Do we need/want game balance?

[Finarvyn]

I caught this quote in the M&M thread on Hit Dice Observation and thought it would be great fodder for discussion:

jamesm said:

I think this is a clear case where we can see how OD&D developed through play. From the first time Magic-Users were introduced in M&M, there is the assertion that they are potentially the most powerful class in the game and thus it's no surprise that, over time, strictures would evolve to hem them in and balance them better against other classes. The d4 HD from Greyhawk is the most enduring example of this.

In the Lord of the Rings we have an adventuring party of nine. Some are hobbits and others are Wizards. Tolkien didn't try to make all of his characters equal, and perhaps as gamers we shouldn't either.

Frodo has a purpose to the adventure which is not directly measured in hit points and attack bonuses. Does that make him less of a character to play? Certainly if the campaign is a huge battle-game where characters simply move through a dungeon fighting monster after monster, Frodo wouldn't be as fun to play as Gandalf. But what about a city adventure where Frodo's thief skills can be brought into the game?

Or, do we take the approach that Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli are the PCs while the hobbits are comic-relief NPCs only added to keep the adventure interesting? (Or maybe Gandalf is that mysterious NPC guide?)

I'm not sure I have the answer, because a part of me likes the notion that OD&D might be designed with game balance in mind, but part of me realizes that this goal is impossible and situation dependent.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

[wulfgar]

Are pc's going to be perfectly balanced? No. If that was the intent there wouldn't be rolls for ability scores or hit points, and there would only be one class- "adventurer" who could do everything.

Still, it is not fun to have one character who is superman and everyone else is just along for the ride. This is accomplished in 2 main ways, more by the individual DM than by the rules set, although I think the OD&D rules do help with the latter.

1. The DM must give the different pcs (really the different players) chances to shine. If you allow thieves as a class, but then never put any traps, sheer walls, or pockets to pick in your dungeons you're shortchanging that player. If you never have any undead your clerics are missing out on an important ability. Now a DM doesn't have to include everything in every adventure but over a campaign there should be opportunites for each player to "do their thing".

2. No matter how great your ability scores, weapons, spells, etc- a low level OD&D character is NOT invincible. In fact, they are very vulnerable. Since even the strongest character is in reality very weak, the party must work together in order to survive. Failure to learn that lesson will result in death- early and often.

Teamwork is an essential part of OD&D so as far as I'm concerned it's balanced enough.

[calithena]

No, we don't need or want it. I can't write about this subject temperately right now though, so maybe another time.

[jrients]

My latest efforts do not take balance between character types into consideration. Elves and humans are clearly superior to dwarves and halflings, though the latter definitely have their uses. Clerics clearly get the shaft compared to the fighters and magic-users under my house rules, yet remain the only class that can cast healing spells and turn undead. I have no interest in fretting away trying to balance classes or races.

[James Maliszewski]

My own feeling is this: game balance is a chimera -- almost impossible to find even if you look very hard and almost certainly monstrous if made the guiding principle behind either a game design or game play.

That said, game balance is something that many players seek out and hold up as an ideal. They desperately want to see the game as balanced and they want to feel as if they have an equal chance at success to any other player. And I think it's very important for the referee to both be aware of this want, however chimerical, and make an effort to take it into account in ways that neither do violence to the game or campaign nor simply dismiss the player's wish out of hand.

Game balance is thus a "noble lie" referees must tell their players as part of the social contract between them. Players can smell arbitrariness, high-handedness, and favoritism from miles away. That's why it's vital IMO to strive for the appearance of balance in a game, even if the gross number-crunching would reveal it to be an illusion. I do not advocate balance of this kind or see it as serving anyone's long term interests. However, I am simply not willing to say that the eternal quest for balance is somehow unreasonable or the first steps on the road to perdition. The very fact that even OD&D evolved to take these concerns into account suggests to me otherwise.

[evreaux]

There should be a rough parity between the toughness of an encounter--be it monster, trap, or puzzle/riddle--and the level of the dungeon on which it's found; similarly, there should be some parity between the toughness of an encounter and the treasure found as a result of overcoming it. Otherwise, it's unnecessarily difficult for players to make intelligent decisions about how to weigh risk vs. reward.

That is all.

[badger2305]

jamesm said:

My own feeling is this: game balance is a chimera -- almost impossible to find even if you look very hard and almost certainly monstrous if made the guiding principle behind either a game design or game play.

That said, game balance is something that many players seek out and hold up as an ideal. They desperately want to see the game as balanced and they want to feel as if they have an equal chance at success to any other player. And I think it's very important for the referee to both be aware of this want, however chimerical, and make an effort to take it into account in ways that neither do violence to the game or campaign nor simply dismiss the player's wish out of hand.

Game balance is thus a "noble lie" referees must tell their players as part of the social contract between them. Players can smell arbitrariness, high-handedness, and favoritism from miles away. That's why it's vital IMO to strive for the appearance of balance in a game, even if the gross number-crunching would reveal it to be an illusion. I do not advocate balance of this kind or see it as serving anyone's long term interests. However, I am simply not willing to say that the eternal quest for balance is somehow unreasonable or the first steps on the road to perdition. The very fact that even OD&D evolved to take these concerns into account suggests to me otherwise.

Have another exalt for this. Well said!

[badger2305]

evreaux said:

There should be a rough parity between the toughness of an encounter--be it monster, trap, or puzzle/riddle--and the level of the dungeon on which it's found; similarly, there should be some parity between the toughness of an encounter and the treasure found as a result of overcoming it. Otherwise, it's unnecessarily difficult for players to make intelligent decisions about how to weigh risk vs. reward.

That is all.

I could not disagree more. The purpose of occasionally very easy or very difficult encounters can sometimes be to teach the players something - that life is uncertain, and they might not always be able to predict things. Or that there's value in just running the f*** away, instead of getting killed. Or that good things do happen, just because of chance. If you keep things in a lockstep level of risk=level of reward, why you might as well use Challenge Ratings and play D&D 3.14159Ed.

Philosophically, there's value in retaining some randomness in this sort of thing. I agree that you can't have everything random (this leads to mature red dragons in 10' x 10' rooms and other madness), but there's nothing wrong with mixing things up from time to time.

[makofan]

In OD&D, I don't worry about game balance. Running and hiding and praying are all good options. I give my players hints as to whether the encounter is balanced or not. New players, though, need to learn my style so it could be deadly at first.

[evreaux]

badger2305 said:

The purpose of occasionally very easy or very difficult encounters can sometimes be to teach the players something - that life is uncertain, and they might not always be able to predict things. Or that there's value in just running the f*** away, instead of getting killed. Or that good things do happen, just because of chance. If you keep things in a lockstep level of risk=level of reward, why you might as well use Challenge Ratings and play D&D 3.14159Ed.

Dude. With all due respect, you are WAY overstating my point. I'm not arguing for lockstep equivalences. I have plenty of "too tough for the party" and "very easy for the party" encounters throughout my dungeon, for just the reasons you mention--I think my posting on this topic over the last few years establishes that nicely.

"Rough parity," the phrase I used, means not populating the first level of your dungeon with adult red dragons guarding 100cp each. It means not having an artifact guarded by a single giant rat on level 4.

If there is no discernible relationship between level of the dungeon and toughness of the encounter, your players will have absolutely no way to make meaningful choices about when/where they can test their abilities with sterner challenges in order to gain richer rewards. Nor will they be able to judge when it's time to move on because the fights have gotten too easy and the treasure too light. Some recognizable dynamic for gauging this sort of thing is absolutely crucial to the risk/reward elements in a good dungeon.

[ffilz]

James - excellent point on the chimera of game balance. The simplest test is that if no one plays a particular character type, and you think players should play that character type, then something's wrong. It might just be that no one is psyched, but if players have tried the character type and moved on, it's more likely the character type gives less play satisfaction due to "imbalance."

Everaux - absolutely! It has been the discussion of mega-dungeons which has convinced me that D&D without a mega-dungeon (where the deeper you go, the more challenging the encounters and the bigger the treasures) is not living up to it's full potential.

Looking back at my high school and college D&D campaigns, I realize that I removed this critical element of player choice of risk vs. reward. By chosing a module for 6th-8th level characters for my group of 7thish level PCs, I am making that choice of risk for the players. When I ran a college friend's homebrew that also had level gain, I again removed this player choice since I always strived to give the players challenging encounters. Though at least that system allowed PCs to buy almost any magic item they could afford, which gave the players something to strategize with.

3.X with it's APL/CR/EL system and all the suggestions that go with it have rendered long term strategic play almost meaningless, except for the character builds, which is why we see discussion about 3.X dominated by character builds and not the stories of play.

Frank

[badger2305]

evreaux said:

Dude. With all due respect, you are WAY overstating my point. I'm not arguing for lockstep equivalences. I have plenty of "too tough for the party" and "very easy for the party" encounters throughout my dungeon, for just the reasons you mention--I think my posting on this topic over the last few years establishes that nicely.

Please accept my sincere apologies. Did not mean to offend, at all. But I must admit, I'm a relative newcomer to some of these discussions, so I'm not aware of many of your prior posts. My ignorance in this regard is my bane.

"Rough parity," the phrase I used, means not populating the first level of your dungeon with adult red dragons guarding 100cp each. It means not having an artifact guarded by a single giant rat on level 4.

I can go along with that quite easily. I probably should have asked, "what do YOU mean by 'rough' parity?" as that phrase is not immediately clear to me - I've seen it mean many different things to many different refs.

If there is no discernible relationship between level of the dungeon and toughness of the encounter, your players will have absolutely no way to make meaningful choices about when/where they can test their abilities with sterner challenges in order to gain richer rewards. Nor will they be able to judge when it's time to move on because the fights have gotten too easy and the treasure too light. Some recognizable dynamic for gauging this sort of thing is absolutely crucial to the risk/reward elements in a good dungeon.

Of course. But at the same time, that scale and gradient is going to vary from ref to ref. I've been in campaigns where getting double digits in gold was rare and we were gloriously happy. I've also been in games where there was treasure and magic practically hanging off the walls. Both were fun, but not at all the same game.

[korgoth]

admin said:

I caught this quote in the M&M thread on Hit Dice Observation and thought it would be great fodder for discussion:

jamesm said:

I think this is a clear case where we can see how OD&D developed through play. From the first time Magic-Users were introduced in M&M, there is the assertion that they are potentially the most powerful class in the game and thus it's no surprise that, over time, strictures would evolve to hem them in and balance them better against other classes. The d4 HD from Greyhawk is the most enduring example of this.

In the Lord of the Rings we have an adventuring party of nine. Some are hobbits and others are Wizards. Tolkien didn't try to make all of his characters equal, and perhaps as gamers we shouldn't either.

Frodo has a purpose to the adventure which is not directly measured in hit points and attack bonuses. Does that make him less of a character to play? Certainly if the campaign is a huge battle-game where characters simply move through a dungeon fighting monster after monster, Frodo wouldn't be as fun to play as Gandalf. But what about a city adventure where Frodo's thief skills can be brought into the game?

Or, do we take the approach that Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli are the PCs while the hobbits are comic-relief NPCs only added to keep the adventure interesting? (Or maybe Gandalf is that mysterious NPC guide?)

I'm not sure I have the answer, because a part of me likes the notion that OD&D might be designed with game balance in mind, but part of me realizes that this goal is impossible and situation dependent.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

I think LoTR is actually the perfect counter-example to an appeal for balance, because even in that party (dramatically mixed in terms of power), every character got a chance to shine. Two of the weakest characters in the group, Frodo and Sam, actually display the most heroism and in fact end up saving the world. The most powerful character, Gandalf, gets killed. Even Merry and Pippin get to be reasonably cool at points.

Now, this is partly due to a different pace and structure of events than one would find in a typical D&D foray into the underworld. As was mentioned, in a series of fights, obviously those with the most prowess will continually shine whereas those relatively more weak in a pitched battle will continually be shown up as second-stringers at best (Bingo, Bungo and Bozo the halflings all work together to fell a single orc through the course of the battle, whereas mighty Arragant kills like twenty of them all by himself). But if the game is filled with exploration, puzzles, logistical decisions, role playing, etc., then the difference in "power level" (and we're almost always talking about combat power here) should be less significant.

In the end, I don't think abstract numerical balance is that meaningful. I agree with the points that evreaux raised vis a vis having an intelligible encounter structure such that the PCs can learn to make relatively better or worse strategic decisions. True balance among characters is a different matter, though, for the reasons already mentioned. In the "MegaNecropolis", the Somnomancer ("I took Sleep... and Sleep!") is going to suck out, but the Cleric is going to look like a rock star, etc.

As a personal anecdote, during a somewhat extended visitation I once made a cameo appearance in a game where I took over the halfling porter (mule-handler, bulter, whatever). He was obviously quite underpowered compared to the rest of the group. But he was a blast to play, particularly in that I decided to make him venal to the point of exaggeration: drunken, back-talking, lazy, larcenous, etc. This was really fun right up until the last session, which was a hackfest. I think this highlights issue: imbalance is really only an issue in combat... and the more combat there is, the more of an issue it becomes.

[evreaux]

badger2305 said:

Please accept my sincere apologies. Did not mean to offend, at all. But I must admit, I'm a relative newcomer to some of these discussions, so I'm not aware of many of your prior posts. My ignorance in this regard is my bane.

No worries at all, as it really isn't that big a deal and I didn't mean to make you feel you needed to apologize. If I had gotten here quicker, I would have edited out that bit about my prior posts. It's unreasonable (and perhaps egotistical :blush:) to assume members of this discussion have read my posts elsewhere, and it sounded kind of obnoxious in retrospect. Dungeon design has just been a common topic among several members of the old school community for a while, and I was surprised to be challenged on something I see as quite fundamental to a shared understanding of the genre.

But at the same time, that scale and gradient is going to vary from ref to ref.

Absolutely.

[evreaux]

ffilz said:

By chosing a module for 6th-8th level characters for my group of 7thish level PCs, I am making that choice of risk for the players.

Interestingly, I have recently been thinking the same thing. Of course, the DM can always have multiple modules available and let players choose among them so as not to railroad, but in general I prefer the more basic choice offered by the leveled dungeon. Really, it's just that I've become such a self-righteous born-again dungeon guy that I don't want to run modules any more unless I have to. ;-)

(End of threadjack, Fin.)

On topic, I've never been concerned about balance among classes. The different abilities and power curves of the PCs are part of the game, and tailored divvying of magic items in the party can help rectify a whole lot of "imbalance." I trust the players to equal things out more or less among themselves.

[ffilz]

One thing I have considered doing is taking modules and plugging them into the appropriate dungeon level. Of course this would only work with very dungeon-like modules without an overdose of meta-plot. I guess wilderness modules might be able to be fit in by making a big cave, or even an alternate plane accessed by a gate (which would then give the players a huge heads up that they've left the normal mega-dungeon environment).

I'm not too worried about interclass balance so long as players feel like it's worth playing at least the three core classes (fighter, magic user, and cleric).

Frank

[badger2305]

ffilz said:

It has been the discussion of mega-dungeons which has convinced me that D&D without a mega-dungeon (where the deeper you go, the more challenging the encounters and the bigger the treasures) is not living up to it's full potential.

But it does not have to be that way. Nope. Not at all. You could, for example, make a side level that's much easier or much tougher. Or you could make a level that is quite tough, with levels beneath it that are easier, but harder to get to. While the "lower=tougher" school is a starting point, you can create pretty much whatever you want. If you don't select the "lower=tougher" method, you need to replace it with some other paradigm so your players will be able to make reasonable choices.

A bit of an illustrative aside: I recall quite distinctly when a ref introduced the dungeon that went UP. We entered it through a door at the bottom of a steep mountainside, and found out that all the stairways went up. Threw everybody for a loop because we were all firmly in the "lower=tougher=more treasure" mindset. But here, the bottom level was relatively easy, but as we went up, things got more difficult - but did not necessarily stay that way. We treated pretty much every level as if it were moderately tough, until we had some sense of what was there. A far more challenging, yet rewarding, adventure, precisely because there was some mystery to what we were finding.

And none of this is to say that "lower=tougher" is somehow wrong. I'm just pointing out that there's more than one way of doing this, and the beauty of OD&D is that you can try them all out, if you want to.

[badger2305]

ffilz said:

Looking back at my high school and college D&D campaigns, I realize that I removed this critical element of player choice of risk vs. reward. By chosing a module for 6th-8th level characters for my group of 7thish level PCs, I am making that choice of risk for the players. When I ran a college friend's homebrew that also had level gain, I again removed this player choice since I always strived to give the players challenging encounters.

Yes. Exactly.

I recall quite distinctly when a referee of my acquaintance started re-stocking his dungeon very sparingly and lightly, after we'd been through about five or six levels (which seemed to be most of it). We quickly gathered the impression that we had worked through the dungeon (though some of us were convinced there were side or sub-levels yet to be explored). The reason why he did this was to get us to explore some of the wilderness - and to find the next dungeon he had created, which he was more interested in running.

As a ref, if you always match things to where the characters are at, you are setting up guide rails of a sort for the players. If you let them decide what they want to take on, they might find it's easy or they might bloody their noses. But letting them decide can be more challenging and rewarding for them, than expecting to have that done for them.

[dwayanu]

My first thought is:

There seems to me a built-in combat emphasis in D&D. A player with a first-level character is as a rule ill-advised to join an expedition otherwise made up of Lords, Wizards and Patriarchs. It's too likely (relative to facing low-level perils) that the first hit from a monster / trap / spell shall end his career. Of course, most monsters are not so bad if the damage ratings from the supplements are not in use and 1d6 is nearly universal.

It's not an absolute rule; YMMV.

A character of, say, 5th or 6th level (even 4th?) might not be too far out of his league.

On the other hand:

I find such concern with balance misplaced in superhero games (oddly, the same genre that produced Champions). It is not true to the source material.

With Marvel Super Heroes (the game with the colored d% chart used for darned near everything), I prefer a free-form approach to character creation. A player describes a character, then we work together to model it. My concern is with fidelity rather than power-level balance. The problem with a too-powerful character is simply a lack of dramatic challenges to face; the character is thus boring.

Somehow, events usually end up giving each character / player enough time in the spotlight. The guy who likes to play an exceptional but merely human adventurer is under no pressure to emulate those who prefer truly superhuman types. The hero who can lift "only" a truck is not overshadowed by the one who can throw a battleship.

For one thing, each has a "niche" of some sort. For another, combatants tend to sort themselves out so that one is seldom overmatched while another faces a cakewalk. Finally, there is great emphasis on character interaction / roleplaying (the melodramatic, even soap-operatic aspect of the comicbook genre).

That suggests the question:

Can the same hold true in D&D? I don't mean in the sense of doing away with the experience-level scheme, which seems definitive. I mean in the sense of the sort of session I previously called "ill advised" actually being thoroughly enjoyable.

[ffilz]

Badger, yes, you can use other paradigms for the dungeon, but essentially, you need something the players know (or can quickly figure out), otherwise, it's either random mayhem, or guide rails.

Dwayanu, too much level difference tends to make for uninteresting play for the lower level characters (and sometimes for the higher level characters). The lower level PCs are too fragile to survive the sorts of encounters that are interesting to the higher level PCs, and even if they stay on level 1, the high level PCs will turn it into a cake walk (and may still dominate - fireball clearing out all the orcs, the high level fighter getting multiple almost autohit attacks on many of the denizens, especially the ones that come in large numbers, etc.).

What I have seen in practice is that once the main PCs were a decent level, if a new PC needed to be started, the other players would also start new PCs (or pull out some previous back-up PCs) and do some low level play to get the new PC up to at least a surviveable level.

The problem with the disparity of character power in super hero comics is that in the comic, the author gets to shine the spotlight on each character without worry that the wrong character won't somehow find a way to take the spotlight. He also doesn't have to worry about players complaining about how he's railroading things or blowing logic out the window.

Frank

[dwayanu]

My experience in D&D has been similar to yours, ffilz; I just wondered whether I had blinders on making me think it must be so.

I definitely GM MSH very differently from D&D, as more of a "story-telling" game -- freely employing comicbook cliches! There's also the game-mechanical feature that it's pretty (nay, absurdly!) hard to kill a character.

[grodog]

I'm not sure if this reply belongs here or in a new thread; Fin, feel free to fork it if you'd like

One "game balance" aspect that I think is difficult to balance for is player skill: some players are just better/more experienced/more creative/more insightful/etc. than others, therefore even if you make the PCs' skills/abilities balanced in some manner, putting PC1 into the hands of player 1 is going to provide a different net result than putting PC1 into the hands of player 2, et al. Player 1 who's more skilled than player 2 is more likely to outshine player 2 and succeed where player 2 fails because player 1 is a veteran player and player 2 is a newbie (or just not as good as player 1). Tournaments make this abundantly clear, as does an inherently-unbalanced game like Amber Diceless.

IMO, balancing the PCs' skills potentially only increases the levels of disparity between player success because in a game where PC balance is not enforced, a less-skilled player could be given a handicap vs. a more-skilled player---similar to a chess master giving up a rook and a bishop when playing a newbie. In less adversarial terms, new players to the game can be helped along moreso than veterans, so that if a group of veteran players are 3rd level and a newbie joins them, the newbie could be a 5th-level PC, or have more spells in his spellbook, or have better starting equipment/magic items, etc. than the 3rd level PCs: this would help even the playing field (if that is truly required/desired) and allow the less-savvy newbie to have better chances to survive since he's going to make more mistakes than the veterans.

In the above example, from a PC power POV, there is disparity; from a player skill POV, the veterans still have the advantage, but the newbie has some "buffer" to help keep him going when a balanced 3rd level PC might croak in a similar situation.

[Deleted]

Letting the individual players shine is what I find most important balance. grodog makes a good point: some players are more skilled than others, & I also believe some players are better RP certain classes than others. Like me, for instance: I play great Clerics (I always end up playing the Cleric) & inject a lot of zealous, book-thumping fundamentalism into them; I try to make them a hoot. On the other hand, I've always loved MU's, but never let me play one; I'll probably inadvertently blow up your party. ;D When a newcomer joins the group (which we might have one, soon!), all the players (& myself) are always happy to help them "learn the ropes" so to speak; make them feel at ease (not show any favoritism or provide outright "saftey-net" rulings) & cut them a break or throw them a suggestion now & again). A cooperative group makes all the difference when it comes to game balance, IMO. Unfortunately, most of my playing experience has been with very uncooperative ones; that's why, as a DM, I've always strived to make my games as balanced & fair as possible. That way, at least I can make sure my players feel comfortable at the table & can have fun, while avoiding the "meta-game" experience I had one too many times....

[ffilz]

Sure, you can't balance for player skill, nor would you want to. If there is a huge disparity of player skill that actually causes the game to be unenjoyable for one player (or several players), then some kind of handicap may be desireable.

Frank

[pjork]

In my limited experience and opinion:

Most discussions of balance in rpgs neglect to define the term in any meaningful way. Participants in these discussions tend to strong feelings on the matter even though it is generally obvious that everyone doesn't even agree on what is being discussed. These are observations on balance discussions in general, not this thread in particular.

As far as mechanical enforcement of power balance across player character types, I find this unnecessary and obtrusive. With a good group of players, a good time will be had whether characters are balanced or not. With a bad group of players, an enjoyable game will not be possible no matter how much the rules attempt to eliminate problems.

[philotomy]

pjork said:

Most discussions of balance in rpgs neglect to define the term in any meaningful way. Participants in these discussions tend to strong feelings on the matter even though it is generally obvious that everyone doesn't even agree on what is being discussed...
As far as mechanical enforcement of power balance across player character types, I find this unnecessary and obtrusive.

Well said; have an exalt! I was thinking the same thing about discussions on balance; it's a broad term that covers many different aspects of the game. I also agree that mechanical balance across PC types is unnecessary.

[greentongue]

I don't believe "Balance" is as important as giving the PCs enough information to make an informed decision about the difficulty.
If that means that several henchmen have to die to demonstrate the lethality, so be it.
=

[dwayanu]

I've used the "handicap" approach on occasion, when we were joined for a session by a child not ready to play "hardball." Besides giving a boost in hit points, I sometimes (depending on the kid) made the character a VIP who must be protected and deferred to (the latter trumping the former). "Escorting the Willful Prince(ss)" is a familiar scenario in fiction, and my groups have had fun with it. Playing "the boss" can be a big enough kick for a little kid to make up for not being up to speed in the tactical department. An easy-to-understand magic item is another way to give the little one a special role.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I have really enjoyed the two pages of discussion so far, now I will give you my own take on things and as always YMMV.

IMO the original version of the game pretty much ignores balance and some of the character classes that were introduced were very unbalanced. Some use this as the reason for not using certain character classes. I think there are always other reasons you can give besides balance as the reason for not using a character class myself. As an aside I don't use monks because I just don't like them (if you like them, use them).

A lot of things in the rules that people say were put there for balance, I disagree with, for instance demi-human level limits. I think they were put there to encourage a humancentric game and balance was not really the issue. It was just to create a bias against playing demi-humans IMO.

I never worry about balance. Oh yeah, when I design a dungeon you won't run into mature red dragons in a 10X10 room on the first level with no treasure and you won't run into a single skeleton on the 5th level with 5000 GP and three magic items. But that is not about balance, that is about good dungeon design.

I have run and will run 1st level characters in the same party as 8th level characters and every mix in between. It happens on a regular basis IMC. If someone gets killed they start a new 1st level character ASAP. I have never found it to be a problem at all. Not with the experienced group and not with several newbies in the game. My group is all about teamwork, the new players absorb it from the experienced players, it is the default mode of our campaign. Also in play is my penchant for keeping everyone involved and keeping it fun for all the players regardless of character level or character class or game race or player experience.

Again I never worry about balance. My players all either know or learn very quickly that there are times when you run, hide, negotiate, bribe, trick, deceive or whatever it takes to get out the other side of an encounter with a whole skin. Just like there are times when you suck it up and fight like berserkers because that is the only choice you have, or someone has to step up and stand in the gap so the rest of the party can escape.

Balance, not of importance to me, a fun well reffed and well played game, that is important.

[Finarvyn]

ffilz said:

Sure, you can't balance for player skill, nor would you want to. If there is a huge disparity of player skill that actually causes the game to be unenjoyable for one player (or several players), then some kind of handicap may be desireable.

I actually did this quite often in one of my gaming groups. One particular player seemed too able to take over a party, so I started giving him characters with high intelligence, wisdom, and charaisma but almost no fighting prowess whatsoever.

What happened is that he still took over the party, but did so more as a coordinator and tactician rather than leading the charge. It became a challenge for him to grow and take on a different role in the group, and overall he had a great time with it.