Game "Balance" - the missing assumptions of social-dynamics

[tenbones]

For years people have talked about "balance" in terms of mechanics. Usually between classes and races.

I think "balance" is largely an illusion. The status quo of a setting should reinforce the assumptions of the setting in play. The job of the GM is to enforce that. So if were were to remove "balance" (stats) from the game we'd concede that Orcs in D&D should be Stronger, Larger, more aggressive, possibly higher endurance - and they breed like crazy. They *should* be able to overthrow most other races/cultures in combat.

But the assumptions of the bog-standard D&D world are clearly not that. For "reasons".

Take it another direction. Why is it imbalanced for Elves to have high stats vs. Humans? If the assumptions are Humans breed faster, are more aggressive, Stronger, have more Stamina, it seems to me that in this case... certain social assumptions are the justification for the status-quo that don't seem to work in reverse. OR that the social assumptions of the setting require <X> as a baseline and are reinforced by whatever is necessary to keep that baseline.

So why should there be *any* regards to stat-balance? In my experience moving from D&D to Palladium Fantasy, then Atlantis (Bard era) then Talislanta completely dissolved this idea that "balance" by stats had value on its face. It only matters if you're not really trying to create a fleshed out setting - and you're playing episodic adventures largely free of any context outside of whatever the party is currently doing. And even then that flies in the face of most setting assumptions unless you only play modules and dungeon crawls. In Sandbox play, social-dynamics already offer all the balancing required. If you wanna play the setting *as assumed* - then it falls on the GM (and the hopefully well constructed world) to enforce that "reality" whatever it might be.

Which brought me back to D&D - which largely has become more infatuated with "class" and "race" balance as they added more and more classes and races into the mix free of meaningful context outside of superficial ones.

Is "balance" an illusion that should be handled via social conceits in game? i.e. it doesn't matter that Half-Orcs are stronger and tougher than Humans. Because human society is larger, and they're going to pay stiff social penalties in varying ways, for being a statistically better warrior. The conceits of the status-quo in-setting are its own balancing force, with the caveat that the PC's are completely free to attempt to change that in play.

Thoughts?

 

[Jerry]

tenbones Thank you sir!
I love this post, and I cant wait to see what others opinions on the subject are.
Balance has always been a fallacy to me. I've never played a game that purported to be balanced that really was. In theory, its a good idea but in execution, it feels more like a comfort blanket for players. I've never had a problem with games where my character can't do what the other players can. Most of my in-game gripes come from unequal spotlight time of the theft of player agency.
I loved the Vagabond and Wilderness Scout as much as I loved the Juicer and Glitterboy, all viable if allowed to have time to shine.

 

[Dumarest]

When I read about the need for "balance" in an RPG, I hear little kids whining "no fairs!" Balance is utterly irrelevant to me. The setting is the setting. If you can't accept the conceits of the setting, don't enlist as a player in my game. If it's a game where PCs are generated randomly and you rolled low and are not willing to play a character who isn't your Idealized Fantasy Hero, it's doubtful I would have enjoyed playing with you anyway and there are other players who will accept the game I'm pitching.

 

[Raleel]

i had a discussion with one of my friends regarding cyberpunk and cybernetics and cyberpsychosis or essence loss. I am on the "it's bunk" side. but he pointed out it's a game balance mechanism. I still think it's ham-handed, and decided a societal impact is probably more appropriate. the "balance" is then in the consequence across society (And to you as a person) rather than some arbitrary metric.

 

[PolarBlues]

For the way I like to play, balance doesn't really matter a whole lot. But then, not everyone plays the way I do.

If you are talking specifically about D&D, I think it is fair to say that especially in the WotC era, it supports a tactical, result-orientated style of play where I can see balance being important. It's not to say everyone plays D&D that way, but it I don't think you can say it goes against the grain of the game either. If a game put a lot of emphasis on characters becoming more powerful through levels and artifacts, does it not follow logically that some players of that game may find the relative power level of particular class or race mattera to them?

Personally, I think what really makes a character stand out is a character that brings ideas to the party, be it the guy that solves the murder, comes up with plan to break into Fort Knox or tactic to win the battle or even just the guy who has the drive and creativity to say "hey, let's do X", especially if 'X' is funny. And to do that your character could be half the level of the rest of the party and it would still get most of the spotlight.

That probably one of the reason I don't mind pre-gen charcters. My character's abilities don't define him half as much as his ideas.

 

[Necrozius]

As usual, if you're not playing with assholes, "imbalance" can be interesting and fun.

That's practically a mantra "any RPG concept is great when you're not surrounded by assholes".

 

[Dumarest]

As usual, if you're not playing with assholes, "imbalance" can be interesting and fun.

That's practically a mantra "any RPG concept is great when you're not surrounded by assholes".

​

 

[Necrozius]

View attachment 11242​

EXACTLY LOL

 

[tenbones]

So we generally agree on this... yet why the proliferation of games that *insist* on this illusion by design? What strikes me is this idea that gaming, today, and perhaps for years, has been moving towards "playing the system" not the intent of the game itself*.

While purists, and perhaps even myself, will whole-heartedly say "Make the game yours, at your own table." the *purposes* of "game balance" is almost an a-priori assumption that the system itself is somehow the arbiter of *why* the setting is "good" because "it's balanced" when in fact, in many modern cases of game-design the mechanics do not actually support the conceits of the setting, but further, the system *is* the game, and the setting is just window-dressing.

Whereas I'll contend, and maybe OSR fans might chime in on this, the truly great RPG's and their designers created system+setting together for the express purposes of supporting one another. I've curiously seen many topics in various threads talk about the importance of system-verisimilitude... and watched the arguments back and forth. And there are emergent patterns - like players that play in predominantly modules/one-shots-only, style games - OR have short campaigns tend to value "game balance" more than those that play sandbox long-term campaigns.

These are generalization of my observations. And we see many of the "faultlines" in many many debates and discussion falling along these lines - especially as newcomers to the hobby dive in. I also suspect experience is a big part of this as well. Many of us *started* in the pool of game-balance is REAL! and evolved into longer sandbox-style play to see it as an illusion.

Today many modern designers seem to either not understand this, nor care. But it *shows* up in their game design and almost always inevitably invites problems, if not justifiable criticism. And worse they'll attack the fandom that makes those criticisms when in reality all we want are good games to shower our valuable dollars and time upon.


* and by this I mean that an RPG should take place in a defined world with defined conceits that are supported by a task-resolution system that is universal to the world. Both mechanically *and* narratively (if you use such mechanics). As opposed to just having a bunch of mechanics and a tacked on bunch of fluff which are played in a contained aquarium of a session.

 

[Jerry]

Is "balance" an illusion that should be handled via social conceits in game? i.e. it doesn't matter that Half-Orcs are stronger and tougher than Humans. Because human society is larger, and they're going to pay stiff social penalties in varying ways, for being a statistically better warrior. The conceits of the status-quo in-setting are its own balancing force, with the caveat that the PC's are completely free to attempt to change that in play.

I like for the game mechanics to work in a balanced way. If I’m shooting a small pistol and someone is shooting a heavy pistol, I want there to be a reasoned and measured approached to how these things work. My small pistol should be roughly the equivalent of any other small weapon.
What I’m not interested in, is the setting assumptions being restricted to create a semblance of equity. Green Arrow can exist side by side with Superman and players can still enjoy the game.

Example: When I run a Star Wars game, I assume that the Jedi are the apex predators of the game. They are simply better at doing Jedi stuff. The lightsaber cuts through everything and disregards armor. What Jedis aren’t better at is the social interactions like the gamble and smuggler. A Jedi can’t pull a grift like a scoundrel, but they can cut through doors, jump high and run fast.

So, I do agree that what we are talking about here is a balanced social contract between all the players (GM is included here) at the table. If we are playing in the above Star Wars example, my pilot is just as viable as the Jedi because I get equal spotlight and agency not the same amount of points.
A game should work well mechanically and have internal consistency and balance. Socially, the table of players should work to create a balance and parity of like-minded equals with a shared goal.

 

[tenbones]

i had a discussion with one of my friends regarding cyberpunk and cybernetics and cyberpsychosis or essence loss. I am on the "it's bunk" side. but he pointed out it's a game balance mechanism. I still think it's ham-handed, and decided a societal impact is probably more appropriate. the "balance" is then in the consequence across society (And to you as a person) rather than some arbitrary metric.

Well it's "bunk" until the GM (which may be you) makes it "un-bunk". I don't think mechanics *should* be completely dis-associative from the conceits of the setting. I don't think this is even true in CP2020. I think the issue might be, in your case, it doesn't rise mechanically/narratively to the point where you have buy in. It wouldn't be hard to make that happen at the table. You can ratchet up/down the realities of Cyberpsychosis in direct levels to the proliferation of cyberware with *zero* tampering of the rules. This is precisely where the GM needs to enforce social-conceits of the setting to the degree that they want to maintain the status-quo.

So using your example - I might have cyberware not quite as prolific beyond basic stuff. And not every cyberpsycho is a metaled to the gills because very few people have high Empathy stats to begin with. The Average person has a 5 (which to me, in the dystopia of the Dark Future - I'd probably say that's the human norm, but cultural pressures might actually make it a 4) BUT! Never mind that... the point is in-setting people losing their shit and going on psychotic rampages due to "over-doing it" IS a thing.

The primary reasons are cyberware+gear = magic items to baseline humans. It's the in-game social-controls that the GM has to enforce as a setting conceit that "balances" those things. To the degree that someone wants to add-on/lessen the Humanity system mechanics to find the "tone" that matches their groups sensibilities doesn't take anything away from that conceit. But the litmus test becomes - "what happens if we just take the whole Humanity mechanic out?"

How does that play out in CP2020? Well why wouldn't everyone be borged to the max assuming they could afford it. There is a tremendous amount of change that would be implied by such a conceit. The only control left - is availability and cost. Both are things that also are a huge part of the game. But then you have to adjust your world setting accordingly. The point being, is at some point you might be playing an entirely different game (which is fine) but it doesn't take away the point of social-dynamics as balance. It merely changes the social-dynamics in play in the conceits of your setting.

 

[tenbones]

I like for the game mechanics to work in a balanced way. If I’m shooting a small pistol and someone is shooting a heavy pistol, I want there to be a reasoned and measured approached to how these things work. My small pistol should be roughly the equivalent of any other small weapon.
What I’m not interested in, is the setting assumptions being restricted to create a semblance of equity. Green Arrow can exist side by side with Superman and players can still enjoy the game.

Example: When I run a Star Wars game, I assume that the Jedi are the apex predators of the game. They are simply better at doing Jedi stuff. The lightsaber cuts through everything and disregards armor. What Jedis aren’t better at is the social interactions like the gamble and smuggler. A Jedi can’t pull a grift like a scoundrel, but they can cut through doors, jump high and run fast.

EXACTLY. It's funny you bring this up. I'm starting up an Edge of the Empire game, coming straight out of a small episodic FASERIP ongoing. And one of the things that *drives me nuts* about FFG's Star Wars is that they don't use the same mechanics for their NPC's as they do with their PC's. Despite me doing a lot of defending for the game, (and trust me - there's a lot to defend mechanically) at a certain point there is a line crossed and in this case, the mechanics of their system fall apart when trying to show how Star Wars big powerhouses are not up to the task by the mechanics of their own system so they invent little cheat-mechanics to "make them fit the narrative." It's weakness of design.

The mechanics should be about modeling *reality* that all characters have to interact with equally - even if their respective schtick is "more powerful" in varying aspects. I completely agree.

So, I do agree that what we are talking about here is a balanced social contract between all the players (GM is included here) at the table. If we are playing in the above Star Wars example, my pilot is just as viable as the Jedi because I get equal spotlight and agency not the same amount of points.
A game should work well mechanically and have internal consistency and balance. Socially, the table of players should work to create a balance and parity of like-minded equals with a shared goal.

This! What I find... disturbing, is this almost passive assumption, by design fiat, that this social contract we're both talking about is enforced by the rules - not the other way around. And it's become ubiquitous in the industry.

 

[Justin Alexander]

So why should there be *any* regards to stat-balance?

Because:

1. Not everyone is a simulationist and, therefore, couldn't care less about all the world-simulation stuff you're clearly prioritizing above all other concerns in your post.

2. While it is theoretically possible for every GM to ad hoc balance in play between the guy playing Godzilla and the guy playing a sentient field mouse, in actual practice most GMs find it easier (and, therefore, most groups find it better) if the game system puts forth at least some minimal effort to make sure that everyone is at least in the same ballpark with each other. (EDIT: For example, to use the Jedi vs. Pilot scenario that was brought up after I started writing this post, it's far easier for the GM to balance the spotlight time between those two characters if the mechanics of the system don't automatically make all Jedi better pilots than any other possible character.)

The other thing to keep in mind is that when people talk about "balance" in an RPG, they're often talking about several different things. This is something I discussed several years ago: The Many Types of Balance.

Excerpt:

CONCEPT BALANCE: Concept balance maintains that all character concepts should be equally viable. In other words, the guy wanting to play Conan the Barbarian and the guy wanting to play Robin Hood should both be equally effective in combat. Why? Because otherwise the system is inhibiting creativity (by making it less attractive to play Conan and/or Robin Hood). In addition, these less effective character concepts serve as “traps” for inexperienced players — they think it would be cool to play Conan, but instead they find themselves always playing second fiddle to Robin Hood. It requires at least some degree of system mastery in order to recognize and avoid these traps.

NATURALISTIC BALANCE: Naturalistic balance, on the other hand, recognizes that not all character concepts are realistically equal. If you’re playing in a realistic World War II game, then the martial arts specialist is just not going to be as combat effective as the guy with a machine gun. (However, naturalistic balance should not be misunderstood as being equivalent to a desire for “realism” in a game.)

SPOTLIGHT BALANCE: With spotlight balance, characters focus on disparate types of gameplay and the balance between them is achieved by the GM making sure that all types of gameplay get an equal share of playing time. For example, when confronted with both Conan and Robin Hood, the GM needs to make sure that there are equal opportunities for both melee specialists (Conan) and ranged specialists (Robin Hood) to show off their best stuff.

The full article goes on to discuss the problems and limitations of each type of balance. In some cases these different types of balance overlap; in others they conflict with each other. In large part, you're discussing naturalistic balance -- machine guns are better than Nerf guns, elves are just more awesome than humans, etc.

I also suspect experience is a big part of this as well. Many of us *started* in the pool of game-balance is REAL! and evolved into longer sandbox-style play to see it as an illusion.

This crosses over into a different topic: Self-balancing gameplay vs. designed gameplay.

Shamus Young first discussed self-balancing gameplay back in 2006 in the context of video games. Basically he made the case that in most classic CRPGs you could effectively grind your characters until they were powerful enough that you were comfortable confronting the next challenge: For Player A that might be level 5; for Player B it might be level 10. It was self-balancing because the player could choose when they'd grinded enough.

Young contrasted that with games that either (a) leveled up the whole world with you or (b) limited the total amount of XP available to you so that you couldn't grind to a level of your choosing. These games, Young argued, were less appealing because they could only be satisfying to the players whose preference for challenge specifically matched the game designer's (and they were, for the same reason, much more fragile and difficult to balance).

The same principle applies, in slightly different form, to tabletop RPGs: If you're designing sandboxes in which the players have a great deal of control over the challenges they face, then the players can effectively control the level of challenge that they enjoy. This approach is much easier for the GM to design, because even if they make a "mistake" and design something that's much tougher or much easier than they thought it would be, it largely doesn't matter.

If you're designing linear/plotted content, on the other hand, then the responsibility for ensuring balance shifts from the players to the GM. This makes things much more difficult for the GM, and makes the resulting scenarios much more fragile when it comes to balance and challenge.

EDIT: This also ties back into the mechanical design of the system. Looking at the Jedi vs. Pilot example again: If the system automatically makes all Jedi better pilots than any other possible character, then it's not impossible for the GM to maintain spotlight balance between a non-Jedi pilot and a Jedi pilot. But it means that the GM has to assert that balance. For example, maybe they arrange things so that the mercenary job requires pilots in two ships; or so that the Jedi needs to not be piloting a ship because their specific skills are needed somewhere else.

Notice that this again shifts the responsibility for balance to the GM and, thus, inherently moves you away from being a sandbox: In order for the GM to assert spotlight balance through the conceits of the game world, they're forced to exert significant control over the scenarios the PCs play through.

When the mechanics assert at least enough concept balance to make sure everybody is in the same ballpark, OTOH, it's much more possible for the players to, once again, control their own spotlight balance by choosing to do things that allow their concept to contribute.

 

[dbm]

Going to your original post, the problem you are describing is not balance, but forced equivalence.

You only get to pick one race for your character, and the races are largely interchangeable, so they need to have the same net benefit from a mechanical point of view. The same applies to classes: you only get to pick one class (either one class ‘period’ or one level worth of class every time you level up if the system allows) so it is mechanically important that each class is equivalently capable within the context of what the game is about.

Consider GURPS as an example of how things might be done differently. In GURPS, humans are the baseline and so it costs zero points to be a member of the race. An Elf has a number of qualities that typify the race: the template for elves in Dungeon Fantasy costs 20 character points to buy. Clearly, the races are not equivalent as they have a different point value. But the way that point value is calculated and used makes them balanced (as much as is practically possible, no system is perfect etc.)

The wider part of your initial post: that the campaign premise should be the balancing factor to the difference in race. This can be done too! Races can be given detrimental character qualities (like having a race of berserk beings, if you like) or the way that wider society views them can be captured in the form of low status or negative reaction modifiers. And where these things are given a quantified value that can also be factored into how the two very different characters interact with the game world.

I’m not saying every game needs to have perfectly balanced characters. The Troupe style play of Ars Magica where every player has a mage, companion and grog (who are radically different in terms of capability) has provided some great games and it isn’t the mage having all the fun. I am saying that you can balance races without them having to be forced into equivalence.

 

[Necrozius]

Excellent thoughts, Justin Alexander .

I suppose I could categorize myself in the Spotlight balance area of GMing. Once players have submitted their character concepts (only after I've pitched the setting theme to them), i will deliberately try to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the proverbial spotlight at some point. Within reason!

As for Concept balance... I'm partially aligned with this idea as well. But just within the reasonable accommodation of accepting character pitches that I feel will have relevance in the setting I've created. If I feel that there will be a problem, I'll advise the player, as transparently as possible (eg. this is an Urban adventure setting, so picking a woodland druid with tons of Nature lore will be frequently at a loss of ways to contribute meaningfully, how about we work something out).

 

[Chaotic Wooster]

When I read about the need for "balance" in an RPG, I hear little kids whining "no fairs!" Balance is utterly irrelevant to me. The setting is the setting. If you can't accept the conceits of the setting, don't enlist as a player in my game. If it's a game where PCs are generated randomly and you rolled low and are not willing to play a character who isn't your Idealized Fantasy Hero, it's doubtful I would have enjoyed playing with you anyway and there are other players who will accept the game I'm pitching.

Well, that saved me collecting my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Chris Brady]

No, it's not an illusion. No one wants to feel useless in a cooperative game. No one.

 

[Baulderstone]

It's interesting that D&D is the default for "balanced" races. In its primordial form, both then it sideline to an ongoing fantasy war campaign, and when domain management was still a key factor, it was actually a great game for the social balance you talk about. Elves could be individually powerful, Elven domains/armies would take a very long time to recover from losses.

How does that play out in CP2020? Well why wouldn't everyone be borged to the max assuming they could afford it. There is a tremendous amount of change that would be implied by such a conceit. The only control left - is availability and cost. Both are things that also are a huge part of the game. But then you have to adjust your world setting accordingly. The point being, is at some point you might be playing an entirely different game (which is fine) but it doesn't take away the point of social-dynamics as balance. It merely changes the social-dynamics in play in the conceits of your setting.

My biggest issue with cyberpsychosis is that it ignores social questions. Cyberpunk literature of the '80s has plenty of cases where there are characters that crossed the line into not really being human anymore. Sterling's Shaper/Mechanist stories would be a good example. There is a lot of variety and ambiguity on the subject of whether someone is evolving, or simply reducing themselves to a machine/product.

On the other hand, having characters transforming themselves into something new is tricky ground for a lot of groups. It feeds into your thread about playing non-humans. Cyberpsychosis is very clean and easy to understand. It's reductive, but sometimes reductive works.

 

[Baulderstone]

No, it's not an illusion. No one wants to feel useless in a cooperative game. No one.

I actually went through a phase in the late '90s where I made the most mechanically useless characters that I could. Some of my most fun characters came out of doing that.

Of course, I understand it isn't something everyone would enjoy.

 

[Sommerjon]

This is one of the weirdest threads on game "balance" I've seen yet.

Never knew there was a thing about 'setting' balance?

Always been under the impression that talk of game "balance" was about classes and their ability to manipulate the game world around them. i.e.linear fighter-quadratic wizard.

 

[Dumarest]

This is one of the weirdest threads on game "balance" I've seen yet.

Never knew there was a thing about 'setting' balance?

Always been under the impression that talk of game "balance" was about classes and their ability to manipulate the game world around them. i.e.linear fighter-quadratic wizard.

That'd be part of the setting.

 

[Ladybird]

CONCEPT BALANCE: Concept balance maintains that all character concepts should be equally viable. In other words, the guy wanting to play Conan the Barbarian and the guy wanting to play Robin Hood should both be equally effective in combat. Why? Because otherwise the system is inhibiting creativity (by making it less attractive to play Conan and/or Robin Hood). In addition, these less effective character concepts serve as “traps” for inexperienced players — they think it would be cool to play Conan, but instead they find themselves always playing second fiddle to Robin Hood. It requires at least some degree of system mastery in order to recognize and avoid these traps.

SPOTLIGHT BALANCE: With spotlight balance, characters focus on disparate types of gameplay and the balance between them is achieved by the GM making sure that all types of gameplay get an equal share of playing time. For example, when confronted with both Conan and Robin Hood, the GM needs to make sure that there are equal opportunities for both melee specialists (Conan) and ranged specialists (Robin Hood) to show off their best stuff.

I think these two concept are particularly linked but also easily confused; players ultimately want to be able to contribute meaningfully to the game. This doesn't mean that they always have to do the same amount of damage each turn (A ridiculous strawman), but they should be capable of doing something that moves events forwards; the classic BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner is a failure not because of the power discrepancy, but the opportunity discrepancy.

It's fine to have abilities in a game which are situationally very strong, because that lets players feel really awesome when their thing comes up, but if the niches become too narrow then it's easy to pick the wrong thing and you're going to have a bad time as a result especially in a game where you get finite choices (Like D&D and it's descendants). But you have to be careful not to make them so strong that they just negate the problem in a boring way, rather than getting to have fun solving it.

I actually went through a phase in the late '90s where I made the most mechanically useless characters that I could. Some of my most fun characters came out of doing that.

I do sometimes like to pick "useless" things and then have to work out a way to apply my weird toolkit to problems (This is how I learned that Orgasm is the best Shadowrun spell), but that's very much an "experienced players making things harder for themselves" sort of activity. Of course, it's still something a game should enable, just not assume

 

[Edgewise]

So we generally agree on this...

It sounds like we need a naysayer...I'll play the devil's advocate here.

I think "balance" is largely an illusion.

It depends what kind of balance we're talking about. I can think of three different axes:

1. Player vs. player: This is about making everyone feel like they are just as good about everyone else, but it's also about making sure that you don't have one PC who is taking point on every situation.
2. Party vs world: This is about making sure that the challenges that the party is presented with are neither impossible nor trivial.
3. Faction vs. faction: This is more about explaining the balance of power within the setting.

So if were were to remove "balance" (stats) from the game we'd concede that Orcs in D&D should be Stronger, Larger, more aggressive, possibly higher endurance - and they breed like crazy. They *should* be able to overthrow most other races/cultures in combat.

I think you're conflating what I call player vs. player and faction vs. faction. Whatever explanation you have for why the the elves, humans and orcs still exist on the same map is, in my mind, disconnected from the question of intra-party balance. For instance, you wouldn't usually have a player with a tenth-level fighter in a party with first-level characters even though they can both exist in the same world. So these are separate issues IMO.

My feeling is that each of these kinds of balance has a role to play; I'll explain in a second. But I think a lot of resistance to this idea occurs because it's taken too far. Trying to make sure that the classes and races are totally balanced is just silly, especially when you consider that they are supposed to specialize in different activities.

But trying to keep the PCs around the same general level of power and utility is something you can't just completely ignore. Now, before you start writing your reply, I know what you're thinking: Ars Magica. But! First of all, AM is supposed to be played troupe-style, meaning that the same player controls a number of grogs and a wizard. Second of all, even if you don't play it that way, the design and setting work hard to give the different types of characters important niches to fill.

On top of this, I'll add the caveat that I don't see anything wrong with running a game with PCs who have very unequal power levels. But I think it requires a little special consideration from the GM, and I think that's the reason that this is the exception and not the rule.

That's player vs. player. Player vs. world is another type of balance that's often called into question. Purist hexcrawlers are fine with 1st level parties running into Purple Worms and Tiamat. Of course, they'll tell you that the PCs can always run away, or the encounter might be entirely peaceful. I'd argue that those are just cases of the GM taking over balance for the mechanics. Which is fine, but it's still a kind of balance. Whether you are doing it in the encounter tables or at the game tables.

As for faction vs. faction, that's probably the least important type. It's useful from the perspective of verisimilitude but nothing more, unless you're playing on the domain level.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I think "balance" is largely an illusion. The status quo of a setting should reinforce the assumptions of the setting in play. The job of the GM is to enforce that. So if were were to remove "balance" (stats) from the game we'd concede that Orcs in D&D should be Stronger, Larger, more aggressive, possibly higher endurance - and they breed like crazy. They *should* be able to overthrow most other races/cultures in combat.

I'd argue that balance is a "design objective" not an "illusion".

We can argue that on a theoretical level true balance is impossible, when you take into account things like system mastery.

But it's still the case that a game created with the aim of balance is going to be mechanically different than one that considers it an irrelevance.

So why should there be *any* regards to stat-balance?

Why should anything mechanical exist in a RPG? It's there to provide a specific framework for play, whether it succeeds or not.

To be clear, I'm not against imbalance, in fact I enjoy it a lot. But I think it provides a different experience, not a better one. Character generation is the obvious example; random generation and point buy lead to very different types of character.

I do think that imbalance actually takes a better designer (and potential GM) to do well.

I can certainly imagine an amazing superhero game where Galactus and the Boy Wonder are in the same party. But it's actually a lot harder to implement than one where all characters are of equal power levels.

It's why I think Rifts is a game which needs an excellent GM to work.

As an aside, I think one reason for the imbalance in a lot of early games was the fact it was still an offshoot of wargames at that point. Unless they're focused on tournament play (Warhammer) balance is not only irrelevant, but actively unhelpful for most wargames. Asymmetry is the standard, not the rule. (That's changed a bit now because of the rise of the more casual wargame scene, but it's definitely the case in the seventies and eighties). The nearest most of the games in question get to balance is suggesting that people swap sides for a second game and see who scores the most victory points.

No, it's not an illusion. No one wants to feel useless in a cooperative game. No one.

There's a big area between "useless" and "imbalanced". While it's probably true that few players want the former, it's not what we're talking about. And I can come up with concrete examples that show that some players like imbalance.

Caitiff in Vampire the Masquerade. That's an interesting one, because as far as character generation goes it's point buy and relatively balanced. But there is no way that there is anything mechanical that makes up for the social downsides of being a caitiff in the setting. It's something chosen by players who specifically want to be a underdog.

En Garde! Recently stared running a game of this. And if no players enjoyed imbalance it wouldn't still have a following and I certainly wouldn't have got players. Because it's incredibly unbalanced. A bastard son of a peasant is, categorically, a "worse" character than the 1st Son of a Duc and both are equally likely. But it's not aimed at players who want a balanced game.

 

[robertsconley]

The status quo of a setting should reinforce the assumptions of the setting in play.

Couldn't agree more

Except

So if were were to remove "balance" (stats) from the game we'd concede that Orcs in D&D should be Stronger, Larger, more aggressive, possibly higher endurance - and they breed like crazy. They *should* be able to overthrow most other races/cultures in combat.

That your assumption, not Gygaxs. Hence why we have 1 HD Orcs in OD&D. For my part, I view Orcs as a character race. Not normally taken by players but a race entry to stand alongside Elves and Dwarves. But I also realize that this wasn't Gygax's view. Nor was he wrong to view it as such. Like much of my take on the rules, the Majestic Fantasy RPG, I altered it to suit my view in a way that should be consistent with the rules I didn't change.

In short while I respect Gygax's take, I am not beholden to it. Just as Adventures in Middle Earth respects D&D 5e but didn't feel beholden to it and changed what it needed to change to be a Middle Earth RPG using the D&D 5e rules. (Man I am just going to hammer on AiME as an example until the cows come home. ).

Take it another direction. Why is it imbalanced for Elves to have high stats vs. Humans? If the assumptions are Humans breed faster, are more aggressive, Stronger, have more Stamina, it seems to me that in this case... certain social assumptions are the justification for the status-quo that don't seem to work in reverse. OR that the social assumptions of the setting require <X> as a baseline and are reinforced by whatever is necessary to keep that baseline.

Maybe this will help, one type of objection I get is that if things are not balanced, players will play X. In response, I say "Well I guess I am running campaign wear everybody is X."

But that sentiment doesn't operate in a vacuum. As a rule, I get my best results, i.e a campaign starting smoothly, when players hash out together what they are going to play. Rather than just rolling up character in isolation and hope they are compatible with each other.

Because RPG campaigns have fleshed out character who in theory have lives of their own, there is no guarantee that a random group is going to jell together either in terms of mechanical balance or social interconnections. So the best course is just to sit down and fucking talk about it for a few minutes so everybody is aware or on the same page.

For example even if we pick the Great Balanced RPG to play it is quite possible that a group may find it interesting to have on players start a character with advanced experience to represent a patron type, and the rest of the players play members of that players team/company/organization. Despite the care and time the author took in making sure all options are perfectly balanced, it now all fucked up because of how the campaign is setup.

So yeah fuck balance and focus on making sure the options and rules reflects the setting. But if balance is the author's jam or the author has a different view oh well. But again I am not going to beholden to what the author thinks how I ought to be running a RPG campaign.

So why should there be *any* regards to stat-balance?

As long it makes sense in terms of the setting then go for it. And sometimes details are best handled by roleplaying rather than mechanics. For example Elves are clearly have the best stats and abilities in my Majestic Wilderland setting.

Part of what offsets those mechanical benefits is that the Wilderlands is a human dominated setting. Unlike the campaign is about adventuring in the elven homelands, the players are going to be dealing mostly with humans. And the typical human reaction to elves is generally one of starry eyed admiration. However it also quickly turned to fear and haterd if an elf does something negative. Instead of being viewed as a near angel, the character will now be viewed as a near devil justifying exterme measures.

Nor this is meant to be steretypical trope. Human communities have dealt with renegade elves before and because of the experience of immortality , they rampage through like a force of nature. Through myth and legends, humans know that in general Elves are a force for good, but there are evil Elves as well little better than the demons themselves.

Which brought me back to D&D - which largely has become more infatuated with "class" and "race" balance as they added more and more classes and races into the mix free of meaningful context outside of superficial ones.

It think it is a mix, there nothing about a warlock in 5e that prevent me from crafting a cool roleplaying situation around the background that the PHB. It thin but also clear about what trope it drawing on. But but the mechanics of the warlock also allow to occupy a certain niche in the adventuring party. A niche that been looked over, gnawed on, and premasticated by a segment of the hobby into it finest details.

Like I said about author earlier, I am not beholden to them.

For example D&D 4th edition is everybody favorite whipping post for this kind of topic. I got it and ran a few sessions to see what it about and then put it away. A few years later a good friend of mine wanted to me to visit him in another town and suggested running D&D 4e for him and a group of mutual friends I haven't seen for a while. I said sure but I told him, I am going to run like the other campaigns you played with me.

So I played the game the way I usually do, there is a world, it has a life of its own, and things are arranged about what you would expect if it was a real place. I.e most inhabitants or in the 1 to 3 HD/LEvel range, and the more tough opponents are few and far between. They had a blast, granted the adventure I ran was interested, but they also liked how it felt different than all the other 4e games they played in. They like being able to mow down weak opponents. That when they ran into something tough it made sense it was there and not a appropriate challenge. How they never were quite sure if what they were dealing with was going to be over their head or not.

And I did this using the bog-standard D&D 4e rulebooks. I just ignored* what the module and organized play authors were doing.

*If you read the D&D 4e DMG the section on encounter balance is clearly discussed as option not a requirement. It goes into why it is useful as a tool, when to use it and when not to use it. And it clear the author intended it as guidelines not rules. D&D 4e problems stem from how it was presented after the core books were released.

Is "balance" an illusion that should be handled via social conceits in game?

Social conceits is just as much of a tool as mechanics. The starting point is describing the setting first. Then craft the mechanics and referee advice based on that description.

The only time you should bend if you want to be compatible with a given system. In that case you need to sort out what is is truly core and what are details born of the author implied setting.

For example the character of the D&D Magic User can be radically altered by simply changing the list of spells. It still vancian magic but the different mix gives a different feel. Or do what AiME and jettison vancian magic in favor of a new class with a new magic system.

I think either way the resulting RPG is still D&D compatible. Because Gygax's list of spells and Gygax's use of vancian magic is setting details.

My opinion what makes D&D D&D, are class, level, ac, hit point, d20 to hit, and rolling hit point damage. Beyond that it is up for grabs. The same for other system. There is a small core that make it distinct, the rest are lists that can be altered to suit.

 

[tenbones]

Because:

1. Not everyone is a simulationist and, therefore, couldn't care less about all the world-simulation stuff you're clearly prioritizing above all other concerns in your post.

I'm not advocating for simulationism at all. I'm advocating for the setting conceits to be reinforced by the mechanics together - but the GM is free to tone up/down those mechanics presuming they will also take into consideration the setting changes that might occur because of this.

The caveat to this is - this makes a GIGANTIC assumption the designers of the setting in question were doing any consideration of the mechanics of the system in direct relation to their setting in the first place. Most of D&D's settings would *not* exist in their current form with the bog-standard assumptions of D&D's mechanics in actual play. This is precisely why place the onus of this on the GM to make those changes for the needs of their respective group (if it matters).

2. While it is theoretically possible for every GM to ad hoc balance in play between the guy playing Godzilla and the guy playing a sentient field mouse, in actual practice most GMs find it easier (and, therefore, most groups find it better) if the game system puts forth at least some minimal effort to make sure that everyone is at least in the same ballpark with each other. (EDIT: For example, to use the Jedi vs. Pilot scenario that was brought up after I started writing this post, it's far easier for the GM to balance the spotlight time between those two characters if the mechanics of the system don't automatically make all Jedi better pilots than any other possible character.)

I've seen zero evidence that this produces "better" gaming. In fact I find your example at odds with your example because while the assumptions of the Godzilla and Field Mouse are interesting (heh) the SYSTEM that supports the play of Godzilla with the Field Mouse and the Setting in which these two disparate things are in play and interacting has to be supported. The very conceits of this idea *have* to have some mechanical underpinning to the suggestion they are even a thing...

And I'll give you a more germane example - years ago I was tasked by Paizo to write articles on making Monsters playable classes (as opposed to races). I did the Lycanthropes and Dragons - then I promptly quit writing for Paizo, and in no small part because while the concept of doing this was perfectly fine, it' done out of context of any setting, which relegated the whole thing to a pile of system-wonkery.

It proved in non-contextual way that the system did not, at it's baseline support these ideas well (this is 3d D&D). But if you create say, a setting with those conceits immediately in mind and disregard implicit balance - like in the D&D setting "Council of Wyrms" where you actually play a dragon. And it worked.

One sticks to the conceits of the system only free of setting. When this happens it *establishes* the assumptions of whatever the PC is engaging in. The other does BOTH.

The other thing to keep in mind is that when people talk about "balance" in an RPG, they're often talking about several different things. This is something I discussed several years ago: The Many Types of Balance.

Excerpt:

CONCEPT BALANCE: Concept balance maintains that all character concepts should be equally viable. In other words, the guy wanting to play Conan the Barbarian and the guy wanting to play Robin Hood should both be equally effective in combat. Why? Because otherwise the system is inhibiting creativity (by making it less attractive to play Conan and/or Robin Hood). In addition, these less effective character concepts serve as “traps” for inexperienced players — they think it would be cool to play Conan, but instead they find themselves always playing second fiddle to Robin Hood. It requires at least some degree of system mastery in order to recognize and avoid these traps.

But the "system" should exhibit what the terms are for *any* task resolution. How well you do it should be based on the characters and whatever "skills" or "class" describe the interactions with that aforementioned task-resolution system. Making the claims that Conan should fight as well as Robin Hood is leaving a MASSIVE amount of ground unclaimed. You know... like... "in what way?" There is nothing overtly keeping Conan from becoming as good an archer as Robin Hood, and nothing keeping Robin Hood from becoming as good a swordsman as Conan - except the system and setting conceits that have such concepts contained within them.

Again - this atomizes these icons down to "Swordsman vs. Archer" when we both know they more than that (with a surprising amount of overlap if you consider it). But the issue is what system are you using to describe for your players that there might be a Robin Hood level caliber character in Hyboria or a Cimmerian freebooting semi-savage in Nottingham? And can one become the other internally within the system? The more this is true - the better the system. The more this is true of the setting - the system that is better will *support* that.

NATURALISTIC BALANCE

: Naturalistic balance, on the other hand, recognizes that not all character concepts are realistically equal. If you’re playing in a realistic World War II game, then the martial arts specialist is just not going to be as combat effective as the guy with a machine gun. (However, naturalistic balance should not be misunderstood as being equivalent to a desire for “realism” in a game.)

Stipulated. I think this is the core conceit of what I'm talking about when designers of a setting are considering the mechanics. They do NOT have to be realistic in the slightest. They have to be consistent with their internal conceits and outward expressions in the setting.

SPOTLIGHT BALANCE

: With spotlight balance, characters focus on disparate types of gameplay and the balance between them is achieved by the GM making sure that all types of gameplay get an equal share of playing time. For example, when confronted with both Conan and Robin Hood, the GM needs to make sure that there are equal opportunities for both melee specialists (Conan) and ranged specialists (Robin Hood) to show off their best stuff.

The full article goes on to discuss the problems and limitations of each type of balance. In some cases these different types of balance overlap; in others they conflict with each other. In large part, you're discussing naturalistic balance -- machine guns are better than Nerf guns, elves are just more awesome than humans, etc.

I am going to read the article! And I like the demarcations you're setting down. And there is definitely a lot of common-ground. Spotlight Balance (as you call it) is where again, the GM is taking the active hand and tuning up/down the setting conceits *as needed* for their table.

Perhaps this should be tucked into GMing 101 - I don't allow PC concepts that aren't technically going to be emphasized in a campaign at the start unless I can *really* make it work. Jedi vs. Pilot - well Jedi gotta get around don't they? Hello Mr. Pilot. Pilot Hijinks ensue. You land the ship - here come the Jedi enemies with their cohort (maybe a Pilot!) - conflict ensues. This is, at it's heart, basic GMing... which is lost on a lot of folks new to the hobby.

This crosses over into a different topic: Self-balancing gameplay vs. designed gameplay.

Shamus Young first discussed self-balancing gameplay back in 2006 in the context of video games. Basically he made the case that in most classic CRPGs you could effectively grind your characters until they were powerful enough that you were comfortable confronting the next challenge: For Player A that might be level 5; for Player B it might be level 10. It was self-balancing because the player could choose when they'd grinded enough.

This is *exactly* the mentality of people that play in closed-box "adventures" and tailored experiences. In fact while people have certainly belabored the notion of "balance" for years prior to the onset of CRPG's - they suffer from the same error of logic. They're speaking in turn of a self-referencing framework. This is the *exact* problem I'm really talking about.

"Leveling" is itself an abstraction - that is easy to look at from the perspective of a CRPG (and TTRPG obviously) - but without taking into consideration what the system/setting dynamic means in relation to one another, the point becomes less meaningful.

Superheroes is a perfect example. Batman is a normal guy that has no powers, but is a skill monkey. Superman is God. The abstractions of trying to pack those concepts as mechanical realities in 3e, 4e, 5e D&D into their assumed settings is a *nightmare*. That's why Mutants and Masterminds exist. What changed? Not the settings. The system changed. From a CRPG view this is meaningless because the concept of the character is immediately distant from the interactions the Player has in the setting. i.e. playing the Batman videogame, doesn't require that Batman and Superman even exist in the same game in some interactive way. And for good reason. The systemic programming genius required to make this work well is nearly impossible.

This is why MMO's feel samey outside of the usual abstractions of "everything is a power".

Balancing Robin Hood and Conan as *CLASSES* vs.a system that say... doesn't use classes at all, are entirely different propositions and one leads you to an inevitable conclusion in terms of which is *easier* and more robust. Because each system is until itself something that expresses a design choice which informs the conceits of the setting, ideally. A Class is a prescribed package of skills. In D&D terms if you apply leveling mechanics - then you're creating a closed self-referential loop where everything is therefore "leveled" (HD). But the problem becomes the assumptions of *desireing* to transcend that closed loop (i.e. Conan wants to learn how to be Robin Hood) contextually. In-setting - it should be probable. In-system, D&D multi-classing is a shit-show.

This is fixable. But of course let's be honest, the conceits of D&D due in part to its wargaming roots has struggled with these vestigial properties in varying ways for years. But the system is corralling the players not the other way around.

Young contrasted that with games that either (a) leveled up the whole world with you or (b) limited the total amount of XP available to you so that you couldn't grind to a level of your choosing. These games, Young argued, were less appealing because they could only be satisfying to the players whose preference for challenge specifically matched the game designer's (and they were, for the same reason, much more fragile and difficult to balance).

The same principle applies, in slightly different form, to tabletop RPGs: If you're designing sandboxes in which the players have a great deal of control over the challenges they face, then the players can effectively control the level of challenge that they enjoy. This approach is much easier for the GM to design, because even if they make a "mistake" and design something that's much tougher or much easier than they thought it would be, it largely doesn't matter.

No disagreement here. That's precisely what I advocate for. Centralized unified mechanics used consistently. "Here Be Dragon, bastards". The Dragon Stat Bloc commensurate to what Dragon in this world do and for a reason. They use the same mechanics to eat you as you do to eat chicken. The PC's choice to engage in "this level of play" is literally on the sign standing in front of them.

If you're designing linear/plotted content, on the other hand, then the responsibility for ensuring balance shifts from the players to the GM. This makes things much more difficult for the GM, and makes the resulting scenarios much more fragile when it comes to balance and challenge.

EDIT: This also ties back into the mechanical design of the system. Looking at the Jedi vs. Pilot example again: If the system automatically makes all Jedi better pilots than any other possible character, then it's not impossible for the GM to maintain spotlight balance between a non-Jedi pilot and a Jedi pilot. But it means that the GM has to assert that balance. For example, maybe they arrange things so that the mercenary job requires pilots in two ships; or so that the Jedi needs to not be piloting a ship because their specific skills are needed somewhere else.

Well this is why I'm not a fan of linear plot-devices or adventures. In fact, I generally dislike them a lot. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I can't think of any. The point about the Jedi/Pilot is contextual. For one... Jedi aren't "Just anyone" in context. The very act of allowing a player to play a Jedi/Sith in context immediately has in-game assumptions regardless of what era you're playing Star Wars. If you're making everything up - then fair play, have at it. If you're saying you can't have a Jedi in a non-Force using group, I question the decision making skills of the GM that sets up that campaign. Players do not have some magical "right" to play whatever they want in a game I'm running, for instance. If it fits with my sandbox starting concept - great. If not. Come up with something else.

But IF Jedi are on the table - it means there will be Jedi specific issues in the campaign. If someone is playing a Pilot - you bet your ass there will be pilot-specific stuff in the game. If a Jedi wants to learn how to pilot the game... then that will be a choice that might come to bite them on the ass later when they've fallen down behind the curve of the Jedi-specific issues the game is demanding because they decided they wanna fly X-wings instead of learning how to up their Shii-cho defense forms vs. my NPC Sith that has been focusing on their skills and thwarting them repeatedly in the game. Because that's how you do it. Same is true for the Pilot that gets a wild hair up their ass to pester the Jedi's mentor to teach them the Ways of the Force.

It's not that they CAN'T do it... if I allow in the game from the start - it's on the table. But it means that contextually I'm wanting these characters to be heroes on their own merit. Granted we're talking white-room campaign concept plotting. Timing is *everything*. So maybe the Jedi kills his Sith rival... and no clear and present threat is there. Great! Get in that X-Wing and go for it. Maybe the Pilot player can show you a thing or two. And VICE Versa.

Then for my next trick... they get to enjoy their cross-pollinated success to their hearts content. Then I'll organically create challenges that RISE to their level of concern. Conflict engaged. The Campaign rolls forth seamlessly with these Two Jedi that are good Pilots too.

Flexibility with tension is not something you can program into a system. That is pure GMing using the system in conjunction with the setting conceits.

Notice that this again shifts the responsibility for balance to the GM and, thus, inherently moves you away from being a sandbox: In order for the GM to assert spotlight balance through the conceits of the game world, they're forced to exert significant control over the scenarios the PCs play through.

When the mechanics assert at least enough concept balance to make sure everybody is in the same ballpark, OTOH, it's much more possible for the players to, once again, control their own spotlight balance by choosing to do things that allow their concept to contribute.

Nope. As I just pointed out above ... the system should support the setting and its conceits. If you GM in that pocket, and make adjustments for your changes, there is no Jedi/Pilot problem. If there is - you're using the wrong system with the wrong setting. Or you're an inexperienced GM (or maybe all of the above. And I'm not talking about you specifically Justin - just saying in general, so we're clear.)

 

[tenbones]

I'm convinced robertsconley is trying to convince me to go full OSR.

LOL

 

[tenbones]

WOO! Everyone is making great and fun points to discuss. Lots of concepts flying around here I'm trying to keep up! I'll have more replies later this evening.

 

[tenbones]

I'd argue that balance is a "design objective" not an "illusion".

We can argue that on a theoretical level true balance is impossible, when you take into account things like system mastery.

But it's still the case that a game created with the aim of balance is going to be mechanically different than one that considers it an irrelevance.

And objective towards "what" if not to reinforce the conceits of the setting? That's a serious question for me. System mastery *will* happen if you play anything long enough, but I don't care if you're a grandmaster at Chess, it's not going to necessarily translate to you prosecuting an actual war (though it might inform you of some good strategical metaphors). Because it's a self-contained system under it's own assumptions.

As opposed to a system that describes the ways and means in which interactions take place within a setting that inform that setting.

Humanity in WoD means something in Vampire. It means nothing in Werewolf (which I found odd because Humans have a humanity rating in Vampire). For example. So either the emphasis on Vampire Humanity changed, or the system changed, or the assumptions of the settings change. (and in WoD's case - all three).

This is where my design consistency check comes into play. robertsconley struck on something I'm parsing in my head upthread about what he thought D&D "was" at it's root. That speaks to this... I need to form more thoughts for my response later.

Why should anything mechanical exist in a RPG? It's there to provide a specific framework for play, whether it succeeds or not.

To be clear, I'm not against imbalance, in fact I enjoy it a lot. But I think it provides a different experience, not a better one. Character generation is the obvious example; random generation and point buy lead to very different types of character.

I do think that imbalance actually takes a better designer (and potential GM) to do well.

I can certainly imagine an amazing superhero game where Galactus and the Boy Wonder are in the same party. But it's actually a lot harder to implement than one where all characters are of equal power levels.

It's why I think Rifts is a game which needs an excellent GM to work.

So I'm clear (and you already answered this) - I'm not saying "NO MECHANICS ARE NEEDED" I'm saying that too often today, people think "balance" is somehow divorced from the conceits of their respective settings. People get lost in the myriad of permutations of the mechanics until those *become* the game, and the settings become superfluous... then later, totally alien to the mechanics themselves.

A well designed system will immediately inform a GM what is on the table. This is why Vampire 1e was so well received. Sure it had some mechanics issues. But the mechanics they had in there for all their oddities were "in the pocket" of the assumptions of the setting. Even at the start with Chicago By Night they showed us - yep, here are some 4th Generation Vampires... this is what the game *could* go to. But of course in time the assumptions of the settings slowly changed and the mechanical issues stopped comporting with the conceits of the setting. Granted, like all games with fans - this didn't stop people from playing it. But then smart thing to do when you revise is to fix those issues with as few changes as possible. (but you know how this goes.)

Rifts is a great example of that same phenomenon. But I'll also say that due to the nature of its mechanics (as such) it was easier to pile on top rather than to nip-tuck. EVEN then... Rifts mechanics still supports its setting very well all things considered. YMMV (and yes I'd use a different system at this point. And I do, Savage Worlds)

As an aside, I think one reason for the imbalance in a lot of early games was the fact it was still an offshoot of wargames at that point. Unless they're focused on tournament play (Warhammer) balance is not only irrelevant, but actively unhelpful for most wargames. Asymmetry is the standard, not the rule. (That's changed a bit now because of the rise of the more casual wargame scene, but it's definitely the case in the seventies and eighties). The nearest most of the games in question get to balance is suggesting that people swap sides for a second game and see who scores the most victory points.

I suspect there is a LOT of truth here. It also comports with the CRPG mentality of contained experiences and the taxonomy of describing those details mechanically only within those contained experiences.

Total War Streefighter in Minecraft the RPG is never going to be a good idea.

Caitiff in Vampire the Masquerade. That's an interesting one, because as far as character generation goes it's point buy and relatively balanced. But there is no way that there is anything mechanical that makes up for the social downsides of being a caitiff in the setting. It's something chosen by players who specifically want to be a underdog.

A very interesting point!

MANY Vampire players I remember immediately thought Caitiff were the "best" because they got to frontload their character however they wanted without the specific understanding of what Caitiff social-repercussions were like. I've played in many Vampire games where the GM's completely ignored the in-setting realities of what Caitiff life is *supposed* to be like, for lack of understanding, lack of caring and ultimately it very much changed the assumptions of the social dynamics. It doesn't kill the game necessarily because, okay we're all still using the same system to express the mechanics, of the setting. The advantage of being Caitiff in this regard is small - and still can be brought into play through judicious roleplaying. (Caitif scum!!!!)

When used contextually, the social dynamic completely changed that attitude. This might be the best example of the mechanics not supporting things from a setting conceit perspective - perhaps due to people misunderstanding it? Caitiff were always treated like bastard scum in my games as a general rule, PC's and individual NCP's not withstanding. But again - it's enforcing social dynamics implicitly as part of the design. The task-resolution factors for making that emphasis do not change in any regard, which supports my original point: social dynamics in game will resolve perceptions of "imbalance" by enforcing the status-quo as per the GM.

If the GM wants to make that change the degree of difficulty in making those changes is commensurate to the degree that the system is designed for specifically for that kind of conceit. The issue is when those changes themselves eclipse the conceits of the setting they're intended for.

 

[AsenRG]

Is "balance" an illusion that should be handled via social conceits in game? i.e. it doesn't matter that Half-Orcs are stronger and tougher than Humans. Because human society is larger, and they're going to pay stiff social penalties in varying ways, for being a statistically better warrior. The conceits of the status-quo in-setting are its own balancing force, with the caveat that the PC's are completely free to attempt to change that in play.

Sure, you can go that way...and it would fit some settings (better than others).
But, IMO, those who believe an increase in size and aggression is always a net positive have a lot to learn from the humble mantis and the mongoose, too.

Thoughts?

Unless you make them truly alien, you risk to run lots of games with "other races trying to get accepted by mainstream human society". That...risks getting stale at some point, and once they achieve said acceptance, your "balance" is out the window unless you take "corrective measures".

Also, I barely tolerate elves as-is, making them alspo more powerful would require me to start te campaign by total elficide!

 

[TristramEvans]

Because:

1. Not everyone is a simulationist and, therefore, couldn't care less about all the world-simulation stuff you're clearly prioritizing above all other concerns in your post.

Nobody is simulationist, since that term doesn't describe players.

 

[Chris Brady]

I actually went through a phase in the late '90s where I made the most mechanically useless characters that I could. Some of my most fun characters came out of doing that.

Of course, I understand it isn't something everyone would enjoy.

That's not feeling useless, that's actively (and with the tacit approval of your friends) trying an experiment. I've done that also. But that's a completely different than feeling like either a charity case or holding the party back.

Which brings up two things. First is the strawman that it's the rest of the party that claims one player is useless, I've been around long enough to know that this is not that common a thing. In fact, some players play the most advantageous characters, because it means more 'screen time' for them and want everyone else to play the less balanced classes. (Most Magic User players in D&D styled games at conventions.)

Second, that Balance means Sameness. It does not. It never has unless, the person is actively being disingenuous about their intentions.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

I always defined "balance" as "is each class fun to play." Beyond that I don't give a crap.

As for why this fetishization of numbers like discussed above, I suspect it's due to people writing and playing RPGs without a strong grounding in games in general. Not game theory... just plain playing games of all kinds.

 

[Picaroon Jack]

Rifts dispelled any illusions I had about game balance. The guy playing the vagabond had just as much fun as the guy playing the demigod.

 

[Edgewise]

And objective towards "what" if not to reinforce the conceits of the setting?

In my experience, it works the other way around i.e. the setting will contain an explanation for the balancing mechanic. Usually the goal of character build balance (the type you're mostly talking about) is to make sure that PCs are able to contribute relatively equally to tackling challenges.

 

[Baulderstone]

That's not feeling useless, that's actively (and with the tacit approval of your friends) trying an experiment. I've done that also. But that's a completely different than feeling like either a charity case or holding the party back.

Fair enough. I can see the distinction that you are making there.

 

[robertsconley]

To address Justin Alexander ponts, the way I view it that the high level view that it is about creating an interesting experience for a campaign. It is as generic as it sounds. The hard part is figuring out how craft an interesting experience for the specific group of individual at your table.

One way that proved popular is to create a set of mechanics that allows the player to create a team where everybody has a niche. D&D in particular has honed this to a fine art in various editions and in various forms. Another is allowing the players to contribute to the setting or the unfolding narrative on a metagame level.

I am not going to argue which specific method is "better". My view it is nonsense because who I am to say what is interested for you or you or you.

I do think that that there is an over reliance on rules to create interesting experience.

What I focus on is crafting an experience given the setting, the characters the players are playing, and the goals they are pursuing.

It start with creating or offering a setting that the players are interested in experiencing.
Then narrowing that to an aspect of the setting. A narrow example is everybody a member of the mage's guild, a more expansive example is starting out as travellers meeting in Regina's starport.

Then everybody talks about the character they want to play and hash out who is playing what. Or more typically they tell as the referee and I keep everybody in the loop.

So far you probably thinking it will wind up as a form of Spotlight balance. But that not quite how it works out. It works out pretty much like it does with any random group in real life figuring out what to do that is fun and/or interesting. Sometime it winds up with a rotating spotlight as the party support each other in pursuit of each other's individual goals that don't really mesh.

But more often everybody sign on to a main activity and agree to pursue individual interest from time to time.

The trick I am employing is engaging the players normal social skills while they are pretending to be characters in a fantastic situation. The same social skills that led to the players agreeing to play in a tabletop RPG campaign with me as the referee. This crystalized for me as a result of my experience with NERO LARP and ten years of roleplaying with people while engaged in adventuring.

It may sounds like a hyper focus on simulation but it not. Because I groups of players shake out a party of character which each of them having a define role and niche within the party. I had groups opt to play a bunch of naturalist characters that are clearly suboptimal for adventuring like denizens of a City State neighborhood. It not a single axis and every group comes up with it won unique mix.

The process works irregardless of the rules I have used. Outside of personality conflict, if it fails it is because the characters and/or situation prove to be not as interesting as it was initially thought to be. As if they went to a new beach and found it boring.

Bringing back it to the OP, it doesn't work with every set of RPG rules out there. For this to work and feel interesting the rules has to tie back to what the character can do in the setting. It doesn't need to be detailed but it does has to aid adjudicating players specific things they are doing as their character. In addition it doesn't work if the the rules make the players metagame and think of the experience as one where they are players playing a game.

In recent years i used GURPS 4e, Harnmaster 3e, Hero System, Runequest 2e, D&D 3.X, D&D 4e, D&D 5e, The Fantasy Trip, Fantasy AGE, and OD&D all to good effect. The only system that didn't cut it was Fate because the three times I ran it, the players felt like they were cheating when they used Fate points.

The system I use regularly like GURPS, OD&D and AGE, I modify further to reflect the setting I use. While the settings I use have what Jason calls a Naturalistic Balance, it doesn't matter for individual campaigns because players can pick, as outlined above, where they want to adventure and who they adventure as.

The Downside to all this
This whole process and everything I do in support of this has a learning curve. A curve where you start with little to no information and support material and have to build it up. Not so much in terms of written material but in experience. Because it awards the experienced referee far more than the novice referee.

I played with the enough players over enough campaign in the three genres that I am strongest at (Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Super Heroes) that I have a good handle on helping players through picking out something interesting. A good handle on being attentive to what they find interesting during the campaign. And how to make that consistent with what they know about the setting.

Part of that is that when it comes to a given genre, I stick to the same setting for decades. Kept notes on what player did and didn't do and made it part of the background of the next campaign in that genre using that setting.

When you do this you notice patterns. Figure out the patterns you need experience. Hence the learning curve and the downside of my approach. But the good news once you master it, you won't be a servant to the rules or to an author's vision. Instead it will how you describe the setting that will be the ultimate source of your rules and rulings.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm convinced robertsconley is trying to convince me to go full OSR.

LOL

Well all I can say it does work. But go with 3d6, another form of d20, or d100 or whatever inspires you. The core principle I am hammering on is define your setting first, write or alter the rules to reflex that. If does that then live with the consequences of what it implies. If you don't like what it implies, then change the setting so that doesn't imply that any more.

Or

If you don't like what the rules imply make sure it isn't a result of the situation you are focusing on. Maybe focusing on a different aspect of the setting is the ticket to resolving the issue.

Or
if you don't like what the rules imply make sure there isn't another factor you are overlooking.

For example, OD&D magic users, at high level they have power. More than a few time from friends and from the internet, I get the comment that they would be ruling the Wilderlands. My answer is that as depicted they are a scholarly profession. In a medieval society. Somebody has to support them while they are studying to get to the point where they can do all the broken things being complained about it.

And Medieval productivity just isn't there to allow for enough magic user to make a difference. Eventually yes perhaps. But the campaign is set in the time where it hasn't happen yet. Moreso many of the techniques to get magic users mass producing resources are a result of philosophies that weren't invented for centuries. Concepts that came into being only after there was a Reniassance, Reformation, Enlightenment.

The world is very much a handcraft world were each project or task a result of a single individual labor and time.

 

[Brock Savage]

When it comes to issues of balance I play to my audience and the particular game I'm running at the time. I'll use the terms in Justin's post because they are better than anything I could come up with.

Spotlight balance is more important in my roleplay and investigation focused games such as Vampire or Call of Cthuhlu. Characters may appear grossly underpowered on paper (e.g. ghoul characters in Vampire or a disabled investigator in CoC) but the power imbalance rarely impacts player enjoyment. Mechanical disparities in combat capability and raw power are largely irrelevant so long as everyone gets roughly equal spotlight time to do their thing.

Concept balance is more important in my dungeoncrawling D&D game. The focus on combat and exploration makes it easy and practical to ensure a rough parity in effectiveness between characters. I don't want my players to feel like the dude who shows up to an orgy with a tiny penis because their character is unable to meaningfully contribute to 90% of the game.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

Total War Streefighter in Minecraft the RPG is never going to be a good idea.

*quietly shelves plans for Kickstarter*