Some people desire some degree of balance among characters, others don't care if it exists at all.

What do you think?






I think gross imbalance between two characters that are 'similar' can be trouble, depending on the players expectations.

An example of what I consider Gross Imbalance:

A 1E dnd party has two Fighters. One has 18/00 Strength (rolled fairly of course, like it always is) 16 Dex, and 16 Con. He also rolled 9s and 10's on all HD. His buddy has a 15 Str, and no other stats with bonuses. He of course rolled all 1's and 2's on his HD.

Each has a rich character personality and history.

Is the disparity in fighting power a problem when the two fight side by side?

I think a game should at least have the potential to be balanced out of choice (without relying on random rolls to achieve that), so that the group have a choice whether they want a balanced party or not.

For instance in a points-based system one character may be built with 100 points, another with 500. At least the group have deliberately chosen that outcome (or the GM has, or whatever). The decision has been made on the ground by the gamers, not remotely by the game-designer in his ivory tower, nor arbitrarily by dice. So it's fine.

But if under that points-based system a hardcore CharOpper can have a super-effective character for his 100 points who outfights a suboptimal 500 point character (built with the basic intention of doing the same fighting job), that's not my cup of tea.

Whether it actually makes the game less fun to have an unbalanced party depends on the style of play, on what the particular players are getting out of the game and on how robust the particular players are. It also depends partly on whether the lack of balance extends across the whole of the game-experience (e.g. encompassing social interactions) or is limited to particular aspects of it (e.g. combat).

In a game like D&D 3.5 in the style I've seen it DM'd (pure dungeoncrawls with heavy, high-pressure combat focus), a grossly unbalanced party can be a complete mare. In a lower-pressure game with more of a social aspect to it, an unbalanced party may be fine. Or in a game where the non-fighters can actually effectually stay out of harm's way while still being able to contribute to the roleplay - thus in foam-sword LARPs for instance you can play a low-level mage in a high-level party and it may be absolutely fine. You just have to run around a lot, and stay aware of your surroundings, to make sure you don't get hit. [In some systems this may not always be possible though due to e.g. hand-in-the-air invisible monsters etc.]

Quote from: Bill;655490Some people desire some degree of balance among characters, others don't care if it exists at all.

What do you think?






I think gross imbalance between two characters that are 'similar' can be trouble, depending on the players expectations.

An example of what I consider Gross Imbalance:

A 1E dnd party has two Fighters. One has 18/00 Strength (rolled fairly of course, like it always is) 16 Dex, and 16 Con. He also rolled 9s and 10's on all HD. His buddy has a 15 Str, and no other stats with bonuses. He of course rolled all 1's and 2's on his HD.

Each has a rich character personality and history.

Is the disparity in fighting power a problem when the two fight side by side?

If my choices are Good Evil and Apathy, I'd have to say Evil.  The concept of game balance in a Roleplaying game assumes that what you are simulating or modeling is balanced.  Of course we know that is absolutely ridiculous, so balance then becomes by definition a meta concern.

All that really matters for game design in a roleplaying game is accuracy of simulation either outcome or process preferably process, although that depends on the players.  To roleplay, a player's character needs to interact with the setting in a way that can achieve verisimilitude.

Narrative control is a design issue only if the designer wants to introduce non-Roleplaying metagame mechanics to meet that goal.
Balance is a design issue only if the designer wants to introduce non-Roleplaying metagame mechanics to meet that goal.

All balance in an RPG should come from players and GM if the rules do their job in proper simulation.  Noldor kick the holy hell out of Hobbits.  You achieve balance according to Middle Earth by making Noldor very rare, or simply have no Noldor, or have players who don't feel like they have no dick if someone's character is better.  What you don't do is mechanically balance Noldor and Hobbits, which is ridiculous.

Quote from: CRKrueger;655509All balance in an RPG should come from players and GM if the rules do their job in proper simulation.

I agree with this.

Most of my campaigns feature groups of PCs that aren't balanced. The players are well aware of it, and even sometimes decide before hand who gets the powerful character.

And here I was expecting a thread about alignment. Silly me.

Balance is desirable but its imbalance is not necessarily a dealbreaker for me.

Why is the low stat guy a fighter?  The party already has a kickass fighter and a mediocre magic user trumps a mediocre fighter.

Quote from: JRR;655802Why is the low stat guy a fighter?  The party already has a kickass fighter and a mediocre magic user trumps a mediocre fighter.

I would imagine because he wanted to be.

Quote from: Bill;655490Some people desire some degree of balance among characters, others don't care if it exists at all.

What do you think?

I personally do not want the rules to try to enforce balance as that limits the types of settings and adventures that can be easily used with those rules. I can provide any balance I think is actually needed as GM.

QuoteAn example of what I consider Gross Imbalance:

A 1E dnd party has two Fighters. One has 18/00 Strength (rolled fairly of course, like it always is) 16 Dex, and 16 Con. He also rolled 9s and 10's on all HD. His buddy has a 15 Str, and no other stats with bonuses. He of course rolled all 1's and 2's on his HD.

Each has a rich character personality and history.

Is the disparity in fighting power a problem when the two fight side by side?

It might be if ("fair") fighting is the most important thing in the campaign and it takes up large portions of each game session. I've never had much of a problem with it in my campaigns as the players act intelligently. The better fighter takes on more and the weaker takes on less. The same thing happens if the fighters have the same stats, but one is 6th level and the other is 1st level or if the fighters are equal stat/level/equipment-wise but one is badly wounded and the other isn't. Etc.

If fighting isn't all fighters do (e.g. they have backgrounds that provide abilities that have little to do with fighting), differences such as you list are even less likely to cause problems in my games.

Quote from: gleichman;655805I would imagine because he wanted to be.

Then he's already made a mistake.  Your die rolls determine your class, not vice versa.

Evil.

Why? One thought comes to mind: Stormbringer 1-2e is awesome.

Quote from: JRR;655802Why is the low stat guy a fighter?  The party already has a kickass fighter and a mediocre magic user trumps a mediocre fighter.

Quote from: gleichman;655805I would imagine because he wanted to be.

Good answer.

In a game with levels characters of similar level should be balanced because that is the mechanical role of levels.
Now that doesn't mean you have to play games where all the characters are similar levels of course but to not do so is a decision you can choose to make.

Too many people equate balance with combat. That is not the idea. You are looking for overall balance which is about the players and the DM and the game engine all three work together. Good players and a good GM can compensate for a game that is imbalanced or simply accept and roll with it, but less experienced players may be unable to do that and not for lack of desire on their part.

So in short a game should be balanced by default with the option for players to modify that position as they see fit.
The idea that a game being balanced by default is a bad thing is of course ludicrous.

Quote from: jibbajibba;655877In a game with levels characters of similar level should be balanced because that is the mechanical role of levels.

It isn't the point of Levels in my game, far from it. They control advancement and relationship to the world- they don't balance power or effectiveness.

There should be a (crude) balance between any two arbitrary classes. Not because the game is aesthetically or "objectively" better if it's balanced, but because munchkins get carried away otherwise. No class should be the best at everything, and all classes should have approximately the same (small) number of powers or abilities.

But more importantly, every class should be "internally balanced". There should always be a downside to every class. Fun role-playing comes from characters getting into *trouble*, and if you add something to an RPG that doesn't have to potential to create trouble, what's the point?

Quote from: jibbajibba;655877Too many people equate balance with combat.

A point that is indeed, too often forgotten. As well as a problem in RPGs and gaming in general, the dominance of combat and it's importance, even in games where combat wont' be an issue for 90% of the game, or even nigh unnecessary.