One of the most common criticisms leveled against D&D 3.5, both by 4e cultists and by those who folow a clever exploitation of a loophole in a license agreement, is that it was "unbalanced". I once posted on the Wizards forums that balance was irrelevant to the enjoyment of role-playing game, and I felt a lot of anger, from many posters who claimed that balance was essential and that the over-powered cleric class in 3.5 had ruined gaming for them, so from now on they would be sticking to WOW.
I am talking about balance in that specific form ie. the balance that ensures that no one class (if you are using a system that has classes) is stronger than the others. It seems that the makers of 4e were very much alive to the complaints because they changed the game so that all the character classes used the same mechanics to affect the game world in ways that had different flavours. I imagine this makes it easier for the game's designers to regulate the balance between different classes. Of course this sparked howls of complaint from the legion of newly proclaimed OD&Ders, and from those who follow a clever exploitation of a loophole in a license agreement. The classes were all the same, they bellowed. "We want them all to play differently".
It seems to me that the problem is looking for balance in the first place, or more accurately, the problem is defining balance in such a narrow way. To my mind a game is balanced if all the players around the table have the same amount of fun. With the obvious proviso that fun is directly proportional to creative input by the players themselves.
The need for balance, in the narrow sense complained of, is really sparked by a sense of competition between the players. It is no surprise that most of the complaints I notice online seem to come from younger gamers, who, it must be said, have a different view of the hobby to the crusty old bearded ones. I must say I am with the old farts on this one. RPGs are fun because they can provide new and refreshingly different experiences each time you play. If you are going to use classes in a system and not leave distinguishing the characters up to the players, then those classes need to be as different as possible, including their "look and feel" and the way they play, both imaginatively and mechanically.
Balance in a game is not achieved by leveling them all out.
"The need for balance, in the narrow sense complained of, is really sparked by a sense of competition between the players."
ReplyDeleteYep. I blame this partly on the increasing emphasis on D&D as a skirmish-level wargame rather than a game of exploration. If you want the magic-user and thief to take just as much of an active role in combat as the fighters, well you've got to make them combat-mages and combat-rogues...
Guess I'm a beardo for this but I think it's pretty fun when fighters get to shine in combat, thieves get to shine in scouting/social stuff, wizards get to shine a little in both. All this whining about "my magic-user only gets one spell" ... well how about you try roleplaying, problem solving, hiring a mook, etc. You don't need a stat or a feat for everything (or if you do in the game you're in...find another DM!).
I think thats a good point. If the environment is predominantly a strategic skirmish, there is more need for all the classes to be able to cope effectively in that specific environment. The more varied the environment the less need for this form of balance.
ReplyDelete