Game "Balance" - the missing assumptions of social-dynamics

[tenbones]

Good Lord. Context is king. My interpretation is "Mechanical balance divorced from balance in the setting is an illusion of balance." That's what he's saying. He's not taking a gigantic shit on everyone who likes every single race to have the exact same power level, he's saying that creating that type of balance universally for the system, without analyzing how that balance is going to work when combined with the setting is relying on the game designer to provide such balance that may be undone once the rubber hits the road and setting assumptions clash with system assumptions.

Nailed it. As usual.

But I welcome all discussion in good faith.

 

[Séadna]

Internet rpg discussion seems to prompt extremes, I have definitely encountered some online so obsessed with ‘balance’ that they get worked up that a 5e mace is ‘inferior’ mechanically to a quarterstaff but more expensive. I find that kind of mechanical train-spotting mind-numbing.

That can even be a relatively mild form of it. You often see people having a problem with long term statistical differences in "white room" combat encounters.

 

[tenbones]

Okay... I had (another) long response. But... let me calm people down that think I'm personally attacking them for asking such risque questions.

Many of these questions, like my thread about Humans being necessary, and this one concerning the "Illusion of Balance" are serving two purposes.

1) I GENUINELY am interested in gaming experiences of the people on this forum enough to listen to their opinions on these personally important topics.... *BECAUSE*...

2) I'm working on a project that these questions are relevant directly to. I'm weighing what I consider informed opinions against my own assumptions. If it sounds like I'm being confrontational - I don't mean it personally, I'm trying to test my own ideas against those opinions because I actually want my project to be better. There is no better way to do that than to discuss it with people willing to punch holes in it honest discourse. Sharpen iron with iron.

That people take this personally... is weird to me.

 

[robertsconley]

I also think it's one of the reasons why it's so difficult to convert D&D players to even try new games. It's hard to let go. But I also don't think it was easy "back in the day" either. Once again - it falls on GM's to make this happen.

From my experience trying to recruit players for GURPS in a rural area there are two main factors.

1) If often the setting/genre that they are not interested in. Basically they are not opposed to using a new system as long as they still get to adventure the way they did in D&D i.e. dungeons, wilderness treks, building strongholds, etc.

2) Or if it is a fantasy RPG they don't see how they can do the same things they did in D&D in the new system.

Since for the most part I continued to use the Majestic Wilderlands and the fantasy genre #1 wasn't an issue for me. So that left #2 and I got very good at coaching novices on how to use the GURPS to do the things they found interesting like exploring a dungeon.

But why GURPS and not continue to use D&D
Two reasons

1) exploring a dungeon as a GURPS character feels more realistic, gritty, and dangerous. Especially at 120 to 150 heroic level that is the usual starting point for my campaigns. In short it is a novel challenge.

2) GURPS characters are more nuanced than their D&D counterparts.

If I knew back in the late 80s what I know now, I probably could have made it work with AD&D but I didn't so I went with Fantasy Hero and then GURPS when that proved to be a better fit.

 

[Endless Flight]

Norton got a threadban so if you quote him, you won’t get a response. Probably a good idea to not even bring it up anymore. As far as the modding goes, we all do our best to keep the forum as friendly and even tempered as possible but we aren’t perfect and we have discussions on how we can always improve. This thread started out fine, turned into a thread I don’t like and now let’s get it back on course.

 

[tenbones]

Norton got a threadban so if you quote him, you won’t get a response. Probably a good idea to not even bring it up anymore. As far as the modding goes, we all do our best to keep the forum as friendly and even tempered as possible but we aren’t perfect and we have discussions on how we can always improve. This thread started out fine, turned into a thread I don’t like and now let’s get it back on course.

We're yakkin it up in DM's. It's cool.

 

[tenbones]

From my experience trying to recruit players for GURPS in a rural area there are two main factors.

1) If often the setting/genre that they are not interested in. Basically they are not opposed to using a new system as long as they still get to adventure the way they did in D&D i.e. dungeons, wilderness treks, building strongholds, etc.

2) Or if it is a fantasy RPG they don't see how they can do the same things they did in D&D in the new system.

Since for the most part I continued to use the Majestic Wilderlands and the fantasy genre #1 wasn't an issue for me. So that left #2 and I got very good at coaching novices on how to use the GURPS to do the things they found interesting like exploring a dungeon.

But why GURPS and not continue to use D&D
Two reasons

1) exploring a dungeon as a GURPS character feels more realistic, gritty, and dangerous. Especially at 120 to 150 heroic level that is the usual starting point for my campaigns. In short it is a novel challenge.

2) GURPS characters are more nuanced than their D&D counterparts.

If I knew back in the late 80s what I know now, I probably could have made it work with AD&D but I didn't so I went with Fantasy Hero and then GURPS when that proved to be a better fit.

Oooh. GURPS. How did we get this far and not get GURPS as an example pro/con. Jeebus... if there was *ever* a system-to-setting discussion about "balance" example that needed to be made, GURPS is probably the king-daddy.

So lemme ask you. GURPS is not in my wheelhouse for the same reason Warhammer isn't - they simply sailed past me in stealth-mode whilst I was engaged in other games for decades. I've played it a few times, liked it. Never adopted it as a GM, for no particular reason. My question is this...

In terms of ideas of balance - pretty much everything in GURPS is weighed, measured and assigned a point value. How rigid is the mechanical weighting of those values in direct relation to the core task-resolution mechanics? And secondly - do you think in your opinion that "extra nuance" that GURPS gives its characters implies more social complexity-as-balance, or grittiness in play?

My initial contention is that the social-dynamics of in-setting assumptions are how you achieve "game balance" via the GM - less so the mechanics (but they are important for supporting the in-setting assumptions).

 

[tenbones]

Here is a simple question -

If you were playing the Forgotten Realms (pick your edition). Is it inherently unbalanced if you allowed a non-human race to be statistically better in a couple of stats than a baseline human, if that race had strong in-setting social/background penalties associated with that race? Say some mutant strain of elf that only LOOKED like Drow humped an Illithid or something like that. It could be a total misconception in-setting, but it doesn't change the fact people will treat them like evil bastard half-mindlflaying-drow. If the conceits of the setting demand that, is it still unbalanced?

If so - why?

 

[robertsconley]

In terms of ideas of balance - pretty much everything in GURPS is weighed, measured and assigned a point value. How rigid is the mechanical weighting of those values in direct relation to the core task-resolution mechanics?

None, they are a subjective measure of utility only. Elements with more utility cost more point, elements that hinder the character more give more points. Hence why being lame (a reduction of movement) is given less points than being quadriplegic. There are specific instances where a point is tied to a real world measure. For example X hours of training will generate one point to be applied to a skill. But they are few and far between.

What distinguishes GURPS is that the mechanics for the most part are pretty fine grained. Just about every aspect of your character, every thing you can do as your character has a mechanic that represent it with very little abstraction.

And secondly - do you think in your opinion that "extra nuance" that GURPS gives its characters implies more social complexity-as-balance, or grittiness in play?

It more clear cut in GURPS because specific social element are given their own mechanics (Advantage, Disadvantage, Perk, Talent, etc). Basically for a novice or a younger player (like I was in the late 80s) the various GURPS lists provided inspiration and sometime mechanics to handle specific physical, mental, or social characteristic of a character.

For example, I could have (and did) said that a AD&D character was wealthy at the start of the campaign. With GURPS I can see that that Very Wealthy characters are considered to have 20 times the starting wealth and that it utility over the normal starting is worth enough to be 30 points for character creation. Thus if you starting characters at 120 points, a quarter of your capability is tied up in being Very Wealthy.

Now there are other effects of being Very Wealthy but the core book doesn't get into them because Steve Jackson and other author viewed those details as too setting specific.

The precise meaning of each wealth level in a particular game world will be defined in the associated worldbook.

And they are true to their word, for example on Banestorm page 18, a fantasy setting for GURPS, we get a discussion of what wealth means and learn it also tied to status. Thus a character taking Very Wealthy should be a noble with at least Status 2.

So in Banestore it more expensive in terms of character creation to be Very Wealthy because you also has to buy Status. Which makes sense since Banestorm is basically a medieval society transported to another world. And in medieval societies most of the wealthy were nobles, which is also a social status.

With AD&D, I would just write this all up and have it placed on back of the player's character sheet as a note. While it sounds like less headache it also relies on my own imagination and that of my players. The advantage of GURPS is that the author done the work, not only the work I would do, but work I would never otherwise considered.

And they wrote up clearly and concisely and designed the overall system good enough that I continued to use it for 20+ years.

Points Became less important
However over the decades, my group and I trended to simply GURPS points. Still using the mechanic but not bother with the some of the accounting. Fine you are a knight and have Status 2 and are Wealthy. No you don't have to pay for it.

The other is that the whole idea of disadvantages proved a bit dodgy for most people. Basically people picked ones like honesty, gullibility that were "easy" for them to roleplay. Basically they were the roleplaying the character the same way they did in AD&D or other fantasy RPGs without explicit disadvantages. So again if this was norm why bother with the accounting. Their own behavior provided all advantage and disadvantage needed without accounting for it.

However if somebody wanted to have a character with a missing leg, or willing to roleplay a major mental disadvantage or any number of clearly serious hinderances, then they got the points for it.

This wound up being not charging points for
1) Elements that are fluid like social circumstances
2) minor disadvantages, (anything -20 point or less)

But the original rules are still useful. For example if a character develops a bad smell we know it causes a -2 reaction.

However I have to stress, I am well aware that much of this due to my forty years of playing tabletop roleplaying and 25 years of player GURPS. I don't need much of the help that GURPS corebook provides. It was a far different story when I was 20-25. Even then I felt I wasn't beholden to any particular aspect of GURPS and felt free to alter aspects of it to conform to how I thought how things ought to go.

For example this was originally written in 1990.

MAGIC RULES FOR THE MAJESTIC WILDERLANDS

I mucked around with the cost of the Magery advantage for the different orders of magic.

My initial contention is that the social-dynamics of in-setting assumptions are how you achieve "game balance" via the GM - less so the mechanics (but they are important for supporting the in-setting assumptions).

The place to start with for GURPS is 3rd edition's Transhuman Space. Because radical alterations to one's body is a central aspect of the setting. Which has the following advice in regards to point totals.

Page 110 in regards to Character Points

PCs built with more than 200 points can be a lot of work for an inexperienced player or GM*. An interesting alternative, for roleplayers willing to accept a wide disparity in point totals, is to give PCs a specific race or model template (see below) for free, then give players an additional 100 points, and up to -45 points of disadvantages and quirks, with which to design the PCs. The GM should decide which racial or model templates are available.

Page 131 in regards to buying Biomods

If a PC spends the time and money to acquire a biomod during play, then the GM may require that he have sufficient earned experience to pay its point cost. On the other hand, he may rule that the effort of buying and implanting the biomod is “payment” enough, and simply raise the character’s point total by an amount equal to the biomod’s point cost. The second method is probably more realistic in a transhuman setting, but it isn’t for everyone.

*Rob's Note: And one reason I criticized the 250 point templates of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy and the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy RPG. Sorry just had to get that in there when I read that.

Most GURPS hobbyist are more rigid about accounting for point totals but a significant minority shares my current attitude as well. The fact GURPS is a toolkit dominates over strict accounting of points.

Hope this clarify the use of points in GURPS.

 

[robertsconley]

Here is a simple question -

If you were playing the Forgotten Realms (pick your edition). Is it inherently unbalanced if you allowed a non-human race to be statistically better in a couple of stats than a baseline human, if that race had strong in-setting social/background penalties associated with that race? Say some mutant strain of elf that only LOOKED like Drow humped an Illithid or something like that. It could be a total misconception in-setting, but it doesn't change the fact people will treat them like evil bastard half-mindlflaying-drow. If the conceits of the setting demand that, is it still unbalanced?

If so - why?

A better question is the above interesting for players to be or to deal with?

By asking is it still unbalanced or is it balanced implies that the balance is the goal. Which speaks to why balance is a goal? From past posts you made, it clear that this is about making a RPG product. My view that RPG products are tools to help players and referee make interesting and fun characters and campaigns that they want to play.

So again the better question does including the above make for a product that better at helping players and referees make fun and interesting characters and campaigns?

My quick answer is that I don't have enough context to give good input. Forgotten Realms has at least two major area of campaign play, the Sword Coast and the Dalelands, and dozens of other areas with less support. Each with their own distinct feel.

If we go with Waterdeep, then the above social circumstances would be a severe handicap in the normal life of adventures within the city. However if this was part of a package supporting a campaign set amid the underworld stratum of Waterdeep then it would fit right in and likely viewed as fitting in with the other factions that been depicted in this aspect of Waterdeep.

 

[tenbones]

Point made! But I'm using Forgotten Realms specifically because a lot of people are familiar with the setting. The intent is to gauge the immediate response that race-stat differences make games "imbalanced" and clearly due to your gaming vintage which is like my own, this is far less of an issue... but the idea is the following:

Many people find stat-imbalances being fundamentally game breaking. I disagree, for the *exact* point you alluded to. The Setting Conceits matter. if we place the game in Waterdeep - yeah those social hits will keep coming and offset any material benefit from the stat differential.

If we placed it in the Sword Coast - depending on the locale - it might not matter at all. But ultimately the GM is deciding that starting point and the appropriateness of such a PC concept.

The idea here being that "Race Stat Balance" out of context with the In-Setting Social conceits is not enough to be called "Balanced/Imbalanced" - at least according to you (and me).

Like in 1e D&D - some races (and sexes) had stats wildly "out of balance" - it didn't make the game *overtly* imbalanced, but admittedly the game's in-game assumptions were pretty on the nose despite not giving any overt guidance for GM's on it in the core books.

 

[dbm]

Unless you have a world with mono-culture you have to either pick a culture to baseline the others against or simply give up any pretence of balance (as the cultural elements in play would be outside of your control as author).

The alternative is to use a granular system and encourage the GM to require appropriate packages of disadvantages for members of specific races in the cultural area that they envisage the PCs mostly frequenting.

I think the problem with the original premise of this thread is that, when you balance mechanical effects against purely role play effects, then you are opening the game up to a huge variance in terms of actual play experience (not in a good way). This why I like personality and social factors to have some form of rules associated with them: it gives the GM much more tangible stuff to work with.

 

[tenbones]

I think the problem with the original premise of this thread is that, when you balance mechanical effects against purely role play effects, then you are opening the game up to a huge variance in terms of actual play experience (not in a good way). This why I like personality and social factors to have some form of rules associated with them: it gives the GM much more tangible stuff to work with.

Well contextually - I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I certainly not saying you can't have overt mechanics tied to setting-specific social assumptions. In fact, pound-for-pound - I pretty much agree with that. If my using D&D (which isn't super-strong on social-mechanics) is muddying the waters, I can use another example.

Let's use FFG's Star Wars.

As of right now - all the races in the game have numerically balanced stats. It makes *little* sense given the assumptions of the setting. I mean... Wookies have 1 point higher in Brawn (which is like Strenght + Stamina combined) and the scale goes 1 to 6 with 2 being average. But by their own stat assumptions, backed up by their NPC writeups - They should be *much* larger, at least 2-points higher. The problem is since it's point-buy most races come up short in that... "realism" category (insofar as the setting is well established with it's baseline assumptions). No 3-Brawn Wookie is pulling the arms off a Gundark or Droid. And YES in the interests of "balance" you can buy up those stats... but there are ZERO rules for increasing those stats later.

To make matters more silly - NONE of the NPC's follow this rule. Virtually all of the NPC's from the movies break the core rules of PC's. And it's the tip of the iceberg.

Similarly - a lot of races have social mechanics discrete to their race, both positive and negative. Again - for "balance", which is odd since if you open these things up, and the GM plays the game straight on - like many GMs of this game do and allow PC's to increase stats with XP, it not only has zero negative impact, but it greatly improves the game.

The attempts at "balance" actually hinder enjoyment because those mechanics go literally against the assumptions of the setting. Let the fucking Wookies get 6-Brawn and get to pulling off those arms. They're not going to pull themselves off otherwise. (that's what she said!).

 

[Silverlion]

I've always been more interested in "Will this make the game interesting and fit my aims?" Balance is more a matter of spotlight time; and giving everyone something important to do. Mind you--a balanced game can aid in that, but I see it often as the Batman vs Superman problem, so often used. The assumption is that since Batman didn't USE to be metahuman/mutant, he couldn't match Supermans full capabilities. Yet, somehow they team up and take down similarly powered enemies. Of course, the means are different. Batman is full of tricks, is intellectually equal and maybe slightly superior to Supes., and fundamentally more trained than Superman in terms of broad knowledge. (Though a lot depends always on who is writing, and which comic is telling the story, Batman's, Superman's, or the JLA. ) The truth of course is--as game mechanics go, they tend to be far closer to one another due to narrative empowerment.

As an example: In the Justice League cartoon---they really didn't know how to deal with Superman, so they cheated--and took him out with electricity, or something else, that made him "inactive," for the story. They cheated to give Batman and Wonderwoman more star power. Because they don't know how to write Superman, well. They learned--slowly and painfully. Through the cartoon and eventually did better. It was also obvious that Batman was closer to Warren Ellis' take of him "Batgod" than to other writers who kept him more human.

Of course, now, last I information I read is oh, Batman is a meta, with a super-high IQ, and other abilities to explain the unbelievable things he does.

I like both Batman and Superman as archetypes--though, I've seen really GOOD writing for both, and some really terrible.

Hence why my superhero game seeks balance on a more meta-mechanical level. In-game mechanics that exist to be powered by the players--but only through actions, the characters can take. You can either choose to write Batman and Superman equally (just with a different focus, one on mental abilities one on physical) Or write them at different levels--but Batman will get more spotlight time because he will have to do more bantering/monologuing. Note, I recently re-read the 2000ish JLA relaunch trade, and you can see this in some ways. The Martians make assumptions about human capability---and of course, try and avoid the fire of his crashed plane. Later on, he's bantering at the bad guys, a little. the Three Martians realize they've stepped into a ring of gasoline. then he ignites it--he out planned them. This is showing his natural intellect/tactical ability--but any stress he's taken from the crash, and fight with their sentries, is reduced because of him bantering with Wonder Woman over how long he can hold his breath, and another hero quipped he must be slowing down because he only brought in 3 Martians. Despite the fact that each one--is individually as powerful as Superman, with their false superman stand-in, being slightly more challenging. He's talking, in-game terms that means he's doing something to deal with the trouble he's built up and gives him on-panel time.

While others each get panel time as well. Even Aquaman. Their jokes, even unintentional one Aquaman quipped about giving one of them a headache are all mechanics in Hearts & Souls 2E for pushing their limits or relieving stress.

Thus making sure each has spotlight time--so long as a player chooses to seize it when it is offered.

So either way works--Batman can be written weaker mechanically stat/gear/power wise than Supes, but by the nature of the game's tools. It also means it empowers him because he IS taking more stress, to get his say in, his face shown, etc. While Superman has an easier time--and thus has fewer "panels" or rounds where he's doing important things.

 

[AsenRG]

The funny thing is, I'm not a person obsessed with balance myself.

You're not?!?
I've been mislead, then. By your own posts, no less!

I just get that some people are, and you know what I'm fine with them existing.

So am I. As long as they stay the expletive-of-choice away from my games.
But I just don't see why every single game has to cater to them.

If I came and said that something like "I think in character play is an illusion" (I wouldn't say this, as I don't believe it), do you really think I'm not saying anything about people who play in character?

It has happened to me.
My reaction was toinform him about him being provably wrong from my experience. Then the Nickname AsenRG Never Committed To Memory* actually went on to make insinuations about the people who play in this style...but that still hasn't happened in this thread!

*Hey! Any chance it was you?

I think Emperor Norton makes a fair point, one that is fundamental to with any disucssion forum.

Any strongly expressed preferences comes carries an implied criticism of all other preferences.

...no, it doesn't.
As an example, I prefer women in bed (a preference many share, going by the statistics). Doesn't mean I, or anyone sharing that preference, criticizes gay men. Whatever rocks their boats...I'll stick (it) to whatever rocks mine, though!
So it just means we're never going to play together in bed and they should find another group to play with.
Extrapolating that to game groups is kinda easy, ain't it?

Yes that all well and good but doesn't answer why create a balanced game in the first place?

Any game you design shall have some point of balance. Even the setting where half-orcs are better fighters, period, is going to have a point of balance.
It's just that the balance might have to be "you're doubtlessly a better fighter than me, half-orc, but are you a better fighter than my half-orkish bodyguards? And now you know why I picked a human trader to play."

Yes that all well and good but doesn't answer why create a balanced game in the first place?

Any game you design shall have some point of balance. Even the setting where half-orcs are better fighters, period, is going to have a point of balance.
It's just that the balance would have to be "you're a bbetter fighter than me, half-orc, but are you a better fighter than my half-orkish bodyguards? And now you know why I picked a h0uman trader to play."

Norton got a threadban so if you quote him, you won’t get a response. Probably a good idea to not even bring it up anymore. As far as the modding goes, we all do our best to keep the forum as friendly and even tempered as possible but we aren’t perfect and we have discussions on how we can always improve. This thread started out fine, turned into a thread I don’t like and now let’s get it back on course.

Ooops...sorry, Norton! I was just late to the party, and I write my posts as I read.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

I've been playing D&D since before it was D&D. Since before publication.

I've played OD&D, AD&D some, some 3.5, and a fair bit of Pathfinder.

In 47 years, I've played one elf, one half elf, two human magic users, one human paladin, and one hobbit paladin.

All other of my characters, in any variant of D&D, have been human fighters. LFQW be damned; I like playing human fighters.

I have fun playing human fighters. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, human fighters are balanced.

 

[Chris Brady]

I have fun playing human fighters. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, human fighters are balanced.

So? That has no bearing on the fact that a fair amount of people disagree with you, and have used math to prove it.

 

[Brock Savage]

I like playing human fighters.

I have fun playing human fighters. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, human fighters are balanced.

Fighters are my favorite D&D class. Even in the dark days of LFQW I almost always played fighters. I wouldn't lie to my self and say they were balanced against casters in terms of raw power but yeah I get you man- they are balanced for me because I find fighters way cooler and more fun to play than wizards.

This is from a player perspective not a DMs.

 

[Chris Brady]

As a DM, there was a lot of player frustration over the Fighter in my meagre 30+ year career.

 

[dbm]

Lot’s of people clearly like playing fighters in D&D; one of the members of my group always plays a fighter or fighter-analog in every new system we play. Probably half to two-thirds of all his characters are fighters.

But that just means that, for some people, other factors beyond ‘mechanical balance’ make the play experience enjoyable.

Personally, I like playing broadly competent characters, so I play a lot of Bards in D&D. But in most(?) editions of the game Bards have been a pretty weak option. Personally, that means I start off enjoying my character as they are the sort I want to play, but I become jaded with the game as it continues and my character’s weak-sauce performance becomes more evident.

So IMO, balance is different to enjoyability, though balance can contribute to enjoyability.

 

[dbm]

The attempts at "balance" actually hinder enjoyment because those mechanics go literally against the assumptions of the setting.

I think you would get more useful input to your design if you shared some info on it. Do you have a thread in the Design forum about it?

 

[tenbones]

Not ready yet. Very early stages - but this thread has been actually very helpful for me.

Edit: I'm not trying to be coy or anything. I'm trying to lay down some groundrules for the design process in terms of direction. When I'm ready, I'm definitely be posting more stuff in the Design forum. There is a tremendous amount of gaming experience on this forum and I'm gut-checking myself against it. Not second-guessing - but I value the wisdom here, especially the opinions that run counter to my own assumptions. One of those big issues is what spawned this thread. But it's been lovely thus far.

 

[Luca]

If the conceits of the setting demand that, is it still unbalanced?

If so - why?

Yes it is. Because once I'm high enough level, I can give the finger to 99.99% of society without any ill effects - while the stat bonuses are still as valid as they were at chargen.

Heck if I'm playing a mage I can just stroll around metamorphosized all day, every day.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

As a DM, there was a lot of player frustration over the Fighter in my meagre 30+ year career.

I'm sorry to hear that. It has honestly never happened to me; some of my players want their characters to fight so they play fighters; some want to use magic so they play magic users; some want to thieve so they play thieves; and some want to cler so they play clerics.

 

[TJS]

Balance is mostly an issue where a game tries to have it and fails.

If a game says "here are 3 different but equal ways you can play a kickass warrior" and then it turns out that one is much better than another than players can legitimately feel they have been cheated and mislead by the game.

If the game says you can play a kickass warrior OR you can turn into a bat then it's less of a problem. The difference between these two things is far less quantifiable. Which character is more effective? Well that depends on how useful it is to turn into a bat - and the player's creativity in thinking up ways the ability can be made use of. It also depends on how often the game includes combat.

There probably a point to be made too about how the edition of D&D which cared the most about balance (4E) was also the one that had the most restricted and defined idea about how that game was actually to be played.

 

[Chris Brady]

I'm sorry to hear that. It has honestly never happened to me; some of my players want their characters to fight so they play fighters; some want to use magic so they play magic users; some want to thieve so they play thieves; and some want to cler so they play clerics.

The problem in the later editions I got to play, some 1e, a lot of 2e, 3.x and it's a little less in 5e, the disparity between melee and magic was stark.

And let me make one thing as clear as I can. This was never one problem player. I'm sure there are attention hogs out there that would lord it over other players and still somehow gets invited back. I never had that player. It was always the group and once magic, whether it was healing or wizard, was depleted, they halted for the day and done. They rarely ever moved forward with the adventure until the 'Go-Juice' got topped off.

Personally, I felt a little insulted (at first) that my crew would think that I would TPK them because the Magic-User or Cleric was out of spells. But then I realized that the game conditions players to view magic as the almighty force, the main combat resource.

I'm not saying that maliciously, I'm saying mechanically. Magic ALWAYS works, even if it's resisted or negated, it goes off without a hitch. Also because it's a very limited resource, even at the higher levels, it's power level is significantly higher, thus making encounters when you have magic much more easy than without. But you have to husband your resources, and sometimes, that's not necessary because of the situation. It also leads to feast and famine situations, where players misery creep along the jungle until they find that one moment where they blow their wads and smoke.

Now, admittedly, this is a much more massive problem in 3.x where the assumption, which is baked into the math, that players will have access to X 'levels' of magic (including items) and if the DM doesn't give it, then the game becomes that much harder. If not at the table, then at the DM's side as they have to change and rebalance things to not murder the party by accident (which in 3.x was a lot harder than I expected.) However, it was still a common problem during my limited 1e and extensive 2e days.

 

[TJS]

I think at least part (but by no means all) of the balance issues with fighters in 3.x had to do with the fact that Fighters were just an incredibly boring class. They had bugger all choices in skills and bugger all skill points. They couldn't do anything in creative in combat because whatever you wanted to do there was a feat for, and even if they had the feat it wasn't particularly effective or interesting. Given that HPs were inflated but not weapon damage it often felt like they were just making numbers go down.

Given all that - it's not surprising people started looking over the fence and noticing how much greener the grass was.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been issues if the class was more fun to play - but...there was more going on than just a power disparity.

 

[Ladybird]

The problem in the later editions I got to play, some 1e, a lot of 2e, 3.x and it's a little less in 5e, the disparity between melee and magic was stark.

This is the big problem with ever referring to "D&D does it like this" or similar : D&D is like ten completely different games that just happen to share a brand name, and unless you're clear about which ones you're talking about, comparing things between them is basically meaningless. Fighters and magic users may be reasonably well spotlight balanced in something like 1974 D&D or 5e, but that doesn't negate that they're horribly spotlight balanced in some of the other D&D's.

 

[Chris Brady]

This is the big problem with ever referring to "D&D does it like this" or similar : D&D is like ten completely different games that just happen to share a brand name, and unless you're clear about which ones you're talking about, comparing things between them is basically meaningless. Fighters and magic users may be reasonably well spotlight balanced in something like 1974 D&D or 5e, but that doesn't negate that they're horribly spotlight balanced in some of the other D&D's.

It also doesn't help that every spell is a separate little rule block that's exclusionary to every other rule, except for select spells, like Dispel and the more recent addition Counter Magic.

 

[robertsconley]

The problem in the later editions I got to play, some 1e, a lot of 2e, 3.x and it's a little less in 5e, the disparity between melee and magic was stark.

Magic items are your friend. The most broken character I played using the core rules of 3.X was a Half Orc Fighter wielding a Greataxe with a suite of common magic items.

 

[dbm]

It was always the group and once magic, whether it was healing or wizard, was depleted, they halted for the day and done. They rarely ever moved forward with the adventure until the 'Go-Juice' got topped off.

That is yet another axis to the game balance equation. Some classes have abilities that are essentially always available, some have abilities that reset daily, some have abilities that reset in between. I seem to recall that 4e and 5e DMGs do provide guidance, or at least state their assumptions, about how often PCs should get ‘long’ or ‘short’ rests etc but it can happen that the players go into turtle mode as soon as their big guns are spent, and if the DM facilitates this play the behaviour becomes reinforced.

Practical solutions to this include NPCs with their own agendas who keep pushing them whilst the PCs rest, and wandering monsters.

But to the OP of the thread, this is another mechanism the game author needs to evaluate.

 

[CRKrueger]

Brady’s right about 3.x magic. WotC removed nearly every limitation on casting spells compared to AD&D, gave spells that could summon replacements for melee fighters and spells that could buff said summoned henchmen. They also began constructing the balance of the game around X number of combat encounters per day and per level.

Hey, people began dumping fighters, all taking casters and playing the 15 minute adventuring day. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

But, I’ve always found LFQW to be a WotC problem. I never encountered it in TSR versions of the game.

 

[robertsconley]

The trick with Boog the half-orc fighters in various editions of D&D was to do more damage over time then what they could do to me over the same amount of time. There wasn't a single magic bullet that enabled this nor it was a "hack" in that I put together an unlikely combination of abilities and equipment. Instead it was a matter of finding the right piece of equipment to

• Increase the damage I dealt per round by increasing damage and or increasing the odds of hitting the target.
• Being also to mitigate the loss of hit points for example extra-healing potions
• Increasing the odds of resisting through saving throw.

No one thing suffices because of the variety of situation I encounter. Instead it my loadout and abilities allowed me to craft a flexible response to keep ahead of what I was fighting. Nor it was a I win button as I had to do the right thing at the right time to keep the odds in my favor. But on the flip side I could do this with RAW and within what most referee hand out in a campaign.

 

[robertsconley]

Brady’s right about 3.x magic. WotC removed nearly every limitation on casting spells compared to AD&D, gave spells that could summon replacements for melee fighters and spells that could buff said summoned henchmen. They also began constructing the balance of the game around X number of combat encounters per day and per level.

Hey, people began dumping fighters, all taking casters and playing the 15 minute adventuring day. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

But, I’ve always found LFQW to be a WotC problem. I never encountered it in TSR versions of the game.

The problem is that the player took the obvious easy way out on average. Even crunching the numbers using just the core rules* doesn't tell the whole story. You need to play and play often and test it in a variety of situations against human opponents.

Now with me it happened that I played Neverwinter Nights, which is a faithful representation of the 3.0 rules. So I started with Boog and proceeded to level and tweak him just prove my friend who were running the server that fighters were worse than mages. Sometimes I fought computer controlled NPCs and sometimes I fought NPCs controlled by my friends. Neverwinter Nights allow GM players to possess a creature and control them as a character.

As it turned out that using a suite of magic items that wasn't hard to obtain along with various common feats that I was able to take down most of creatures and NPCs they were able to throw at me. I was able to solo most of the adventures and dungeons they created while a wizards, sorceror, or cleric could not.

The primary reason is that as a fighter I could take several unlucky major hits and still be in the fight. Whereas the other classes were vulnerable to one or two unlucky hits. Quite simply they didn't have the legs to keep going again creature capable of dealing out massive damage while I was able too (most of the time).

And there were still specific combination that could take the character out.

I verified what I found by making the same half-orc fighter at conventions and organized play events.

Again it wasn't a I win combination. I had to do the right things at the right time and it varied depending what I was fighting. In otherwise I had to create a tactical doctrine and be smart about applying it to the situation.

 

[Ladybird]

As it turned out that using a suite of magic items that wasn't hard to obtain along with various common feats that I was able to take down most of creatures and NPCs they were able to throw at me. I was able to solo most of the adventures and dungeons they created while a wizards, sorceror, or cleric could not.

The primary reason is that as a fighter I could take several unlucky major hits and still be in the fight. Whereas the other classes were vulnerable to one or two unlucky hits. Quite simply they didn't have the legs to keep going again creature capable of dealing out massive damage while I was able too (most of the time).

Sure, but those items were only easy to obtain because it's a videogame; in a real-world game, you can't rely on having specific combinations of magic items available to you, because you're at the mercy of the GM giving you those items. It's basically just a white-room scenario; those are cool, solving chargen for x is a fun activity, but it doesn't transfer over.

If Class A gets to be good because of their inherent qualities and doesn't need anything else, but Class B is good if they're given certain additional things on top of their inherent qualities, there's probably a balance concern there.

 

[CRKrueger]

The problem is that the player took the obvious easy way out on average. Even crunching the numbers using just the core rules* doesn't tell the whole story. You need to play and play often and test it in a variety of situations against human opponents.

Now with me it happened that I played Neverwinter Nights, which is a faithful representation of the 3.0 rules. So I started with Boog and proceeded to level and tweak him just prove my friend who were running the server that fighters were worse than mages. Sometimes I fought computer controlled NPCs and sometimes I fought NPCs controlled by my friends. Neverwinter Nights allow GM players to possess a creature and control them as a character.

As it turned out that using a suite of magic items that wasn't hard to obtain along with various common feats that I was able to take down most of creatures and NPCs they were able to throw at me. I was able to solo most of the adventures and dungeons they created while a wizards, sorceror, or cleric could not.

The primary reason is that as a fighter I could take several unlucky major hits and still be in the fight. Whereas the other classes were vulnerable to one or two unlucky hits. Quite simply they didn't have the legs to keep going again creature capable of dealing out massive damage while I was able too (most of the time).

And there were still specific combination that could take the character out.

I verified what I found by making the same half-orc fighter at conventions and organized play events.

Again it wasn't a I win combination. I had to do the right things at the right time and it varied depending what I was fighting. In otherwise I had to create a tactical doctrine and be smart about applying it to the situation.

Of course GMs and players who were more experienced could come up with ways to make the fighter work.

But...you turn D&D into a number crunching, deck building, feat tree planning exercise in System Mastery and...Wow, players start playing that way. Whoda thunk it?

 

[robertsconley]

Sure, but those items were only easy to obtain because it's a videogame; in a real-world game, you can't rely on having specific combinations of magic items available to you, because you're at the mercy of the GM giving you those items. It's basically just a white-room scenario; those are cool, solving chargen for x is a fun activity, but it doesn't transfer over.

Except it did, using other people's rules and methods of treasure distribution. Largely because I avoided items and sometime rule elements I knew that were not commonly found.

 

[robertsconley]

Of course GMs and players who were more experienced could come up with ways to make the fighter work.

But...you turn D&D into a number crunching, deck building, feat tree planning exercise in System Mastery and...Wow, players start playing that way. Whoda thunk it?

Except I didn't crunch the numbers, I just tried things until I found tactics and equipment that worked. Oh I knew what I was doing in a broad sense. But it was different type of exercise then what you read in the forums. Nor it was a white box because I tried this in a variety of scenarios. The only thing that Neverwinter Nights allowed me to do is repeatably try again and again against the same scenario that my friends designed. Even then that was just a starting point because because when I went to pen & paper I had to adapt not only a different referee and a different method of treasure distribution and I had only one shot at it.

In short I developed this how combat tactics are normally developed, through repeated tests in a variety of situations where numerous mistakes were made and learned from. Pretty much the opposite of number crunching.

I can't stress how much all of it was an average. What I found that for their reputed "brokenness" 3.X wizards" had their bad days. And not just when a 1 is rolled d20.

Most of the problem area I found were releated to combination of disparate supplements that had little in the way of thematic or mechanical compatibility in terms of balance. So once I understood how thing like Pun Pun the infinite kobold were created it was like "Whatever". So I just limited to what I found use in the core books. And further limited myself to things that in my opinion I would likely to find.
For example it likely I would find a +1 weapon, it not likely to find a +3 weapon. It would be nice but just not something that can be counted on.

Nor was my goal to win 100% of the time. My goal was to have a good chance of winning more than half the time i.e. survive the encounter and hold the field.

My conclusion is that the conventional wisdom on 3.X classes is bullshit even when it comes to white box scenarios.

As for the situation with novices, making wizards works isn't trivial for novices either. So I don't see how that is a factor.

 

[AsenRG]

Except it did, using other people's rules and methods of treasure distribution. Largely because I avoided items and sometime rule elements I knew that were not commonly found.

At thispoint, I think you need to post the build!

 

[CRKrueger]

At thispoint, I think you need to post the build!

Not sure Rob understands that by using System Mastery to find the correct build to succeed, he’s proving the point he’s arguing against.