Interparty balance: Required or not?

Saxony · Post by **Saxony** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:50 pm

Do we care class Y is weaker than class X, even by a lot?

I don't.

Should all classes have the same power level?

I think classes should have different power levels so the game can allow for different power levels. But the classes should be tagged with "Hard Mode" or "Easy Mode". Honestly, groups will adjust to whatever level of power they want, any way due to social pressure ("You brought a DMM Cleric to a low power game? Really?"), but the official status of "Monks are a Hard Mode class, Sorcerers are Super Easy Mode" will hasten that process.

Basically, I think DnD should keep printing whatever power level they want with complete disregard to something silly like "balance", but be upfront about power differences. More transparency about it.

Thoughts? Does this break the 4th wall too much?

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:56 pm

Totally disagree with everything you said. If I wanted that, I would just play Rifts. If a game is going to include a PC class, it's up to the designers to make it competitive. If it's not, then it shouldn't exist as a choice. I don't want games having the designer's pet classes that they think should be better than everyone else, because they're a wizard or druid fanboy. Fuck that shit.

Your philosophy only encourages bad game design.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:58 pm

Saxony wrote:Do we care class Y is weaker than class X, even by a lot?

I care

Should all classes have the same power level?

If they are the same level they should.

I think classes should have different power levels so the game can allow for different power levels. But the classes should be tagged with "Hard Mode" or "Easy Mode". Honestly, groups will adjust to whatever level of power they want, any way due to social pressure ("You brought a DMM Cleric to a low power game? Really?"), but the official status of "Monks are a Hard Mode class, Sorcerers are Super Easy Mode" will hasten that process.

Basically, I think DnD should keep printing whatever power level they want with complete disregard to something silly like "balance", but be upfront about power differences. More transparency about it.

Thoughts? Does this break the 4th wall too much?

That is a very terrible idea. All you are doing is restricting people who want to play something. People should be able to play what is in the book they bought without having to be told you choice is too good or too bad for the game.

Also if you say that X class is Super Easy and Y is Hard mode then you still have to balance all the Super Easy ones amongst themselves. Then you have to see if they are easy mode compared to the monsters. So really you are just adding more layers to balance to even determine if a class belongs in a certain mode or not.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:09 pm

I don't see much point to classes with different power levels. We already have something called levels for that. If you want to be weaker than the rest of the party, play at a lower level. If you want the whole world to be more dangerous, have the GM throw tougher foes at you; or vice versa, throw weaker foes to make it easier.

If there's a concept that doesn't work at a lower power level, just give it a level requirement. For instance, if a Planeshaper should always be much more godly than a mundane warrior, then make "Mundane Warrior" cap out at level 5, and say that Planeshaper is only for level 10+.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:21 pm

I only care about inter-party balance when the game tells you that options X, Y, and Z are supposed to be equal. It's not about Competition between the players, it's about being honest with the options you're presenting to your players.

I am totally cool with any number of imbalances as long as they're explicitly mentioned to be intentional with the rationale behind the decisions.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:34 pm

If you're going to have different sets of classes that are on different tiers of power level, you better have the same amount of classes for each tier. If there's only one "God tier" class and the rest are "Mid tier" or "Shit tier", then why would I ever want to play anything but the best class?

Or, alternately, produce a version of each class you make for each tier.

Saxony · Post by **Saxony** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:04 pm

I'm basically suggesting wizards use the "It's a feature, not a bug" deception. Wizards of the Coast sucks at balancing and balancing 20 different classes really is a chore.

Now I'm asking, does this break the 4th wall too much? When the game flat out tells you "This is the Super Easy class", does it destroy the magic of solo optimization too much? Or burst too many bubbles when it says "Mundanes are Hard Mode, fuck you fatbeard"?

Too much meaning: "Will this negatively impact DnD sales" or perhaps "Will this take from the game more than it adds to the game?"

I get the "We have levels" argument. And it's true! If I want to play on hard mode, I'd just ask the DM to throw higher level stuff at me. I'm simply asking if this transparent approach to interparty imbalance is good or not. Just so everyone knows what kind of character they're bringing to the table.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:19 pm

I'm simply asking if this transparent approach to interparty imbalance is good or not. Just so everyone knows what kind of character they're bringing to the table.

No, it's not. It stupid and pretty the things you put in that post point towards laziness on the designer part. So now I (GM) have to do more work, just to make it so that people can actually play the game.

FatCatAttack · Post by **FatCatAttack** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:20 pm

Imbalance is pretty crummy either way you look at it because well for one you shouldn't have an available character concept get crapped on "just because." Especially if is it's something as broad and wide spread as "dude that fights with swords." Also you get issues where someone may want to play the super power class while everyone else wants to be gay hobbits riding around on ponies.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:29 pm

Sucks. What right do I have to go tell all the fighter people, to , effectively fuck off and die? Why do I want to alienate half the fanbase when I need to make money?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:33 pm

Balance only comes to play, and should, when it is the player party, compared to whatever the DM has thrown against them.

Being D&D is a cooperative game, there shouldnt be interparty competition.

the thief does what the thief does, and if you wanted to do that, you should have played a thief.

K · Post by K » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:37 pm

Having some characters just suck also is not fun for other players. No one wants to play the suck character.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:47 pm

K wrote:Having some characters just suck also is not fun for other players. No one wants to play the suck character.

That really reminds me of every time I had to be the Bucket Bitch in Crystal Chronicles.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:40 am

K wrote:Having some characters just suck also is not fun for other players. No one wants to play the suck character.

Define "suck character", and remember that what "sucks" to you, may not to someone else, so define it objectively...some way that can be measured against a set of controls.

K · Post by K » Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:51 am

shadzar wrote:
K wrote:Having some characters just suck also is not fun for other players. No one wants to play the suck character.
Define "suck character", and remember that what "sucks" to you, may not to someone else, so define it objectively...some way that can be measured against a set of controls.

The suck character does one or more of the following:

-dies a lot.

-burns other characters' resources disproportionately(actions, spells, etc).

-doesn't contribute meaningfully to overcoming a proportionate amount of challenges.

-requires disproportionate amounts of loot

-can't go where other players can go

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:34 am

Brilliant idea dude. Here's what that leads to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:51 am

Yes, is requiered. Nobody wants to play gimps.

Also, your idea implies that classes suck on purpouse instead of sucking for the fuckups of the developers.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:39 am

The real problem is that most of the high power classes are also high variance. If you don't know what you're doing, it's almost trivial to make a Sorcerer that literally cannot contribute to the party: just choose useless spells. Especially at level one, where you have all of TWO spell choices, getting even one wrong means your character is crippled. And there are so many trap choices. Mage Armor and Magic Missile looks like a fine combination to a new player, but you might as well not even show up at that point.

Meanwhile the good player has Color Spray and Silent Image, or whatever. Hell, the two sorcerers could even be in the same party (maybe the MC told everyone to play a High Power class). So much for balance.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:58 am

If someone showed up to a game with a sorcerer that literally had nothing but useless spells, I wouldn't think "this person doesn't know how to play a sorcerer", I'd think "this person knows the system so well that they're fucking with me".

It's not a "real problem" that there are spells of varying utility. Not when the fighter stops being relevant by level 10, and in reality around level 7. That's the "real problem".

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:28 am

K wrote:
shadzar wrote:
K wrote:Having some characters just suck also is not fun for other players. No one wants to play the suck character.
Define "suck character", and remember that what "sucks" to you, may not to someone else, so define it objectively...some way that can be measured against a set of controls.
The suck character does one or more of the following:

-dies a lot.

-burns other characters' resources disproportionately(actions, spells, etc).

-doesn't contribute meaningfully to overcoming a proportionate amount of challenges.

-requires disproportionate amounts of loot

-can't go where other players can go

i will assume the last to mean characters, not players...

burns other characters resources, is being part of the group...what is disproportionate?

what is meaningful AND proportionate?

loot.....sounds more like munchkinism is the problem rather than character design.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:59 am

I don't think K is referring to the player demanding the lion's share of the loot but rather situations in which a given build needs more gold//karma/nuyen/whatever than the other characters just to maintain parity.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:06 am

Ravengm wrote:
K wrote:Having some characters just suck also is not fun for other players. No one wants to play the suck character.
That really reminds me of every time I had to be the Bucket Bitch in Crystal Chronicles.

Really? I was the Bucket Bitch, except I would run in the middle of the fight, throw down the bucket, and participate.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:23 am

I don't really believe that perfect balance is possible, so that all choices are always and forever equal to all other choices. But there's a long way from that stance to "Why bother?". You've got to at least try to balance things because there's only a few things worst than having to stand around with your thumb up your ass waiting for the competent member of the party to put on his Big-Boy Pants and take care of everything for you.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:39 am

Whipstitch wrote:I don't think K is referring to the player demanding the lion's share of the loot but rather situations in which a given build needs more gold//karma/nuyen/whatever than the other characters just to maintain parity.

ok, so the party treasure gets used in part by the cleric to heal and such the party and took a lot of the loot for supplies...

what is the problem?

profit is only determined AFTER the cost has been taken care of, so the loot being used to keep the party whole NEVER was a part of the profit to be split.

sounds like competition than cooperation. While competition could be good in some stories, and was a bit understandable where GP=XP, the problem lies in knowing where to stop and realize the party comes first.

the cleric healed up the fighter and used half the loot to do so, well that means you still have the fighter.

i know for a fact some groups would see that loot should be divided BEFORE any expenses are considered...

but this really isnt a balance issue, just a party conflict issue, that comes form competition rather than cooperation.

if you have something in 3rd that REALLY shows a class needing lions share of loot just to function, then explain to a non-3rd edition player?

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:46 am

TheFlatline wrote:If someone showed up to a game with a sorcerer that literally had nothing but useless spells, I wouldn't think "this person doesn't know how to play a sorcerer", I'd think "this person knows the system so well that they're fucking with me".

Unlikely. A lot of players I know thought magic missile was a good spell for a 1st level wizard in 3.5, and seriously meant it.

The Gaming Den

Interparty balance: Required or not?

Interparty balance: Required or not?

Re: Interparty balance: Required or not?