This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)  (Read 27559 times)

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
Okay this is a serious thread, let me put on my serious avatar.

Done

So a lot of bile has been spewed on this forum over the issue of class balance. It is my opinion that a system with classes need to have those classes balanced against each other in some manner.

So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.

-Imbalance by Level. If the wizard class is weak at low levels and unstoppable at high levels and the fighter is awesome at low levels and loses steam at high levels. This isn't balance because 90% of the time people won't progress enough to see it. If you know for sure that the campaign is not going to last until high levels then you lose nothing by being a fighter. If the game is staring at a higher level then you lose comparatively less or nothing by being a wizard.

-Role protection. If the party needs a fighter, wizard, priest, and thief to get through that dungon than the classes are balanced right? Wrong. Not only dose the paradigm tend to railroad players into a class the don't want to play but unless each classes thing comes up an equal share of the time then some people are contributing more and some people are contributing less.

To give and example, imagine that there is a class called the Lame Guy. He has the worst saves and worst thaco/bab/whatever and no class features but the ability to kill the dreaded fuckoffsaurus instantly at will. This is the only way to deal with a fuckoffsaurus so someone needs to play the Lame Guy if the party is on any adventure that might involve the beasts. The thing is if 95% of the time the Lame Guy's niche is irrelevant than his player isn't going to have any fun. On the other hand if slaying fuckoffsaurus is not properly role protected (say the wizard researches the spell slay fuckoffsaurus) then the class is completely useless.

So what is balance. This is my definition of balance.

-SGT 50%. The Same Game Test measures the ability of a class to complete level appropriate challenges. The idea is that when presented with a list of potential challenges a party could face than that character would solve 50% of them. If a class can't score 50% on the test it need to be beefed up, if a class is scoring say 100% then it need to be toned down. The SGT is not an exact science but I feel the it's a good marker for how a class preforms.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 06:56:47 AM by Lord Mistborn »
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

Premier

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 1191
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2012, 07:26:32 AM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581
So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.

-Imbalance by Level. If the wizard class is weak at low levels and unstoppable at high levels and the fighter is awesome at low levels and loses steam at high levels. This isn't balance because 90% of the time people won't progress enough to see it. If you know for sure that the campaign is not going to last until high levels then you lose nothing by being a fighter. If the game is staring at a higher level then you lose comparatively less or nothing by being a wizard.

-Role protection. If the party needs a fighter, wizard, priest, and thief to get through that dungon than the classes are balanced right? Wrong. Not only dose the paradigm tend to railroad players into a class the don't want to play but unless each classes thing comes up an equal share of the time then some people are contributing more and some people are contributing less.

I reject your ad-hoc declaration that these two things are inimical to balance.

Your definition of "Imbalance by level" is based on a wanton and undisclosed assumption of what counts as "strong" or "weak". You're saying "if a wizard is weak at low level", but you don't actually define what makes a wizard weak. To take the classical old-school 1st level wizard as an example, that single Charm or Sleep spell can very well prevent PC death in a situation that a fighter just couldn't cope with. So is that wizard actually weak?

Role protection - obviously, too much niche protection is a problem, that's true. However, you're argument is going way too far in the opposite direction. You seem to claim that a balanced system gives the same amount or spotlight for all classes. This, however, ignores the fact that players are not all alike. If Johnny is an extroverted alpha-male type player who keeps coming up with ideas while Jimmy is a quiet wallflower who just follows the lead, Johnny will ALWAYS spend more time in the spotlight regardless of who plays which class. Classes cannot compensate for inequality in playstyles and player competence/experience, so blaming them for lopsided success distribution is fallacious.

"SGT 50%" - Okay, this kind of gives a key to everything you've written above. Apparently you buy into the completely not necessarily true notion that "level appropriateness" is a thing; that it's something basic and fundamental to good design in a level-based RPG. Well, your assumption is wrong. Or at least if you wish it to accept as potentially usable in this debate, then you have to make an actual argument for it first, because we're not buying it just on sight.


Now, quite frankly, your post parses to me thus:

Quote
- Let's discuss balance.

- I believe without arguing for my point that classes must be balanced against each other.

- I declare without arguing for my point that these two things are unbalanced:

- Two things new-school D&D-ers typically criticise old-school D&D for. Like, at all the time.

- I propose that this is balance:

- An argument based an axiomatic assumption that new-school D&D-ers typically accept axiomatically.

I might be wrong and you might be ninja-ing me with a deeply thoughtful and original line of reasoning right this very second, but as of now, this looks like nothing more than just yet another regurgitation of WotCD&D-ers' Top Ten chart of Let's rag on old-school D&D. It must be that time of the year again.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 08:16:12 AM by Premier »
Obvious troll is obvious. RIP, Bill.

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2012, 07:31:01 AM »
I think you have done a very good job of establishing what is fun for you (and probably a fair number of others out there). This solution will certainly work for those who fit that category. The only problem with these balance debates in my opinion is they often fail to account for differences of preference and style in favor of a one size fits all. For example I find balance over time very fun (even if you don't go all twenty levels) and I also think niche protection can be enjoyable as well. For me the key to good balance (at least for what I prefer) in D&D is to consider things other than combat and create some deliberate disparity there. I want some classes that might be very good at combat, not so great out of combat, vice versa. I also want classes that may be good in some areas out of combat and not so much in others.

I also find when things are too tightly balanced it can feel a bit artificial to me. This is probably not such a common response though. Balance is important in a game but I dont think it is the most important element to focus on. I want there to be room for rough corners. I think this is one of the reaosn why people love the old spell list for example.

I am no knocking what you propose. I believe it works for you. I just think when you are talking about a game like D&D it can be very difficult to pick one approach to balance and assume it will appeal to everyone playing the game. This is very much a badwrongfun kind of thing where one man's broken system is another man's perfect system.

RandallS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2012, 07:57:47 AM »
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578586
I am no knocking what you propose. I believe it works for you. I just think when you are talking about a game like D&D it can be very difficult to pick one approach to balance and assume it will appeal to everyone playing the game. This is very much a badwrongfun kind of thing where one man's broken system is another man's perfect system.


Exactly, the type of balanced game Lord Mistborn seems to want would be a game I would have no interest at all in playing. I like characters that specialize and do one or two small areas of things much better than they do everything else. I don't mind other characters better better at combat than my character so long as each combat is short is actual time to play out (and I have no interest in RPGs were combats on average are not short to play out even if all characters are equally involved). I don't doubt that there are players who what very type of type of balance that Lord Mistborn wants, but the closer a game gets to this type of balance, the less likely I am to want to actually buy it, let alone play it.

I like many games that have lots of "imbalance by level" and "role protection" and don't think I've seen a game that comes close to the "SGT 50%" criteria that I really enjoy playing. Even skill-based games I really like such as (Classic/Mega/Mongoose) Traveller, Stormbringer, and Call of Cthulthu really don't meet the "SGT 50%" criteria.
Randall
Rules Light RPGs: Home of Microlite20 and Other Rules-Lite Tabletop RPGs

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2012, 08:03:07 AM »
Quote from: RandallS;578589


I like many games that have lots of "imbalance by level" and "role protection" and don't think I've seen a game that comes close to the "SGT 50%" criteria that I really enjoy playing. Even skill-based games I really like such as (Classic/Mega/Mongoose) Traveller, Stormbringer, and Call of Cthulthu really don't meet the "SGT 50%" criteria.


for me it depends on the game. There are settings where i think I would actually enjoy the sgt 50% thing (maybe not fifty down the line but something where there is a basic level of competence in most broad categories). But i am not interested in D&D doing that.

gleichman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2012, 08:07:02 AM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581
So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.


I've stayed on the sidelines in this because I'm not a big believer in balance at all. I think it's non-genre, impossible to achieve and harmful to chase after in that it produces bland rules and blander encounters as anything becomes winable through any method.

RISUS is perhaps the ultimate expression of balance, as one's skill in baking pies has a equal chance of defeating a swordsman in combat. At the other extreme was the attempt of D&D 4E, where special abilities become magic by another name- and it doesn't smell as sweet.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581

-Role protection.


More commonly called niche protection IME. While I don't believe in balance, I do find value in niche protection.

Your example is an extreme case that has no counterpart in any game design that I'm aware of. No reasonable designer would have a major character class usable against only one creature, or only in 5% of a typical game's encounters.

It should be noted that Niche Protection starts with the game design by offering niches up front, but it's effectiveness is determined in play by the GM offering a range of encounters that allow the various niches to shine. A stealth class for example may well be more valuable than a warrior in a campaign where detection equals death. But useless in one that always starts with both sides lined up for battle. Niche protection is thus rather demanding, it requires the GM to offer a good variety of encounters (or requires the players to seek them out). It also requires a group of players that can enjoy watching one of the fellows dominate the game at times.



Lastly I think that as one moves away from D&D, and it's heavy dependence on resource management and unrealistic mechanics, balance become even less important. The selection of a well designed game will alllow player skill in actual play (as opposed to taking advantage of character generation) to overwhelm any mechanically base balance issues between characters.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 08:27:14 AM by gleichman »
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2012, 08:08:36 AM »
Quote from: Premier;578584
Your definition of "Imbalance by level" is based on a wanton and undisclosed assumption of what counts as "strong" or "weak". You're saying "if a wizard is weak at low level", but you don't actually define what makes a wizard weak. To take the classical old-school 1st level wizard as an example, that single Charm or Sleep spell can very well prevent PC death in a situation that a fighter just couldn't cope with. So is that wizard actually weak?

Well people in the fighter vs wizard thread where saying that it's ok for the wizard to be uber at high levels because they suck at low levels. I was just taking them at their word.
Quote from: Premier;578584
Role protection - obviously, too much niche protection is a problem, that's true. However, you're argument is going way too far in the opposite direction. You seem to claim that a balanced system gives the same amount or spotlight for all classes. This, however, ignores the fact that players are not all alike. If Johnny is an extroverted alpha-male type player who keeps coming up with ideas while Jimmy is a quiet wallflower who just follows the lead, Johnny will ALWAYS spend more time in the spotlight regardless of who plays which class. Classes cannot compensate for inequality in playstyles and player competence/experience, so blaming them for lopsided success distribution is fallacious..

I never said that the spotlight has to shine on everyone equally no game can achive that. I was just saying that just because you need all the classes dose not make them balanced.
Quote from: Premier;578584
"SGT 50%" - Okay, this kind of gives a key to everything you've written above. Apparently you buy into the completely not necessarily true notion that "level appropriateness" is a thing; that it's something basic and fundamental to good design in a level-based RPG. Well, your assumption is wrong. Or at least if you wish it to accept as potentially usable in this debate, then you have to make an actual argument for it first, because we're not buying it just on sight..


If there is no such thing a level appropriateness why are there levels. If a DM has no way of eyeballing what characters of x level can do than why. What D&D dose well in my opinion is allowing characters to advance. You can go form barely scrape by against a Manticore at 3rd level to not having a problem with them at 6th to fighting them in groups at 9th to being able to fend of huge numbers of them at 12th. As much as numbers need stay on the rails to some extent. What a character is and dose need to transform as people level otherwise you go from fighting boars at 1st level to fighting dread boars at 10th to fighting demon boars at 20th.

Quote from: Premier;578584
I might be wrong and you might be ninja-ing me with a deeply thoughtful and original line of reasoning right this very second, but as of now, this looks like nothing more than just yet another regurgitation of WotCD&D-ers' Top Ten chart of Let's rag on old-school D&D. It must be that tie of the year again.

Listen if you're just going to dismiss my points out of hand as gripes against old school then don't post in this thread. I haven't even touched my personal gripes with old school gaming and I don't have any plans of doing so.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 08:15:01 AM by Lord Mistborn »
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2012, 08:30:28 AM »
Also 50% SGT is not totally incompatible with niche protection or specialization.

Let's say we have Challenges X, Y, Z. and classes A, B, C, D.

Class A is a specialist and challenge X plays to their strengths and the can beat it 90% of the time. challenge Y doesn’t play to their strength but doesn’t hit their weakness so they beat it 50% of the time. Z is almost impossible though and class A only wins 10% of the time.

Class B on the other hand has trouble with X (10%) is even with Y (50%) and rocks at Z (90%).

Classes A and B are balanced against each other fine.

The problem is if class C is say good at X but then fails at both Y and Z or if class D wins at everything.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 08:34:03 AM by Lord Mistborn »
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2012, 08:42:02 AM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578598
Also 50% SGT is not totally incompatible with niche protection or specialization.

Let's say we have Challenges X, Y, Z. and classes A, B, C, D.

Class A is a specialist and challenge X plays to their strengths and the can beat it 90% of the time. challenge Y doesn’t play to their strength but doesn’t hit their weakness so they beat it 50% of the time. Z is almost impossible though and class A only wins 10% of the time.

Class B on the other hand has trouble with X (10%) is even with Y (50%) and rocks at Z (90%).

Classes A and B are balanced against each other fine.

The problem is if class C is say good at X but then fails at both Y and Z or if class D wins at everything.


I have been in a lot of discussions about this on different forums and the thing you see is people have much different preferences in terms of these base numbers (whethere they are expressed as perentages or general ratings of something like 1-6 for each area). Some people find ten percent in a single category unacceptable, others see it as needed to have substantive differences between classes. How you break up these categories is important too. Talking about broad groupings like exploration, combat, and role play is very different from talking in terms of specific situations (undead, desert survival, criminal underworld negotiations, sea navigation and survival, etc).

flyingmice

  • Flunchist-Cruftist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9757
    • http://www.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2012, 08:51:12 AM »
I've always thought that the 2e Thief-Acrobat class had the best balance...

Or was that 1e? 2e would have been a kit...

-clash
clash bowley * Flying Mice Games - an Imprint of Better Mousetrap Games
Flying Mice home page: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Currently Designing: StarCluster 4 - Wavefront Empire
Last Releases: SC4 - Dark Orbital, SC4 - Out of the Ruins,  SC4 - Sabre & World
Blog: I FLY BY NIGHT

Premier

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 1191
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2012, 09:01:46 AM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578594
Well people in the fighter vs wizard thread where saying that it's ok for the wizard to be uber at high levels because they suck at low levels. I was just taking them at their word.


I'm sure they did say that, because they tend to. But my problem is not with whether they're right or not. My problem is that their statement - and therefore you're taking of it at face value - doesn't actually address the question whether or not their original statement is actually true. Because if it isn't, then your point is also groundless. So we're back to Square 1: In the case you mention, is the wizard ACTUALLY weak at low levels, Y/N? Is the Thief? Is the Cleric?

Quote
I never said that the spotlight has to shine on everyone equally no game can achive that. I was just saying that just because you need all the classes dose not make them balanced.


Now that I could agree with (and only don't because I reject your notion of necessary balance in the first place.) But then, one ought to amend that by saying that needing all the classes does not make them unbalanced, either (if one accepts the notion of necessary balance in the first place, which I don't.)

Quote
If there is no such thing a level appropriateness why are there levels.


"Level appropriateness", contrarily to its name, has nothing to do with levels. It's simply a WotC buzzword to describe the notion that certain problems or situations might be really hard or really easy for a given party and that is wrong for some reason. Now, that, at least in the dogmatic and formalized way WotC game design uses it, is false; but for argument's sake, let's accept the existence of it.

Now, you imply that "levels exist BECAUSE level appropriateness exists". That's wrong on two counts. One: levels existed for several decades BEFORE WotC coined their concept of level appropriateness. An earlier thing cannot be the consequence of a later thing.

Two: You don't need levels for that notion to exist. You can have a game like Traveller, which is not only level-less, but the PC's don't even improve the skills and abilities after character creation. Now, assuming for argument's sake that level appropriateness is not bullshit, let's ask ourselves some questions:

- Is it possible in Traveller to put the PCs in a really tough situation? YES, it is.
- Is it possible in Traveller to put the PCs in a really easy situation? YES, it is.
- Assuming that the above two are somehow "inappropriate", is it possible in Traveller to put the PCs in a situation of inappropriate difficulty? YES, IT IS.

See? The concept of "level appropriateness" does not NEED levels to exist. Therefore, levels are not there BECAUSE of it.


But to answer your question, levels are there to represent improvement over time, which is an important notion in D&D. (It's not necessarily an inherent quality of all RPGs; the aforementioned Traveller, for instance, doesn't have the same type of improvement.) And the concept of your characters' getting better has nothing to do with how hard or easy the going is.


Quote
If a DM has no way of eyeballing what characters of x level can do than why.


This is part of WotC's fallacious logic behind Challenge Ratings and the like: "If there isn't an objective mathematical formula to determine combat power, THEN the DM has no way of eyeballing the characters can do and why." But that's just not true. DM's could eyeball exactly that for decades without Challenges Ratings and Level Adjustments. And no, it wasn't hard. At least it wasn't harder than WotC's methods, where no amount of CR calculations is going to make for a fair encounter if two of the PCs have some ridiculous exploit build that multiplies their actual combat efficiency while leaving their CR intact.

And that's not even going into the wider context of how the concept of level appropriateness has turned a roleplaying game into a miniatures tactical combat game. With everything levelled approprately, the notion of thinking outside the box has disappeared completely, since it couldn't be crammed into the CR algorithm. In old-school thinking, if you have a low-level party and need to take out a high-level dragon, you start looking for creative solutions. Maybe you can convince the nearest king about the threat to his kingdom and have him send his army, his champions and his court wizard against the reptile. Or maybe you can convince the nearby dwarf clan to undermine the dragon's lair and collapse it on its head. Or contract mercenaries to help you. Or arrange for another powerful monster to clash with the dragon, so you can take out the weakened victor. Or you reconsider whether you REALLY need to take it out, and maybe realise you can achieve your actual goals some other way. All that makes for interesting, original, varies and FUN roleplaying and problem-solving. And you can't model problem-solving with your notion of level appropriateness.

That is why level appropriateness is a false conception in the first place. And since the new-D&D notion of balanced is directly based on the notion of level appropriateness, it too is false.
Obvious troll is obvious. RIP, Bill.

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2012, 09:05:19 AM »
To give a more detailed metaphor (and subject it to some enhanced interrogation techniques.)

Let's say there's a game called Traps, Lizards, and Zombies.

In this game you have to disarm traps, fight big lizards, and kill Zombies which come in hordes.

One class let's call him the rogue is really good at disarming traps, he's ok at fighting Lizards because the have internal organs to stab, but zombies give him problems due to coming in large groups and their immunity to his prescience damage.

The Fighter is not so good with traps and fights fine against lizards but really shines against Zombies due to his cleave and whirlwind attack ability.

Now both the fighter and rogue are balanced in this game if the party has a lot of rogues then zombies are a big problem and traps are easy or vise versa if the party is mainly fighters. The game master easily can mix and match encounters with traps lizards and Zombies to give both classes something to do.

No lets say another class is the Cleric he can turn undead but is bad with both Traps and Lizards. This is going to make it harder for the GM to keep everybody on board especially if there is a rogue in the party so maybe the cleric need to be buffed in some area.

On the other hand let's say the wizard class can use a telekinesis effect at will that makes him great against traps an ice ray at will that's super effective against lizards and a fireball at will that hits a bunch of zombies at once. The wizard is clearly too good and needs to be toned down.
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

Exploderwizard

  • DESTROYER OF HOBBIES!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 5026
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2012, 09:15:18 AM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578598
Also 50% SGT is not totally incompatible with niche protection or specialization.

Let's say we have Challenges X, Y, Z. and classes A, B, C, D.

Class A is a specialist challenge X plays to their strengths and the can beat it 90% of the time. challenge Y doesn’t play to their strength but doesn’t hit their weakness so they beat it 50% of the time. Z is almost impossible though and class A only wins 10% of the time.

Class B on the other hand has trouble with X (10%) is even with Y (50%) and rocks at Z (90%).

Classes A and B are balanced against each other fine.

The problem is if class C is say good at X but then fails at both Y and Z or if class D wins at everything.


And if the actual people involved in playing the game don't give a rat's ass about which character sheet has the biggest penis what then?

All of this balance claptrap is predicated on the basis that all participants are in kindergarden and CANNOT have a good time if someone else has a piece of cake with a bit more frosting.

The kind of balance you keep yammering about ONLY matters in competitive games. If side A is playing against side B then the rules need to be impartial and fair to provide unbiased competition.

In a roleplaying game, people just might want to play a character in a setting with a particular flavor. Part of that setting might be that there are those who perform magic and thus do things that are MAGICAL. Not every player wants a magical character and is perfectly happy playing one that isn't magic focused.

The whole "can't contribute" meme is load of steaming shit unless you have a lobotomized ape playing the character. Players should matter. The person at the table is more important than what is scribbled on a sheet. If what you can do in a game begins and ends with whats on the character sheet then the game is nothing more than a pile of rules. Such games are full of fail as roleplaying games.
Quote from: JonWake
Gamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than 'oh, neat, what's this do?', the reaction is to decide if it's a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252
At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997
In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2012, 09:16:39 AM »
Without getting back into a discusion about whether wizards are overpowered or not (whoch is a rabit hole i will not go down), yes that is one way to approach balance, but it isnt the only way. You can also factor in weaknesses. It mat be okay to have that one class that is good at all those areas of pay if they ave enough built in downsides. For me this would be acceptible. Again, balance over the campaign works for me as well.

The problem here is you are really just describing what you want from D&D. It works for you, so great. Not everyone wants that. I think one thing 4E helped demonstrate is how "give me game balance" means very different things depending on who is saying it. Not saying you are pushing for 4E style balance jst that it really showed us how too much balance can turn some people off.

My suggestion is if you fee you have a winnning formula with this 50% thing, build a game around it, publish and market it. Maybe you are right and a substantial number of gamers will want to play it. You could even just tweak d20 if you like.

MGuy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 949
The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2012, 09:21:49 AM »
You need to more rigidly define exactly what you think " Class Balance" is. From reading what you wrote I understand what you don't like and that you think SGTs are tits but that doesn't tell me what you think "balance" actually is. SGTs or what would constitute a challenge in an SGT changes from system to system so it's pretty hard to nail what expectations different SGTs my entail because there are classless systems, levelless systems and the like where characters might be specifically built to not have the skills/abilities to approach anymore than 25% of the typical challenges the game may present.

Hell I could make a game specifcically where it is expected/necessary to have at least 3 players/PCs and make it so where each can only interact well with 33% of the game. It wouldn't be a failure on my part as a designer to actually make that happen yet by your standard that means I'm making the game "imbalanced" and that doesn't follow.

Now while I think "balance" is a laudable goal for a system. I think "balance" between classes means that all classes are of equal or near equal value for playing the game (meaning their usefulness is comparable to other classes) and are able to competently participate in various parts of the game. If I were to play 2nd edition again as a wizard I probably would not mind not having the same combat effectiveness of a fighter at lower levels because I don't play arena style (go from one combat to the next) games and since I can participate in exploration, socializing, navigation, research, etc parts of the game having to let the fighter get punched in the face is not something I'd be terribly against.

The problems in DnD come when the fighter's ability to be punched in the face comes at the cost of being able to do anything else while others don't make that kind of sacrifice. I, as a wizard, lose skills for spells but my spells do what a number of skilsl do so it is no major loss. At lower levels it's basically a non issue even in 3rd since the RNG has a large enough range where I'm a lucky die roll away from achieving the success of someone else who has trained for something and low level shennanigans are easy to particpate in no matter who you are. However, at higher levels, not only is just getting bigger numbers boring (which is basically all the fighter does) it starts to fall behind on the usefulness scale when other classes/monsters are getting "real" abilities. At higher levels participating in direct combat gets easier and easier for casters and as long as you aren't specifically hitting them in the nuts they marginalize the usefulness of the fighter's face to fist style of participation.

Now that's a real balance issue because it means that one class choice is specifically (and as some would have it) intentionally worse than every other class choice. That's bad. It is also bad when one class (wizard) stomps all over every part of the game. It is just as bad when you have a class that trivializes all challenges in its way while other classes cannot or if that's not the way the game was designed. Well made wizards can completely curb stomp an SGT100% and this is bad because it means a single class choice becomes an "I win" button for those seeking to exploit it, which in turn builds resentment and distrust over such a thing.

A "better" 3rd edition example of class balance would be the Beguiler in my opinion. It's a class with a protectable theme, it's focused. and has clear weaknesses. A beguiler is your mind controller which means you know what it does, its limitations, and it has abilities that can be useful throughout the range of the game without stomping all over other classes' themes or SGTs.

Having said all this I have to again point out these are not the same assumptions other games have. If I were to play 7th Sea, Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, etc etc the assumptions of the system, setting, and actual game play are different. In Shadowrun if I specialize in magic I'm not meant to be very good at tech and trying to do both is basically a fool's errand (at least that's how I remember it).However in Shadowrun the focus is to pull "jobs" as a team so no matter what specializaation I have I am equally useful since a reasonable team has to prepare for dangers both supernatural, technological, and physical. There may be portions of the game where things are more supernatural or more techy but I can still participate even if I chose another specialization because even in the most magic heavy/industrial environs my tech/magic still functions and I can do "stuff" with it. You wouldn't call Shadowrun particularly imbalanced because of this because that is the focus/function/intent of the game.
My signature is not allowed.
Quote from: MGuy
Finally a thread about fighters!