Hey there,

I guess here's my take on it. Balance isn't bad in and of itself, and imbalance isn't a guarantee for a good time. But for me, too much balance becomes staid, predictable. What's the difference between a 1st edition fighter and a 3rd or 4th edition fighter? The 1st edition knows how to run. Taken to the extreme, excessive care to game balance can result in encounters winding down in the same way, can lead to a certain amount of expectancy that things will be a certain way for players. You shouldn't know if you can take whatever's behind that next door in the dungeon. You shouldn't know that your encounter will likely fall within a set range. But neither should you be feeling every fight and foray is an exercise in hopelessness.

Now I'm not saying that having 3 1st-level characters in a row eaten by a Black Dragon within 5 minutes is a blast, either. But many old schoolers who do not bow at the altar of game balance maintain an idea that things tend to even themselves out in the end. I don't insist that the game be balanced, so long as the gaming group is working, if that makes sense.

Game balance is also generally enforced through more rules, which is at odds with the idea of "making rulings instead of rules". In some ways, its a bit more organic of an undertaking.

Now, of course, with this being the internet, examples on both sides (old school vs. the new hotness) can be carried to extremes. But all characters are not created equal, they don't need to stay in lockstep during play, and a GM doesn't need to spend excessive time ensuring everything lines up "just so".

Jerks in a balanced game will try to game the rules to mess things up. In a one that doesn't care so much about balance, they argue rulings. Good GMs don't put up for long with either.

In the end, I think Matt Finch addresses some of the points here better than I ever could:

http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

...but its just another style of gaming folks enjoy. I hope that makes a little sense. :)

The problem with "a 1st edition fighter knows when to run" is that most PCs -can't- run.

First, they usually have a hard time telling what they can take on and what they can't, usually due to miscommunication ("-large- means 10 feet wide, not 30 feet!") or overconfidence ("Yeah, I think we can take on this dragon") and often don't realize they're in over their heads until they're already thick into the combat. (That's why 3E splatbooks gave Sense Motive the ability to sense difficulty, in my opinion.)

Second, monsters are usually much more mobile than the PCs. The PCs are weighed down with armor & encumbrance, while the monsters are more like foaming hounds that can cross an archer's range within 2 rounds. In any scenario where the monsters move just as fast as the slowest PC, retreat is a death sentence unless someone sacrifices themselves, and that isn't acceptable.

Third, PCs usually refuse to retreat if it means leaving another PC to their death. This can be a problem when they only think they're in trouble after an ally goes down. Even if just 1-2 people insist on staying behind to risk certain death to retrieve their death, the others will reluctantly stay rather than lose over half the party.

"Run" is a simplification, perhaps. You choose your battles, know when to make a fighting retreat, bargain, cajole, delay, hinder, and do your research when applicable. Oh, PCs can run, alright, but knowing *when* or avoiding the need to in the first place is something else entirely. To a larger point, knowing that it *may* happen because each encounter isn't perfectly geared towards the party handling it is more towards what I was saying. There's the idea of randomness, of uncertainty, and of the unknown. I'm not anti-game balance in the extreme, but I and my players don't sweat it when they run into something that some would consider over their head. They adapt, overcome, avoid, or yes, sometimes go down fighting or escape to fight another day.

So, yeah, it *can* be fun. :) Maybe not for everyone, but not everything in RPGs is.

No problem! Thanks for bringing up the topic--I linked back to this on my blog, and I'm curious to see what folks have to say. I suspect at heart, this isn't an extremist issue to most people, but more of one that just needs a little clarification.

And I'm totally down with the whole "here there be dragons" bit. :)

Game balance is generally a good thing. Anyone who played a fighter past, oh, third or fifth level in 1e or 2e can tell you why. Or anyone who *didn't* play a wizard past those levels.

The problem comes when people start assuming that game balance means that everything the players encounter has to be tailored exactly to them. It doesn't. If the characters know that a great wyrm lives in a certain mountain, and the players decide to go explore that mountain, chances are they encounter the great wyrm, whether they're first level or 100th. And if they don't encounter it, there's got to be some in-game reason for it, whether they're first level or 100th.

For some reason, a lot of people who are perfectly willing to establish such things in 1e somehow get the impression that they can't do so in 3e or 4e.

FWIW, I don't think game balance is something that's endemic to any one edition or game (though some games, such as Rifts, clearly make less of a big deal of it). I do think that in general the *importance* of game balance is certainly afforded more respect by players and prevailing wisdom of latter editions compared to former.

I have never favored balance as a good solution to ensuring fun. It's all about the conflicts. Every good story is. Even the Interactive ones.

Consider the classic structure of a three act play, In act one the participants are introduced to each other, and the dramatic incident that sets the story into motion is introduced. This is the main problem the PC's face, be it a villain, an Inner battle of good or evil, or a simple battle or test of the PC's indomitable and/or collective will.

Act two introduces the complication. The problem that has already been setup in Act I becomes much more dangerous and difficult. The heroes must then try to solve this bigger more complicated problem while the adversaries makes moves to defeat them. Note here that the adversaries are not standing around waiting to die at the hands of the PC's, they are taking active steps to unbalance the players in order to achieve a their goals (sometimes victory and the death of the players is that goal...)

Act three is simply the resolution of the problem, most often defined in RPG's as the BBG fight or the Big Bad Guy Fight.

Some stories will end on a downbeat where the hero learns a lesson, but dies and/or is defeated. Note the part where the heroes learn a lesson here...

Balanced, or not, every encounter in an RPG should do two things. First it should advance the story... the simple test being if an encounter is removed, does it leave a hole in the plot or story arc?

Second, the encounter should advance the character (i.e player) relationships.

Successfully craft this style into your game, and the issue of play balance becomes irrelevant, as it rightfully should be and tension, drama, and fun return to the center stage as the players seek to resolve the conflicts inherent in your fantasy world.

Game balance doesn't ensure fun. In fact, it often makes things a bit too regular and predictable, thus inhibiting fun.

That said, game balance does protect against a very, very important factor that tends to inhibit fun even more for many people: a sense of being treated unfairly.

Here in Brazil people generally think that if you care about 'game balance' and 'rules that work', you´re a powergamer. If you want to play 'the real RPG', you have to think about other things and never care if spellcasters are broken or that rule doesn´t make sense. "Because I don´t care about rules, I care about stories. If you care about rules you are a powergamer and that is bad."
Dear writer, should I punch this kind of people?

I see a lot of discussions on the interwebs about this sort of thing, and most of them seem to leave out what is, IMHO, the most crucial factor: GM style. I believe that this, not the edition of the game, is ultimately what dictates whether encounters should be balanced or not.

As a GM/DM, I've always been a huge proponent of unbalanced encounters. I like the sense of uncertainty that comes with each encounter, and I believe it adds to my players' enjoyment of the game. But that's my style, and making sure my players have a fun, challenging game is what keeps me going. I never use unbalanced encounters to simply kill PC's, or to force the players to yield to my "story."

On the other hand, I've known GM's whose style is more antagonistic toward the player characters, or at the very least ambivalent toward their players' experiences. These GM's either get off by "beating" the players and/or their chaarcters, or by using them as fodder to tell their own story. In situations such as these, the GM's use encounters as tools to further their own ends, not to foster enjoyable gameplay - and game balance is, in my opinion, an absolute must.

I think a lot of the arguments for or against game balance depend on a gamer's point of view, and which of the above scenarios they've experienced. I know players who've had bad experiences with lousy GM's (in many different games, not just versions of D&D) who say they won't play that game again. I don't think they realize that it wasn't the game's fault - the only flaw with the game was that its rules were incapable of protecting the player and his character from a bad GM.

The whole game balance argument suffers from similar biases.

I don't believe that longevity/long-term success and unbalanced play are mutually exclusive. I can count the number of PC's I've killed in my games (over almost three decades GM'ing) on two hands. I decided early on that I would have one simple rule regarding PC death: I will only kill a PC for one of two reasons: a) gross player stupidity, or b) voluntary self-sacrifice.

As a result, players who know me know to expect me to challenge them, but to be fair. As long as they use their minds at least as often as they use their sword arms, they should do well. I've run many PC's up to mid levels using this method of play, but the games have still always been challenging. All I expect out of my players is that they sometimes think outside the box, and generally they rise to the challenge.

I've found that the key is to be open to the players' thoughts and be a flexible GM. When the players want to do something creative or gutsy, use it in their favor. Let them be the heroes - they're not playing the game, after all, to be your whipping boy. They're playing to escape from reality. They want a challenge, and it's more rewarding when it's a tough challenge and they still manage to overcome it. When they openly discuss what sort of horrific thing they may be facing next, don't be afraid to alter your game on the fly and use their fears against them if you think it will give them more enjoyment. That's how I run my games, and I've received no complaints thus far, despite running long campaigns with long-lived characters.

As to there still being antagonistic GM's around, I know for a fact there are. Two of my core gamers also game with one or two other groups, and I often have to hear about how the GM forced them to act as bystanders in his/her story, or purposely attempted to foil them when they didn't act in a manner he'd expected. I think that these sorts of GM's will exist as long as there are games to be played, regardless of how hard game designers try to create rules to curb such behavior.

These are my experiences, of course, so I don't expect they would be the same for everybody else.