Game Balance

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Well, ”impossible” is hard to define. I mean you can mechanically balance one axis, Combat, under certain conditions. You change those conditions, or reduce the amount of combat, there goes your balance down the toilet. So, if a Newbie GM, can, without realising it, completely destroy your perfect mathematical balance, and an experienced GM can do it with trivial ease, it does kind of call into question the point of the entire exercise.

Also, I don’t know about you, but the RPG doesn’t exist (at least that I have read) that doesn’t have a mechanic somewhere that, either by itself, in certain situations, or due to emergent complexity and combinations, is OP. So theoretically possible, but practically impossible.
So don't try then? As moving towards balance is impossible, no attempts to do so have any point. Is that your thesis?
 
Eh, I toss out the meta-thinking, and consider the setting.
Is the Barbarian in better physical condition than the Fighter? Almost assuredly.
Is the Barbarian better at Wilderness Survival? Without a doubt.
Is the Barbarian going to be better at 1v1 fighting? Maybe, although the Fighter will have better Armor and a wider variety of weapons usually, as well as access to higher skill training.
Who’s going to survive being on the end of a missile volley?
Who’s going to know how to form up the townies when the skeleton army comes so they don’t all get slaughtered?
Who’s going to fight better holding a hallway with another?
Who’s going to have the tactics, training and flexibility to handle most combat situations?

Even if Barbarians were better than Fighters in every way in this system, do Fighters exist in the setting? If yes, then why do they, since Barbarians are better? Not every culture produces Barbarians, though, right? Barbarians require higher physical characteristics, right? So they’re rarer. If you want to represent the setting properly, then logically there should be prerequisites.

Keep true to the setting, and you’ll find things working out organically, no white room math devoid of setting context needed.
Actually, that comparison kinda depends on what the Fighter and Barbarian classes represent, doesn't it?
If Fighter is the elite of the army, everyone else is 0-level fodder, no on the "barbarian in better physical condition and possibly better 1:1". Or at least it shouldn't work as in your comparison (well, not outside of S&S).
If the classes are everyone in an army and everyone in a barbarian tribe, respectively, then yes.
So basically, this "setting balance" depends on how the GM is using the class system to begin with. I've played with GMs where everyone but notable figures was a 0-level character, and with GMs where everyone in the setting had a class (if you really sucked, you had one of those NPC classes, like Commoner), but most were 1st level.
It's basically a different setting...:thumbsup:
Mind you, the same also applied in a classless system, when we compared how I'm running the same setting with another guy who had a very different idea about the way Experience Points should be awarded. In his games, it wasn't unusual to have NPCs with 300+ extra experience, especially nobles and elves:shade:. So among them skill-10 (in a system where you get up to skill-12 before doubling the XP cost, but you need 78 XP to get there anyway) was the baseline minimum. With many characters having multiples of those.
In my games, nobles could have had 50-100 extra XP, but never in the same skill. They need a diverse skillset (and mostly in non-combat skills), after all! So among them skill-6 was the baseline, with skill-10 being notable (that's 55 XP to get from scratch).
And now you can guess yourselves how much of a difference it made when interacting with NPCs:tongue:!

The reason Traveller players are more likely to do 2d6 in order than OD&D's 3d6 in order is that the life path system insulates the player from the consequences. Nothing above a seven? Join the scouts and die in the first couple turns. Survived that? Well a few rolls on personal development for skills will sort you out. Still suck? Well combat is deadly and you can always take a bullet for your buddies and start fresh with an experienced character.
So all those Scout characters who have a description "developped a gung-ho attitude and believes can't die after so many close brushes with death in the Scouts" were on to something:grin:?
 
With AD&D 1e, it is important to remember that Gygax actively states in the DMG that a character should have two 15s in order to be viable and none of the methods he recommends for creating a character are 3d6 in order.

3d6 is more of an old D&D/Basic D&D thing.
I missed this but can verify reading a message board post (probably Dragonsfoot) where Gary clearly stated that his table uses 4d6 remove lowest so if it's good enough for his table it's good enough for mine. I am normally a point buy guy but random generation works for B/X.
 
See, in that case I think the problem isn't with point buy mechanics; the problem is in the underlying rules of the game, which have made INT too important as a stat for players to be able to ignore. If there is an unconditional best choice of what to spend a given limited resource (Like character build choices) on, then that's a balance concern that should be looked into (And it's a problem that a lot of games fall into. Look at how strong Dexterity is in D&D5, and how comparatively weak Strength is, as another example; almost every PC could benefit from Dex because it boosts attack, defence, and useful skills, but Str only really helps if you're swinging melee weapons about). Conditional best choices ("If I want to be good at a given thing then I need a lot of this stat") are fine.

Such things as different attributes providing different pools of skill points, or reducing the skill points a character has to spend but making the attribute bonuses more important, or making the amount of skill points dependent on something else, are other methods which admittedly increase complexity, but may also help with the underlying issue.
The underlying rules work fine with random chargen but break when you try and do point buy.

It is worth noting that the INT bonus to skills does eventually wash out (though it IS more permanently valuable with my house rules that say you add ability bonus to your d100 roll >= skill when determining if you make an experience check, a +5% chance to gain experience when your skill approaches and exceeds 100% is significant).

The thing is that in RQ, no one can do everything. No one can memorize all the spells, nor can they cast them. Numbers matter in combat so even the not so good combatant still has an opportunity to contribute.

RQ is no where near balanced. But it works.

But it may not work for all players.

And, if someone feels there PC just doesn't cut it against the others, talk to me and we'll find a way to resolve the situation so you feel like you can contribute. And if that just doesn't work for you, I'm sorry. I'm sure you can find some other game to play.
 
Now with everything I've said. I did find one balance issue when playing Cold Iron one time. I rolled up a PC and didn't get the greatest attributes, and I didn't qualify to be a spell caster. So Fighter I was. The problem was all the other characters were better Fighters AND they could be casters. So when I started running Cold Iron and hacking it, I made some house rules:

Casters get less skill points in Fighter skills given their Fighter Level than non-casters.

I start characters with enough XP to be Fighter Level 3. But even taking 1st level Mage or Cleric costs starting XP. So a pure Fighter starts off with an advantage.

Now sure, someone who rolled really awesome stats could still be a better fighter AND caster than someone who rolled not so good stats. The solution to that is to allow re-rolls if a character really is kind of mediocre. With all of that, I've not had anyone complain.

Now there was a cry of complaint in one campaign when the Mage announced they were purchasing a +5 sword, before any of the Fighters. It turns out that Mages spend a LOT less treasure on magic items than Fighters... So the players resolved after that to adjust treasure division so at least some of the expenditure of magic items (most of which are charged/limited use in some way) came off the treasure haul first. No more Mages stockpiling gold...
 
Now with everything I've said. I did find one balance issue when playing Cold Iron one time. I rolled up a PC and didn't get the greatest attributes, and I didn't qualify to be a spell caster. So Fighter I was. The problem was all the other characters were better Fighters AND they could be casters. So when I started running Cold Iron and hacking it, I made some house rules:

Casters get less skill points in Fighter skills given their Fighter Level than non-casters.

I start characters with enough XP to be Fighter Level 3. But even taking 1st level Mage or Cleric costs starting XP. So a pure Fighter starts off with an advantage.

Now sure, someone who rolled really awesome stats could still be a better fighter AND caster than someone who rolled not so good stats. The solution to that is to allow re-rolls if a character really is kind of mediocre. With all of that, I've not had anyone complain.

Now there was a cry of complaint in one campaign when the Mage announced they were purchasing a +5 sword, before any of the Fighters. It turns out that Mages spend a LOT less treasure on magic items than Fighters... So the players resolved after that to adjust treasure division so at least some of the expenditure of magic items (most of which are charged/limited use in some way) came off the treasure haul first. No more Mages stockpiling gold...
Is Cold Iron at all linked to the Miles Cameron book series of the same name?

Also, could work have been saved on the rebalancing with a standard array? Just saying...
 
So you don't understand it because attributes don't matter in your preferred game?

Apologies, I got interrupted for a couple of hours after writing the first couple of sentences and didn't notice that what I send needed for context. I literally do not "get"/understand why some people get all bent out of shape if their character is somehow inferior to other characters. It's a game of pretending to be someone/something else and having adventures in an imaginary world as that character. In real life, people in groups of friends/groups of co-workers/military units/whatever are all the best possible at what they do. Therefore I don't see any reason to expect characters in a game to be the best. I understand that other may feel differently, but at cannot really understand the reasoning behind their position. I just assume that they want something very different out of their RPG rules and campaigns that I do. There are a lot of things people do/think/believe that I simply cannot understand the reasoning for. This is one of them.

The rest of the post was trying to explain my background in gaming as it may have shaped why I just don't get the position.

Where are you on random hit points?

I've never seen a problem with them -- even when playing a 1st level wizard with 1 hp. I usually start characters with 6 hp plus their class hp in games I run, however. As 6 hp is the max for a 0 level character and all classed characters are supposed to be better than normal people to start with.
 
Apologies, I got interrupted for a couple of hours after writing the first couple of sentences and didn't notice that what I send needed for context. I literally do not "get"/understand why some people get all bent out of shape if their character is somehow inferior to other characters. It's a game of pretending to be someone/something else and having adventures in an imaginary world as that character. In real life, people in groups of friends/groups of co-workers/military units/whatever are all the best possible at what they do. Therefore I don't see any reason to expect characters in a game to be the best. I understand that other may feel differently, but at cannot really understand the reasoning behind their position. I just assume that they want something very different out of their RPG rules and campaigns that I do. There are a lot of things people do/think/believe that I simply cannot understand the reasoning for. This is one of them.

The rest of the post was trying to explain my background in gaming as it may have shaped why I just don't get the position.



I've never seen a problem with them -- even when playing a 1st level wizard with 1 hp. I usually start characters with 6 hp plus their class hp in games I run, however. As 6 hp is the max for a 0 level character and all classed characters are supposed to be better than normal people to start with.
I will try to explain why I get bent out of shape about it.

People play roleplaying games to have fun and as a form of escape from their day to day lives. The fact that there are inequalities of status and accomplishment in the real world does not mean that people want those reproduced in their game lives. I definitely don't. I want to be able to play a capable character with other members of the party who are capable in their sphere so everyone feels they are making a contribution to the outcome of the game.

From my couple of plays of RPGs with status heirarchies within game (Military settings) it ends up not being fun for me and there were tensions in our group.

The best way of making sure that every player has access to effecting things within our collected reality is to ensure their character is on a par with the other characters and everyone is being the best they can be.

Unbalanced classes, imbalance of advancement & differing stat levels work against this. It prevents me playing the games I enjoy, of the team of misfits/best buddies using their skills and powers to take on the challenges of the game world. I have played unbalanced games in the past. Time is too short to do that again.

As for hit points , if you don't see any problem with someone being one knock from death, and then going into a deadly dungeon, why do you house rule an extra 6 hit points? Why 6?They might have rolled 1 on their level 0 roll?
 
Apologies for missing your earlier point about non randomization.

I think you state the issue well, and I want games to be colourful, and imagination provoking, presenting the 'conceits' of the setting in a flavourful way. It certainly does take GM input as well. If the GM is not focused on facilitating the players to have a fair share of the action, it's not going to happen. But, system matters.
yeah it's easy for players to not see the "balance" as a non-issue without understanding the roll the GM serves when prosecuting the rules (alongside whatever emphasis the GM is trying to establish).

this is why I say, "balance" is an illusion where players should focus on actually roleplaying their characters, not dick-measuring their characters against mechanical expressions of other PC's. AND GM's need to contextualize their games by allowing their PC's to stand front and center of their respective campaigns while enforcing the conceits of the setting accordingly. System's relevance is based on genre needs, along with whatever notions the GM's want to focus on.

This is one of the reasons I *really* enjoy Savage Worlds. I can run it bloody-and-gritty. I can run it cinematic and over the top. I can run multiple genres - sometimes at the same time. It scales *remarkably* well. I can tune it up/down/sideways with very little effort. Is it perfect? NO WAY. But it serves a *lot* of needs in my hands.

I *suspect* I can get this kind of performance with a chunkier system like Mythras (but I have yet to prove that to myself), likewise with MSH (currently tinkering around with TristramEvans TristramEvans PHASERIP) which I know can do it.

And MSH/PHASERIP in particular would *never* be accused of any kind of contextual balance, but the mechanics allow for radical distinctions in relative power between PC's without missing a single beat. But it relies on GM's understanding the genre needs alongside the system's mechanical functions to express them. And they very much depend on an Action Point economy.

Short Answer: Balance is an illusion from the player perspective. Trust in your GM. <--- this is the hard part every GM needs to earn from their players.
 
Few people want to be the guy who shows up to an orgy with a little dick even if it's only "make believe".
Not gonna lie... I had a player that demanded he get to roll his dick-size. It made everyone a little uncomfortable (because they believed it would mean they'd have to roll too). Well I said if it meant to so much to him, I'll be nice and roll a d10 (he had an 17 Con!). He rolled a 2.

And yes, we laughed a LOT. But he rolled with it "I don't care!" and he used every RP opportunity for his barbarian to go naked to show it off. Yeah puerile and immature but at least he owned it.

It made going into to town and social interactions always good for a chuckle. I remember he had a name for it, but I can't remember what it was. Anyhow - it became a thing for my LA group to always bring up "The D10" during Chargen in our campaigns. No one took it seriously, of course, but it was always a funny memory.
 
As for hit points , if you don't see any problem with someone being one knock from death, and then going into a deadly dungeon, why do you house rule an extra 6 hit points? Why 6?They might have rolled 1 on their level 0 roll?
Only the most capable 0-levels make it to name level:smile:?

Also, it's OK if you don't want your game to reproduce "the inequality of the real world". This is fine.
I want mine to do that, however. Not necessarily through inequal classes - as a game mechanic, I've got no use for them, equal or nor - but I shall achieve it via random stats, semi-randomised Lifepaths, such things:wink:.
So, as long as you don't imply we're having fun wrong when having fun our way, I'd be glad to return the favor:shade:!
 
yeah it's easy for players to not see the "balance" as a non-issue without understanding the roll the GM serves when prosecuting the rules (alongside whatever emphasis the GM is trying to establish).

this is why I say, "balance" is an illusion where players should focus on actually roleplaying their characters, not dick-measuring their characters against mechanical expressions of other PC's. AND GM's need to contextualize their games by allowing their PC's to stand front and center of their respective campaigns while enforcing the conceits of the setting accordingly. System's relevance is based on genre needs, along with whatever notions the GM's want to focus on.

This is one of the reasons I *really* enjoy Savage Worlds. I can run it bloody-and-gritty. I can run it cinematic and over the top. I can run multiple genres - sometimes at the same time. It scales *remarkably* well. I can tune it up/down/sideways with very little effort. Is it perfect? NO WAY. But it serves a *lot* of needs in my hands.

I *suspect* I can get this kind of performance with a chunkier system like Mythras (but I have yet to prove that to myself), likewise with MSH (currently tinkering around with TristramEvans TristramEvans PHASERIP) which I know can do it.

And MSH/PHASERIP in particular would *never* be accused of any kind of contextual balance, but the mechanics allow for radical distinctions in relative power between PC's without missing a single beat. But it relies on GM's understanding the genre needs alongside the system's mechanical functions to express them. And they very much depend on an Action Point economy.

Short Answer: Balance is an illusion from the player perspective. Trust in your GM. <--- this is the hard part every GM needs to earn from their players.
I absolutely agree that you need the Gm committed to 'fair shares' or however you want to express it to get that as an outcome.

I have GMed far more than I have played, and as a result have been aware of such tensions in our group when there have been imbalances of power. I am also by nature an optimiser when I play, and have been aware of overshadowing others.

I know that now we play systems that give a reasonably level playing field to start play with (less unbalanced classes/backgrounds, equal stat arrays) and I aim to deliver character rewards in a way that maintains parity, the issues we had before are less than they were. I may be improving as a GM, thats for my players to say. That's why I have said on a few occasions in this thread that system matters but I agree its not the only factor.

I have not played Savage worlds , so don't know how the character creation works in that. Random or equal picks? Tell me more.
 
Only the most capable 0-levels make it to name level:smile:?

Also, it's OK if you don't want your game to reproduce "the inequality of the real world". This is fine.
I want mine to do that, however. Not necessarily through inequal classes - as a game mechanic, I've got no use for them, equal or nor - but I shall achieve it via random stats, semi-randomised Lifepaths, such things:wink:.
So, as long as you don't imply we're having fun wrong when having fun our way, I'd be glad to return the favor:shade:!
Very good!

It's fine for people to play the way they enjoy. I am not arguing that randomness in character creation is badwrongfun, just that it's not my fun for longer term campaigns - I can handle it in a one shot or happily in a solo adventure (there is no-one else to suffer lack of parity). I am also arguing against the statements that keep getting made that 'balance is an illusion'. Good enough balance is good enough for me, doesn't have to be perfect.

Also there will be inequalities within the game world for sure , my players and characters have broken a fair number of slavers cabals in their time, rebelled against evil empires and so on. They have just done so from a position of roughly equal awesomeness.
 
I absolutely agree that you need the Gm committed to 'fair shares' or however you want to express it to get that as an outcome.

I have GMed far more than I have played, and as a result have been aware of such tensions in our group when there have been imbalances of power. I am also by nature an optimiser when I play, and have been aware of overshadowing others.

I know that now we play systems that give a reasonably level playing field to start play with (less unbalanced classes/backgrounds, equal stat arrays) and I aim to deliver character rewards in a way that maintains parity, the issues we had before are less than they were. I may be improving as a GM, thats for my players to say. That's why I have said on a few occasions in this thread that system matters but I agree its not the only factor.

I have not played Savage worlds , so don't know how the character creation works in that. Random or equal picks? Tell me more.
Heh I don't want to turn this into a Savage Worlds thread... I just use it as an example to address several points discussed in the thread. But since you asked!

It's *really* basic point-buy for Chargen, you get 5-points for your stats. Buy some Edges (which are tropey-mechanical benefits for your character). You pick some Hindrances (optional Mechanical/RP deficits you get rewarded, ideally, for playing out). That's about it. The system numerically tries to balances Edges/Hindrances as a means of establishing a baseline of balance. It's that simple. Everything else is a setting conceit where the rules of the core are tweaked for the intent of the setting.

It scales REALLY well from low-fantasy to epic high-fantasy/sci-fi without missing a beat.

But again, there are levers and switches that need to be maintained by the GM (as with all systems) - I find SW to be very light on the touch for me. The latest iteration is Savage Worlds Pathfinder which is D&D Fantasy running the SW chassis. Which right now is looking very good to me. The core rules are cooked into it so you don't need the SWADE core rules to play it.
 
Unbalanced classes, imbalance of advancement & differing stat levels work against this. It prevents me playing the games I enjoy, of the team of misfits/best buddies using their skills and powers to take on the challenges of the game world. I have played unbalanced games in the past. Time is too short to do that again.

My mind just sees it differently, competent useful characters who are good at what they do do not require balanced classes, similar stat levels, similar advancement rates, and the other trappings of mechanical/rules balance. If I want characters who are competent in their fields instead of beginners (at the start of a campaign), I just start them at a higher level. If tight balance is needed for you to enjoy games, that's what you need. It does not matter if I understand the reasoning.
As for hit points , if you don't see any problem with someone being one knock from death, and then going into a deadly dungeon, why do you house rule an extra 6 hit points? Why 6?They might have rolled 1 on their level 0 roll?
In addition to absorbing damage, hit points are used for other things in my current games. For example casting a first level spell costs 3 HP. That said, the version we are working on now rebases everything to make characters with any class head and shoulders above 0-level characters. The whole idea got started when one of my friends mentioned that while 1st level characters were supposed to be cut cut above normal people, that cut seemed to amount to a 5% better chance to hit. Here is my original thoughts on a way around this.

The game will be based on the idea that at least 99% of the human population are 0 level characters who have 6 hit points or less. For example, normal humans will have a negative combat bonus and a saving throw of 20. Here's what I'm current thinking:

Level Hit Points CB ST WpnD Talent
Child 1 hp -3 20 1 -
Youth 2 hps -2 20 1d2 1 talent (Good at)
Adult 3 hps -1 20 1d3 2 talents (or 1 Expert at)
Master 3 hps -1 20 1d3 3 talents (or 1 Master at or 1 Expert at and 1 Good at)

While those with combat training will look something like this:

Level Hit Points CB ST WpnD Talent
Milita 4 hps 0 20 1d3 1 talent (Good at)
NCO 5 hps +1 20 1d4 2 talents (or 1 Expert at)
Officer 5 hps +2 20 1d4 2 talents (or 1 Expert at)

where CB is Combat Bonus, ST is saving throw, WpnD is the damage they do in combat with any weapon, and Talents is the mundane skills they have. If we want variable hp for normal humans, roll 1d3-2 and add the result to the listed hp with a minimum of 1.

First level characters get an additional 6 hit points. This means a 1st level fighter gets (in this system) hit points of 1d6+7 (7 is 6 plus the +1 fighters get now) and a CB of +3, a ST of 16, and a WpnD of 1d6+3 is already head and shoulders above a trained and experienced human warrior, let alone a normal farmer or merchant.

Let's look at what this means with regard to monsters. A normal human only has a 5% chance of making a saving throw, this means that monsters with special abilities are truly a terror to the normal population. A first level fighter will have a 25% chance of making their save which is five times better than the vast majority of the population. Most 1 hit die monsters will do at least 1d6+1 damage which means they do more damage than even a trained and experienced normal warrior. The least healthy first level fighter will have 9 hit points, that is 50% more than the most experienced normal human with combat training and 3 times the amount the average adult has.

First level characters in this game will not be that much more powerful that first level characters in most OSR games, but because you will not normally have leveled characters as blacksmiths, innkeepers or village guardsmen, they are effectively more powerful in the world. This means the 4th level fighters will truly be the heroes and 8th level fighters will truly be the superheroes that they were originally called in 0e.
There have been some changes but a game based on this is next up to playtest.
 
Not gonna lie... I had a player that demanded he get to roll his dick-size. It made everyone a little uncomfortable (because they believed it would mean they'd have to roll too). Well I said if it meant to so much to him, I'll be nice and roll a d10 (he had an 17 Con!). He rolled a 2.
Dude, when people talk about being a "dick GM", they don't mean like that.
 
So don't try then? As moving towards balance is impossible, no attempts to do so have any point. Is that your thesis?
How many versions of WotC D&D and how many MMOs have introduced new content and hereby created wildly out of balance combos? That then need to be FAQd or patched? All of them, I believe.

My thesis is, if you stay true to the verisimilitude of the setting, then aiming for mechanical balance isn’t needed. If you care most about mechanical balance (for whatever reason), then you have to go for it, but you’ll always fail, somewhere.

As with every debated issue here it seems, we just have people who want different things out of the same type of game. You go for the “Mary Sue” insult, I’ll tell you to “go play a MMO“ or ”Hey, why not try roleplaying?” then comes “Carebear” or “basketweaving”, then the reports start coming in and Endless hits the scotch again.

The truth is, for my playstyle and what I and likeminded others are interested in, striving for mechanical balance is a Fool’s Errand. We don’t even need it or even want it, it has no place.
For your playstyle and what you and likeminded others are interested in, not striving for mechanical balance is defeating the purpose of play.

We can evince all the scorn, contempt, and mockery we wish about each other’s playstyles, but neither of those will change, will they?
 
How many versions of WotC D&D and how many MMOs have introduced new content and hereby created wildly out of balance combos? That then need to be FAQd or patched? All of them, I believe.

My thesis is, if you stay true to the verisimilitude of the setting, then aiming for mechanical balance isn’t needed. If you care most about mechanical balance (for whatever reason), then you have to go for it, but you’ll always fail, somewhere.

As with every debated issue here it seems, we just have people who want different things out of the same type of game. You go for the “Mary Sue” insult, I’ll tell you to “go play a MMO“ or ”Hey, why not try roleplaying?” then comes “Carebear” or “basketweaving”, then the reports start coming in and Endless hits the scotch again.

The truth is, for my playstyle and what I and likeminded others are interested in, striving for mechanical balance is a Fool’s Errand. We don’t even need it or even want it, it has no place.
For your playstyle and what you and likeminded others are interested in, not striving for mechanical balance is defeating the purpose of play.

We can evince all the scorn, contempt, and mockery we wish about each other’s playstyles, but neither of those will change, will they?
Where have I evinced scorn and mockery of your playstyle? I get the quest for immersion that you talk about, and have achieved it on occasion. But I accept I am a gamer, and that bit of my brain doesn't go away easily. You believe mine is a fools errand, so be it, I enjoy the windmills I tilt at and have fun doing so.
 
Last edited:
Heh I don't want to turn this into a Savage Worlds thread... I just use it as an example to address several points discussed in the thread. But since you asked!

It's *really* basic point-buy for Chargen, you get 5-points for your stats. Buy some Edges (which are tropey-mechanical benefits for your character). You pick some Hindrances (optional Mechanical/RP deficits you get rewarded, ideally, for playing out). That's about it. The system numerically tries to balances Edges/Hindrances as a means of establishing a baseline of balance. It's that simple. Everything else is a setting conceit where the rules of the core are tweaked for the intent of the setting.

It scales REALLY well from low-fantasy to epic high-fantasy/sci-fi without missing a beat.

But again, there are levers and switches that need to be maintained by the GM (as with all systems) - I find SW to be very light on the touch for me. The latest iteration is Savage Worlds Pathfinder which is D&D Fantasy running the SW chassis. Which right now is looking very good to me. The core rules are cooked into it so you don't need the SWADE core rules to play it.
Thanks for taking the time to share. I have heard good things about it, and the published fantasy setting does sound interesting to me. Sounds like a probably balanced enough system for me :smile:
 
My mind just sees it differently, competent useful characters who are good at what they do do not require balanced classes, similar stat levels, similar advancement rates, and the other trappings of mechanical/rules balance. If I want characters who are competent in their fields instead of beginners (at the start of a campaign), I just start them at a higher level. If tight balance is needed for you to enjoy games, that's what you need. It does not matter if I understand the reasoning.

In addition to absorbing damage, hit points are used for other things in my current games. For example casting a first level spell costs 3 HP. That said, the version we are working on now rebases everything to make characters with any class head and shoulders above 0-level characters. The whole idea got started when one of my friends mentioned that while 1st level characters were supposed to be cut cut above normal people, that cut seemed to amount to a 5% better chance to hit. Here is my original thoughts on a way around this.


There have been some changes but a game based on this is next up to playtest.
Good luck with your game. I certainly agree with the idea of PCs being exceptional, that's my preferred mode of play. In D&D type stuff I usually have a 1 in a 100 rule - that's how many people can access the powers they can. Others might be soldiers , only the exceptional are Fighters. Others might be priests or acolytes and with great effort and rituals invoke divine power - only the exceptional can call on miracles with a word.

Kind of D&D as Buffy - only a few can guard the gates of civilisation against the many threats they face.

And for that, they need max hits at first level :smile:
 
So don't try then? As moving towards balance is impossible, no attempts to do so have any point. Is that your thesis?
You believe mine is a fools errand, so be it, I enjoy the windmills I tilt at and have fun doing so.

No just define it whatever it is you are trying to achieve as a setting. Then make, or adopt the mechanics that reflects that. The process of defining as a setting in plain English will highlight inconsistencies. And suggest additional details that will make the whole thing work better both as a game and a hobby compared doing it through mechanics alone.

In short think of something fun to play first and then come up with the mechanic to play that.

If that something is about giving different character types equal opportunity to shine that fine. Just describe how it works in English first.
 
Is Cold Iron at all linked to the Miles Cameron book series of the same name?

Also, could work have been saved on the rebalancing with a standard array? Just saying...
The Cold Iron I play has nothing to do with any book series, nor does it have anything to do with a Cold Iron or similarly named more recent thing. It is purely a home brew D&D of the 1980s, never commercially published. There were some 10 or so people who ran campaigns.

Two problems with a standard array for Cold Iron:

1. On top of the rolled attributes there's an additional 1d6 that is added to the 3d6 roll as the potential that attribute can be improved to. That would wreak havoc with a standard array. Also SIZ and MP are rolled differently (4d4 and 6d6 respectively).

2. Due to relative importance of attributes, a standard array would really result in just a handful of attribute arrangements. Anyone wanting to be a fighter is likely to put best three in descending order into STR, DEX, CON. Spell casters will decide where to slip their primary spell casting attribute between those three attributes using the top 4 rolls.

Honestly, I think standard arrays work best when character concepts are strongest with 1 or 2 good attributes, and the rest of the attributes are useful but not critical. They also work better when there are enough character classes that for the most part each player is taking a different one, otherwise all you Fighters look the same, at least among the two most important attributes (and Fighter where there are STR Fighters and DEX Fighters just means there's two classes rolled into one).

I did try out a point buy scheme for Cold Iron (it does work a lot better than in RQ) but I've come to feel like point buy attributes just lead to too much sameness. And also denies the super cool characters that are way above average.

It also felt good to me to make spell casters trade off more than just Fighter Level (with exponential XP requirement all that meant was casters were maybe a level lower than the non-casters) and also trade off flexibility. The caster is not good with both a melee and a missile weapon, and has to skimp on something else (everyone ideally wants a melee weapon skill, shield, dodge, and hand to hand but mages only get enough points for 3 skills at Fighter Level). Doing that assured that even a Fighter who started later than the Mage and therefore was not ahead in Fighter Level and maybe even a level lower maybe was still more versatile.
 
players and GMs simply must be honest about whether their primary goal of sitting down to play an RPG campaign is either 1) to be a character; to escape into another persona who is not limited in the ways we may be limited; or, 2) to see the world through a playing piece of a character.

"Balance" is going to be very different for those objectives; which of those objectives is primary should guide the GM on which game to pick.

AD&D is definitely #2. If I'm #2-aligned, I'm thrilled if the player to my right rolls up an 18/00 paladin while I managed a 16 STR fighter of no similarly exceptional talent. Because my 16STR fighter will see more things, experience more adventure per session, and do more in the game world on the same team with 18/100 paladin blazing like the sun than he would on a team with another 16STR fighter. The team will hit harder, go farther, and last longer.

But if I'm #1 I will not enjoy that as much because my character will contribute less than the paladin towards all of those things.

Neither is better or worse than the other. But #2 GMs and other #2 players won't enjoy #1 GMs and other #1 players as much as they will a like table. And vice-versa. #1 players should play in point buy games; #2 players are more likely to enjoy random rolling in larger parties where its more likely at least one or two players gets that jackpot character that pulls everyone along into the most challenging/interesting vistas.
 
Where have I evinced scorn and mockery of your playstyle? I get the quest for immersion that you talk about, and have achieved it on occasion. But I accept I am a gamer, and that bit of my brain doesn't go away easily. You believe mine is a fools errand, so be it, I enjoy the windmills I tilt at and have fun doing so.
You in general, not you specifically, sorry. These game balance threads usually go the same way. Some of the Usual Keywords have been tossed by both sides already, so I figured I'd just fast forward beyond all the heat and people yelling past each other. :thumbsup:

What some people like won't work for others, period. We all currently are playing games, I assume, or would be without the pandemic, so whatever we're doing obviously works for us.

Mechanical balance isn't an objective Good or Evil, Worthy Goal or Unworthy Goal, it depends on what you want out of an RPG.
 
players and GMs simply must be honest about whether their primary goal of sitting down to play an RPG campaign is either 1) to be a character; to escape into another persona who is not limited in the ways we may be limited; or, 2) to see the world through a playing piece of a character.

"Balance" is going to be very different for those objectives; which of those objectives is primary should guide the GM on which game to pick.

AD&D is definitely #2. If I'm #2-aligned, I'm thrilled if the player to my right rolls up an 18/00 paladin while I managed a 16 STR fighter of no similarly exceptional talent. Because my 16STR fighter will see more things, experience more adventure per session, and do more in the game world on the same team with 18/100 paladin blazing like the sun than he would on a team with another 16STR fighter. The team will hit harder, go farther, and last longer.

But if I'm #1 I will not enjoy that as much because my character will contribute less than the paladin towards all of those things.

Neither is better or worse than the other. But #2 GMs and other #2 players won't enjoy #1 GMs and other #1 players as much as they will a like table. And vice-versa. #1 players should play in point buy games; #2 players are more likely to enjoy random rolling in larger parties where its more likely at least one or two players gets that jackpot character that pulls everyone along into the most challenging/interesting vistas.
Interesting, I was expecting you to prioritize the other way round. That with a game piece character one would want more balance and with a persona immersion character that the game mechanics would be lower priority and thus mechanical imbalance would be not so critical. And the bit about the high stat other PC allowing for more to happen would benefit the persona immersion.
 
I must be a weirdo. I almost actively root to play the more flawed, mechanically inferior character when I do a get a chance to play, especially if there's some random elements like life path stuff or random stats.

As a GM, I can understand that some players are in it for the power fantasy and that having inferior stats to another player's character can be grating or create a sense of disappointment, but I try not to game with those kinds of people anymore because we're not after the same things out of our RPGs and I tend to gravitate to more gritty systems and settings where the default expectation doesn't really cater to the "big damn heroes" trope.
 
As a GM, I can understand that some players are in it for the power fantasy and that having inferior stats to another player's character can be grating or create a sense of disappointment, but I try not to game with those kinds of people anymore because we're not after the same things out of our RPGs and I tend to gravitate to more gritty systems and settings where the default expectation doesn't really cater to the "big damn heroes" trope.
I don't think it's fair or accurate to imply that anyone who desires a measure of parity at character creation is a "power fantasy gamer". I happen to prefer nihilistic cosmic horror in most of my games but still prefer some fairness at character creation.
 
I don't think it's fair or accurate to imply that anyone who desires a measure of parity at character creation is a "power fantasy gamer". I happen to prefer nihilistic cosmic horror in most of my games but still prefer some fairness at character creation.
Well i can only speak to the actual motives I encountered in the wild. I'm sure there are a ton of other reasons (as evidenced by the many posts in this thread) and I don't begrudge anyone who desires "parity", it's just not my thing.
 
Interesting, I was expecting you to prioritize the other way round. That with a game piece character one would want more balance and with a persona immersion character that the game mechanics would be lower priority and thus mechanical imbalance would be not so critical. And the bit about the high stat other PC allowing for more to happen would benefit the persona immersion.
Why does the player desire persona immersion?

A player who desires persona immersion for the same reason an actor gravitates towards one role or another; because they are interesting in their own way

A player who desires immersion into another persona as a means of fantasy escape from their shitty life

These two players will approach being an "inferior" character much differently.
 
Very good!

It's fine for people to play the way they enjoy. I am not arguing that randomness in character creation is badwrongfun, just that it's not my fun for longer term campaigns - I can handle it in a one shot or happily in a solo adventure (there is no-one else to suffer lack of parity). I am also arguing against the statements that keep getting made that 'balance is an illusion'. Good enough balance is good enough for me, doesn't have to be perfect.

Also there will be inequalities within the game world for sure , my players and characters have broken a fair number of slavers cabals in their time, rebelled against evil empires and so on. They have just done so from a position of roughly equal awesomeness.
Yeah, that's why we're playing different games.
Also, balance is indeed an illusion, IME. I mean, it's a balance, what is being balanced against what? It's not even possible to get "good enough", because most people consider it a balance of "spotlight/awesomeness"...and frankly, what's awesome and what gives you the spotlight is in the eye of the beholder.

Thus, the only kind of balance I accept is "using X amount of XP gives you something that's not strictly inferior to using the same X amount of XP on something else". And that really should already be part of the system:thumbsup:.
That said, if you have more fun playing a system where things are balanced to your satisfaction...just do so!



I must be a weirdo. I almost actively root to play the more flawed, mechanically inferior character when I do a get a chance to play, especially if there's some random elements like life path stuff or random stats.

As a GM, I can understand that some players are in it for the power fantasy and that having inferior stats to another player's character can be grating or create a sense of disappointment, but I try not to game with those kinds of people anymore because we're not after the same things out of our RPGs and I tend to gravitate to more gritty systems and settings where the default expectation doesn't really cater to the "big damn heroes" trope.
Nah, I've done that as well, on occasion. And I know full well why: almost nothing* beats the feeling of outperforming the character with the "better build":devil:!

*When it comes to games, that is.

Dude, when people talk about being a "dick GM", they don't mean like that.
Yeah...
I'm disappointed, tenbones tenbones - couldn't you at least have given that PC some "balanced towards the middle" RNG:shade:?

players and GMs simply must be honest about whether their primary goal of sitting down to play an RPG campaign is either 1) to be a character; to escape into another persona who is not limited in the ways we may be limited; or, 2) to see the world through a playing piece of a character.

"Balance" is going to be very different for those objectives; which of those objectives is primary should guide the GM on which game to pick.
I get what you're saying, but I've never found 1 and 2 to contradict each other.
 
...

It doesn't work for my table, nor for others. Read this post by Lew Pulsipher, who has been playing RPGs even longer than I have :smile:

...
The self same Lew Pulsipher who used to publish in The Dragon all the time?

Both methods work at my table, random and point buy, and both are on offer.
 
See, in that case I think the problem isn't with point buy mechanics; the problem is in the underlying rules of the game, which have made INT too important as a stat for players to be able to ignore. If there is an unconditional best choice of what to spend a given limited resource (Like character build choices) on, then that's a balance concern that should be looked into (And it's a problem that a lot of games fall into. Look at how strong Dexterity is in D&D5, and how comparatively weak Strength is, as another example; almost every PC could benefit from Dex because it boosts attack, defence, and useful skills, but Str only really helps if you're swinging melee weapons about). Conditional best choices ("If I want to be good at a given thing then I need a lot of this stat") are fine.

Such things as different attributes providing different pools of skill points, or reducing the skill points a character has to spend but making the attribute bonuses more important, or making the amount of skill points dependent on something else, are other methods which admittedly increase complexity, but may also help with the underlying issue.

I think the point in the first paragraph above is a good point, and perhaps a way to evaluate your design. My initial bias or thought is a robust design, where one stat does not clearly dominate another, would be amenable to both point buy and random generation. I found in D&D5 it is really more important to hit those +modifier breaking points and take advantage of the fact that the species modifier is just that and not a point cost. So a few synergistic species-class combinations really helps...I only play though from time to time...and all the games so far have been point buy. Dwarf fighter with CON and STR focus works well.
 
No just define it whatever it is you are trying to achieve as a setting. Then make, or adopt the mechanics that reflects that. The process of defining as a setting in plain English will highlight inconsistencies. And suggest additional details that will make the whole thing work better both as a game and a hobby compared doing it through mechanics alone.

In short think of something fun to play first and then come up with the mechanic to play that.

If that something is about giving different character types equal opportunity to shine that fine. Just describe how it works in English first.
Thank you for the 101 in how to set up a campaign.

If you can point to any particularly obscure language I have used by all means say. I'll try to rephrase it.
 
The self same Lew Pulsipher who used to publish in The Dragon all the time?

Both methods work at my table, random and point buy, and both are on offer.
Very probably, he did a lot of articles for White Dwarf in the 80's. Glad your methods work for you.
 
You in general, not you specifically, sorry. These game balance threads usually go the same way. Some of the Usual Keywords have been tossed by both sides already, so I figured I'd just fast forward beyond all the heat and people yelling past each other. :thumbsup:

What some people like won't work for others, period. We all currently are playing games, I assume, or would be without the pandemic, so whatever we're doing obviously works for us.

Mechanical balance isn't an objective Good or Evil, Worthy Goal or Unworthy Goal, it depends on what you want out of an RPG.
Very graciously expressed, thank you. I agree that there are no moral or ethical dimension to balance in games. I find them (much) more satisfying when all the players have characters with a similar game ability to make effects in our shared world.
 
Yeah, that's why we're playing different games.
Also, balance is indeed an illusion, IME. I mean, it's a balance, what is being balanced against what? It's not even possible to get "good enough", because most people consider it a balance of "spotlight/awesomeness"...and frankly, what's awesome and what gives you the spotlight is in the eye of the beholder.

Thus, the only kind of balance I accept is "using X amount of XP gives you something that's not strictly inferior to using the same X amount of XP on something else". And that really should already be part of the system:thumbsup:.
That said, if you have more fun playing a system where things are balanced to your satisfaction...just do so!
Then balance is an illusion, just as immersion is , just as any of our experiences in roleplaying are. We are conjuring a shared experience and using an agreed code (at the table) to define how we will express our fun and our imagination. We are creating an illusion, and as we are social and tribal humans we need to find different ways to make those illusions seem real to us. I pick balance :smile:
 
The thing is, I couldn't come up with a cost for INT that would have allowed someone to have an 18 INT any ANYTHING else of any value.
I may be missing something, let's just say I never played much RQ and the last time was in 1984.
But if INT so so good, should being average or no value in anything else be the trade off for having an 18 INT? That just seems to make sense. Couldn't that just be corrected by giving a few more points, so one could have something else of value if that is the desire?

The problem was a point buy was going to result in boring characters.

This is where my lack of knowledge on RQ will shine. I'm not sure what you mean by boring, to me that would mean everyone distributes points the same way so every character is the same. Yah that would be boring. Perhaps it really is system dependent, my first encounter with point buy was TFT, and although only three attributes ST, DX, IQ, real trade offs, no one is better than the other for all approaches.

Now when I divorced the ability bonus from the attributes, INT was still important and maybe more important than other attributes but not so much that some folks didn't take a lower INT to get good other attributes. On the other hand, I was also VERY generous with the points,.

The problem I have with point buy is that it can lead to too many characters looking the same.

My impression is this is a game specific issue. Of the three commercial games with built in point buy I'm most familiar with, TFT, Atomic Highway and D&D5, it was/is not the case at all.

In the end, I have come to appreciate the random character generation in the systems I run. And if a player is unhappy with their rolls, I let them roll another set. Sometimes I even tell them to do so. Now that MAY result in the attribute creep I observed in college where I noticed the oldest characters had the poorest attributes because what seemed not crappy had changed over time.

Agree with you there, I have no real issue with random rolls either for my character, heck I actually like 3d6 in order for OD&D characters, with the right DM...can be fun to make it work. When random rolls though prevent a person from playing a standard species and class for example, then that can really turn people off especially those who are into role playing.

Yet I think you are very much capturing what is done in practice, despite the rules, referees allow re-rolls or bump something up etc. However if random rolls are supposed to balance things out, that kind of defeats the purpose. and if one allows re-rolls just because not happy with it or doesn't work for game/character concept...how is that functionally different than picking from sets of random attributes (which I assume is what is meant by an array)?

I never said there was balance there... On paper his character isn't nearly as good as the others. But instead of bemoaning that, the player has always played up his character as a noble. he entered his very first dungeon on a palanquin carried by servants... Because he acted as a leader, he got recognition, including among some of the non-humans in the setting.

Fair enough, sounds like a fun player, so is that palanquin like bring two 10' poles plus 4 retainers? :smile:

Myself, I never got why people complained about 1st level magic-user. Played them all the time and with the right party and a fair DM they survived just fine, just as well as the fighters, it was those pesky clerics who had it easy. :smile: I particularly disliked you have only one spell, so? You can used daggers, darts, and oil (man oil as written was real nice...even toned down in most of our games it was good), that's just attack...all sorts of clever tricks, in fact my MUs where a bog o' tricks from stinging nettle, to caltrops, to chalk dust, to simple trip wires, if had enough gp maybe a war dog...and this in an area where the common interpretation of Sleep spell was if they where standing up and fell over (not leaning against a wall say) hitting the ground would damage them and they would wake up, albeit it would take them a round to get up...did far more with Unseen Servant than any Sleep spell.

In the end, what's important is that each player feels like they can contribute to the success of the game session. If someone feels like their character is hindering that and they talk to me about it, I'll do something to fix it. If that means a poor strategist needs better attributes than a good strategist, maybe that will happen. Or maybe the poor strategist will find some other way to contribute, or maybe my kind of old school game just isn't the right place for them.

I agree, and that sounds like a great game. A good referee can make any game work and enjoyable in my view. I'm also view the rules as a tool and to effectuate what PCs can do, not define what they can do, if that makes sense. So if a player comes up with a plan that makes sense (setting, PC wise etc.) I will use the rules to effectuate it (although that doesn't mean automatic success). In that sense I judge a game's rules by how hard or easy they make that, in both frequency and difficulty. Having to constantly make fixes (even if each are easy) is draining and bothersome as I like to take notes to be consistent, while having to make one major fix and ensure it doesn't unbalance everything else is also pretty much a no go game.

These days I realize I don't have to satisfy everyone who shows up wanting to play. I only have to satisfy those who actually want to commit to playing the game on offer. I have more than enough RQ players as it is. They all seem pretty happy to me.

I hope you understand my posts are not about satisfying everyone, but to the extent I say why not have options it could seem that way. Even with a point buy and random option you are not going to satisfy everyone. There are also many ways to satisfy people even with limiting it to one way.

My original proposition, which I seem to have sidetracked myself with the why not have options and pushed this into point buy vs. random (which is not my intent and both work and both don't work in equal measure) is simply this.

In the situation where one has a super class (which I have also called an uber class or Mary Sue class) for a specific niche (where all other classes for that niche perform worse on every niche metric, that matter in fact) I do not agree with the the claim that "balance" is provided by these super classes only being accessible by very good die rolls (i.e. luck). Not saying that is where you are going.

Not at all trying to nay say your experience with RQ...all my comments on how point buy might work are just that, and take them for with the grain of salt intended as I don't know the system well enough. I like to fiddle with systems, like design and have the innate drive to problem solve, that is where all the suggestions are coming from.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top