Achieving Balance

Remathilis · Aug 9, 2009

jgbrowning said:
IMO, balance is the GM, not the system.

joe b.

Yes and no.

Certainly, a GM can make anything balance with enough work, but a pre-balanced system makes things a HECK of a lot easier.

I once subscribed to the "GM Balance" idea; if the PCs mow through the dragon too easily, I'll use two of them next time. The problem was, it became hard to predict what was a cakewalk and what was a TPK. It got to the point there wasn't a combat I wasn't fudging up or down to make it fun for the players and myself.

So a DM can do all that work, but if there are ways to make that easier, why waste the extra effort.

Doug McCrae · Aug 9, 2009

jgbrowning said:
IMO, balance is the GM, not the system.

Everything the system doesn't do, that is regarded as beneficial for good gameplay, the GM (and/or players) have to. Balance is a tiny subset of this. If the system doesn't provide balance (and most don't) AND the group want it, then yeah, the players and GM have to provide.

Personally I don't really like having to provide balance. My current system, M&M, requires that I do. But I don't regard that as a plus.

Ariosto · Aug 9, 2009

I have for some time been mulling over ideas for a fantasy RPG, and some of them of course concern balances.

The "zero to hero" (and thence to superhero/demigod, and perhaps beyond) aspect of D&D is most evident in the level scheme. Most RPGs since have, by one means or another, incorporated this emphasis on the pursuit of more strength, skill, and other forms of innate power.

Metamorphosis Alpha and Traveller were among the notable departures. There were significant (and pretty random) differences among characters from the start; characters could in the course of play acquire mutations in the former game, and skills (perhaps including psionics) in the latter; and, of course, there was high-tech gadgetry that offered various advantages analogous to D&D magic items.

None of those, in my experience, weighed as heavily as D&D levels (or skill ratings or other equivalents in other games). There was not such an issue of matching scenarios to characters, or characters to other characters. A newly generated persona could easily be played alongside those that had been in play for a long time, and casual "one-shot" games were facilitated as much as ongoing campaigns.

It was of course a matter of degree rather than absolutes, and gear could count for much; someone running around in powered armor with a ray gun was obviously a "combat monster" whenever it was feasible to bring those to bear! Social and financial power also tended to be greater among players who had been some time at accumulating it.

So, one thing I have been thinking about is setting aside the "getting better all the time" rat-race of a bigger + to hit, to damage, to defense, to skill, to muscle, etc.. Produce adequately competent or "heroic" characters, and pretty much leave those ratings where they start. The rather "iconic" results might be in keeping with the way many protagonists in fantastic fiction are commonly seen. It certainly rings a bell for me when considering classic comic-strip/book and radio/television characters (who, for commercial reasons, must retain easily recognized characteristics even for audience members not versed in all the serials' continuity).

Characters might learn new skills that increase their versatility and reflect their growing biographies. Spending a lot of time among sea rovers, steppe nomads or rain-forest hunter-gatherers would be an example. On the other hand, characters might "get rusty" with skills long unused.

Such factors might be described not in terms of bonuses to binary (pass/fail) rolls, but differences in results. For instance, it might be in some cases that anyone can get something done -- but the specially trained can do it more quickly. The products of their efforts might be more precise, durable, reliable, comprehensive or elegant.

Magic might likewise emphasize expanding qualitative capabilities. Limited numbers of uses (as with potions, scrolls and "charged" items in D&D) would bode against perpetual accumulation, as well as making use a strategic factor and acquiring magic a common goal. More interest, in both game and "story" terms, could come from trade-offs that make magic not an unadulterated boon.

The more all this ties into particulars of the world and the characters' adventures in it, the more it is likely to add in really character-building terms. That is to my mind the greatest reward for long and successful play: the depth added to a character's emergent story.

In a sense, perhaps the balance that matters most is among players' opportunities to add to that.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Aug 10, 2009

Ariosto said:
I have for some time been mulling over ideas for a fantasy RPG, and some of them of course concern balances.

The "zero to hero" (and thence to superhero/demigod, and perhaps beyond) aspect of D&D is most evident in the level scheme. Most RPGs since have, by one means or another, incorporated this emphasis on the pursuit of more strength, skill, and other forms of innate power.

Metamorphosis Alpha and Traveller were among the notable departures. There were significant (and pretty random) differences among characters from the start; characters could in the course of play acquire mutations in the former game, and skills (perhaps including psionics) in the latter; and, of course, there was high-tech gadgetry that offered various advantages analogous to D&D magic items.

None of those, in my experience, weighed as heavily as D&D levels (or skill ratings or other equivalents in other games). There was not such an issue of matching scenarios to characters, or characters to other characters. A newly generated persona could easily be played alongside those that had been in play for a long time, and casual "one-shot" games were facilitated as much as ongoing campaigns.

It was of course a matter of degree rather than absolutes, and gear could count for much; someone running around in powered armor with a ray gun was obviously a "combat monster" whenever it was feasible to bring those to bear! Social and financial power also tended to be greater among players who had been some time at accumulating it.

So, one thing I have been thinking about is setting aside the "getting better all the time" rat-race of a bigger + to hit, to damage, to defense, to skill, to muscle, etc.. Produce adequately competent or "heroic" characters, and pretty much leave those ratings where they start. The rather "iconic" results might be in keeping with the way many protagonists in fantastic fiction are commonly seen. It certainly rings a bell for me when considering classic comic-strip/book and radio/television characters (who, for commercial reasons, must retain easily recognized characteristics even for audience members not versed in all the serials' continuity).

Characters might learn new skills that increase their versatility and reflect their growing biographies. Spending a lot of time among sea rovers, steppe nomads or rain-forest hunter-gatherers would be an example. On the other hand, characters might "get rusty" with skills long unused.

Such factors might be described not in terms of bonuses to binary (pass/fail) rolls, but differences in results. For instance, it might be in some cases that anyone can get something done -- but the specially trained can do it more quickly. The products of their efforts might be more precise, durable, reliable, comprehensive or elegant.

Magic might likewise emphasize expanding qualitative capabilities. Limited numbers of uses (as with potions, scrolls and "charged" items in D&D) would bode against perpetual accumulation, as well as making use a strategic factor and acquiring magic a common goal. More interest, in both game and "story" terms, could come from trade-offs that make magic not an unadulterated boon.

The more all this ties into particulars of the world and the characters' adventures in it, the more it is likely to add in really character-building terms. That is to my mind the greatest reward for long and successful play: the depth added to a character's emergent story.

In a sense, perhaps the balance that matters most is among players' opportunities to add to that.

I think this is a valid approach, but it has one drawback: Advancement is really slow, and you will notice it.

In D&D, you start fighting meager kobolds, come to powerful Giants and Drows and end fighting Titans, Demons or Devils.

There is just no such equivalent of advancement in games like Traveller or Shadowrun (to give another example). Most of your "power" in such games is probably more linked to the relations you have, reputation you gained. But you are still basically engaging the same type of foes or achieve the same type of tasks.

There is a certain satasfiction to be gained by moving from murderizing kobolds to defeated a demon horde, and from discussing a politlical murder with a mayor or discussing the strategy to banish Orcus with the Raven Queen.
At it's core, it is still the same thing - you roleplay your character, you run combats, you run skill challenges or whatever. But the flavor is just different - a mayor can never compare to a goddess, and a kobold tribe can never compare to a demon horde.

Maybe the trick would be in games that focus leaa on massive boosts by levels to show off the kind of economic or political power gained over the characters career. I prefer if the system provides strong "hints" and tools to achieve that, and it is not just left to a great DM to work this out on his own.
At least my limited experience with T20 Traveller suggests that had some ideas on how to handle "pseudo-economics" that allowed the players to gain wealth, but I am not sure how well it models influence and political power...

Ariosto · Aug 10, 2009

Maybe the trick would be in games that focus less on massive boosts by levels to show off the kind of economic or political power gained over the characters career.

I have considered several such schemes in which that's a focusing principle. However, I have not found any great drawback in "still basically engaging the same type of foes or achieving the same type of tasks." It is different from D&D, not necessarily worse -- and I noted some benefits. I am not thinking of trying to do the same thing as D&D, for D&D does that very well indeed!

Ever bigger numbers in the dice-rolls are not to my mind a necessary contributor to novelty; variety in situations is the key to that. A level scheme seems mainly to limit the range of "appropriate" scenarios at a given level. Recent versions of D&D have tended to focus on a presumed "sweet spot" and scope of "fun" narrower than what I anticipate exploring in this game.

I prefer if the system provides strong "hints" and tools to achieve that, and it is not just left to a great DM to work this out on his own.

Tools for campaigning seem a field in which there is more potential development than in the "boilerplate" of RPGs. The 1E DMG remains a very handy collection for one kind of game, a work IMO not since matched.

Changes in the lifestyle and expectations of typical players have perhaps contributed to a growing emphasis on the balances within a given session of play, accompanied by changes in the normative campaign structure. Some trends in the demands designs make on allocations of time and energy may be in keeping with that, while others may be counter-productive. I think it is good to have different kinds of games on offer -- including the kind that one can take out and play on short notice, with little preparation, and satisfyingly within the scope of a single short session.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Aug 10, 2009

Ariosto said:
I have considered several such schemes in which that's a focusing principle. However, I have not found any great drawback in "still basically engaging the same type of foes or achieving the same type of tasks." It is different from D&D, not necessarily worse -- and I noted some benefits. I am not thinking of trying to do the same thing as D&D, for D&D does that very well indeed!

Ever bigger numbers in the dice-rolls are not to my mind a necessary contributor to novelty; variety in situations is the key to that. A level scheme seems mainly to limit the range of "appropriate" scenarios at a given level. Recent versions of D&D have tended to focus on a presumed "sweet spot" and scope of "fun" narrower than what I anticipate exploring in this game.

Bigger dice roll certainly don't change anything, but I think in a way, "bigger" enemies (from kobolds to Demons) does. They have an actual story meaning, telling you that you operate on a really different level then earlier.
Similar things happen when you move from Magic Missile to Fireball (suddenly you have the option to kill or injure groups of people at once) or when you attain Teleport (you can move anywhere at any time, you don't need to travel there by foot and worry about camping and wandering monsters and getting lost.) Getting the ability to die in combat and return (possibly stronger than before) is also pretty impressive.
Higher numbers are just a way to help this effect, in a way. You need those high numbers to fight the Demons and not just be slaughtered by them. If you'd still fight Kobolds that also have higher numbers, they have no meaning.

The equivalent for this in a game like Traveller might be something like not steering one space ship but from comandeering a large number of merchant and possibly military vessels, from dealing with local traders with the producers themselves, from fighting off pirates to engaging hostile governments in possibly open warfare, from clearing your name in a city and convincing the police to not arrest you to to establishing yourself as a government advisor and to convince the secret service that you are trustworthy enough to get access to top secret intelligence.

Writing about this makes me want to run such a campaign...

Ariosto · Aug 10, 2009

On one hand, we have a focus on changing mechanical approaches over the course of a single character's career, one most effectively realized when that character's survival and progress through 30 (or whatever) levels is well assured. A suggestive shorthand might be "epic saga" mode. On the other hand, we have an emphasis on the differences between one character-role and another, and one scenario and another. One might distinguish that as "episodic" mode.

The former has very copious amounts of RPG material devoted to it, the latter not so much. This might at first glance seem curious to a naive observer, inasmuch as so much of the inspirational source material for adventure games has been adventure fiction serialized in more episodic form; some of the rest has come from singleton short stories, novellas or movies.

The hobby's divorce from its war-game forebears may in the long run have contributed to an atrophy of its horizons, a creeping conservatism. The rise of "narrative" games (in my view yet another new species, demanding an approach on its own terms as much as does the RPG) is interesting as a new thing -- but perhaps some neglected old things are worth revisiting as well.

Were one to undertake a campaign, in the military-historical sense, of the ancient or medieval period, the units would remain much the same throughout (relative to the D&D or video-game expectation that, e.g., one's cavalry should along the way turn into "super" cavalry). The "story" arising from play would derive from the ebb and flow of the tide of battle.

tyrlaan · Aug 10, 2009

Ah, but now you're glomming this into the simulationist vs. narrativist aspects of a game.

The catch is people like experiencing a sense of accomplishment when playing a game. The longer a person has to wait for that accomplishment to come to fruition, the bigger it must feel so the person believes the time was worth the effort. Of course there are a lot of fuzzy terms and inidivdual tastes balled up in there, but that's the crux of the debate you're introducing.

Which by the way, is very off-topic to this thread

Very interesting, but off-topic. I'd recommend forking it to a new one.

On topic, I'll throw my hat in the ring as someone who feels balance is about spotlight balance. And doing it right for a game requires the designer of the game to understand what aspect of their game will have the spotlight.

Interestingly enough, while 4e is decidedly built to balance combat, I'd argue it does a better job of balancing non-combat than previous editions. The skill disparity between the classes is very minimal. Along with the concept of ever improving skill bonuses for everyone, the playing field is more level than before.

radferth · Aug 10, 2009

In response to no one in particular, my own view is that balance is never absolutely necessary, but always better to have than not. That being said, I would note that some of the worst experiences I have had in games that lacked balance were in point-buy systems that made a great deal in player balance. In old D&D campaigns, things were often dominated by high-level wizards, or the-guy-who-had-the-uber-powerful-magic-item. We tended not to think this unfair, as they player had to have found the item in actual play, or had gone through the pain of being a low-level wizard. In systems specifically try to keep the characters balanced, I have often seen the dominant player end up as the one who was willing to browbeat the DM into allowing him to take certain powers/feats/races when building his character. The others of us were just as sidelined as before, and the guy achieved in not through play, but by being a jerk at character creation.

Achieving Balance

Remathilis

Legend

Doug McCrae

Legend

Ariosto

First Post

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

Ariosto

First Post

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

Ariosto

First Post

tyrlaan

Explorer

radferth

First Post

Similar Threads