Game Balance

[RandallS]

Monofilament wire... I wonder how prevalent that was... Where did you go to college? I gamed at MIT (as a teen - their club was open to non-students including teens) and there was a guy in 1979 who we called Shigawire Morgan for his monofilament wire traps. But he didn't last very long because people got tired of it. I think the next week he tried to find someone to co-GM with him, but no on bit and he disappeared.

Texas Tech. The Monofilament wire guy was a mechanical engineering major (of course). Nice, brilliant guy -- just a horrible GM. He'd bring computer printouts of pregenerated PCs and hand everyone a couple of pages. At least creating a new character was instant and they always appeared in the next room. I think the record for characters gone through in 3 hours was 19 or 20 the day Laura was doing things like chanting the names of random gods and demons to see if any would show up (she really wanted the record).

* Make sure that the campaign you run makes it possible for the diversity of characters and players to feel like they can contribute. There are ways to handle this that allow extreme "power" differential.

Given that games I GMed first were OD&D (where you'd have new first level characters playing with 6th or 7th level characters), Metamorphosis Alpha (totally random mutations) and V&V (random superpowers), I learned to handle very large power differences between characters early in my GMing career, and haven't had any real problems with it after that initial learning curve. Having Batman and Superman in the same group would be a annoying week after week, but nothing I likely couldn't handle well enough to keep both players doing important things in the game.

The last is an interesting one. I have dealt with players who tried to bring in PCs that weren't going to fit the group.

I've had this on occasion, but it generally works itself out. Like the player who wanted to play a revolutionary who wanted to turn a kingdom into a democratic nation when all the other PCs were working for the crown. I just insisted the character have an ability very useful to the group -- so they'd try to cover up his political leanings. Eventually, however, he said the wrong thing to the queen when no other PCs or loyal NPCs able to bail him out were around and found himself beheaded. Unfortunately, he had made previous arrangements with a priest of an outlawed headhunting deity to trap his spirit in his skull and animate it so he could continue to "advise" after his death. That "skull advisor" bit got the entire group banished from court for a good while -- even though the "skull advisor" bit was as big a surprise to them as it was to the crown.

 

[ffilz]

Texas Tech. The Monofilament wire guy was a mechanical engineering major (of course). Nice, brilliant guy -- just a horrible GM. He'd bring computer printouts of pregenerated PCs and hand everyone a couple of pages. At least creating a new character was instant and they always appeared in the next room. I think the record for characters gone through in 3 hours was 19 or 20 the day Laura was doing things like chanting the names of random gods and demons to see if any would show up (she really wanted the record).

Obviously monofilament wire was something out there that some folks latched onto... I think I did see some other references. Glad your guy made it actually a fun game. Shigawire Morgan's game was not fun and he soon was outcast...

Given that games I GMed first were OD&D (where you'd have new first level characters playing with 6th or 7th level characters), Metamorphosis Alpha (totally random mutations) and V&V (random superpowers), I learned to handle very large power differences between characters early in my GMing career, and haven't had any real problems with it after that initial learning curve. Having Batman and Superman in the same group would be a annoying week after week, but nothing I likely couldn't handle well enough to keep both players doing important things in the game.

Definitely in the early days we didn't focus so much on perfect balance despite all the talk about game balance.

I've had this on occasion, but it generally works itself out. Like the player who wanted to play a revolutionary who wanted to turn a kingdom into a democratic nation when all the other PCs were working for the crown. I just insisted the character have an ability very useful to the group -- so they'd try to cover up his political leanings. Eventually, however, he said the wrong thing to the queen when no other PCs or loyal NPCs able to bail him out were around and found himself beheaded. Unfortunately, he had made previous arrangements with a priest of an outlawed headhunting deity to trap his spirit in his skull and animate it so he could continue to "advise" after his death. That "skull advisor" bit got the entire group banished from court for a good while -- even though the "skull advisor" bit was as big a surprise to them as it was to the crown.

Cool! I think these days I would either cut off an inappropriate character before the player sat down, or had a conversation like you had about how the character was going to fit in. And all the players need to be involved. No springing a sleeper on the rest of the players, at least not without that having been identified as something that COULD happen when the campaign started.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think that while "absolute balance" isn't a thing, there is some broad kinds of balance I think most games should probably attempt. Usually in that, if a character concept is supposed to be good in a niche, it probably shouldn't be stomped on in it's niche and should be comparable with other character concepts that have a similar focus on that niche.

Take combat for instance. Like, what if in D&D, the Barbarian was just straight up, mechanically better at combat than the Fighter. Oh and had the minor bonus of being better at survival skills. And the fighter got no strength in any other niche to compensate.

 

[AsenRG]

I wasn't talking about mechanical balance specifically, though. I'm saying that the idea of balance is something that is always a factor in game design, whether it's the mechanics or the setting, or how the two fit together.

I wouldn't say that physics dictated the design of the boom gun and its anchor system. I would say that they inspired some of it. But it's all make believe. They could have said glitter boy suits are equipped with antigravity recoil reduction systems that allow them to fire the huge railgun while fully mobile. Instead, they made up something that was meant to balance the huge damage with a drawback, and they used some basic physics ideas to dress up the limitation.

Here, they shaped the setting around the mechanical design with the intent of balancing an advantage (huge potential damage output) with a drawback (lack of mobility when firing).

But that's just how you would use it,so you presume Simbieda was doing it for the same reason. From what I know about him, it might as well be wanting to avoid the "only another ninja can kill a ninja/glitter boy", or something else entirely.

 

[xanther]

Obviously monofilament wire was something out there that some folks latched onto... I think I did see some other references. Glad your guy made it actually a fun game. Shigawire Morgan's game was not fun and he soon was outcast...

...

Yes there always seems to be some weapon fetish out there where some weapon is made uber powerful, worse when the designers themselves have it, the katana and the spiked chain come immediately to mind, at one time IIRC there was the repeating crossbow as well as two weapon use.

You think an engineer would know that while monofiliment wire is great in one direction, in others it easily breaks, one reason normal stress, sheer stress, strain, torsion, compression all are terms with distinct meaning.

Then there is the opposite, like the spear and shield seem to incredibly underperform in most games.

 

[chuckdee]

You take that back! TAKE IT BACK!!!!

 

[CRKrueger]

I think that while "absolute balance" isn't a thing, there is some broad kinds of balance I think most games should probably attempt. Usually in that, if a character concept is supposed to be good in a niche, it probably shouldn't be stomped on in it's niche and should be comparable with other character concepts that have a similar focus on that niche.

Take combat for instance. Like, what if in D&D, the Barbarian was just straight up, mechanically better at combat than the Fighter. Oh and had the minor bonus of being better at survival skills. And the fighter got no strength in any other niche to compensate.

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.

 

[zanshin]

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.

I want to create a character in this setting, lets say its Hyperborea. I want to have someone who is a decadent black sheep nobles son, whose only notable skill beyond carousing is he always wins a fight - a quick study with weapons and armour who earns his money in duels. I am not interested in leading or managing troops or running a squad. Why am I not better in this system at winning fights than a barbarian who does not have my specialised skillset?

Imbalanced systems reduce player creativity with character concept, because they drive people to take the play optimal option.

Gating better classes behind higher random stats just makes it worse. Its why I no longer like random stat systems for face to face play and random hit points should die in a fire.

 

[SavAce]

I want to create a character in this setting, lets say its Hyperborea. I want to have someone who is a decadent black sheep nobles son, whose only notable skill beyond carousing is he always wins a fight - a quick study with weapons and armour who earns his money in duels. I am not interested in leading or managing troops or running a squad. Why am I not better in this system at winning fights than a barbarian who does not have my specialised skillset?

Imbalanced systems reduce player creativity with character concept, because they drive people to take the play optimal option.

Gating better classes behind higher random stats just makes it worse. Its why I no longer like random stat systems for face to face play and random hit points should die in a fire.

In this case it really seems to be less a matter of "imbalance" than the fact that class systems are less flexible in this regard? I come up with concepts all of the time where if I'm playing a class based system, my concept doesn't mesh well with the abilities of the class. That's the whole thing with a class, to bundle up some things together that fit to an archetype. When you have a concept that you think would require abilities that fall outside how the game conceived of the archetype, you might end up a lil unhappy about it. Or, you find a class that does basically get you where you want in terms of abilities, but you reskin the fluff of the class to fit your concept. I've done this to, for example. play a D&D 3.5 Ninja using the Rogue class, or using Barbarian to portray a Samurai, as Samurai armor you could say was medium armor, and I could re-imagine "Rage" as a meditative kind of warrior flow state and be OK enough with it, etc.

 

[zanshin]

In this case it really seems to be less a matter of "imbalance" than the fact that class systems are less flexible in this regard? I come up with concepts all of the time where if I'm playing a class based system, my concept doesn't mesh well with the abilities of the class. That's the whole thing with a class, to bundle up some things together that fit to an archetype. When you have a concept that you think would require abilities that fall outside how the game conceived of the archetype, you might end up a lil unhappy about it. Or, you find a class that does basically get you where you want in terms of abilities, but you reskin the fluff of the class to fit your concept. I've done this to, for example. play a D&D 3.5 Ninja using the Rogue class, or using Barbarian to portray a Samurai, as Samurai armor you could say was medium armor, and I could re-imagine "Rage" as a meditative kind of warrior flow state and be OK enough with it, etc.

I am fine with reskinning, and I take your point regarding the limitations of classes. I think complete point buy makes for more difficulties with system mastery (IME) and classes also let you have 'flavour perks' which enhance the feel of the class but you might not want to 'pay for' if you had to trade things off. Things like sword bond for 5e Eldritch Knights - players enjoy the jedi knight feel of it, but it rarely has a 'game play' as opposed to roleplay impact.

My desire for balance in the game as written is then it's easier to pick your character concept from the available options, and have players equally facilitated in play (so long as your concept isn't 'be better than everyone else' in which case, play elsewhere please).

Some games I have greatly enjoyed for the flavour (like Ken St. Andre's Stormbringer} nevertheless fall foul of appalling balance differences - being a beggar of Nadsokor over a Melnibonean Noble is a hardcore roleplaying commitment . Fun for a one off , but less so for an enduring campaign. If I run it, I'll houserule some balance in to facilitate the way I like to play. That is also what I do when I run Tunnels & Trolls.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Why am I not better in this system at winning fights than a barbarian who does not have my specialised skillset?

If your character concept is, 'always wins a fight,' you're likely to be disappointed, because most of the games I can think of, and definitely all of the games I actually play, deal in probabilities, not guaranteed outcomes.

As referee, here's the problem I see with your concept: you assume that your "specialised skillset" is universally applicable in all fights against all fighters. Maybe he never lost a fight against some drunken fop or a bold lackey, but has he faced a barbarian before?

This is what comes to mind.



You can be as 'creative' as you want, but your concept doesn't interface with the rules, then it's a useless concept, and if it does, you're unlikely to be quite as badass as you imagine.

Gating better classes behind higher random stats just makes it worse. Its why I no longer like random stat systems for face to face play and random hit points should die in a fire.

That's cool if you don't like random generation.

I wonder how the conversation would go if CRKrueger or tenbones or myself said something like, 'action point economy should die in a fire'?

 

[Ronnie Sanford]

I knew a player like that. I gave up when he refused point blank to go into the haunted house in the CoC scenario of the same name.

It was our first session and he really wanted to play. But refused to do anything that might reduce a number on his sheet.

I had characters that were reluctant to go into Corbitt’s house and all of them ran when bad things happened but they did go in and they did finish the job.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I think that while "absolute balance" isn't a thing, there is some broad kinds of balance I think most games should probably attempt. Usually in that, if a character concept is supposed to be good in a niche, it probably shouldn't be stomped on in it's niche and should be comparable with other character concepts that have a similar focus on that niche.

Take combat for instance. Like, what if in D&D, the Barbarian was just straight up, mechanically better at combat than the Fighter. Oh and had the minor bonus of being better at survival skills. And the fighter got no strength in any other niche to compensate.

So what you're saying is what if the Barbarian was like the Paladin?

 

[CRKrueger]

I want to create a character in this setting, lets say its Hyperborea. I want to have someone who is a decadent black sheep nobles son, whose only notable skill beyond carousing is he always wins a fight - a quick study with weapons and armour who earns his money in duels. I am not interested in leading or managing troops or running a squad. Why am I not better in this system at winning fights than a barbarian who does not have my specialised skillset?

Imbalanced systems reduce player creativity with character concept, because they drive people to take the play optimal option.

Gating better classes behind higher random stats just makes it worse. Its why I no longer like random stat systems for face to face play and random hit points should die in a fire.

You want to play that character, and characters like them, use Mythras or another skill-based system. If you have to have D&D-like, use Mongoose D20 Conan. Noble is a class there, with lots of combat feats and even several fencing schools to make your character the deadly fencer you want.

A character that never loses a fight though, so...you win, yay, next campaign?

 

[zanshin]

If your character concept is, 'always wins a fight,' you're likely to be disappointed, because most of the games I can think of, and definitely all of the games I actually play, deal in probabilities, not guaranteed outcomes.

As referee, here's the problem I see with your concept: you assume that your "specialised skillset" is universally applicable in all fights against all fighters. Maybe he never lost a fight against some drunken fop or a bold lackey, but has he faced a barbarian before?

This is what comes to mind.



You can be as 'creative' as you want, but your concept doesn't interface with the rules, then it's a useless concept, and if it does, you're unlikely to be quite as badass as you imagine.


That's cool if you don't like random generation.

I wonder how the conversation would go if CRKrueger or tenbones or myself said something like, 'action point economy should die in a fire'?

'Always wins a fight' is background - he clearly hasn't lost one yet. That of course may change once he meets the adventure. Nice cinematic capture of a possible model.

I was responding to the post which said 'Barbarians might be the best because that's how it is in this game' to which I was saying, sucks if you want to be something that's not a barbarian if the system is unbalanced against non barbarians.

If you enjoy random character generation and hit points, knock yourself out. I am probably not going to play in your game, and given my enjoyment of 4e,5e & 13th Age you clearly won't be playing in those.

If a game makes a particular choice , such as a race/class or background, seriously more capable than others, then anyone who chooses something else is paying a roleplaying penalty. That's not my fun. Design it better if you want me to play in it.

The One Ring, for example, did do a pretty good job of finding ways to balance the different backgrounds. Elves were pre-eminent in subtle magic, and Hobbits the physically weakest , but all backgrounds had opportunities to express the character capability.

 

[zanshin]

You want to play that character, and characters like them, use Mythras or another skill-based system. If you have to have D&D-like, use Mongoose D20 Conan. Noble is a class there, with lots of combat feats and even several fencing schools to make your character the deadly fencer you want.

A character that never loses a fight though, so...you win, yay, next campaign?

I was responding to your justification for Barbarians are best (in X system) with a character on the fly.

I can also imagine cool roleplaying options for a character who thinks they never lose a fight and comes up with wonderful post fight rationale for what 'actually went on' after receiving a butt kicking

 

[CRKrueger]

If your character concept is, 'always wins a fight,' you're likely to be disappointed, because most of the games I can think of, and definitely all of the games I actually play, deal in probabilities, not guaranteed outcomes.

As referee, here's the problem I see with your concept: you assume that your "specialised skillset" is universally applicable in all fights against all fighters. Maybe he never lost a fight against some drunken fop or a bold lackey, but has he faced a barbarian before?

This is what comes to mind.



You can be as 'creative' as you want, but your concept doesn't interface with the rules, then it's a useless concept, and if it does, you're unlikely to be quite as badass as you imagine.


That's cool if you don't like random generation.

I wonder how the conversation would go if CRKrueger or tenbones or myself said something like, 'action point economy should die in a fire'?

I dare say we’d be accused of being contentious, old chap.

I don’t begrudge anyone the desire to get into the gamey part of a game, but I don’t get it with RPGs. Literally every other game on earth, the mechanics of the gameplay is the game. In RPGs, it doesn’t have to be at all.

 

[CRKrueger]

I was responding to your justification for Barbarians are best (in X system) with a character on the fly.

I can also imagine cool roleplaying options for a character who thinks they never lose a fight and comes up with wonderful post fight rationale for what 'actually went on' after receiving a butt kicking

Let’s say, for sake of argument, Cimmerian barbarians make the best fighters in a D&D sense and the GM makes them as rare as they would normally be. In that case your Gunderman Mercenary is going to be the best warrior because no one will ever make up a Cimmerian Barbarian. If someone does, they’ll be lucky as hell and deserve it.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I want to create a character in this setting, lets say its Hyperborea. I want to have someone who is a decadent black sheep nobles son, whose only notable skill beyond carousing is he always wins a fight - a quick study with weapons and armour who earns his money in duels. I am not interested in leading or managing troops or running a squad. Why am I not better in this system at winning fights than a barbarian who does not have my specialised skillset?

I'd agree you should be better in a duel or a tavern brawl. You absolutely aren't going to be better in extreme weather conditions.

That said, as a GM, I'm absolutely fine with this as a concept. It'd work best with point buy, where you can hard stack your abilities in that area. I'd even make sure the game has some space for you to showcase your awesomeness.

I've only had an issue when players expect that, but don't like it when their specialisation acts as a negative. If you want to play a Crab combat monster in Legend of the Five Rings, honestly, knock yourself out. As long as you're going to enjoy playing that character when the Damiyo asks you to write him a haiku and you produce Baldrick's bomb poem. And, obviously, the more a character specialises in one area, the more of those negative situations are going to be there.

Imbalanced systems reduce player creativity with character concept, because they drive people to take the play optimal option.

I genuinely cannot think of a point buy system which doesn't reward optimisation in the way. Unless you get the GM to create characters, it's pretty much unavoidable.

If a game makes a particular choice , such as a race/class or background, seriously more capable than others, then anyone who chooses something else is paying a roleplaying penalty. That's not my fun. Design it better if you want me to play in it.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, although I think it's very campaign dependent. (If a game is going to be 90% combat then yeah, point people towards the combat capable classes. If it's going to be a game of high court politics, warn them that combat characters are going to struggle).

But I do find that sometimes this arises because of poor GMs not enforcing the non mechanical downsides of a character and/or poor players complaining when they're enforced.

Two examples.

Elves in WFRP are, categorically, better mechanically than any other race. However, the setting is very clear that elves should be a rarity in human society and that should have ramifications. If your village peasants aren't responding with either awe or fear, that's not the fault of the game rules.

Another one I've seen is Caitiff in Vampire the Masquerade. Being able to pick and choose your disciplines is unquestionably a big advantage. That's fine. It only fails when you have a Caitiff not being treated like dirt by the other Kindred. (And I've seen this one much more frequently tbh. People who pick Caitiff for the twinkiness who then whine when it's made clear that they are in fact the untouchables of Vampiric society).

 

[zanshin]

Let’s say, for sake of argument, Cimmerian barbarians make the best fighters in a D&D sense and the GM makes them as rare as they would normally be. In that case your Gunderman Mercenary is going to be the best warrior because no one will ever make up a Cimmerian Barbarian. If someone does, they’ll be lucky as hell and deserve it.

In what sense do they 'deserve it'? Because they were lucky with their dice? Precisely why I prefer stat arrays or stat point buy.

 

[zanshin]

I'd agree you should be better in a duel or a tavern brawl. You absolutely aren't going to be better in extreme weather conditions.

That said, as a GM, I'm absolutely fine with this as a concept. It'd work best with point buy, where you can hard stack your abilities in that area. I'd even make sure the game has some space for you to showcase your awesomeness.

I've only had an issue when players expect that, but don't like it when their specialisation acts as a negative. If you want to play a Crab combat monster in Legend of the Five Rings, honestly, knock yourself out. As long as you're going to enjoy playing that character when the Damiyo asks you to write him a haiku and you produce Baldrick's bomb poem. And, obviously, the more a character specialises in one area, the more of those negative situations are going to be there.

I genuinely cannot think of a point buy system which doesn't reward optimisation in the way. Unless you get the GM to create characters, it's pretty much unavoidable.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree, although I think it's very campaign dependent. (If a game is going to be 90% combat then yeah, point people towards the combat capable classes. If it's going to be a game of high court politics, warn them that combat characters are going to struggle).

But I do find that sometimes this arises because of poor GMs not enforcing the non mechanical downsides of a character and/or poor players complaining when they're enforced.

Two examples.

Elves in WFRP are, categorically, better mechanically than any other race. However, the setting is very clear that elves should be a rarity in human society and that should have ramifications. If your village peasants aren't responding with either awe or fear, that's not the fault of the game rules.

Another one I've seen is Caitiff in Vampire the Masquerade. Being able to pick and choose your disciplines is unquestionably a big advantage. That's fine. It only fails when you have a Caitiff not being treated like dirt by the other Kindred. (And I've seen this one much more frequently tbh. People who pick Caitiff for the twinkiness who then whine when it's made clear that they are in fact the untouchables of Vampiric society).

Absolutely agree that it is campaign dependent, and the best games come out of clear communication about expectations and genre, along with a system that supports that and gives opportunities for a variety of characters to be viable. I also take your point that the Barbarian should be better in the circumstances that favour them - thats the ideal of 'different but equal'

Many roleplaying games now are a mix of point buy and chosen class or background. That probably hits my sweet spot best these days. Pure point buy does have the widest variability of effectiveness with system mastery I agree.

In your example, if I was running Masquerade I would probably say 'No Caitiffs please'. Expecting a player to eat crap because their choice is socially unacceptable BUT they get gameplay perks is not likely to go well unless very carefully/sensitively handled by player and GM.

 

[Black Vulmea]

I don’t begrudge anyone the desire to get into the gamey part of a game, but I don’t get it with RPGs. Literally every other game on earth, the mechanics of the gameplay is the game. In RPGs, it doesn’t have to be at all.

If I sit down to play D&D, I will make a character who conforms to the game's implicit setting as expressed through classes and levels, not complain that 'I can't make the character I want!'

And if I was zanshin's referee, I'd steer him straight to the Duelist in my 1e campaign and let him get his broadsword on against a Conan-clone - 'Clonan'?!? - anytime, anywhere.

I dare say we’d be accused of being contentious, old chap.

More than a bit.

 

[TristramEvans]

If a game makes a particular choice , such as a race/class or background, seriously more capable than others, then anyone who chooses something else is paying a roleplaying penalty.

That's an odd way off looking at it....role-playing as a penalty in a role-playing game.

 

[Stevethulhu]

. I don’t begrudge anyone the desire to get into the gamey part of a game, but I don’t get it with RPGs. Literally every other game on earth, the mechanics of the gameplay is the game. In RPGs, it doesn’t have to be at all.

But if you don't engage with the game, you may as well as Let's Pretend or Cops and Robbers if you prefer to LARP.

 

[TristramEvans]

RPGs are kinda my way of playing Cops & Robbers or Cowboys & Indians, but while relaxing on a sofa and drinking with friends

 

[Endless Flight]

Yeah, I don’t want to duck for cover behind trees and roll around in my backyard at night while making PEW PEW noises. The neighbors might be alarmed.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, I don’t want to duck for cover behind trees and roll around in my backyard at night while making PEW PEW noises. The neighbors might be alarmed.

Last time I did that was playing Laser Tag in the park late at night with my dorm-mates at art school in Jersey. We got the cops called on us.

 

[Fenris-77]

The difference between monofilament and something like monomolecular always made me laugh. Fishing line is monofilament, for example and I'd so far failed to cut anyone in half with it. Anyway, I'll stop yelling at clouds now.

 

[zanshin]

That's an odd way off looking at it....role-playing as a penalty in a role-playing game.

In order to play the character they want to play, they are being handicapped by the game rules. That's what I meant to express.

 

[tenbones]

I wonder how the conversation would go if CRKrueger or tenbones or myself said something like, 'action point economy should die in a fire'?

I'm sure the proponents of such games (who probably believe in "balance" as a necessary systemic thing) would cry foul.

As someone that is squarely from Ye Olde School, I think "balance" is purely contextual to the assumptions of the setting. It may sound self-serving, given I am a die-hard Talislanta lover (player, GM, writer/designer) where the very idea of "balance" is tossed out of the window. The world *is*. It's your job as the GM to enforce that status quo.

A good example of this in Talislanta, are the Zandir Swordsmen - they're very much the fencer types "finesse" swordsmen archetype. But by comparison, the Thralls, Kang Warriors, Ahazu Warriors are the apex-warriors of the setting (Talislanta nuts will frown at me for not including the Harakin - yeah they're the big four) and pound for pound, stat for stat - the Zandir are inferior on paper.

The system isn't demanding that you play something inferior - it offers you abilities that are unique to the concept (Zandir Swordfighting is its own style). But the context for those top four apex warriors are *extreme*.

Thralls are *literally* clones bred for one thing: war. They're like geniuses when it comes to strategy and combat, but complete children when it comes to anything else (they have zero interest).

Ahazu and Harakin - both *completely* savage warrior races that live in the most dangerous lands one could ever inhabit in Talislanta. Every day is kill or be killed, and they have lived this way for thousands of years.

Kang - Probably the most "civilized", a former slave race that overthrew their masters and live like the Klingons. They worship war, they're super disciplined, practice martial arts daily, they literally kill their brothers and sisters in the wombs of their mothers, so before you're even born, you're already a killer.

By comparison - Zandir are trained duelists, that do it for fun and as part of their dandy/rogue-pursuit driven culture. And they've developed a method of fighting that is dangerous within the context of their method of fighting.

But does this mean these concepts should be equal in outcomes in any given fight? The system should reflect the intentional reality of the setting. The GM's job is to reinforce that - and anything that says otherwise should be an emergent aspect of play.

For example - Zandir swordsmen aren't prancing around in the Kang Empire pretending the 7-foot tall Kang are not the badasses they are. Likewise Kang generally would scoff at a little Zandir with their little cutesy rapiers and sabers. But if you're a *really* good Zandir swordsman, that has invested heavily in your skills, and let's say you're 7th level (3e) you're probably going to kill your average Kang Warrior. Swordsmanship allows them a free parry every round - which is *very* powerful in Talislanta combat. It can and has proven the difference in many campaigns I've run and played in. But for it to work, the Zandir player has to really invest, and would be a complete FOOL to think pound for pound he measures up to these top-tier killers "just because". The system reflects that as a context of the setting.

What I find weird about people wanting "balance" is that they're players thinking their PC's are "baseline". Inexperienced GM's think this too. When the setting and the game itself should already have baselined *reality*. Anything above and beyond that is there from emergent interactions of play (like leveling up).

Contrast that with me right now. I'm a GM that currently finds himself *vastly* consumed with playing MSH and Savage Worlds these days - both systems that use "action-points" as part of their systems to represent various genre-aspects of a game, I can tell you right now, that I run a game of MSH - where one player is a Thor power-level Demon, another is a Midnighter-style character (among others in the group playing ridiculously powerful telepaths/TK, and what may be Herald of the Celestials). Precisely *zero* of the players complain about balance because I keep everything grounded in gameplay that makes everything all hands on deck for their respective schticks. And yes, they often have to deal with each other's problem. My Midnighter player squared off against Zadkiel (Fallen Angel from DC comics) - and he did exactly what you'd expect: Hit and run, hit and run and wore the fucker down.

And yes lots of Karma was being spent to make that happen - but that's the intent of the system design to allow for such things to happen. And it's my job to keep these things in context in the game for the players vs. the setting.

I'm generally not a fan of trying to make the system play down to the players by equalizing things under the rubric of "balance". This is MMO videogame mentality. Likewise I'm generally not a fan of action-points, but I do know in the right systems, they can be applied to a game for really good results depending on the conceits of the setting.

TL/DR - Balance is an illusion in the minds of Players. GM's with experience know how to balance things in-game. Dick-measuring your concept against another based on non-contextual realities is "white-room" analysis for players, not GM's worth their salt. This has very little use in a sandbox where a good GM curates the starting points of a game. If you run Adventure Paths and Modules and let players show up with whatever they want, I can't help you.

 

[EmperorNorton]

You guys know when you talk about "well what if it is rarer and so in most cases you wouldn't even qualify to be one" is... actually a type of balancing them...

 

[TristramEvans]

In order to play the character they want to play, they are being handicapped by the game rules. That's what I meant to express.

I guess it depends for me on how closely the game rules adhere to emulating the reality of the gameworld.

IRL, I'm not an Olympic Athlete or Martial Arts Master, but I don't feel I'm handicapped because of that. And Michael Phelps probably can't draw for shit.

 

[tenbones]

In order to play the character they want to play, they are being handicapped by the game rules. That's what I meant to express.

Well that's not what you're really saying.

You're saying you as a player get to define the qualities of your concept FREE of context of the setting you're playing in. Nothing prevents you from playing a swordsman of noble birth, fast with the blade etc.

But you want him to be the best of the best. Well that takes XP.

You're implying that all concepts should be equal - regardless of the setting conceits. These two things usually are separate things (but not always).

 

[TristramEvans]

You guys know when you talk about "well what if it is rarer and so in most cases you wouldn't even qualify to be one" is... actually a type of balancing them...

Yeah, that's what I was tryig to say earlier with random roll chargen being an equality of opportunity balancing conceit

 

[tenbones]

You guys know when you talk about "well what if it is rarer and so in most cases you wouldn't even qualify to be one" is... actually a type of balancing them...

Well I haven't done random-stat generation in a long time - that used to dictate what you're gonna play, right?

Then later all these other approaches beyond the standard 3d6 emerged. Then it became "Why don't we just let people play the class they wanna play?" (Type 7 in Unearthed Arcana).

Then it became point buys and stat-arrays.

 

[zanshin]

Well that's not what you're really saying.

You're saying you as a player get to define the qualities of your concept FREE of context of the setting you're playing in. Nothing prevents you from playing a swordsman of noble birth, fast with the blade etc.

But you want him to be the best of the best. Well that takes XP.

You're implying that all concepts should be equal - regardless of the setting conceits. These two things usually are separate things (but not always).

I think it is what I am really saying. That a game should give an equal balance of options to create a character within the genre and that players should have sufficent character capability to share the playtime with impact on the gameworld.

Randomisation of character capability (like attributes or access to classes or hit points) make it less likely that the players will have roughly equal access to the toys and widgets that let them influence outcomes within play.

If you had read and followed what I was expressing you would realise I was arguing against a conceit that Cimmerian Barbarians should/could always be the best at fighting in a gameworld - I was asking why that should be the case? Its an imaginary construct , why construct the game in a way that makes one choice of play significantly more effective than another.

You like old chool randomisation - enjoy. I have played in enough RPGs to not want it anymore. Stat arrays work much better for the D&D I want to play, as does 4e & 5e over every previous iteration of D&D.

 

[zanshin]

I guess it depends for me on how closely the game rules adhere to emulating the reality of the gameworld.

IRL, I'm not an Olympic Athlete or Martial Arts Master, but I don't feel I'm handicapped because of that. And Michael Phelps probably can't draw for shit.

When you are playing Swimmers & Swimming , Jet Li is going to be a sub optimal choice. Of course game balance is genre dependent. But I know the difference between an RPG that leads to well balanced outcomes and one that doesn't.

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[zanshin]

Why?

 

[CRKrueger]

But if you don't engage with the game, you may as well as Let's Pretend or Cops and Robbers if you prefer to LARP.

Is fretting about power imbalances between Classes in specific situations or charting DPS over the course of a night of play or plotting out a 1st-20th progression for every PC in the party before they hit the first tavern “engaging” with the game?