Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Celebrim]

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.

You are underestimating the impact of Chuck Norris on the game. MtG is a CCG with constructed decks, meaning both players get to choose what cards they put in their deck. If Chuck Norris is printed, then the chance of a player winning (influencing the outcome of the game) is maximized by constructing a deck so that Chuck Norris is the only card in the deck. This is permitted by the special rules of the Chuck Norris card. Further, the way that Chuck Norris is written suggests that you can win with Chuck Norris before the game actually begins. As soon as you draw your cards to begin play, both players are free to play Chuck Norris and win the game regardless of whose turn it is or anything else.

Chuck Norris is not balanced. The presence of the card in the game exerts so much force on the rest of the game that it simply destroys the game. Everyone that wishes to participate in the game is forced to play Chuck Norris or lose. I choose Chuck Norris to be an extreme example because some real examples of cards that are inherently unbalanced are much more subtle and require a lot of experience to understand why they ruin the game in context.

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.

I agree. I don't claim that being balanced is sufficient. However, balanced covers a lot of ground. It means that not only do both players have a chance to play, but that the legitimate play that is available is sufficiently varied in scope.

I'll give you another example. There was a game in the 1980's called Karateka. Initial play of the game made it seem that it was a difficult game requiring mastery of complex timing and combos. However, after the initial bit of shock involved in learning to control the character's slow response to your commands, you quickly discovered that basically every opponent could be defeated by just spamming side kicks continually. The side kick was your longest attack. It took the same amount of time to execute as your other kicks. No opponent had an attack of longer range. If the opponent attempted to side kick you, at worst it would double block. At that point, the otherwise engrossing game resolved down to: side kick, side kick, side kick, side kick, for like 40 minutes. You'd occasionally pull other attacks just because you got bored, but the point is you never needed to pull any other attack ever. All your attempted skill mastery was pointless. This was a single player game. You had nothing to compete with except yourself.

That is bad balance, and not some other sort of bad design.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think you are talking about two different kinds of balancing:
1) There's balancing the different cards against each other, and
2) there's trying to create a balanced game for two players by giving them equal access to the same options.

Adding Chuck Norris clearly breaks 1), since no existing card can compete with Chuck Norris. You'd be a fool to play anything but Chuck Norris.
2) Would only be broken if playing Chuck Norris (or only Chuck Norris) wasn't an option for all players. Since this is MtG, this could be broken by turning it into a super-ultra-mega-rare card, or simply just selling it 1 million dollars per card. Only players with a sufficient budget would be able to play the optimal deck, i.e. nothing but Chuck Norris.

MtG is an interesting case, since card rarity is actually used as a balancing mechanism. I.e. type 1) balance could actually be achieved by breaking type 2) balance.

Actually, there's similar balancing mechanisms at work in rpgs:
- In Runequest, when creating a character you have to roll on a table to determine your vocation/background. So, to start play with some of the stronger options, like soldier or shaman, you have to be really lucky with your dice roll. With time every character can become whatever they want, but characters are not created equal.
In other words: the available vocations/backgrounds are not balanced against each other (type 1) balance). Some are clearly better than others. But since you cannot freely choose your vocation/background, there's a kind of overall balance (type 2)), if each player created a hundred characters, it would be likely that everyone would have created a similar mix of weak and strong characters.

Earlier editions of D&D have tried several different methods of balancing character classes:
- requiring high base stats (which were determined by rolling dice)
- requiring different amounts of xp to advance
- weaker classes having an easier time to gain xp than stronger classes
- having a high mortality at the start of their career to balance overpoweredness at high levels

I think 4e is the only edition of D&D that achieved a kind of perfect balance of type 1) while all editions are balanced in the sense of type 2).

 

[Hussar]

But Jhaelen, aren't you just proving the point? That balance is very important?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually, there's similar balancing mechanisms at work in rpgs:
- In Runequest, when creating a character you have to roll on a table to determine your vocation/background. So, to start play with some of the stronger options, like soldier or shaman, you have to be really lucky with your dice roll. With time every character can become whatever they want, but characters are not created equal.
In other words: the available vocations/backgrounds are not balanced against each other (type 1) balance). Some are clearly better than others. But since you cannot freely choose your vocation/background, there's a kind of overall balance (type 2)), if each player created a hundred characters, it would be likely that everyone would have created a similar mix of weak and strong characters.
.

I am actually a big fan of this kind of balance, though I know a lot of people don't like it. What I enjoy about this is it allows the game to have stronger and weaker elements, but it doesn't become this broken choice that everyone takes because of the random method of acquiring it in the first place. I've done random and non-random spell acquisition methods. My experience is the majority of players (at least the majority I have play tested with) do prefer non-random, but I have to say I personally really enjoy how the random method lets you have more interesting and varied spells without worrying so much about keeping them in check with one another.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But Jhaelen, aren't you just proving the point? That balance is very important?

I think he is just arguing against a reductionist view of balance. I think most of us can agree, if a game wants to appeal to a broad range of players, it obviously needs some amount of balance. While I don't think every game needs it (because there are groups out there who legitimately don't care about it or who prefer to have the GM manage it and just kind of let the designers build an interesting system without an eye toward it), most games do, because most players want it.

But even then, there is a vast spectrum of what balance means and how much you ought to have. As some have pointed out this can be about spotlight for example, but at the same time, a player like me can't stand when games artificially make sure everybody gets their 25% spotlight time. Then there are folks who simply don't want better or worse choices in character creation with a particular emphasis on combat parity. Then there are folks who simply want the game to eliminate the "win buttons". But there are also people fine with disparity provided it is a luck of the draw kind of thing. And I think within all those camps there are folks who are fine with more or less rough edges. I think that last bit is important because balance doesn't come free. With anything like that in a game there is going to be a trade off. At the extreme end of balance, everything can start to feel the same and choice starts to have less impact. I think this is particularly true with things like spells and special abilities.

I am curious where 5E comes down on balance. Clearly balance has been a huge topic of discussion since the transition from 3rd to 4th, and I would imagine they paid close attention to feedback related to balance during the public playtest. I haven't really had any time to dig deeply into 5E beyond skimming through the PHB. Does anybody have a sense of where the new edition comes down on balance. At first glance it looks like they had an eye toward it but didn't go crazy. But I realize with a game like this, it really requires some deeper reading and play to get a handle on the balance.

 

[Hussar]

Well, given the rigorous math of 5e and the whole tightly controlled numbers thing, I'd say balance is a HUGE concern in 5e. Just like in every edition of D&D.

Rolling back a bit though BRG, my personal problem with random balance is that it only becomes balanced when you take the long view. If my character is better in every way than your character, that's not balanced, regardless of how we got there - random chance or choices made. And if the situation reverses the next time we make characters, that's still not balanced. It's simply two points of imbalance. This is largely my concern in AD&D balance. It's rarely a well balanced system, but rather, a series of imbalances that add up to an even game. The only problem is, there are so many presumptions that you have to make to achieve that balance (players will play multiple characters, the campaign will last long enough to advance to balance changing points, etc) that unless you play exactly the same campaign every time, you don't actually ever achieve balance.

But, sure, it's a range. There's very balanced and there's kinda balanced and lots of wiggle room in between. But, even at the, "kinda sorta balanced" end of the spectrum, balance is still considered an issue. Whether balance is achieved through the mechanics or through the agreements at the table, you're still going to reach that balance point, regardless.

Personally, and this is only my own preference and not meant in any way to go beyond my personal preference, I'd rather that the system was balanced up front. It just saves me so much work.

But for those that consider balance to be unimportant, try this in your next D&D game - refuse to advance your character for the entire campaign. You start with a first level character, same as everyone else, but, you will not level up that character. After all, balance doesn't matter, so, this shouldn't be a problem right? Now, play the campaign for, say, ten levels, and then come back and tell us how much fun you had in that campaign.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, given the rigorous math of 5e and the whole tightly controlled numbers thing, I'd say balance is a HUGE concern in 5e. Just like in every edition of D&D.

Rolling back a bit though BRG, my personal problem with random balance is that it only becomes balanced when you take the long view. If my character is better in every way than your character, that's not balanced, regardless of how we got there - random chance or choices made. And if the situation reverses the next time we make characters, that's still not balanced. It's simply two points of imbalance. This is largely my concern in AD&D balance. It's rarely a well balanced system, but rather, a series of imbalances that add up to an even game. The only problem is, there are so many presumptions that you have to make to achieve that balance (players will play multiple characters, the campaign will last long enough to advance to balance changing points, etc) that unless you play exactly the same campaign every time, you don't actually ever achieve balance.

I certainly do agree, it is only balanced over the long view. I also agree, most people don't like. I therefore think it is a bad idea for current editions of D&D because that's a game that appeals to a very broad audience. But I do think balance over the long term is a perfectly fine approach if that is what you or your audience like. As I said, to me it is perfectly balanced. I don't mind being weaker in this instance if my chance of being strong was equal to your's but I rolled poorly (in fact it kind of makes character creation exciting for me). That is also why stuff like mages starting super weak but becoming really powerful in the end is something I am fine with. It is balance, it just isn't parity at every step. And it does require one put it in the perspective of gaming over the long haul.

But, sure, it's a range. There's very balanced and there's kinda balanced and lots of wiggle room in between. But, even at the, "kinda sorta balanced" end of the spectrum, balance is still considered an issue. Whether balance is achieved through the mechanics or through the agreements at the table, you're still going to reach that balance point, regardless.

But I think there are people who don't even care about balance at all. They're rare but I've seen them first hand. Particularly in more competitive games. There is a whole market for players who are into uber builds for example. For players taking that approach, lack of balance in key areas is a feature not a bug. I get that this isn't the mainstream attitude. And I acknowledge it isn't the best way for D&D to be designed because it needs to get the biggest possible audience (and frankly it isn't what I am into either). But I think we really need to stop talking about games in terms of one way being the best way, like it is objectively true (this isn't a direct response to your post, but just something that has been on my mind since this article came out). Certainly there is a best choice for a particular game, given its audience. But too often I see folks, myself certainly included, trying to position their set of preferences as the most ideal way to approach RPGS, and they use all manner of logic and evidence to prove that point. I find it odd that "logic" and "reason" so often lead people back to their own set of preferences (just like the Wick article, he makes a good argument for his position, but you can tell he started with his conclusion and worked his way toward it, rather than the other way around). But then when you go out and play with folks, you just see this vast range of diversity of preferences, styles, etc that suggest a one size fits all measure of balance isn't going to work. people want too many different things. So I see it more as gauging what the audience is and wants, and knowing what kind of game you are trying to make, then working toward that. Very likely balance will be an important factor of course.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, given the rigorous math of 5e and the whole tightly controlled numbers thing, I'd say balance is a HUGE concern in 5e. Just like in every edition of D&D.

.

I am inclined to agree. What interests me is they seem to have taken a very different approach from the last time around, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is (I have to admit I've only been looking at 5E with one eye----not for lack of interest but because I've been so busy with other things). What they are doing in 5E feels more comfortable to me in terms of the balance approach. The only thing I wasn't crazy about in the edition was the fast healing rates, but I understand why they did it and it isn't going to stop me from playing. Math definitely seems more contained (I think the whole advantage mechanic arose out of a need to keep the numbers from exploding like they did in d20).

 

[Janx]

There is a whole market for players who are into uber builds for example. For players taking that approach, lack of balance in key areas is a feature not a bug. I get that this isn't the mainstream attitude.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Illusion-of-Game-Balance/page11#ixzz3FkU2dJcc

As these players are called MinMaxers and usually viewed as problems for other players/GMs, I'm inclined to think that a game design that serves them well is a game that fails the remaining majority.

James Ernest of CheapAss Games espoused his design philosophy for game play to be mostly random, but if the player used his brain, he'd get a slight edge over the other players.

I'd suggest that a similar level of balancing would work for satisfying MinMaxers. Make the classes mostly balanced, but the MinMaxers will still find a optimizations that give them a slight edge over the other players, but not an overwhelming one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As these players are called MinMaxers and usually viewed as problems for other players/GMs, I'm inclined to think that a game design that serves them well is a game that fails the remaining majority.

While I discourage min/maxing in my own campaigns (because it is outside the preferences of me and the majority of my players) I think it is unfair to say these people are a problem. They are a problem when there is a mismatch of expectations at the table just like people who focus on being in character all the time can be a problem if not everyone is on the same page. But there is nothing wrong with getting pleasure from RPGs by making a powerful character and figuring out ways to make the system work for that. Some folks really enjoy the build process and the competitive aspect of play it can create. Should D&D, the most mainstream RPG, be built soley for them? Probably not. But I think designing a game with them in mind, is absolutely okay. Especially if you know that is what you are doing and they know it as well.

I ran a game of 3E for optimizers once (and I am the opposite of an optimizer). It was a blast. They had fun. I had fun. It was clearly a perfectly fine way to play the game. And it caused me to interact with the system in a new way. I can see the draw and understand why some folks like it. I think telling people they are bad or a problem because that aspect of gaming appeals to them, is just "Role Playing NOT roll playing" all over again (and I say that as someone who used to constantly harp about how it is all about the ROLEplay).