Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Chrono22]

The ipod is not a DIY device.

Neither are RPGs.

It is a very mass market device. The ability to make a playlist does not make it DIY. That's like saying making mix tapes on your shelf stereo back in the 80s made you an audiophile.

Which is more casual? Listening to the radio or making mix tapes? One person's laid back hobby is another person's obsession. The distinction isn't clear- but the more passive the activity is, the more likely it is to be considered casual. iPods aren't casual- you seek out and listen to music, organize it into playlists, rate the songs, learn to use the device- all of this is user-driven as opposed to being some intrinsic quality of the device. The iPod is built specifically to allow the user to modify it for his own enjoyment. Does that make the iPod a lazily-designed device? I think not.

Also, the first ipod, which was less a pure music player than a small portable hard drive, didn't sell anywhere near as many units as the dedicated music devices that came later.

Blah. The first lightbulb was less an industrial revolution and more of a high-society novelty. It didn't sell. I don't see the point you are trying to make.

 

[billd91]

"Full blown game designer"? What's that?

<snip>

Now, equating inventing a new spell with creating a new system to handle things is a bit above and beyond. Considering the rules in D&D have always covered guidelines on what new spells should be capable of - 3e explicitly spells it out as far as damage is concerned - I'm thinking that a new spell isn't game design.

Welcome to the difference between being a "full blown game designer" and doing some game design. And yes, making new spells in D&D is a game design process. It might not be so much in Hero because there you're applying a fully designed system for making spell powers in which every decision is balanced by point costs most of the time. That's really not the case in D&D.

The biggest reason, the single biggest reason I love 3e is because the number of rule arguments at the tables I played at dropped to about zero compared to earlier editions. Why? Because the rules work. The designers actually took the time to make sure that the rules are balanced and work most of the time.

I agree that 3e's rules, for the most part, work pretty well. But I think there are distinct character balancing elements of previous editions that work better than either 3e or 4e.
I also find it interesting that, based on the general gist of balance debates, the very arguments you're making against editions before 3e, the 4e players level at 3e as well.

 

[Ariosto]

I have no interest in being a game designer.

Well, that's a pretty narrow use of the term, fellow. I have read many times about your interest in designing your games! For, in truth, the greater part of the game lies in the conditions settled among the DM and players. What is the nature of the world? What character types are in it, and what other resources? The bigger picture is very important.

That is also where the actual scope of the game gets defined. Is the campaign narrowly limited or wide open? Of a set duration? What of the roster of participants, characters and players?

Then of course there is the design of scenarios, from maps right down to encounters.

When you have no interest in anything but having all that dictated to you, then you can wash your hands of being a game designer.

It seems to me that, historically, for most RPGers, that element of design has been an essential part of the hobby. So, for that matter, has been creating "house rules". Both aspects go back deep in the wargames roots -- with which, admittedly, the changing demographic is increasingly out of touch.

 

[Ariosto]

Sorry, you made it sound like the default should be a "higher standard". Or, that's how I took it to be. That's certainly the way a lot of DnD has been designed in the past.

I of course cannot speak for BryonD, but following the logic of the argument: Yes, it should be just fine for a game's default to be a higher standard. There's no gun pointed at your head forcing you to play it instead of some other.

That includes Dungeons & Dragons.

In fact, a lot of people are choosing not to play a game they don't like while insisting that this means the game should be changed into something else to please them. They are choosing instead a game that is already to their taste.

 

[Ariosto]

There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design. Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.

Yes, there is a point. It is what I pointed out to Hussar. It is what was meant in the original D&D introduction by:

As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign.

Now, plenty of people just are not cut out -- as referees or as players -- for what that meant. And there are plenty of games designed as anti-"sandbox", or whatever you will call it.

Beyond that, there are even more people who find the demands placed on participants in those games too odious.

In case you haven't noticed, RPGs are a pretty small niche of the game world.

If you think we have already crossed the finish line in a race to the bottom, think again. The lowest common denominator is a lot lower.

Either most people who post regularly here are several deviations better than the mean for engagement and skill, or every single person I've played with in real life is several deviations below the mean.

There is a shifting demographic. The relationship between RPG and video-game markets, for instance, may be interesting. At any rate, the early appeal of the original (1974) D&D game far beyond its target audience quickly suggested the potential of fantasy games with different aims.

If memory serves, there were a number of studies in the 1970s-80s that found FRPers (the common term back then) were indeed above the general population's average in some characteristics. To some extent, play itself developed those -- but at least partly by placing greater demands on them.

There is a synergy in the selection for an audience and what the audience subsequently selects. A design that takes a firm stand that A, B and C are "not fun" is likely to select against people who have the opposite view. With them removed from the field, the polling trend is only enhanced.

The discarded demographic is still an audience, still a market, just no longer for the brand they previously bought (which now stands for what they do not want).

To insist that they must be permitted no publication to their taste is absurd, at least in a fairly free market both for ideas and for commerce!

 

[Nifft]

That's like saying making mix tapes on your shelf stereo back in the 80s made you an audiophile.

Wait, it didn't? High Fidelity lied to me!

"Top Ten songs when you feel betrayed...", -- N

 

[Hussar]

I seriously disagree there, to the extent that I am reading "re-design" as "tweak".

I'd much rather tweak a game built with flexibility or a toolkit approach in mind than one built for a single play experience. Elsewise it becomes too much effort to build the gaming experience I want.

But, as this is all related to game balance, tweaking is a thousand times easier in a balanced system than in an unbalanced one. It is ridiculously easy to unbalance a balanced system to produce a particular effect. Case in point:

You want Tolkienesque elves that are just "better" than everyone else. Ok, 4e out of the box (and 3e as well) doesn't do that. So, how can it be done? Well, all elves start with a 35 point buy (in either edition) while everyone else starts with 22 or 25 (depending on 4e or 3e respectively).

There, done. Elves are better.

Now, you want to remove the "elves are better" in AD&D. How? You could whack on higher level restrictions I suppose, but, that would result in elves never being played, or campaigns ending before the hard limit is reached. You could strip out all the benefits of being an elf, but, then, now he's just a skinny human. You could increase the level limits of all the other races and give bonuses to humans, but, now you have to balance all those changes against each other, since all we want to do is make elves equal, not another race better than everyone else. On and on.

Move away from D&D to an even more imbalanced game like RIFTS and the problem gets even more difficult to solve. Because you lack any real baselines to work from, monkeying with the mechanics becomes a trial and error process. That's great for those that want to, but, unless you get lucky the first time around, you're in for a fair bit of work to sort out all the issues before you get something that works.

DIY games are fine. I disagree with the idea that they are somehow "better" than out of the box games, but, that's a personal taste issue. I have zero interest in futzing about with mechanics. I just want to play the game, focus on the game and not worry about whether or not this or that rule will work today. I just want the mechanics to sit in the background and come out when needed, with a tool that will work well enough right now. It doesn't have to be perfect, I'm more than willing to accept that. But, it has to work.

In my not so humble opinion balanced systems are robust. Imbalanced systems aren't. I prefer robust systems.

 

[Psion]

But, as this is all related to game balance, tweaking is a thousand times easier in a balanced system than in an unbalanced one. It is ridiculously easy to unbalance a balanced system to produce a particular effect.

Ridiculously easy, but trivial.

But you seem to be responding to a point I'm not making. Balance compromises flexibility, but it does not follow that an unbalanced game is flexible.

Making an unbalanced game it trivial. Making a well balanced game is difficult, and desirable. Making a flexible game is desirable. But setting up balance vs. flexibility is a trade-off, but not a dichotomy.

 

[Krensky]

In our common fantasy game of choice, harsh language can actually be pretty effective. There's a priest in our group built around stress attacks.

That was intentional.
Threaten and Tire are great ways for a 'non-combatant' to take down NPCs.

 

[Hussar]

Ridiculously easy, but trivial.

But you seem to be responding to a point I'm not making. Balance compromises flexibility, but it does not follow that an unbalanced game is flexible.

Making an unbalanced game it trivial. Making a well balanced game is difficult, and desirable. Making a flexible game is desirable. But setting up balance vs. flexibility is a trade-off, but not a dichotomy.

I think we're saying the same thing then. I would say that flexible+balanced=robust. You can have balanced mechanics that are not robust, simply by removing their flexibility. Mechanics that are only balanced between a small, limited range of variables would be a good example of this.

However, I don't think you can have robust mechanics that are imbalanced in the first place.