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.

Excellent points, fellas.

@ Zachary:

I see what you're saying, especially after reading your second comment at Mike. As you point out, it's easy to bring up the extreme examples, point at them, and say "see?" and I think we're all talking about more or less the same thing when it comes to game balance here.

I guess I should have pointed out that, in my perfect world, even the game balance is kept in balance (some encounters are harder than others, for instance--I certainly don't want to advocate boredom as a favoured game style), and I've heard a few times that the "DM-as-enabler" encouraged in the most recent editions is too soft. Well, I can say from experience that you can generally keep the balance and still challenge the PCs without crushing them. I'm also a big fan of saying "there be dragons/giants/intelligent hive-minded primordial plants here" and daring the PCs at any level to go there. There's no need to coddle anyone.

In short, I think I agree.

@ Mike:

You're not wrong; it's almost a sure thing, particularly at low levels, that the DM's critters are going to have the edge in mobility and agility nearly every time. That's definitely something to keep in mind when you plan encounters.

Some good advice I got from a friend is to build in at least two ways for every encounter to be "defeated," whenever possible. Bribery, begging, escape, negotiation, intimidation, bluffing, and beating the crap out of the enemy are all good choices, and I think that regardless of how balanced you prefer your game, players and DMs alike appreciate the ingenuity that comes with saying "Okay. Now what?"

Thanks for the comments, guys.

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.

Good insights, guys.

Scott, yes, totally. This is the core of my issue with those fighting the "edition war." I certainly have a preference for 3X over the other editions, but only because I prefer a granular game (as long as it's still running smoothly forward at all times). I've never understood the idea that you can't create just because rules exist. If anything, I think it encourages house-ruling by giving you a framework to build on.

Zachary, agreed. My experience isn't exhaustive, but this has been true with every gaming experience I've had to date.

Good advice, Gamedaddy, although I'm not sure I agree. If your bottom line is fun, there's no reason you couldn't have a fun encounter that neither advances the plot nor develops character relationships. In tabletop roleplaying, at least. (If we're talking scrtipwriting, well, then I couldn't agree more.) :)

Having said that, I've noticed that my ongoing campaign storylines tend to lag at times, and I'm willing to bet this could be improved with your advice. Strictly speaking, about 25% of the encounters I craft for my players are the __ encounters for them to be having, with the remainder being encounters that make sense for the setting, are challenging, and are fun (I hope).

I will be DMing a new game quite soon, and I will take your advice to heart and see where that leads.

Thanks again, all. Great discussion (and if you have anything more to add, please don't hesitate).

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?

Hey Kimble,

I'm not sure if beatings are in order, but I disagree with what I *think* is the spirit behind those comments, which sound elitist and contradictory to what I believe is the spirit of tabletop roleplaying.

Powergaming is just a game style, as is deep-immersion storytelling, or any mixture in-between that most games fall into. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you can have fun with your style of game without disrupting the fun for the others sharing your table, then anything goes.

Thanks for stopping by!