Balance: What, Why and How - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Balance: What, Why and How

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Sep 03, 2003 19:30:20 Balance in Dungeons and Dragons is more narrowly defined than its real-life term. In general, balance refers to a group or sample of people, out of whom no single one possesses a substantial amount of power more than the others. A king, for example, is not “balanced” with a peasant because he has relatively enormous wealth, manpower and political standing, and the peasant has some livestock.

According to the Dungeon Master’s Guide, and various other passages from Wizards of the Coast publications, balance in the core (and later perhaps prestige) classes is literally a goal to reach for both publishers of d20 material, and the dungeon master who runs the game. Put simply, balance is something that most gamers would like to see achieved in the game. Balance ensures that no player feels cheated or undone by their choices they made in character creation. Balance ensures the DM can effectively set up a challenging and rewarding adventure, even before spending long times with a specific group of PCs. Balance reduces the need for players to focus on maximizing their combat effectiveness, so they can focus more on the game and events at hand.

All things being equal, balance means no one person ever feels an unfair disadvantage weighted on their character. But all things aren’t equal. Conditions change, scenarios depend on decisions, and sooner or later one will feel an unbalance. While D&D compensates by ad hoc experience charts, compensation doesn’t change the fact that for that conflict, one’s character seemed like a waste of space. In fact, it might seem wrong for one to accept even more reward for performing less effectively than his allies.
So, why does D&D make a goal of balance when it’s mathematically implausible?
Because D&D has always rewarded based on challenge codes of foes. That means usually a player character advances by killing a monster. Early on, it was realized that killing a foe that could barely scratch the player character should not be rewarded as much as a more powerful foe’s defeat.

So due to the way D&D was originally set up for rewards, balance became an essential element that has since spread to almost every facet of the rules. Classes aim to stay in balance with one another, monsters are graded to stay in balance to the classes, and spells are urged to stay in certain levels as to not be obtained too easily or hardly, which would upset the balance. In one important sense, D&D is balanced-based because of the way rewarding works.

If a DM decides to base rewards on something other than challenging foes, balance becomes that much less important. From a rewarding point of view, a wizard abusing his spells to become powerful is relatively useless if the DM only rewards for roleplaying.
The other major “why” of balance is to ensure a safe setting for a DM to run. For example, if a player became perversely overpowered by an abuse of loopholes in the rules, he or she could greatly disturb the setting the DM carefully set up. That doesn’t sound too bad for the player, but it is to the DM who needs a comfortably familiar setting in order to run a thorough game. While usually rare, this scenario happens enough to urge D&D enthusiasts to find balance beforehand.

Now that the “what,” and “why” of balance have been explained, the application is vital.
How does a group achieve balance? I’d like to say they don’t. If personal feelings weren’t left aside, I would write that nothing will ever be entirely balanced. Scenarios all change, and at one point I would advocate until the end of time that any class could excel in some situation better than another.

But there is an answer to the question posed. The DM is the one who has every tool at his or her disposal to carefully weave a balance. There is a quick fix for balance issues if the players trust the DM and the DM doesn’t abuse that trust (the same trust described in the first few pages of the DMG, either printing). That quick-fix is tailoring.

Most Dungeon Masters tailor freely. They notice something they want changed, and they change it if it can be done seamlessly or quickly. Changing scenarios based on balance doesn’t need to be regarded as vengeance against the players or some unlawful act by the DM. To maintain balance, it’s often important to tailor encounters or scenarios.
For pure example, the Wizards of the Coast publication Tome and Blood, a certain prestige class rewards its practitioners with spontaneous arcane spellcasting – a feature only given to sorcerers typically. Should a wizard attain this ability, he would enjoy benefits from both classes while only “paying” for one.

The context for balance is within the class’s scenario itself. The class is one that belongs to an order of wizards, with moderate to rigid codes of conduct. This means the DM shouldn’t have any problem imposing heavy limitations on the player. Fees, chores, quests, time spent in the campus of the guild, and any number of other limitations could be imposed on that PC to balance their superb abilities. These aren’t closely detailed or mandated (except fees) by the book at all, but it is implied everywhere in D&D that the DM should take measures in order to ensure balance. In this example, there are almost too many things the DM could decide in order to hinder a player back into his place, rather than let him ride the benefits only.

This method also spares the player an apparent lack of something. The DM didn’t take away skill points or spells per day, which would seem like a direct hindrance and probably discourage the player for pursuing a goal of theirs. It’s usually less discouraging when the balance tailoring takes place behind the scenes, and in scenarios more than numbers.

What is balance? The condition by which no one entity has substantial power more than another. Why is balance? Because fundamentally, D&D operates on a challenge system that requires balance to gauge rewards, and to ensure control by the person assigned to maintain it. How is balance? The DM should tailor what he or she judges to be imbalanced into balance by changing scenarios and things the players can’t read in a book, in order to not discourage them as easily.

I realize that was a bit rambly – hopefully someone made sense of it and it brought new light to some old debates or feelings about D&D.
#2
zombiegleemax
Sep 14, 2003 6:50:07 Balance is a myth, pure and simple. The main reason for this is that not all games are the same and if you only have one balance attribute, the differences quite simply can not be taken account of.

On the other hand, it is a very useful tool for inexperienced DMs to be told what sort of encounters should be a fair match for the party at a certain level. The more experienced you get, the better at knowing what is balanced you get due to different circumstances (take monsters like the Doppelganger- not much of a threat in open battle but can be near impossible to stop as foes in a social setting).

D&D's supposed balance is a very useful tool when starting, but should be taken with a pinch of salt.
#3
zombiegleemax
Sep 21, 2003 3:47:52 I find that balance built into a system is unnecessary.

Let the Player (and by extension the DM) bring their own balance into it. Is a battle too hard for the players? Let them run away. A certain puzzle or trap too tough? Let them figure a way around it.

I simply find that people are too preoccupied with balance most of the time. Just have fun in the game.

Now on the other hand if you have power gamers and munchkins then a little balance doesn't hurt. . .
#4
zombiegleemax
Sep 21, 2003 4:45:12 The only form of balance that matters is an equal sharing out of the fun and the glory.

I personally do not care if my character is weaker than another, as long as we get an equal share of the fun and the glory.

However:

Unless the DM takes into account differences in characters, the fun and glory *will* go to the character most suited to a given situation. Which, in most D&D games, means combat. In which case, it is very likely that a character who has better stats than another will hog an unfair share of the fun and glory.

Players used to playing under such a DM will naturally become concerned when another PC is more powerful than they are.

So, to promote party balance, a DM must either:

Make sure all PCs are on a roughly equivalent level of power for the situations that will make up most of his game.

OR

Make sure that the situations that occur in his game are varied enough to spread the fun and glory equally amongst characters who are not as powerful as others in certain situations.

If the DM is doing the latter, then disparities in stats and perceived disparities between the power of certain classes are totally irrelevant.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 03, 2003 19:30:20	Balance in Dungeons and Dragons is more narrowly defined than its real-life term. In general, balance refers to a group or sample of people, out of whom no single one possesses a substantial amount of power more than the others. A king, for example, is not “balanced” with a peasant because he has relatively enormous wealth, manpower and political standing, and the peasant has some livestock. According to the Dungeon Master’s Guide, and various other passages from Wizards of the Coast publications, balance in the core (and later perhaps prestige) classes is literally a goal to reach for both publishers of d20 material, and the dungeon master who runs the game. Put simply, balance is something that most gamers would like to see achieved in the game. Balance ensures that no player feels cheated or undone by their choices they made in character creation. Balance ensures the DM can effectively set up a challenging and rewarding adventure, even before spending long times with a specific group of PCs. Balance reduces the need for players to focus on maximizing their combat effectiveness, so they can focus more on the game and events at hand. All things being equal, balance means no one person ever feels an unfair disadvantage weighted on their character. But all things aren’t equal. Conditions change, scenarios depend on decisions, and sooner or later one will feel an unbalance. While D&D compensates by ad hoc experience charts, compensation doesn’t change the fact that for that conflict, one’s character seemed like a waste of space. In fact, it might seem wrong for one to accept even more reward for performing less effectively than his allies. So, why does D&D make a goal of balance when it’s mathematically implausible? Because D&D has always rewarded based on challenge codes of foes. That means usually a player character advances by killing a monster. Early on, it was realized that killing a foe that could barely scratch the player character should not be rewarded as much as a more powerful foe’s defeat. So due to the way D&D was originally set up for rewards, balance became an essential element that has since spread to almost every facet of the rules. Classes aim to stay in balance with one another, monsters are graded to stay in balance to the classes, and spells are urged to stay in certain levels as to not be obtained too easily or hardly, which would upset the balance. In one important sense, D&D is balanced-based because of the way rewarding works. If a DM decides to base rewards on something other than challenging foes, balance becomes that much less important. From a rewarding point of view, a wizard abusing his spells to become powerful is relatively useless if the DM only rewards for roleplaying. The other major “why” of balance is to ensure a safe setting for a DM to run. For example, if a player became perversely overpowered by an abuse of loopholes in the rules, he or she could greatly disturb the setting the DM carefully set up. That doesn’t sound too bad for the player, but it is to the DM who needs a comfortably familiar setting in order to run a thorough game. While usually rare, this scenario happens enough to urge D&D enthusiasts to find balance beforehand. Now that the “what,” and “why” of balance have been explained, the application is vital. How does a group achieve balance? I’d like to say they don’t. If personal feelings weren’t left aside, I would write that nothing will ever be entirely balanced. Scenarios all change, and at one point I would advocate until the end of time that any class could excel in some situation better than another. But there is an answer to the question posed. The DM is the one who has every tool at his or her disposal to carefully weave a balance. There is a quick fix for balance issues if the players trust the DM and the DM doesn’t abuse that trust (the same trust described in the first few pages of the DMG, either printing). That quick-fix is tailoring. Most Dungeon Masters tailor freely. They notice something they want changed, and they change it if it can be done seamlessly or quickly. Changing scenarios based on balance doesn’t need to be regarded as vengeance against the players or some unlawful act by the DM. To maintain balance, it’s often important to tailor encounters or scenarios. For pure example, the Wizards of the Coast publication Tome and Blood, a certain prestige class rewards its practitioners with spontaneous arcane spellcasting – a feature only given to sorcerers typically. Should a wizard attain this ability, he would enjoy benefits from both classes while only “paying” for one. The context for balance is within the class’s scenario itself. The class is one that belongs to an order of wizards, with moderate to rigid codes of conduct. This means the DM shouldn’t have any problem imposing heavy limitations on the player. Fees, chores, quests, time spent in the campus of the guild, and any number of other limitations could be imposed on that PC to balance their superb abilities. These aren’t closely detailed or mandated (except fees) by the book at all, but it is implied everywhere in D&D that the DM should take measures in order to ensure balance. In this example, there are almost too many things the DM could decide in order to hinder a player back into his place, rather than let him ride the benefits only. This method also spares the player an apparent lack of something. The DM didn’t take away skill points or spells per day, which would seem like a direct hindrance and probably discourage the player for pursuing a goal of theirs. It’s usually less discouraging when the balance tailoring takes place behind the scenes, and in scenarios more than numbers. What is balance? The condition by which no one entity has substantial power more than another. Why is balance? Because fundamentally, D&D operates on a challenge system that requires balance to gauge rewards, and to ensure control by the person assigned to maintain it. How is balance? The DM should tailor what he or she judges to be imbalanced into balance by changing scenarios and things the players can’t read in a book, in order to not discourage them as easily. I realize that was a bit rambly – hopefully someone made sense of it and it brought new light to some old debates or feelings about D&D.
#2 zombiegleemax Sep 14, 2003 6:50:07	Balance is a myth, pure and simple. The main reason for this is that not all games are the same and if you only have one balance attribute, the differences quite simply can not be taken account of. On the other hand, it is a very useful tool for inexperienced DMs to be told what sort of encounters should be a fair match for the party at a certain level. The more experienced you get, the better at knowing what is balanced you get due to different circumstances (take monsters like the Doppelganger- not much of a threat in open battle but can be near impossible to stop as foes in a social setting). D&D's supposed balance is a very useful tool when starting, but should be taken with a pinch of salt.
#3 zombiegleemax Sep 21, 2003 3:47:52	I find that balance built into a system is unnecessary. Let the Player (and by extension the DM) bring their own balance into it. Is a battle too hard for the players? Let them run away. A certain puzzle or trap too tough? Let them figure a way around it. I simply find that people are too preoccupied with balance most of the time. Just have fun in the game. Now on the other hand if you have power gamers and munchkins then a little balance doesn't hurt. . .
#4 zombiegleemax Sep 21, 2003 4:45:12	The only form of balance that matters is an equal sharing out of the fun and the glory. I personally do not care if my character is weaker than another, as long as we get an equal share of the fun and the glory. However: Unless the DM takes into account differences in characters, the fun and glory will go to the character most suited to a given situation. Which, in most D&D games, means combat. In which case, it is very likely that a character who has better stats than another will hog an unfair share of the fun and glory. Players used to playing under such a DM will naturally become concerned when another PC is more powerful than they are. So, to promote party balance, a DM must either: Make sure all PCs are on a roughly equivalent level of power for the situations that will make up most of his game. OR Make sure that the situations that occur in his game are varied enough to spread the fun and glory equally amongst characters who are not as powerful as others in certain situations. If the DM is doing the latter, then disparities in stats and perceived disparities between the power of certain classes are totally irrelevant.