectations being forgotten. As for the druid though, their most powerful playstyles in 3e and co. seem to pretty much match up well with what druids are “expected” to do: summoning, commanding/empowering an animal companion, wildshaping, etc. Not sure just how essential good feat selection is needed, but at the very least Natural Spell is cool enough that lots of players are gonna pick it just for that.

[Cluedrew]

I did say this several times before...I guess I just had to be as blunt as possible about it. *shrug*

I was talking to Quertus. (I not sure why he decided to reply to my question by quoting you, but he did.) I did read your entire post though. I think your definition is a bit broad in places but not so much I'm going to debate the point. Thank-you as well for the description of the escalation die, I never had heard of it before.

[patchyman]

I think GURPS could match it. But that is even more commonly restricted than D&D because "everything goes" rends to not be what players of crunchy systems want.

I would add Savage Worlds to that list.

[patchyman]

Personally:

1. Mastery/Systems Knowledge: Its a great thing to have it but we should not assume a "Ph.D." level of mastery just to play the game properly. Being able to get more out of the game with mastery is to be expected. Requiring a high level of mastery - not just competence - to get what the game says on the tin is a failure of design.
2. Time: Most the time would be gaining the mastery above. But even with that constructing a character with elements scattered across a large system (most of the content of which you shouldn't use because it is unbalanced, at least compared to this came) does take more time and energy than having a nice list of options laid out in front of you, all of which could be chosen and all of which do what they say.
3. Cost: Literal dollars spent on source books. Not nessasarily a problem but with the way a lot of systems (especially the one I expect you are referring to)

In conclusion, I maintain that balance is the default, most systems should have most of their options balanced and any exceptions should be clearly labeled.

4. Interest: if ubercharging or power attack spam is necessary to optimize, and I wanted to play a duellist, than even if the other conditions are met, the game is preventing me from playing a pretty big-standard fantasy archetype.

5. The DM: Lots of optimization cheese relies on a DM going along with pretty tortuous rules interpretations. If the DM simply says Nope! you’re pretty much out of luck. (See guy at the gym fallacy)

[Lorsa]

No, I've had characters who thought that they were dead weight. And ones that I thought were dead weight. And had a blast with them. Because that's what they were supposed to be.

So, again, it's only a problem if you choose that it's a problem.

I know it's an old post but...

What if you have a character that is not supposed to be dead weight in any way but turns out to be such anyway.

And there is no way to fix it because you are not allowed to retrain feats, or switch class or the like?

You did not choose for it to be a problem, in fact you were aiming for the character not to be dead weight.

The reason it turned out to be such, was because the game system did not properly advertise that "this choice will lead to character becoming dead weight".

Basically, you aim to not be dead weight, you become dead weight anyway. This is a situation many people find unfun. For good reason.

[Quertus]

Sorry, something occurred to me after my last post which is I got an answer to a question I asked and forgot to respond to. Especially since it is an important question I figure I should come back to it.OK first off I think this point is not the one we have been talking about the last few pages, in fact I think this one has been settled in it is agreed that systems don't have to be anything but should always communicate what they are.

So of your whole image of balance, describe the part that is revenant to this thread. If that is all of it, describe all of it. Or but if a different way I'm cool if your "main point" is a bit complicated, I think it is still important that it is said. Especially since I haven't yet figured out what it is yet and all these asides feel kind of pointless if I can't get the important part of it.

It makes sense that you can't see where I'm going these past few pages. Because I'm not supporting an argument, so much as digging around for differences in core assumptions.

So, the past few pages was me going back to basics, trying to state things like "plants are green", before trying to explain photosynthesis and economics, before making an argument like "eating salad is good". Because, somewhere, there's been disconnects on accepting things that I take for granted, and I'm not a sufficiently skilled communicator to tease them out more efficiently. So I'm poking around at more basic assumptions, because I'd like to know what assumptions I'm making that I'm not accounting for, what gaming styles in blind to. And that's been fruitful (apparently…), as I'll address below.

But, given my growing senility, it would likely be best for everyone (myself included) if I were to explicitly state some of my top-level ideas.

Huh. Looks like I lost the QUOTE. But, uh, mechanical balance isn't required. False advertising is bad. Players going in knowing what to expect (where "the unknown" is a valid expectation) is key to games being fun. There exist people who enjoy mechanically balanced parties, people who enjoy mechanically unbalanced parties, and people who enjoy both. I'm that last one. There are people who enjoy equal contribution, people who enjoy unequal contribution, and people who enjoy both. I'm that last one (but do note that I don't enjoy *no* contribution). Thus, systems would optimally support both balance and imbalance.

Then things get complicated.

There are many possible metrics one could use to measure mechanical balance. Although some may be useful subjectively (they produce "fun" at one specific table), most if not all would be "objectively wrong" (they would not produce fun at all tables). "UBI" is my shorthand for "for the sake of discussion, pretend this is not true, and that there actually can exist one Universal metric for mechanical balance".

Am/was I trying to say more? Probably. Darn senility.

Lastly, a… whatever you call these things… to explain my opinion of balance in 3e:

Balance in 3e is like the number system. You can make just about anything out of just about anything. Complaining that everything isn't balanced in 3e is like complaining that you cannot just skillessly add arbitrarily numbers and get the same sum. It misses the beauty of what you can do with numbers.

So about player skill. In my experience initiative more to do with contribution than player skill. The contributions come out the way you would expect more often with high skill, but they are contribution. Of course as I write this it occurs to me you are might be assuming some failure is nothing happens system, of course I was sort of assuming the opposite so that could be an important difference. Another important difference is the design of the system, so in a very highly player-skill focused system it might be more of an issue. Even then the only times I have seen it matter so much is with meta-game knowledge, knowing secret weaknesses of monster and that sort of thing. I don't think that is going for.

But OK this is not quite my area, I don't play fail-still or player-skill systems very much. So if you have a good argument as to why, some examples would be nice, I could believe that would happen in such a system. Even then though I don't think it expands beyond those systems very much. In my experience once someone knows the basic rules they are good to go for changing the rules, as long as their character provides the tools to do so.

(Oh right I was also discounting character creation skill because once the game starts that's just character ability.)

Oh, you gave me what I was looking for. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

However, I don't really know what you're saying here. I mean, yes, I, too, am completely "discounting character creation skill". But I don't much follow what types of different games will affect the reasonable expectations. So, uh, can you baby step me through that?

… as I read back over this, I see "very highly player-skill focused system". I think I touched on this briefly, talking about various tactical decisions from running away with the McGuffin to attacking ineffectually to just running away. I think that "player skill" can have a huge impact in almost any system, so, while I'm not completely lost here, I'm still curious what distinction(s) you are making.

Lots of posts here cover interesting ground, so I will only bring up a point that I don’t think has been discussed.

DM decides to run a module for 4 to 6 characters. He has 4 players (common situation, happens every day). The players are all reasonably attached to their characters.

Example 1: two of the players pick “weak” classes, the other two pick “medium” classes. It seems to me that the party is going to have a tough time, and probably TPK, not because of the actions they took, but because they chose weaker characters (often unintentionally). This does not seem like fun or good design to me.

Example 2: two of the players pick “weak” classes, the other two pick “strong” classes. The players of the “strong” characters feel forced to overshadow the “weaker” characters, because no one wants a TPK. The players of the weaker characters are frustrated because their character feels weak, and also because they feel overshadowed. Once again, this does not seem like fun or good design to me.

Example 1 - it's only a problem if they choose in ignorance. It's a recipe for a good time if they chose to intentionally make things challenging.

Example 2 - again, it's only a problem if they went in expecting balance. It sounds like a recipe for a good time *if that type of imbalance is what they wanted*.

In conclusion, I maintain that balance is the default, most systems should have most of their options balanced and any exceptions should be clearly labeled.

But (to continue kicking a popular system) the 3e developers thought that they *had* made a balanced system. Or claimed that they did, at any rate. We all have our blind spots, we all look at the world through the finite lenses of our own experiences & imagination. Or, in my shorthand, people are idiots. I don't trust the developers to have an even remotely reasonable concept of what "balance" looks like. I want them to give me the tools to *make* balance. And, case in point, the breadth of 3e's ludicrously, gloriously unbalanced options provides those tools.

So, "core only 3e" is a perfect example of what "balance is the default" looks like, in practice. Still your cup of tea?

Quertus The idea that game imbalance is in any way an ideal way to compensate for player skill is laughable. Powerful characters (especially DnD spellcasters) are often difficult to play effectively, and even building them requires a level of system mastery less competent players are unlikely to have. In many cases, 3e's easier classes are weaker, since "fewer buttons to push" is usually synonymous with "weaker" in that game.

So, either a) someone else builds the noob's character for them, and tweaks it based on the way that they play it, until they have equal contribution; or b) someone makes the noob an OP, easy-to-play muggle with minimal (but oft-used) buttons. I've seen both done at actual tables (with more or less contribution from said noobs).

Now, I'm not saying that it's *ideal* to have to compensate for player skill that way, only that it is possible (if imperfect, but we've all agreed that we're not after perfection, right?). So, if we remove that option, what's left? How would you compensate for significant difference in player skill? What do you consider to be the "ideal" solution?

it doesn't take much effort to homebrew a potted plant character.

Just a personal preference thing, but I'm usually not interested in homebrew - and certainly not for a story as awesome as "Thor and the Sentient Potted Plant".

Although… if homebrew is valid for imbalance, why isn't it valid for balance? Especially since any given table likely won't have the same concept of "balance" as the "idiots" who designed the system.

I was talking to Quertus. (I not sure why he decided to reply to my question by quoting you, but he did.).

Because it was a good statement of my most prominent belief on the topic.

[Morty]

So, "core only 3e" is a perfect example of what "balance is the default" looks like, in practice. Still your cup of tea?

Considering that there are systems that offer more options in their core rules than 3E does in its own and are better balanced to boot... this example doesn't seem that perfect to me.

[Quertus]

I know it's an old post but...

What if you have a character that is not supposed to be dead weight in any way but turns out to be such anyway.

And there is no way to fix it because you are not allowed to retrain feats, or switch class or the like?

You did not choose for it to be a problem, in fact you were aiming for the character not to be dead weight.

The reason it turned out to be such, was because the game system did not properly advertise that "this choice will lead to character becoming dead weight".

Basically, you aim to not be dead weight, you become dead weight anyway. This is a situation many people find unfun. For good reason.

Well, I think we have two possibilities here:

One. We can (insert word here that means "say is good" - "enshrine" is the best I've got) system mastery. Which 3e purports to do. In which case, we point and laugh at the player for choosing poorly.

Two. We can prioritize something (usually player agency to create balance and/or imbalance; ie, to successfully instantiate the character that they envision, be it balanced or unbalanced) above system mastery, and provide the player with needful tools: clear connections between character choices and their contribution to in-game agency, the ability to "retrain feats, or switch class or the like", more skilled players (or online resources like a certain Playground) who can help with build choices, etc.

EDIT:

Considering that there are systems that offer more options in their core rules than 3E does in its own and are better balanced to boot... this example doesn't seem that perfect to me.

I mean, you've just stated why it's a perfect example: because the designers failed, as all designers must. That they failed worse than some? That only increases its value as an example. That it provides in-game ability to go on rebuild quests to completely retool your character, in character (how many systems can say that?) only further increases its value as an example.

[kyoryu]

In general, it is better to reward player skill and system mastery for choices that are on a fairly tight feedback loop.

Rewarding good positioning in combat is a good example, as the player (assuming the character survives) can improve their positioning next combat with no leftover effects.

Extreme levels of system mastery reward for character build choices are not this, as they are typically extremely slow to change and difficult if not impossible to revert.

Compare this with playing M:tG where a poorly built deck can be completely changed after every match, which is a reasonably tight loop.

And this also does not factor in the idea that "I want to play a warrior type, and still be effective" is a very common desire, and just saying "nope, can't do that" is not a very tenable position for a broadly-aimed system.

Note that some level of system mastery in building is generally liked by many people - but the question is really "how much". "I'm more effective at my job without invalidating the rest of the party" is a fuzzy, but useful gauge. Also consider the "optimization levels" I discussed earlier, and what percentage of baseline effectiveness you get at each level. I consider "I basically understand the system, and am incrementally making build decisions that make general sense based on a fair understanding of the system and mostly intuitive decisions" to be the baseline. IOW, we don't need to consider fighters that dump STR, CON, and DEX in our analysis.

[AdAstra]

Quertus I’m sincerely confused as to how difficult you think homebrewing a potted plant is. You’re basically playing a game object or piece of the scenery. No movement, no attacks, no abilities or stats that would have any meaningful effect on anything. It’s almost not even homebrew! It’s like a rock or a chair, except easier to destroy and can make more of itself very slowly.

Reasons why homebrew is an ineffective means of balance:
1. The rest of the game is still there. Wizards clerics and druids remain tier 1. Monks will remain tier 5. If you want to say, have every player be around tiers 3-4, then you have to restrict options, not just homebrew new classes
2. Homebrewing a balanced interesting class is a lot of work. There’s a reason why people pay for games and splatbooks in the first place. You should be maximizing the amount of time people spend actually playing the game, and minimize the time outside the game they have to invest to enjoy it.
3. Critically, most people are bad at game design, not very good at math, and terrible at avoiding loopholes and exploits. If designing good tabletop rules was easy, it wouldn’t go so badly so often. If players are interested in their numbers matching up (to a reasonable degree) with other people’s numbers, homebrew will very rarely help them do that. Especially since you have to make it balanced AND interesting to play. Homebrewing balanced content is hard, homebrewing imbalanced content is easy. Most people, even players and some designers, don’t even have a decent understanding of how dice math works! But they can understand when someone else’s numbers are higher than theirs (not always correctly, which is why perception of balance is critical as well). Even if you have an entire party of people who don’t understand the mathematical difference between 2d6 and 1d12, those people deserve to be able to play with as few problems as feasible.

[kyoryu]

Interestingly, 2d6 vs 1d12 is an example of "balance" to me, while not being "the same".

2d6 has a mean damage .5 higher.

2d6 has a bell curve, while 1d12 has a flat distribution.

As such, each have their benefits and drawbacks while remaining viable. 2d6 is better if you want a better chance of doing some minimum amount of damage, while 1d12 is better if you want a higher chance of high damage. In concrete terms, if you really really need to get more than 4 damage in a turn, 2d6 is better. But if you really really need to do 10 or more in a term, 1d12 is better.

And they are not "perfectly balanced" as the mean damage (arguably the most important stat long term) is .5 higher for 2d6.

[Morty]

I mean, you've just stated why it's a perfect example: because the designers failed, as all designers must. That they failed worse than some? That only increases its value as an example. That it provides in-game ability to go on rebuild quests to completely retool your character, in character (how many systems can say that?) only further increases its value as an example.

But the other designers didn't fail. They created games that offered reasonable variety and balance within their stated goals, whatever they might have been. Your increasingly circular argument is leading you head-first into a form of Nirvana fallacy, where you argue that since perfect balance is impossible, they might as well not bother. And then veers off in a rather odd direction where a game that did worse than many is somehow better for it.