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

[EmperorNorton]

The whole opening post is espousing some one sized fits all nonsense that honestly I can't stand.

I prefer a game start with some level of balance. Its a hell of a lot easier for a GM to destroy balance than create it. Unbalanced game systems pretty much only support GMs who want unbalanced games or really really experienced GMs who can balance it themselves. A balanced game system can support either.

That said, I'm not for perfect balance either. That isn't something that can be achieved.

Basically, stop trying to pretend that anyone who doesn't play the way you do is wrong. The idea that balance is "illusion" is bullshit. It may be irrelevant to you, but if you don't care about unbalancing things, you have a lot of freedom to change whatever you want.

 

[CRKrueger]

Uhoh Tenbones, the opinion you voiced was a little too supportive of old school play. You’ve given offense. You should know better.

 

[EmperorNorton]

It wasn't "too supportive of old school play" it basically stated "this is the truth of it, and nothing else should exist".

Pretending that stating that what some players want in their game is an "illusion" is being criticized for supporting something rather than its dismissal towards other styles is disingenuous at best, and active shit stirring at worst.

TL;DR: You can support things without shitting on other things.

 

[Chris Brady]

It wasn't "too supportive of old school play" it basically stated "this is the truth of it, and nothing else should exist".

Pretending that stating that what some players want in their game is an "illusion" is being criticized for supporting something rather than its dismissal towards other styles is disingenuous at best, and active shit stirring at worst.

TL;DR: You can support things without shitting on other things.

But that's what Kruger does.

 

[CRKrueger]

It wasn't "too supportive of old school play" it basically stated "this is the truth of it, and nothing else should exist".

Pretending that stating that what some players want in their game is an "illusion" is being criticized for supporting something rather than its dismissal towards other styles is disingenuous at best, and active shit stirring at worst.

TL;DR: You can support things without shitting on other things.

Oh bullshit. Now you've gone from looking for a reason to be offended to outright lying about the content of his post.

 

[EmperorNorton]

You know what, I'm never going to respond to you whining about me being insulting for criticizing your opinion ever again. It seems really hypocritical of you that you ever did.

His entire opening point dismisses the idea of mechanical balance completely. If you can't see that, you are blind.

I think "balance" is largely an illusion.

I mean, surely he never said this right, it isn't a literal part of his opening post.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I mean, Tenbones' actual statement in the opening post is that he *thinks* balance is an illusion. Other people were outright more direct on the idea that balance isn't a real thing.

For me, I want enough "balance" to know that the designers weren't just completely pulling shit out of their asses. Otherwise, I don't personally care. I routinely run games with characters of different power levels for different reasons. Tend to do a pretty good job of making sure everyone feels like they matter to the game. It all works out.

 

[EmperorNorton]

The funny thing is, I'm not a person obsessed with balance myself. I just get that some people are, and you know what I'm fine with them existing. Sometimes they take things a bit too far, but on the whole I can understand the desire. I want just enough balance that I don't have to feel too concerned about players feeling massively overshadowed too badly. (Also, the idea that Jedi are bad at social encounters when one of the iconic powers from the very first movie (in fact one of the FEW overt powers shown in the fist movie) is literally altering a persons mind is hilarious to me).

And like I said, its easier to break a game if you don't like the balance, than to balance a game that is broken.

Hell, I don't even dislike old school style play. I just think that a lot of people who practice solely that style are way way too negative towards other styles.

 

[CRKrueger]

You know what, I'm never going to respond to you whining about me being insulting for criticizing your opinion ever again. It seems really hypocritical of you that you ever did.

His entire opening point dismisses the idea of mechanical balance completely. If you can't see that, you are blind.

I mean, surely he never said this right, it isn't a literal part of his opening post.

Good Lord. Context is king. My interpretation is "Mechanical balance divorced from balance in the setting is an illusion of balance." That's what he's saying. He's not taking a gigantic shit on everyone who likes every single race to have the exact same power level, he's saying that creating that type of balance universally for the system, without analyzing how that balance is going to work when combined with the setting is relying on the game designer to provide such balance that may be undone once the rubber hits the road and setting assumptions clash with system assumptions.

I'll make you a deal though, how about me you and Brady just leave the thread and let the published game designers continue having their constructive conversation they were having.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I totally agree with the last point. I zone out with the "NOT REAL ROLEPLAYING" stuff from the fantasy fucking vietnam crowd.

I mean, I don't lose a lot of sleep over the balance issues. The games I run primarily (Savage Worlds and 5e) have that modicum of balance, and my players give about as much of a shit about it as I do. They trust me to run a game they enjoy and we all have fun.

I just stay away from games like 3.5 and its kin that certainly tried to preach a certain level of delicate balance easily broken, whether it was true or not. I just thought the OP was actually less assertive and absolute in his post than some of the responses (though, of course, the responses don't exist without the OP).

 

[EmperorNorton]

NVM, I'm out, I'm not getting dragged into your fucking bullshit.

 

[Endless Flight]

Just imagine everyone’s post has an “in my opinion” in front of it and your life will be a lot less stressful.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Adding "In my opinion" to "I think the whole concept of your style of design and play is an illusion" doesn't actually make it less shitty.

People should stop trying to talk from a position of "I think RPGs should be designed this way" and instead talk about how they think RPGs should be designed to appeal to specific styles/audiences.

Because there is no universal way an RPG should be designed, and the idea of a universal style of design shouldn't be anyone's "opinion".

 

[TristramEvans]

The first post had nothing to do with RPG design, and said nothing regarding anyone's playstyle. At the most anyone could infer from it is that TenBones was inderirectly talking about his own preference in regards to playing, and why that would require some apologetic caveat to assure people they are allowed to have their own preferences because they are so insecure they read into a statement of opinion as a personal attack, I cannot fathom.

But what's shitty here is instead of engaging in a normal adult manner with what was otherwise a pleasant and interesting discussion with an opposing PoV, to instead treat people having a discussion that doesn't specifically acknowledge your obvious right to disagree or game however you want as a personal affront. You already said you were leaving the conversation, let's make that official.

 

[Trippy]

There is a certain aesthetic in maintaining balance in game design, as it supposes that each player is given something equitable in their role at the table to play with. However, in the context of story or indeed anything else, a strong player can belt a decent tune out of a tuba (to paraphrase John Lennon), whereas a weak player couldn't get traction with anything they play. Social interaction can be a game balancer, to be sure, while the GM and game structure itself can also help determine how useful each role is to the group.

Not everything in a perfect body needs to be proportional to everything else, however. I, myself, have quite small hands...

 

[EmperorNorton]

If I came and said that something like "I think in character play is an illusion" (I wouldn't say this, as I don't believe it), do you really think I'm not saying anything about people who play in character?

And the discussion of leaving the thread was in not engaging with Kruger's "Look at me I designed a game, look how superior I am" childish bullshit.

But sure, have a moderator come in and call out someone for thinking the OP is dismissive of other playstyles, but don't say a thing to the person telling people they can't have an opinion because they've never designed a game.

 

[Chris Brady]

Because there is no universal way an RPG should be designed, and the idea of a universal style of design shouldn't be anyone's "opinion".

The OSR and 'Grognards' would like to have a word with you, Norton.

 

[SavAce]

If I came and said that something like "I think in character play is an illusion" (I wouldn't say this, as I don't believe it), do you really think I'm not saying anything about people who play in character?

Ultimately, why would I care? Someone holding an opinion different than mine regarding role-playing, fortunately, in no way obstructs me from playing how I'd like. If I thought their opinion was mistaken, my 1st thought would be something along the lines of, "I guess they've just never played that way and don't understand." or possibly "Does this person really mean what I think they're saying?" rather than... to feel personally aggrieved, or to take offense? It's just... impossible for me to feel "shit upon" in the way you seem to feel like people on forums are doing to you. And I'm glad about that, too. That must feel awful.

Just know that people opining on some RP related hypothesis about what "balance" is and if/how it exists did not start this forum thread out of spite as part of a personal vendetta against you or some faction of the role-playing public. It's just folks shooting the shit, ya know?

 

[EmperorNorton]

Again with people believing that I think this is some personal slight against me (I've stated several times that I'm not hyper into balance, even though I understand why someone would be).

It is the attitude of "this kind of game is wrong to do things this way" that I dislike. It has nothing to do with my own playstyle and everything to do with the fact that I think all playstyles are valid (before anyone takes this down the rabbithole, yes there are probably invalid playstyles, but they mostly exist in RPG Horror stories and Chick Tracts), and that anyone who behaves otherwise makes the entire RPG community incredibly unwelcoming.

And this idea that "oh he was talking about..." Look at all the follow up posts. It's all a bunch of people piling on to the concept of balance, and mocking people who want to play a balanced game:

When I read about the need for "balance" in an RPG, I hear little kids whining "no fairs!"

And then Tenbones coming in to say "see we all basically agree". So if Tenbones doesn't want to get lumped in with people saying the above, maybe he himself shouldn't come in to say that people are agreeing with him when they say things like that.

Yes, there are people coming in with more nuanced opinions (and I agree with those more nuanced opinions, such as Justin Alexander's post), but to pretend there is no derision of players who prefer a system that attempts balance in this thread is just willful ignorance.

The fact that Dumarest can call people who talk about balance whining kids and no one says a word, but anyone calls out the attitudes in the thread they get jumped on gives me the impression that it isn't about being rude, its about rocking the boat. And the attitude of "don't rock the boat" is saying "People with these preferences, you don't belong here, because anyone who tries to defend you will get yelled down."

 

[PolarBlues]

I think Emperor Norton makes a fair point, one that is fundamental to with any disucssion forum.

Any strongly expressed preferences comes carries an implied criticism of all other preferences. We politley pretend that all other preferences are equally legitimate, but deep down we all know our personal preferences are in fact the objectively correct ones. And of course witty one-liners are a lot funnier without a an "in my opinion" attached to it.

But if one is prepared to forgo a bunch of "in my opinions" and assorted qualifiers in favour clarity and wit, then a bit of "rocking the boat" is a perfectly legitimate response. And that's OK, what's the point of posting a concept if it's not to be challenged? But we're all kind of responsible making sure it doesn't get personal or overheated.

 

[TJS]

Just imagine everyone’s post has an “in my opinion” in front of it and your life will be a lot less stressful.

This always confuses me. If we're not assuming it's the author's opinion, whose opinion are we assuming it is?

 

[Luca]

I always hated the way elves had much better stats than anyone else in WFRP 1st ed. As a general rule I want to play humans, not hippy tree huggers, but humans start with truly awful stats in WFRP while elves are... still awful, but a bit less so. But there's also the point that since maximum possible advancement is capped (you can't go over +40 no matter which careers you choose), elves in the game will also reach an higher maximum cap.

Will I sulk in a corner and cry if you force me to play with lower stats due to choosing a human? No. But if you house rule the game so that humans can be on par with elves, and give me the choice, I'll always go with the house rule.

Also, I don't give a flying fuck about the "setting average" in regards to PCs. If I want to play an average specimen, I can do it in real life.

And I don't see how social limitations are supposed to work as a balancing factor in your default murderhobo-party D&D setting (or any setting where PCs are going to amass significant personal power, really). So the locals don't like my elven face? Too bad, my elven-enhanced 20th-level wizard spells are going to raze their patethic mud village to the ground.

 

[Ladybird]

I always hated the way elves had much better stats than anyone else in WFRP 1st ed. As a general rule I want to play humans, not hippy tree huggers, but humans start with truly awful stats in WFRP while elves are... still awful, but a bit less so. But there's also the point that since maximum possible advancement is capped (you can't go over +40 no matter which careers you choose), elves in the game will also reach an higher maximum cap.

WFRP Elves come with a pretty steep cost, though; you don't get to play a WFRP Dwarf. It's basically failing at character gen.

 

[TJS]

Elves in WFRP are balanced out by your very low chance of actually rolling one. While Rangers in AD&D 1e are balanced against Fighters the same way.

It's not that these games aren't balanced - it's just a different kind of balance.

If balance didn't matter you wouldn't roll dice for stats. You'd just say to players "pick whatever you feel is appropriate to your character concept" and get on with it.

 

[TristramEvans]

I always hated the way elves had much better stats than anyone else in WFRP 1st ed. As a general rule I want to play humans, not hippy tree huggers, but humans start with truly awful stats in WFRP while elves are... still awful, but a bit less so. But there's also the point that since maximum possible advancement is capped (you can't go over +40 no matter which careers you choose), elves in the game will also reach an higher maximum cap.

Will I sulk in a corner and cry if you force me to play with lower stats due to choosing a human? No. But if you house rule the game so that humans can be on par with elves, and give me the choice, I'll always go with the house rule.

Also, I don't give a flying fuck about the "setting average" in regards to PCs. If I want to play an average specimen, I can do it in real life.

And I don't see how social limitations are supposed to work as a balancing factor in your default murderhobo-party D&D setting (or any setting where PCs are going to amass significant personal power, really). So the locals don't like my elven face? Too bad, my elven-enhanced 20th-level wizard spells are going to raze their patethic mud village to the ground.

I think WFRP 1e revels in it's lack of "balance". Personally I took that as part of the charm of the game. But then, WFRP 1e explicitly punishes "murderhobos" or the "D&D dungeoncrawler" mindset of players, almost sadistically so. As a friend of mine once put it, "Warhammer is a game where you start out thinking you're playing D&D and slowly realize that you're actually playing Call of Cthulhu".

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Adding "In my opinion" to "I think the whole concept of your style of design and play is an illusion" doesn't actually make it less shitty.

I don't see how it's any different than Chris Brady's

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

Both are equally categorical statments, one about game design and the other about players. If anything, the latter is more personalised.

People should stop trying to talk from a position of "I think RPGs should be designed this way" and instead talk about how they think RPGs should be designed to appeal to specific styles/audiences.

Because there is no universal way an RPG should be designed, and the idea of a universal style of design shouldn't be anyone's "opinion".

How is this not a one size fits all claim about game design?

I guess I'm just genuinely confused about what the issue is here.

I can get why you'd object to Dumarest's and Kruger's posts (even if I'm personally too thick skinned to care, those were targeted at playing styles specifically).

Tenbones makes a (admittedly very strong) claim that he thinks balance in game design is an illusion.

Fine, you can agree or disagree with that (and as my post makes clear I don't entirely agree with him) but someone disagreeing about game design isn't a personal attack. I know you've said it's not personal for you but that's even odder. You're offended on behalf of a consumer product?

At which point I think if people disagree with the statement they push back on it, possibly with the same kind of tone. This is how debate works. And I'm be really unhappy if the Pub had no place for debate, only discussion.

Do you and Tenbones have history from elsewhere? Genuine question. Because I didn't come here via the Site I've noticed before that when people seem to have a massive issue with each other where I can't work out the reasons that's often it.

On the other hand TristramEvans I think that was over the line. (The image macro specifically)

Do you actually want people responding on here with that level of aggression? Where do you draw the line? If I disagree with someone can I change their words to "disregard I suck cocks"? And if you must flame, I really don't think you should put the mod hat on first.

I get you were having a bad day, but I really don't want tos ee this becoming a pattern. Or if it is going to be I'd like that upfront so I can change how I post accordingly.

 

[TristramEvans]

On the other hand TristramEvans I think that was over the line. (The image macro specifically)

Do you actually want people responding on here with that level of aggression? Where do you draw the line? If I disagree with someone can I change their words to "disregard I suck cocks"? And if you must flame, I really don't think you should put the mod hat on first.

I get you were having a bad day, but I really don't want tos ee this becoming a pattern. Or if it is going to be I'd like that upfront so I can change how I post accordingly.

Yep, I was being harsh. Maybe you are correct in that it was too harsh, maybe the meme pushed it too far. No, I don't generally want that level of aggression, but that was kind of my point. Instead of engaging with the discussion and offering an alternate PoV, Norton was offering nothing of value while making the thread about his issues. I have nothing personally against Norton, I think most of the time he's a great poster, but I have a very negative reaction to what was essentially a tantrum. If I stepped over the line in responding to that, well, I'll accept that. But (while I erased the post going into specifics because I really don't want to sit here and continue attacking Norton after threadbanning him), let me just say it was a confluence of events that led to that point. That's not an excuse, simply a reason.

I could go back and erase the meme, but that feels slightly dishonest and it's already happened, there's no point now in hiding it. If I failed as a moderator to be moderate, well, I'm not a perfect person.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

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.

At this point, I think we're at least partly into the fact that the "game" part can be as significant as the "roleplaying" part.

Balance is largely a goal on a meta level. While we talk about it in terms of characters being equal, what we're actually talking about is players being equal at the character creation stage. Again, point buy is a good example. There is no setting reason it exists, it's about playability.

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

It sounds like you're strongly in favour of games where the setting and mechanics are closely integrated. Possibly ones that offer a narrower range of playing experiences but focus heavily on that. I am as well, but I think you're mistaking a preference for a design principle.

Universal systems have always had a strong following despite their more generic nature.

D&D is an interesting example here. It's not completely generic (D&D has inbuilt setting assumptions at least). But I'd still see it as more of a toolkit than a setting driven RPG. Which is why it's verstaile enough to handle Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun.

Compare that to games like Pendragon or Flashing Blades where setting drives the mechanics a lot more heavily,. In terms of personal taste I actually prefer them, but they certainly don't rival D&D.

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!!!!)

Didn't understand or it wasn't relevant to the games they were in? At that point I think we're dealing with something different; games where the group has changed the setting enough that it's fairly considered a homebrew even if the same mechanics are used.

 

[Necrozius]

On games like WFRP or RQG, where the design philosophy goes like "completely unbalanced" I found out they were way better for my style as the designers didn't waste their time trying to create danger rates for every monster and instead focused on giving them life, and preparing them with a set of rules that actually portrayed the way they behaved.

I’m starting to appreciate this philosophy more and more these days.

For example, in 5e, I only refer to a monster’s CR as a vague point of reference, without any calculations. Although I do use reaction rolls, so that green dragon might not be dangerous to a level 1 party. Also I might just decide “fuck it, the dragon could eat you all, but he already ate a prince and just wants to exchange riddles, what do you do?”

 

[Baulderstone]

Elves in WFRP are balanced out by your very low chance of actually rolling one. While Rangers in AD&D 1e are balanced against Fighters the same way.

It's not that these games aren't balanced - it's just a different kind of balance.

If balance didn't matter you wouldn't roll dice for stats. You'd just say to players "pick whatever you feel is appropriate to your character concept" and get on with it.

WFRP also gives out Fate Points based on race. Elves have better stats, but humans have the gods on their side, giving them more opportunities to survive what would otherwise be TPKs.

 

[Ladybird]

For example, in 5e, I only refer to a monster’s CR as a vague point of reference, without any calculations. Although I do use reaction rolls, so that green dragon might not be dangerous to a level 1 party. Also I might just decide “fuck it, the dragon could eat you all, but he already ate a prince and just wants to exchange riddles, what do you do?”

Stuff like CR is only intended as a tool the GM can use to help them put together "fair" fights if that is something they want to do; it isn't meant to be the be-all and end-all of the game. It's not perfect but it's good enough for that. Experienced GM's can of course eyeball it, but the main benefit to it is to help newbie GM's not make dire mistakes either way.

 

[Necrozius]

WFRP also gives out Fate Points based on race. Elves have better stats, but humans have the gods on their side, giving them more opportunities to survive what would otherwise be TPKs.

Yeah I remember that!

Something like humans had d3+1 Fate points while elves and dwarves were something like straight up d3 or I even remember one race having d3-1. Now THAT's a way to balance things out a bit while being super thematic.

 

[SavAce]

To talk to the subject, I don't believe "balance" is achievable across the entire range of play that most RPGs operate in. Because it's a game I played so much, I'll use "Street Fighter" as an example: Street Fighter broadly has 2 modes of play. 1.) You're playing some wacky character travelling the world & having adventures. 2.) Also, you're fighting in underground martial arts tournaments.

In mode 1, it's just too open ended to have "mechanical balance". Depending on the GM, you'll likely end up needing Alertness & Stealth more than Bookie, Publicist or Finance. The "Balance" in this mode is more about... story or spotlight balance, which comes down to how well a character concept meshes with other characters and the GMs world of what's going down, and social factors like how good you are at maintaining interest in others with your RP, or how well other players are supporting each other's RP, etc. It isn't achieved through the rules written in the book. There are some "Story Game" style RPGs that try to reach this kind of balance, with explicit rules for scene framing and all of that. They mostly aren't my bag, but I see how they are an attempt to mechanically address this kind of "social dynamic" balance.

In mode 2, Street Fighter is just a game where you have Combat Cards and use your maneuvers and the rules to attempt to beat your opponent, often 1 on 1. While it's integrated with the role playing, it doesn't have to be. You can just play it as a stand-alone combat game and be entertained. Here, the mechanical balance of the options matters in the same way as it does in a board game or video game. It is required to keep the game from having a boring, singular winning strategy that crowds out all of the other options and results in everyone taking the "best" option and winning coming down to the dice alone. Other RPGs have spaces like this. Like, Heavy Gear has the RP system, then the "Tactical Combat" system where you put your Gear minis on a map and play "Battle Tech" (with different rules and smaller mechs...). The Fantasy Trip, of course, started out as "Melee" and "Wizard" before they even got put together as an RPG. D&D, depending on edition, has different versions of this mode. Like, the old school has the 10 minute dungeon exploration turn structure, then combat. The new school D&D kinda downplays the dungeon exploration turn as a strict mechanical thing and does this balancing around "combat encounters". I'd say the decision making in old school D&D is less tied to the stats on the character sheet than new school D&D.

I also think there are a lot of RPGs that are a bit ambiguous about whether "Mode 2" is a thing in their game, or it is more mixed up with "Mode 1" so different players can be playing the same situation in different modes and step on each other's feet. Like... is "The Run" in Shadowrun a "Mode 2" kind of situation? It depends. I think Shadowrun missions can be played like D&D style dungeon infiltrations almost. Alternately, you can think that's all boring & Shadowrun is a bad game for that, but the rules are good enough to support your character's revenge story, etc.

 

[zweihander]

I feel there are only two things that are important when it comes to creating a balanced game: 1) an even level of distribution of abilities/skills/traits/talents to each class/profession/career and 2) a bounded accuracy model. Here's a critical view of my favorite games when it comes to these principles:

1. WFRP 1e = no equal distributions/no bounded accuracy
2. WFRP 2e = no equal distributions/no bounded accuracy
3. WFRP 3e = equal distribution/no bounded accuracy
4. WFRP 4e = equal distribution/no bounded accuracy
5. ZWEIHANDER RPG = equal distribution/bounded accuracy
6. D&D3e/3.53 = no equal distribution/no bounded accuracy
7. D&D4e = equal distribution/no bounded accuracy
8. D&D5e = equal distribution/bounded accuracy
9. Pathfinder 1e = no equal distribution/no bounded accuracy
10. Pathfinder 2e = equal distribution/no bounded accuracy

 

[robertsconley]

Yes that all well and good but doesn't answer why create a balanced game in the first place?

My view is that balance is an arbitrary set of criteria that varies among individuals and groups. Designing a set of rules to reflect any particular author's view of balance is doomed to failure. In contrast settings of RPGs are entire worlds with potential richness equal to our own which include much if not all the different viewpoints of balance expressed in this thread.

If one craft a set of rules to reflect that setting (or genre) then to achieve any particular type of balance is a matter of setting up the campaign with the right mix of character types and circumstances. And explaining this tersely and clearly so hobbyists will have fun doing this in the time they have for a hobby.

Now that I think about it the problem isn't that rules are designed with a particular kind of balance (or lack of) in mind. The problem occurs when that the only option it offers either in terms of mechanics or in terms of what it teaches.

 

[CRKrueger]

Yep, I was being harsh. Maybe you are correct in that it was too harsh, maybe the meme pushed it too far. No, I don't generally want that level of aggression, but that was kind of my point. Instead of engaging with the discussion and offering an alternate PoV, Norton was offering nothing of value while making the thread about his issues. I have nothing personally against Norton, I think most of the time he's a great poster, but I have a very negative reaction to what was essentially a tantrum. If I stepped over the line in responding to that, well, I'll accept that. But (while I erased the post going into specifics because I really don't want to sit here and continue attacking Norton after threadbanning him), let me just say it was a confluence of events that led to that point. That's not an excuse, simply a reason.

I could go back and erase the meme, but that feels slightly dishonest and it's already happened, there's no point now in hiding it. If I failed as a moderator to be moderate, well, I'm not a perfect person.

Nah, you’re 100% right. Norton’s having a tantrum.

Tenbones made no attacks on anyone or their playstyles. Neither did Jerry, who was agreeing with him.

Everyone on every forum in existence expresses their opinions and states their preferences. If however, your preferences are towards more traditional, non-narrative, “old school play”, anything you say is perceived as an attack and OneTrueWayism etc.

It’s bull. People are losing their shit and going off, seeing attacks where none exist.

If I say I don’t like Classic Traveller, I’m not saying I look down on you because you do. I’m saying I like Coke Zero more than Diet Coke.

Mods should be neutral, but that doesn’t extend to the “Astrophysicists debate substance of moon” fallacy.

As far as the leaving a thread goes. Just leave. No need to huff and puff, shrug and show us how little you care, etc etc. This isn’t High School.

Sometimes being a mod is not playing “Emperor’s new clothes”, calling it like it is, and reminding people they’re adults.

 

[Necrozius]

"Balance" can have many degrees of course.

Savage Rifts made "balance" by ensuring that every character type, from an expert human ranger to a shape-shifting Mega-Damage dealing dragon were both feasible starting characters. No system is perfect, but they definitely tried through a combination of skills, special abilities and starting equipment.

I mean, sure the human ranger is no match against the power of a freakin' dragon, but that ranger has cybernetics AND psychic powers. If the player doesn't want that stuff, then they can get boosts in other ways: fantastic contacts, a cool vehicle or whatever.

I think that's just cementing what some DMs might do anyway: letting the field mouse have some concrete benefits in a setting that a dragon wouldn't. It's nice for newbies to spell it out for them ("dragons have a hard time hiding without magic, they tend to be naive about mortal affairs, they are the target of many hunters" VS "field mice can hide REAL easily, they're cute and have an easy time charming mortals, they have an elaborate family network of support") or whatever.

I mean "fun" may vary from group to group, of course. But most people I've met like to play make-believe about characters that are interesting and at least capable of doing SOMETHING special in the setting. Even if that something isn't an ability to punch faces. But something that has a meaningful impact.

To each their own: I'm sure old school brutalists can find plenty of people who enjoy being dealt a shitty hand during character creation along-side other players who get super lucky and start off much more heroic. I don't: I'd rather everyone start off as shmucks or everyone starts off as heroes, but whatever.

 

[tenbones]

At this point, I think we're at least partly into the fact that the "game" part can be as significant as the "roleplaying" part.

Balance is largely a goal on a meta level. While we talk about it in terms of characters being equal, what we're actually talking about is players being equal at the character creation stage. Again, point buy is a good example. There is no setting reason it exists, it's about playability.

I'm thinking through this.

I'm comfortable saying that "Balance" in terms of meta-goal means the closest consistency between task-resolution mechanics and whatever conceits are extant in the world, with obvious caveats that there are inevitable deviations from that ideal consistency (i.e. there is no perfect system).

The mitigating factor in achieving that ideal is the GM. The GM is the arbiter of making the choice of system/setting and whatever tweaks at the table that make playability optimal.

I'm completely not convinced that player opinions about "equality" at chargen is valid. Yes, we're talking about it, but my perspective is it's irrelevant to the larger context of gaming as a GM. For these reasons - 1) Players that are that concerned about "balanced stats" at chargen (and beyond) tend to *never* play anything they perceive as sub-optimal. 2) GM's jobs are to engage with the Players *through* their PC's and their PC's actions and ideally challenge them commensurate to whatever hijinks they get themselves into. 3) Players that *do* play PC's that are sub-optimal at chargen tend to engage in the setting for those explicit reasons that have nothing to do necessarily with optimal task-resolution - or if so, for specialized mechanical and/or narrative reasons.

The reality is the in-game necessities of the *group* and the PC's as individuals will be tailored by a good GM to engage those PC's *regardless* of their statistical components. If someone wants to play a Jawa Bounty Hunter in my current FFG Star Wars Bounty Hunter campaign - he's going on the *exact* same mission as my player that's playing a Death Watch Mandalorian Assassin, and precisely *zero* conditions of the assignment are being changed due to the fact that there's a Jawa on the case. A really mean, angry, blaster-toting Jawa with ZERO advantages due to his race... and some real disadvantages in combat. But clearly there's more to him than just that. Because he's bringing other things to the table.

So while he might not be doing the heavy lifting in combat, he's got a whole bunch of Jawa-related background stuff that he has to engage with. Likewise the Mando Assassin has a ridiculously dangerous past commensurate to his starting role that he too will have to deal with. This is the social manifestation in-game by the GM to create balance.

I do the same thing in D&D. Being a halfing thief has an entirely different set of in-game conceits than being an elven mage. Once I establish backgrounds contextually to the starting point of the campaign, those responsibilities become more pronounced. That is where creating the playability happens.

It sounds like you're strongly in favour of games where the setting and mechanics are closely integrated. Possibly ones that offer a narrower range of playing experiences but focus heavily on that. I am as well, but I think you're mistaking a preference for a design principle.

I confess it DOES sound like that. But in casual reference to a lot of my posts (which you may or may not have read) - I *tend* to post a LOT these days about the following systems:

Savage Worlds
Cyberpunk2020
FASERIP
Talislanta
FFG Star Wars

Of those systems only *one* is setting specific in terms of really trying to emulate a genre. What I *like* currently is not "realism". I like "cinematic" adventure with some over-the-top tossed in. I currently enjoy systems that provide that "feel" and can scale. By scale I mean it can offer consistent task resolution at higher power-levels. So from character, to larger scales like vehicle, to larger scales ships etc. without breaking the core mechanics and remaining as seamless as possible.

Savage Worlds, FASERIP, in particular have huge scalability functions that allow me to run any kind of game I currently want. Talislanta, CP2020, FFG Star Wars - all have solid core task resolution, less scalability smoothness, but allow for excellent genre simulation in their respective settings with my hand on the wheel.

Universal systems have always had a strong following despite their more generic nature.

D&D is an interesting example here. It's not completely generic (D&D has inbuilt setting assumptions at least). But I'd still see it as more of a toolkit than a setting driven RPG. Which is why it's verstaile enough to handle Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun.

Compare that to games like Pendragon or Flashing Blades where setting drives the mechanics a lot more heavily,. In terms of personal taste I actually prefer them, but they certainly don't rival D&D.

I think these are different sets of propositions. Mainly because D&D is the metaphorical sky under which all RPG's dwell. I don't even play D&D any longer and I can happily say that even though I could name a dozen systems I personally like more than D&D - and further, I could probably name a half-dozen systems that could run D&D settings *better* than D&D itself with me GMing.

That said... "D&D" as a toolkit certainly has proven itself (especially in 1e and more in 2e) to be up to the task of genre emulation. The issue I have with D&D and that's germane to this thread is what happened post 2e. As you mentioned, and I agree with - D&D does have it's own core assumptions. But the settings of 2e changed and tweaked those assumptions based on the settings themselves. Dark Sun and Ravenloft (boxset) are great examples of this. Once 3e changed - we had a whole new generation of players, and game designers, that brought in ideas that changed the landscape entirely.

Which leads me to your next good point that connects directly...

Didn't understand or it wasn't relevant to the games they were in? At that point I think we're dealing with something different; games where the group has changed the setting enough that it's fairly considered a homebrew even if the same mechanics are used.

To which I TOTALLY get what you're saying. I'm actually with you. But to those people you and I are agreeing that "they didn't understand or it wasn't relevant" - they essentially are saying to us "Too bad, so sad. I don't care." Again, perfectly fine.

The problem comes with when the tide of design accepts that attitude with successive edition changes without contextualizing what has come before. D&D is the best example of this. That's why it's assumed "balance in all things" implies "equality in all things" in both setting assumptions and mechanical expression... in the *same* settings.

Vampire, in my opinion initially did the right thing mechanically in Chronicles... but then went to crazytown in the setting assumptions. But I found the initial stuff still very playable. Even to the point where the toolkit nature of the mechanics made running Classic WoD a snap, using them with a few easy twists.

I'm not against change at all. I'm saying that the notions of "balance" as a design conceit is pathologically looking at one particular tree instead of designing to create an entire forest. I find the notion not well-expressed except to make inferences for purposes that are very meta to the games themselves.

I also think it's one of the reasons why it's so difficult to convert D&D players to even try new games. It's hard to let go. But I also don't think it was easy "back in the day" either. Once again - it falls on GM's to make this happen.

 

[Voros]

Internet rpg discussion seems to prompt extremes, I have definitely encountered some online so obsessed with ‘balance’ that they get worked up that a 5e mace is ‘inferior’ mechanically to a quarterstaff but more expensive. I find that kind of mechanical train-spotting mind-numbing.

But then you get the other extreme where some act like any game that strives to make all the PCs reasonably competent or not feed a 1st level party to an ancient red dragon is somehow less ‘manly’ than the games they play, which is frankly laughable as a posture.

 

[tenbones]

The whole opening post is espousing some one sized fits all nonsense that honestly I can't stand.

whoa! Did I say that? Where did I say that? Seriously. (this topic is moving faster than I can keep up) - did someone say I said that?

I prefer a game start with some level of balance. Its a hell of a lot easier for a GM to destroy balance than create it. Unbalanced game systems pretty much only support GMs who want unbalanced games or really really experienced GMs who can balance it themselves. A balanced game system can support either.

Well that's a lot of claims that need picking apart. "Balanced" numbers on a character sheet relative to other people's character sheets - is not balance in a game. Or even balance in a system. *NO* game is like that. No system is like that - maybe Amber?

GMing for the purposes of "being unbalanced" or wanting an "unbalanced system" means what? You're a bad GM? Okay. So bad GM's tend not to keep regular players. Sounds like a solution to a problem that I'm not talking about. I'm interested in which "systems" you're talking about, exactly?

A *system* is never going to make a GM *good* if they're not a good GM.

That said, I'm not for perfect balance either. That isn't something that can be achieved.

Basically, stop trying to pretend that anyone who doesn't play the way you do is wrong. The idea that balance is "illusion" is bullshit. It may be irrelevant to you, but if you don't care about unbalancing things, you have a lot of freedom to change whatever you want.

I have no idea what you're talking about. At no point have I told *anyone* how to play. Or even how to GM. At no point am I pointing a finger at anyone telling them directly they're a BAD *anything*. Saying "balance is an illusion" - is the VERY QUESTION I'm asking. WTH is wrong with you? Can we not discuss ideas?