Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I think for D&D that would work fine. It is the overwhelming edge that usually creates disrupting when you have group where not everyone is an optimizer.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Sure, but the two sorts of balance turn out to be inextricable. The pieces of the game have to be balanced against each other, and the access to gameplay provided to all the players has to be balanced. If the pieces of the game aren't balanced, then it tends to reduce access to the gameplay for one or both players.

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.

No, #2 gets broken because only the first person to draw Chuck Norris is able to influence the game - breaking the rule that everyone has equal opportunity to play. The other player loses all access to the gameplay. Additionally, because Chuck Norris breaks #1 and trivializes the game, even for the player who can influence the game the game is rendered unfun. His actual access to a game is also minimized. The situation is therefore bad for everyone.

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.

This still doesn't work. Whenever evaluating whether or not something is balanced, it pays to ask yourself the question, "Is this the sort of thing that is going to cause players to decry the situation or mechanic or game as 'unfair'?" The more reasonable the claim that the mechanic is unfair, the more likely it is that it is unfair because it is unbalanced. Remember, the whole point of balance is to provide weakness and advantage that can be situationally exploited so that there is a lot of interplay between players and between a player and the game mechanics. Even if Chuck Norris is a rare card for all players, he's still unbalanced. The notion that the game could be balanced by making powerful cards rare was destroyed by the very first MtG national tournament, where multiple players managed to put together "Chuck Norris" decks that always won on the first play - rendering the coin flip of who went first the entire game. But even as a rare win button that might or might not show up in a particular game, "Chuck Norris" is still not balanced.

Your RuneQuest example is an attempt to make a mechanic that is unbalanced, balanced - by resetting the game often. I've mentioned this before, and there are lots and lots of variations on it. One of the better attempts is to make a 'Troup' style game where players take turns being in the more important roles. Eventually, each person gets a chance to have spotlight, even though in any particular session, the whole session might be focused laser like on someone else. RuneQuest and early editions of D&D try to force players to play unusual heroes with unexpected, non-stereotypical abilities through randomization. I think balance is being deprioritized compared to naturalism, novelty, and other valued aspects of gameplay.

In my experience, it doesn't really work, or to the extent that it works it only works for a very narrow sort of playing style. First of all, there is no guarantee that in fact players will actually play several hundred characters. In fact, I'd guess in most cases that this doesn't happen. For one reason or the other the game is not actually reset as often as would be needed to ensure balance. This is either because people don't continue playing that long, or else because character rates of turnover end up being not that high. The result is in practice that you can have wide disparity between players in ability to share the game that ends up requiring some sort of ad hoc solutions by the GM or else a group of players that are ok with playing second fiddle, sidekicks, comic relief, and non-protagonized roles and who won't actually compete for spotlight. In the long run though, I find even this tends to break down. You tend to have players who willingly take those secondary roles in a story on the expectation that at game reset, they'll end up with a different perhaps larger role. But this is gambler's fallacy. In fact, there is a high expectation that someone who was unlucky the first time will be unlucky the second, third, and fourth time and it won't all actually come out in the wash. Someone at the table will tend to have the better sort of characters and someone at the table will tend to have the weaker sorts of characters. Eventually this will strain the patience of even the most accepting easy going RPer. Beyond that, there is an issue that once the novelty of these sorts of games wears off, players tend to acquire preferences about the sort of character that they wish they were playing and the fact that the game is actively thwarting their desires tends to create problems. Eventually, you find the players trying to work around the limitations of the game, either honestly by proposing rule changes, or dishonestly by simply cheating to get the character they want.

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.

No, it isn't. Or at least, it hasn't been since the days of Alpha/Beta. Rarity is used as marketing device, to give impetus to players to buy more cards than they otherwise would want or need. But the assumption since basically the first one or two years the game was in existence is that rarity itself cannot be used to balance cards, and that in constructed all players playing at a high level will have access to all available cards. Even in draft, there has been a lot of design effort in every set over the last 15 years or so to ensure that there is reasonably good balance between rares so that draft formats are reasonably balanced and depend on skill and not just lucky draws. Compare a modern list of rares to something like the list of rares in Revised era sets, where often cards were slotted into rare if they had highly narrow utility. You'd almost never see that in a modern set.

 

[Umbran]

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.

It is a broken possibility that some players can get by chance?

"I am more powerful purely by luck, and the rest of you just have to lump it," doesn't sound "fair" as Celebrim might like to say. It is fair in that there' an equal chance for all players to get it, but once the die is cast, it isn't really balanced in his sense, now is it? Note how many D&D players have abandoned random stat generation, in favor of point buy? It is the same basic thing - random assignment of power is often not satisfying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is a broken possibility that some players can get by chance?

"I am more powerful purely by luck, and the rest of you just have to lump it," doesn't sound "fair" as Celebrim might like to say. It is fair in that there' an equal chance for all players to get it, but once the die is cast, it isn't really balanced in his sense, now is it? Note how many D&D players have abandoned random stat generation, in favor of point buy? It is the same basic thing - random assignment of power is often not satisfying.

I think there is a difference though between parity and balance. Balance includes a very broad range of tools to counter weigh something in the game considered too valuable. One approach is to make things the same using parity (i.e. no first level character can get more than a +1 bonus to damage), another way is to make it hurt (some characters can get up to a +10 bonus it is balanced out by this or that negative side effect), and another way is to randomize access so it isn't a "broken choice". Again I am not denying that there is a potential imbalance of power once play starts, but I think it is fair in that everyone has an equal chance of rolling good during character creation. This is balance over the long haul. I would agree with people who think it appeals to a narrow segment of gamers, but if these people find it fair, and enjoy it, what is the harm in a game giving them a random system that produces disparity once play starts? The randomizing at character creation is a counter weight. It makes sure that you can't just automatically start with this great ability. Now it isn't the kind of counter weight that appeals to everyone. Personally, for me, it has great appeal.

Also, I don't think this is me saying "I'm more powerful so everyone has to lump it." This is about expectations. Obviously if the group isn't cool with that, we can take another approach. But if I am with a group of players who share my interest in this kind of system, I'm fine with it. And it isn't like I am ending up the most powerful character every time. I am ending up with the short end of the stick as much as anyone else.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Every edition? I don't think so. 1e and 2e rather fail on the whole "balance" thing. The Gygaxian-style balance over the course of a whole campaign (wizards being weak to start, but dominating later, for example) is a mathematical, long-average balance, yes, but not effective in most sessions of actual game play, in which someone at the table gets the short end of the stick.

So, balanced, but not really a good balance in play. Thus my distinction arises again from the muck to perturb the conversation!

But for those that consider balance to be unimportant

Can you identify anyone in this discussion who has actually said that?

 

[Umbran]

and another way is to randomize access so it isn't a "broken choice".

So, just because I cannot choose it, we don't care that it is broken?

Again I am not denying that there is a potential imbalance of power once play starts, but I think it is fair in that everyone has an equal chance of rolling good during character creation.

There's fair, in the probabilistic sense, and there's fair, in the sense of justice. Johnny rolled well *one* time. So, Jane has to lump it for the rest of an entire campaign? Probabilistically fair, but it hardly seems like justice to Jane, now does it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is the same basic thing - random assignment of power is often not satisfying.

This I would agree with. It is not satisfying for those who consider it unfair or just don't like having things random. I get that. But it is satisfying to certain gamers. Like I said before, I think D&D is way too mainstream for this to be part of the system anymore. However I can see it working in a number of other games, and I think works well in something like RuneQuest (or Traveller). There are always trade offs. Games that use this method, can do some interesting things as result. They can include powerful and interesting abilities without worrying about parity, because access is randomized. Now if that isn't important to you, then this method is undesirable. To me that sort of thing is important. It creates a more textured and natural feeling experience that I enjoy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, just because I cannot choose it, we don't care that it is broken?

Yes. Because for a lot of people the issue that broken options create is that you choose them, that they become the uber move in the game that you basically have to pick to win. When it is relegated to randomness, this isn't a problem (randomness may still be a problem for people for other reasons, which is why I say in a game like D&D it isn't a good fit but this has a place in design and for certain games).

There's fair, in the probabilistic sense, and there's fair, in the sense of justice. Johnny rolled well *one* time. So, Jane has to lump it for the rest of an entire campaign? Probabilistically fair, but it hardly seems like justice to Jan, now does it?

I am concerned about having fun at the table. And I am concerned that everyone has fun. So if Jane doesn't like this method, I am happy to employ another system or use an option that eliminates it from play. But if me, Jane, and Robert are playing and we all agree we like this method, it enhances play, and produces results we regard as fair....what is the issue? Why bring justice into it? I want fun and excitement at the table and I don't want "win buttons" but sometimes I want interesting and unexpected results. If Jane gets an Uber power because she rolled well, my attitude is I am happy for Jane and see it as a boon to the party. It makes the experience interesting and will often lead down unexpected roads. So I am just failing to see the issue given that I acknowledge you wouldn't implement this system unless everyone is onboard.

 

[Umbran]

However I can see it working in a number of other games, and I think works well in something like RuneQuest (or Traveller).

I actually think it would work better in games and genres that have better inherent ways of dealing with power disparity. RuneQuest and Traveller, in my experience, handle it less well than, say, the FASERIP Marvel Superheroes game (which was horrendously unbalanced in character generation, but the genre gives you natural ways to construct adventures to handle that issue).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I actually think it would work better in games and genres that have better inherent ways of dealing with power disparity. RuneQuest and Traveller, in my experience, handle it less well than, say, the FASERIP Marvel Superheroes game (which was horrendously unbalanced in character generation, but the genre gives you natural ways to construct adventures to handle that issue).

That is a fair preference but understand that is what it is: a preference. Parity in play matters to you. And so this solution makes sense when that is the case. For those of is who like the random method in traveller and rune quest it is often because we want disparity in play but we want it controlled and distributed fairly. For us the method is great in a game like Runequest.