Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Janx]

let's talk about Spotlight Balance, in which I do see reflections of Game Balance.

In an RPG with me and Bob, and we're both the same level, but different classes:

1) If Bob gets 20 minutes of solo talking time with NPCs, I want 20 minutes of the same or equivalent "fun"
2) If Bob's PC is handily killing a dragon in the big show case encounter, I don't want to be struggling to kill one of the weak minions during the same fight.
3) If my PC really isn't meant to be good at combat, after Bob gets all the glory for that combat encounter, I want the next encounter to be where my PC's specialty is important and Bob has to rely on me.
4) When it comes to splitting treasure, I want a fair share, and not to be bullied into less because Bob's PC can kill mine

Now my list may not be applicable to every player, but I bet there's a decent amount of resonance with most players.

On #1, an Extrovert is easily stealing spotlight with NPCs from an Introvert

On #2, some might claim 4E tried to truly balance actual combat output across players. I don't think that's the only valid interpretation to solve the core concern that Bob doesn't need my PC, but I need his.

On #3, I try to address the "combat's not for every PC" kind of campaign, but the reality is, a combat heavy game/campaign screws characters with different focus. It's an imbalance.

On #4, this may sound like a problem kids, have, but you know what, many of us were kids when we started and it was a real problem. And some of us may still be experiencing some party bullying because one PC really is better. Kind of a stupid design problem for an audience that was typically victims of bullying.

My guess is that the game system SHOULD try to solve these problems, and not rely on the GM to do so. Or at the least, it should not contribute to making them worse. I think these things as I describe sound like "Spotlight Balance" but they easily translate to Game Balance. It's the same thing in practical terms.

 

[Umbran]

I largely agree with the direction you've been taking your argument in the last few posts, but you accidentally weaken it here with a strawman response to Hussar's strawman example, because your example of a balanced mechanic isn't actually balanced either.

Balance requires both sharing and limits on the utilization of narrative resources...

I see it a tad differently, and perhaps didn't make the point I was hoping to. The point was to demonstrate that we can have issues with mechanics that we may incorrectly blame on balance.

Balanced design and good design are not equivalent. My strawman was perfectly (a mathematician might even say trivially) balanced - but a really crappy design. Take a crappy design, balance it, and you may still have a crappy design. Ergo, the issue is not with the lack of balance itself.

What you're talking about is a way to achieve *good* balanced design.

 

[Celebrim]

The point was to demonstrate that we can have issues with mechanics that we may incorrectly blame on balance.

I suppose that is possible, and I certainly agree that a game might have problems with mechanics that aren't related to balance - slow play, repetition, vagueness, internal contradiction, and so forth. And I likewise agree that there are degrees to which we could say a balancing mechanic was well designed.

But none of that agreement suggests to me that if everyone had equal access to the ear mechanic, it would be mean the ear mechanic is balanced. I argued earlier that balance in a game was a close synonym to fair. I'd argue that the close synonym of imbalanced is degenerate. I think balance implies a certain amount of interplay.

Consider the case of Magic the Gathering. Suppose we print the card "Chuck Norris", and the card says something like, "If Chuck Norris is in your hand, immediately put Chuck Norris into play. Chuck Norris cannot be countered. If Chuck Norris is in play, the controller of Chuck Norris just wins, immediately. Chuck Norris is legal in all formats. Chuck Norris cannot be banned. Chuck Norris cannot be restricted. You may put as many copies of Chuck Norris in your deck as you like. Judges may not object to Chuck Norris." The fact that every player had equal access to Chuck Norris would not make the game, post Chuck Norris, balanced. Everyone would immediately say, "Chuck Norris is not balanced.", and they'd be right. It does things no balanced mechanic can do. Any easily accessible "I win" buttons is not balanced. The create a degenerate situation where everyone must play the same strategy, make the same moves, and the only remaining argument is about priority. The "grab your ear" mechanic is a "I win" button with no restrictions on its access.

An example of a game that is balanced, but lacks good design would be Tic Tac Toe. However, the game would be even worse if the first person to play also had a winning strategy.

No game that lacks balance in my opinion also has good design. Balance is a necessary though not sufficient condition of good design. I'm not even sure equal access is actually a necessary condition of being balanced, and it is certainly not a sufficient one so I disagree with your claim that the ear mechanic was either perfectly or trivially balanced.

 

[Umbran]

My guess is that the game system SHOULD try to solve these problems, and not rely on the GM to do so. Or at the least, it should not contribute to making them worse. I think these things as I describe sound like "Spotlight Balance" but they easily translate to Game Balance. It's the same thing in practical terms.

Some measure of mechanical balance would serve to alleviate many of those issues, yes. There are some other ways to attack others.

For example, #2 - this can be okay *if* your struggle with that minion is as crucial to events as the struggle with the Big Bad. Superman is off slugging it out with General Zod, while Jimmy Olsen struggles with a minion - if Jimmy wins, he gets to turn off the Device of Doom! Balancing really hefty mechanical differences like superman/Jimmy Olsen can be met with adventure design.

#3 is similar - a broadly varied adventure environment will usually result in everyone getting to shine when their respective challenges come up.

Admittedly, dealing with #2 and #3 in adventure design regularly can lead to a certain predictable and repetitive structures, if the designers are not careful.

This leads, however, to the point that mechanical balance doesn't need to be complete, the silver bullet. Having to always structure adventures for Superman and Jimmy Olsen is a chore - we might make it so that everyone is Superman, or everyone is Jimmy, but it might be better if at least we are dealing with Superman and The Flash, and then deal with the rest of the discrepancy in adventure design.

 

[Umbran]

But none of that agreement suggests to me that if everyone had equal access to the ear mechanic, it would be mean the ear mechanic is balanced. I argued earlier that balance in a game was a close synonym to fair.

I have seen the term too often used otherwise to accept that as our working definition. Thus my distinction - my strawman was balanced. You're going a step further, and talking about good, constructive balance. See my previous distinction between theory and practice to see why I want to keep my distinction.

No game that lacks balance in my opinion also has good design. Balance is a necessary though not sufficient condition of good design.

That seems to be begging the question, in the classic sense of "assuming the conclusion". If we take balance as part of the definition of good design, this is trivial, tautological.

It is a somewhat more daunting prospect to not assume it, not bake it into our definition, and show that we always end up with a lousy game if we don't have it.

 

[Celebrim]

I have seen the term too often used otherwise to accept that as our working definition.

Well, I can't say how you've seen the term used, but my magic card example is indicative of how I've seen the term used. "Chuck Norris" isn't balanced, even if all participants have equal access to "Chuck Norris". By the common usage of the word "balance" as it is applied to games, I consider that pretty straight forward.

You're going a step further, and talking about good, constructive balance.

I'm fine with accepting that as a working definition for the purposes of getting on the same page, but "constructive balance" is hardly a common term of art. I think what you are calling "constructive balance" is normally baked into the term, and what you would call non-constructive balance most people would agree is not balanced because it trivially leads to a degenerate game state. With "Chuck Norris" for example, it leads to "zeroth turn wins". With the "ear rule", it renders all of rhetoric and debate tugging on ones ear and claiming you did so first. In Magic Cards one will often here it said that a particular mechanic is "inherently unbalanced", meaning that it can't be incorporated into the game without destroying the games integrity. In a game like WoW, it's not enough to say that Discipline Priest are available to everyone and so they are balanced. Their presence also cannot render all other choices invalid and unnecessary. In your terms, if they are not balanced well, then they are inherently destructive and so can't be constructive. But I don't think in common usage many persons would agree that something that is imbalanced is "balanced, it's just not balanced well", especially in the case of something like "Chuck Norris" or the "Ear Rule".

That seems to be begging the question, in the classic sense of "assuming the conclusion". If we take balance as part of the definition of good design, this is trivial, tautological.

It is a somewhat more daunting prospect to not assume it, not bake it into our definition, and show that we always end up with a lousy game if we don't have it.

In my defense, in my first post in this thread I began to establish an argument for why I thought you couldn't have anything but a lousy game without balance. Of course, since we don't seem to mean the same thing by 'balance' when we use the word, I'm not sure that means much to you.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I suppose that is possible, and I certainly agree that a game might have problems with mechanics that aren't related to balance - slow play, repetition, vagueness, internal contradiction, and so forth. And I likewise agree that there are degrees to which we could say a balancing mechanic was well designed.

But none of that agreement suggests to me that if everyone had equal access to the ear mechanic, it would be mean the ear mechanic is balanced. I argued earlier that balance in a game was a close synonym to fair. I'd argue that the close antonym of imbalanced is degenerate. I think balance implies a certain amount of interplay.

Consider the case of Magic the Gathering. Suppose we print the card "Chuck Norris", and the card says something like, "If Chuck Norris is in your hand, immediately put Chuck Norris into play. Chuck Norris cannot be countered. If Chuck Norris is in play, the controller of Chuck Norris just wins, immediately. Chuck Norris is legal in all formats. Chuck Norris cannot be banned. Chuck Norris cannot be restricted. You may put as many copies of Chuck Norris in your deck as you like. Judges may not object to Chuck Norris." The fact that every player had equal access to Chuck Norris would not make the game, post Chuck Norris, balanced. Everyone would immediately say, "Chuck Norris is not balanced.", and they'd be right. It does things no balanced mechanic can do. Any easily accessible "I win" buttons is not balanced. The create a degenerate situation where everyone must play the same strategy, make the same moves, and the only remaining argument is about priority. The "grab your ear" mechanic is a "I win" button with no restrictions on its access.

An example of a game that is balanced, but lacks good design would be Tic Tac Toe. However, the game would be even worse if the first person to play also had a winning strategy.

No game that lacks balance in my opinion also has good design. Balance is a necessary though not sufficient condition of good design. I'm not even sure equal access is actually a necessary condition of being balanced, and it is certainly not a sufficient one so I disagree with your claim that the ear mechanic was either perfectly or trivially balanced.

I don't think Chuck Norris is a good example. If everyone has an equal chance to get the card then the game is balanced in any meaning I have ever seen used. It sounds like your equating "balanced" with "well designed" which isn't a good idea. There are a lot of other important factors to good game design besides balance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The whole is balance necessary argument is just as impossible and divisive as the whole role-play means X argument. This is a diverse hobby with some people liking different styles of play or different aspects of the game, some want more balance, some less and some are not at all concerned about it....to talk about design in one size fits all terms like that fails to acknowledge this simple truth. I think what is important in design is to know what you are trying to achieve and to build tools in the game that help meet that goal. But that leaves a lot of room for different approaches. If Wick had simply said the things in his article were what he'd like to see in a game, I'd have zero objection and anyone making such a game for player's like Wick would be engaged in good design in my opinion if they succeeded in meeting the requirements he laid out. But where it goes wrong is trying to define the hobby around those preferences. I understand this. I've been guilty of myself at times. But I think it is not at all useful for us to try to impose what we like on the rest of the hobby and say it is the only way to do things or the best way. It is just too diverse with too many people wanting different things.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think Chuck Norris is a good example. If everyone has an equal chance to get the card then the game is balanced in any meaning I have ever seen used. It sounds like your equating "balanced" with "well designed" which isn't a good idea. There are a lot of other important factors to good game design besides balance.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Illusion-of-Game-Balance/page10#ixzz3FhPSZcbg

Oh, for sure. I think that probably goes without saying. As Celebrim says, Tic-Tac-Toe is perfectly balanced but isn't a very good game. Snakes and Ladders is also perfectly balanced, but, at the end of the day, not really a very repayable game.

But, while there are other important factors, that doesn't change the fact that balance is an important factor too. Ignore any of the important factors and the game won't be very good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Oh, for sure. I think that probably goes without saying. As Celebrim says, Tic-Tac-Toe is perfectly balanced but isn't a very good game. Snakes and Ladders is also perfectly balanced, but, at the end of the day, not really a very repayable game.

But, while there are other important factors, that doesn't change the fact that balance is an important factor too. Ignore any of the important factors and the game won't be very good.

Snakes n' Ladders is a well-balanced game. But it's also not a game that involves any choice or strategy on the part of the player. It's pretty much a game of luck. You could flip a coin and get the same basic play dynamic. But it is a phenomenally well-designed game for the purposes it sets out to achieve -- it is a game for kids that focuses on sense pleasure. It's "fun" when you land on a snake or a ladder and get to skip a bunch of squares. And failure is as fun as success! Playing that game is an excuse to have the fun of sliding little pieces around on a board.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a well-balanced game. It also doesn't involve much choice or strategy. Like a much-less-complex version of chess, it is a "solved" game. Playing a game of tic-tac-toe is playing a game that tests your knowledge vs. the knowledge of some other player, so there's a bit of rivalry. It's not very deep, but it's competitive, quick, and flexible. Until you've "solved" it, it's fun to play to see how much the other person knows.

Tabletop RPGs are not balanced in this competitive sense at all, because they're not really competitive. They also can't be balanced as tightly as chess or Tic-Tac-Toe because they can't ever be "solved" (there's always more variables you can introduce) -- its hard to truly make it a game of system mastery.

The flaws in Tic-Tac-Toe and Snakes n' Ladders are actually very well dodged in many tabletop RPG's -- they have endless choice and variety.

Balance there, if there is balance there, has to mean something other than competitive equality of choice.