I have decided to begin a blog on Gaming that will be hosted on EN World. The blog will be called Tome and Tomb and will detail my thoughts, and the thoughts of others, on all aspects of gaming, wargaming, simulations, design, Transferable Skill Simulations, coding, and any other related subject that I consider relevant to these issues.
Over time I will post entries on Game Design, Role Playing Games, Alternative and Parallel Role Playing Games, Wargaming, Video and Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games and Virtual Reality Environments, Technology, Vadding, and popular culture. I will also include posts and articles on theory and design, as well as some of my other related writings. In time I also intend to post on the development of my own games, and game milieus.
I may also post on other subject matters, as the fancy strikes me, such as history, politics, religion, science, writing, music, and art.
Over time I will post entries on Game Design, Role Playing Games, Alternative and Parallel Role Playing Games, Wargaming, Video and Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games and Virtual Reality Environments, Technology, Vadding, and popular culture. I will also include posts and articles on theory and design, as well as some of my other related writings. In time I also intend to post on the development of my own games, and game milieus.
I may also post on other subject matters, as the fancy strikes me, such as history, politics, religion, science, writing, music, and art.
To Hell With Balance
Posted 14th December 2008 at 03:29 AM by Jack7
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Two: To Hell With Balance
I’m gonna say something that might shock some of you guys. Then again, maybe not.
Balance, go to the Devil. And sip septic tea with him til you’re really needed again. And chances are it won’t be often. But whatever the case, don’t call me, I’ll call you.
I’m working on a fantasy Role Playing Game, I’m not designing an algorithm, doing covalence equations, or writing a computer program to calculate a moonshot at apogee.
So sometimes in-game my players get their noses busted and spleens ruptured by a dragon that in real life they couldn’t ever easily kill. Not with bow-sticks and knives and harsh words anyways. Good, it’ll teach em a lesson about danger and risk and what it actually costs people.
And sometimes they’ll whip out their Horn of Resounding and bring down the walls of Jericho, or slay a few giants with the Jawbone of an ass. Good, sometimes you catch a miracle in midair, deserved or undeserved. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes he gets you. That’s life.
But in any case, as far as the game goes, the player is fascinated, interested, intrigued, involved, worried, anxious, and maybe even occasionally excited again. Perhaps shocked and ecstatic from time to time too, just to boot.
Balance, he ain’t my god. I don’t owe him any real sacrifices. He’s more like the grey-skinned Graeæ sisters than bright Apollo. Only one eye to see with, a lot of double talk, the bite of a one-toothed wonder - and in the end, disaster, not glory. You can’t trust Balance to point the way to the future, cause he’s more consumed with his own reflection in the mirror than with anything remotely heroic happening. Static, stale, sterile, sluggish, and simple-minded. A dotard of dullness. No poetry of soul, just an arrested arithmetic of tedium. More Echo and Narcissus, more Sound and Fury, than Thunder and Lightning.
I liked the original version of D&D. I like the 4th Edition, at least many things about it. But I see now that this pernicious idea of “balance” that crept in like the Serpent at Eve in Paradise, balance as an end in itself, especially in a fantasy game of all things, is more assassins’ poison than golden Ambrosia. If I have to kill wonder and potential just to achieve balance, then I have to kill fantasy just to achieve boredom. Thank you modern RPG Fantasy Game Theory of Balance, but I think you’d be happier working as a stock-boy in the warehouse of modern mediocrity, than a gate-keeper to the temples at Mount Olympus.
So Balance, my fine feathered fowl of gutless acquittal, go to hell and burn awhile. Maybe you’ll cook into a decent potpie.
Invention is as invention does. So, I’m gonna start designing fantasy games and adventures again, even D&D ones, where magic happens, miracles save the day, monsters are dangerous and feral, the voice of God rumbles across the sky, kingdoms topple, heroes struggle, players say, “Now that’s what I’m talking ‘bout!” and imaginations catch fire.
Balance can burn in his own oven… and stew in his own juices.
Essay Two: To Hell With Balance
I’m gonna say something that might shock some of you guys. Then again, maybe not.
Balance, go to the Devil. And sip septic tea with him til you’re really needed again. And chances are it won’t be often. But whatever the case, don’t call me, I’ll call you.
I’m working on a fantasy Role Playing Game, I’m not designing an algorithm, doing covalence equations, or writing a computer program to calculate a moonshot at apogee.
So sometimes in-game my players get their noses busted and spleens ruptured by a dragon that in real life they couldn’t ever easily kill. Not with bow-sticks and knives and harsh words anyways. Good, it’ll teach em a lesson about danger and risk and what it actually costs people.
And sometimes they’ll whip out their Horn of Resounding and bring down the walls of Jericho, or slay a few giants with the Jawbone of an ass. Good, sometimes you catch a miracle in midair, deserved or undeserved. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes he gets you. That’s life.
But in any case, as far as the game goes, the player is fascinated, interested, intrigued, involved, worried, anxious, and maybe even occasionally excited again. Perhaps shocked and ecstatic from time to time too, just to boot.
Balance, he ain’t my god. I don’t owe him any real sacrifices. He’s more like the grey-skinned Graeæ sisters than bright Apollo. Only one eye to see with, a lot of double talk, the bite of a one-toothed wonder - and in the end, disaster, not glory. You can’t trust Balance to point the way to the future, cause he’s more consumed with his own reflection in the mirror than with anything remotely heroic happening. Static, stale, sterile, sluggish, and simple-minded. A dotard of dullness. No poetry of soul, just an arrested arithmetic of tedium. More Echo and Narcissus, more Sound and Fury, than Thunder and Lightning.
I liked the original version of D&D. I like the 4th Edition, at least many things about it. But I see now that this pernicious idea of “balance” that crept in like the Serpent at Eve in Paradise, balance as an end in itself, especially in a fantasy game of all things, is more assassins’ poison than golden Ambrosia. If I have to kill wonder and potential just to achieve balance, then I have to kill fantasy just to achieve boredom. Thank you modern RPG Fantasy Game Theory of Balance, but I think you’d be happier working as a stock-boy in the warehouse of modern mediocrity, than a gate-keeper to the temples at Mount Olympus.
So Balance, my fine feathered fowl of gutless acquittal, go to hell and burn awhile. Maybe you’ll cook into a decent potpie.
Invention is as invention does. So, I’m gonna start designing fantasy games and adventures again, even D&D ones, where magic happens, miracles save the day, monsters are dangerous and feral, the voice of God rumbles across the sky, kingdoms topple, heroes struggle, players say, “Now that’s what I’m talking ‘bout!” and imaginations catch fire.
Balance can burn in his own oven… and stew in his own juices.
Total Comments 13
Comments
-
Balance, like fire and money, is a good servant but a poor master. Balance should advise your choice of challenges for a game, assuming you are concerned at all about whether the PCs have a decent chance of overcoming the challenges, but it should not dictate them.
That said, I think the two biggest misconceptions about balance (with repsect to PCs vs encounters, anyway) are:
1. The PCs always win a balanced encounter.
2. The PCs always have balanced encounters.
The PCs may be likely to win a balanced encounter, but as with any game of skill and chance, the players may make tactical mistakes and the dice may not always go their way. Even if the PCs have a 90% chance of winning a "balanced" encounter and only ever fight "balanced" encounters, that means about one in ten encounters will end in defeat.
Furthermore, whether or not the PCs will have balanced encounters is entirely up to the DM in a non-sandbox game. In addition, encounter difficulty is not a binary "balanced"/"unbalanced" switch. There is a continuum of encounter difficulty, from encounters that the PCs are almost certain to win, to encounters where they have an better than average chance of victory, to encounters which could go either way, to encounters that the PCs would do well to run away as fast and as far as they can.Posted 14th December 2008 at 03:09 PM by FireLance
-
Well said, friend. Balance is a fickle mistress. She takes at least as much as she gives and is at the very best a fair-weather friend. It is impossible to achieve in D&D anyway. There is always an element of randomness no matter how skilled the PCs are and how well they are played. A run of bad luck can ruin any good day.
A good DM knows how much his players can handle. He or she knows when to loosen the reins and when to tighten them. Plus, all of this is done without the PCs' knowledge so that the game is always kept at an exciting and challenging level. There is such a variety of powers and abilities for both PCs and monsters in the game that expecting balance is asking too much. I think you have the right idea. Lay the foundation for fantastic things to happen and let the PCs reach for the sky.Posted 14th December 2008 at 07:56 PM by airwalkrr - Posted 15th December 2008 at 06:24 PM by thecasualoblivion
- And for GMs who aren't very good at being GMs balance is the way the game helps them cope. It has a purpose, and that purpose is good for those that need it.
Also:
"Good, it’ll teach em a lesson about danger and risk and what it actually costs people."
"Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes he gets you. That’s life."
Some people already know these things, and know them too well. Do you really see the world as being so good that people need to be taught these things?Posted 15th December 2008 at 07:37 PM by SilvercatMoonpaw2 -
Quote:Do you really see the world as being so good that people need to be taught these things?
If I'm following what you mean right, then I suspect you're taking my comments in a way different than what I meant.
I was speaking about balance being used as a game theory principle or mechanic to mitigate or negate game risk.Posted 15th December 2008 at 10:35 PM by Jack7 - So what exactly is the reason to post this?Posted 15th December 2008 at 11:36 PM by Goemoe
-
Entertaining as always Jack7.
Needless to say, I pretty much entirely disagree with you. Balance is absolutely necessary. The game is littered with examples where that lesson was forgotten. My favourite poster child for it is two weapon fighting from 2e.
In 2e, with Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting, I could use two weapons with no penalties. (note, I could do without it with a decent Dex) That means that I DOUBLE my damage output per round. Two weapon proficiencies to double my damage.
What happened? Everyone took two weapons, even non-fighters, because it was just stupid not to. So, instead of balance creating bland, vanilla options, imbalance created cookie cutter characters where everyone used EXACTLY the same tactics. It was just too good not to.
Imbalance leads to far more bland, cookie cutter characters than anything else in the game. Why use any other weapon in 1e or 2e than a longsword? Nothing in the game is better. So, every fighter used a longsword. Every magic sword you found was a longsword. The other weapons did not even need to exist.
So, to sum up, I reject your reality and substitute my own. Imbalance does not lead to originality or more sensawunda. It leads to twinking, powergaming and gaming the system to squeeze out every available bonus.Posted 16th December 2008 at 12:46 AM by Hussar -
A mechanically-balanced game underneath the hood is good because it gives you a baseline for expectation. Which for a DM can only help him/her lay the foundation for what he/she is going to build on top of it in the campaign. And if you are a completely inexperienced DM with no knowledge of the pitfalls and traps that might lay ahead of you... knowing you can build up using the "balanced" blocks given to you, means you can keep a solid wall going up, with a less likely chance you make it too precarious and it all falls to the ground.
Those of us who are more exeperienced with the game and what players can/will do... can take more chances with what we build. We can let things go a bit unsupported, because we know what needs to happen if what we build starts to tip. Hell, we can completely throw out all the "balanced" blocks we have and use things we know to be completely unwieldy... fully expecting our experience to keep things upright. And if it starts to tumble, we will quickly improvise some supports that the players will never realize we've built. And to them, the game will still seem fun and exciting.
Even the worst game system can be used to create an exciting game, if your DM is good enough. But the less experienced your DM... the more usueful a good game system becomes, to cover his butt when things begin to fall.Posted 16th December 2008 at 04:36 PM by DEFCON 1 -
Balance, variation, and risk are completely uncorrelated, and the issues you describe seem to be focused on the latter two.Posted 16th December 2008 at 07:04 PM by RukiTanuki - I could not agree more. Balance can be greater than imbalance. For my 4E group, monsters just aren't threatening unless DM way overpowers us. I remember a vampire in 2E or an ogre in 3E terrifying PC's of a an equal or slightly grater level. Fear is now gone. Even the beholder mock battle my friend ran degenerated into a boring math class as we just whittled the beholder down just like carving a piece of wood with a knife. There was no creativity or tactics involved.
It was just boring. An RPG should be fun, exciting and keep people on edge. 4E plays out like a wargame. Fun in its own right but utterly lacking in suspense. Too bad. I had hoped for more.Posted 18th December 2008 at 05:58 AM by Lost Soul - Grinding combats in 4E has nothing to do with balance, it has to do with the system being based on not being able to kill things in one shot. Balance is about not having a game where one PC can rewrite the rules of reality while another PC can't do anything besides poke things with a pointed stick.Posted 18th December 2008 at 03:43 PM by thecasualoblivion
- Balance is not totally unimportant. Balance should not be THE rule of a game, I agree. Some imbalances are surely okay. But if an imbalance leads to a character being largely and over longer times irrelevant compared to other character (A vanilla Rogue in a campaign with many undead and few traps and lots of fighting comes to mind), that is no good.Posted 18th December 2008 at 04:43 PM by bpkri
- I'm gonna have to agree with Hussar, and disagree with Jack7.
For one thing, Jack7 should make it clear WHAT thing he thinks doesn't need to be balanced. I interpret from the article that his use of the term is only in regard to PC vs. Encounter balance, which is really PC vs. GM.
That's not the only kind of game balance. Thusly, I see at least the following types of balance, in regards to RPG:
-PC vs. encounter
-game element compared to other game element
-PC vs. PC
Each of these are important, though for varying reason.
Starting off with "PC vs.Encounter" balance. Firstly, as a GMing aid, it is VERY handy to have an estimate of the strength of an encounter vs. the party. If you don't have that tool (even as primitive as Hit Dice compared to total levels of party), you can't tell if an encounter is easy or not. If the GM has no clue of the difficulty of an encounter, he runs the risk of making it too easy, or too hard. I'm talking a true extreme, the DM has no tools, and thus no clue. What happens is EVERY encounter is random. The party can't judge anything. This in turn affects game play. They'll play too timidly, and nothing will get done. Or they'll die every session, and never progress.
Ultimately, players typically have fun by achieving something in the game. If they never win, they'll give up. If every session they win, the next they lose, they'll give up. This is what encounter balance is about. Making sure the game play is interesting, challenging, and not so overwhelming you lose your players. It's not about the players foolishly taking on a dragon they ought to know they can't beat. It's about them not having any choice but to take on a dragon they can't beat, every session.
Next on the list is "Game element vs. game element", which Hussar hits on the head pretty well. The problem is mainly that given 2 game elements, which have the same end-goal, but different rules/description, if one is better than the other, and not balanced by other factors like price, then players will only use the more optimal choice. This defeats having the weaker element in the game (no point, it costs more, and does less), and encourages everyone to use the same thing, thus eliminating variety and flavor from the game.
At the simplest, imagine the wooden staff, and the iron staff (i just made it up). The wood one is free, does 1d6 damage. The iron one costs 50gp, and 1d6 damage. Unless weapon breakage is REALLY common, nobody would buy a iron staff for their PC. By creating an unbalanced game element, I damage other portions of the game, or render something useless. Now in the example I give, I created something useless, worse than existing game element. The more common problem is creating something BETTER than an existing game element. If you have a game element that a player would be a fool to use (or not use), you have a badly balanced game element. Design flaws like this, lead to the next game balance issue.
Lastly, we have "PC vs. PC" balance. Let me say these observations first:
-nobody with a kick-butt character complains about game balance
-you can roleplay a kick-butt character just as well as a wimpy one
-nobody really wants to suck at combat, while everyone else kicks butt
Those are pretty much universally true. And when you have PCs of equal level, with players of equal intelligence (perhaps the same player), and one PC is better in the game, than the other, you have imbalance. The player of the weaker PC almost always has less fun, and tends to not be in the spotlight as much.
Now most players will accept, that if you're better at sneaking, and I'm better at diplomacy, it's OK. Especially when those 2 elements show up in the game relatively equally. I'm contributing at times, and then you are. However, if the GM isn't keeping those encounter opportunities available in even measure, imbalance creeps in, and somebody's not having fun.
Secondly, and 4e works to fix this, there's a view that if you have spend all your points on non-combat abilities, it's OK to suck in combat, while my combat focussed PC kicks butt. Since D&D is a combat oriented game, guess who got the shaft? You and your sucks-at-fighting PC. You probably have less HP, hit less often, get hit more often with bad AC, and can't even help the party all that well, except for being a target instead of me. How is that fun?
Contrast that to balancing combat abilities such that each PC has a MODE of combat to excel in, and a MODE of combat to do poorly in. This is why barbarians do more damage, but get hit more often. It balances them out with fighters, who set the median for HP, BAB, AC, damage. Overall, in a fight, everybody's contributing equally, and having fun. But the STYLE is presented differently, so we encouraged to have variety.
So, overall, balance is used to get the following:
make everyone be able to contribute in combat
make everyone take turns (can't all be masters of sneak and diplomacy)
let everyone work together and have fun
encourage variety in builds and tactics (rather than everyone use the same unbalanced tactic)
helps the GM control the pace and challenge of the sessionPosted 18th December 2008 at 08:18 PM by Janx
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
