Players Obsessed With "Balance"

Get ready, I get a little mean here. I'm having a get-off-my-lawn moment.

I've said before in this space that game balance is essentially an illusion, and that any DM worth his weight in rulebooks will be able to provide ample challenge for any so-called "build" at his table. My recent foray into all the fan-produced works in the Fifth Edition sphere has brought up a pet peeve of mine: players insisting something is under- or over-powered. 

Essentially it's all crap - concepts cannot be overpowered. Roleplaying starts with a character concept, a dramatic persona, and the rules are simply mechanics to bring that persona to life. This "game within the game" of what we used to call min/max-ing or power gaming back in the days prior to the OGL has become rather ubiquitous since the days of 3.0/3.5, then seemed to intensify a bit with 4th Edition since the building blocks of that particular system seemed to enforce this way of thinking. Honestly, I blame modern video games, but we'll not open that can of worms.

5th Edition has seen the same problem, even though it's much more of what I would call a freeform system (but not rules-light, obviously). Gone are the mental gymnastics and algebraic calculations of 3rd Edition (which really became heavy at high levels), where one shift in ability score affected about 8 or 10 different fields on the character sheet. It's not exactly BECMI, since there are a lot of fiddly parts still, but it's easy enough to modify on the fly and it seems to really embrace "rulings not rules." 

That may well be the issue for a lot of modern players. They seem to want it spelled out in some sort of official format, and make the game's rules a substitute for skilled play and their own imaginations. RPGs are an exercise in limitless imagination. You can do anything. The rules are just a framework for your character concept, not to ensure you have an average damage on par with other classes. That's just silly. All the complaining about the Ranger over the last few years is a good example of this. The DM ought to provide ample opportunity to use these abilities, even in dungeon settings. If he's not, he's not engaging his table properly. The player also has the responsibility to think creatively, since RPGs are a creative endeavor, not a video game where a player simply reacts to pre-programmed situations. Sometimes an ingenious plan works better than any ability the rules provide. It's not a suboptimal class, some players just have suboptimal imaginations and an expectation that the rules will provide for every circumstance that involves their character.

These sorts of issues were raised in the early days of D&D, but it seems it happened with less frequency and vitriol - not once did my group complain about 2nd Edition characters being "unbalanced". Of course, in the old days, a DM would just DO HIS JOB and change the game to his liking. A lot of modern players have either not figured this out, and are obsessed with rules-as-written, or perhaps aren't skilled enough or lack enough ingenuity to think outside the box and make their "suboptimal class/build" an enjoyable experience. Play the CONCEPT, not the RULES. That is the most important part. If a player feels like he want to makes a change, ask the DM. Players could also lobby for the kinds of adventures that their characters are geared toward. DMs often plan a world in a vacuum made of their feverish imagination, not considering the characters that are going to be created, and then toss a bunch of wilderness types into a dungeon, where they may not be in their element. 

Remember - imagination, skilled play, thinking outside the box. They all help. The rules are simply a malleable framework for a STORY. Remember that. Play the character you LIKE, not what you think is EFFECTIVE - just forget all that garbage about "builds" and "balance". You'll be much happier.