How important is game balance to you?

[pemerton]

This is the "decker issue" from games like Shadowrun. Nothing at all to do with spotlight balance.

It's not just the "decker issue", which is about the relationship between mechanical/in-fiction roles and PC building.

It's also about mechanics: if a game resolves talking with one roll, but combat with 100 rolls, then PCs whose thing is combat rather than talking are naturally going to enjoy more spotlight, simply because making 100 rolls takes longer than making one roll.

But even the "decker issue" has at least this much to do with spotlight balance: if the game has such a character, then that character either enjoys no spotlight or much spotlight. Handling this is not just a GM issue; it's also a rules issue (eg if you don't want "the face" to hog all the spotlight in social encounters, what do the rules allow the GM to do get the other PCs involved? In combat, in many RPGs, the analogouos answer is that the GM is allowed to stipulate that a NPC attacks the non-warrior PC - but what is the equivalent of an "attack" in social resolution? That's a rules issue, not just a GMing issue).

I am very suspicious of spotlight balance. As a concept it has implications on game design that I am not overly fond of. First, it assumes that players are primarily driven by the limelight.

<snip>

Second, it assumes that spotlight is a thing that is given rather than earned. The idea is that the GM will manipulate the fiction and sometimes the rules of the game to provide players with special moments regardless of the decisions players make.

Interesting points.

I don't like the idea of the GM manipulating rules or fiction to make the PCs have their "special moment" - a bit too railroad-y for my taste. I do think the GM is under an obligation to frame situations that (over the course of a session, or perhaps a handful of sessions) speak to all the PCs and bring them into the action in some fashion. The first step a player takes in impacting the fiction is to build/play a PC who provides clear hooks to the GM for this sort of stuff.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't like the idea of the GM manipulating rules or fiction to make the PCs have their "special moment" - a bit too railroad-y for my taste. I do think the GM is under an obligation to frame situations that (over the course of a session, or perhaps a handful of sessions) speak to all the PCs and bring them into the action in some fashion. The first step a player takes in impacting the fiction is to build/play a PC who provides clear hooks to the GM for this sort of stuff.

Somewhat ironically, the "decker problem" is caused explicitly by the player choosing a PC with obvious clear hooks into the setting (indeed, iconic to the setting). But that's more of a Shadowrun specific problem.

 

[Celebrim]

Somewhat ironically, the "decker problem" is caused explicitly by the player choosing a PC with obvious clear hooks into the setting (indeed, iconic to the setting). But that's more of a Shadowrun specific problem.

Not entirely. The "decker problem" is a more specific case of a general problem running Sci Fi games (and skill based, multi-pillar games generally). Imagine you are playing a 'Transhuman Space' type game, with a skill based chargen system, set in the near future TL8-9, and you have a crew of a space freighter and you are going to run a sandbox style classic 'space trader' game.

You have four players and they create a balanced crew that consists of:
An expert pilot
An expert computer tech/robotics engineer
An expert negotiator
An expert in close quarters combat

One problem that you run into in this game is that you have to work hard to find problems that the whole party works on at once. Challenges to the pilot largely only effect the pilot. The computer tech has the "decker problem", in that any time you give a tech challenge, it's pretty much about only that player. When you land on an asteroid, pretty much only the negotiator is involved in buying cargo, meeting contacts, and so forth. And the expert in close quarters combat stands by and watches everything unless a fight breaks out. No matter how enjoyable each minigame might be, you don't have a highly cooperative game here but instead a series of solo RPGs where one player gets a lot of face time with the DM while the others watch. Trying to engage everyone in the problem at the same time is a massive burden on the GM, made worse if characters don't have strong secondary skills.

Note that in this case, balance really doesn't depend mostly on the system, but on the problems that the group faces. If you are never running from space pirates through the rings of Saturn, the pilot's investment in 'I'm a Space Ace' never is meaningful. But if that's all you do, then maybe your game needs 'space fighter' tech just to let everyone play.

 

[LostSoul]

This is the "decker issue" from games like Shadowrun. Nothing at all to do with spotlight balance.

Okay, so what's your thinking? It would seem obvious that, if the rules force the spotlight onto certain characters, the rules would affect spotlight balance in some way.

 

[darkrose50]

Is the game balance discrepancy evident? I find hidden game balance discrepancy off-putting.

If we are playing the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer RPG, and everyone is aware that the vampire slayer is more powerful than everyone else, then everything is okay.

If we are playing FFG’s Warhammer 40K and I find out that my guy with a jetpack and a sword does 2d10+3 damage and everyone else has a godlike firearm that does 5d10, then that sucks. Not only do I have to get in the face of the critter, perhaps get munched on, but I am rewarded with less damage.

Are we playing the original Deadlands where mad scientists need YEARS to mad science? Wow that sucked.

Am I playing an Astromech in FFG’s Star Wars? Then my character is penalized a lot of points because droids do not eat (food is credits), sleep (grab some coffee), breath (credits for a breather), or take poison (credits to buy your own food) or venom damage (buy some armor). A droid mechanic should not be significantly more inept, overall, than a human mechanic.

I will not trust FFG's RPG's enough to make a character in their games without reading over the book, and watching for “hey lets make X suck, because flavor” ideas. My response to playing one of their games should not be a default distrust as if they are pulling one over on me. I should be able to pick up and start playing when the guys want to try something new, and not have comparatively low-powered characters surprising me.

A low powered option is okay, but should be a choice. Make it evident that some choices are lower powered options.

If possible game balance should not punish character concepts.

It is like that “BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoned” skit. Don’t surprise me with options that are considerably less effective with story reasons . . . hit me with a 2x4 that says “hey this option is lesser than the other options, because reasons”.

If one could be a chess piece, then having a queen and a pawn both be character classes could use some nudging. A group consisting of a 9-point queen, a 5-point rook, a 3-point knight, and a 1-point pawn (who's player assumed everyone would be more-or-less equal could ruin the experience for some).

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is the "decker issue" from games like Shadowrun.

Yes, it is.

Nothing at all to do with spotlight balance.

It's an example of failed spotlight balance.

But even the "decker issue" has at least this much to do with spotlight balance: if the game has such a character, then that character either enjoys no spotlight or much spotlight.

Yes. Really, all spotlight balance is a matter of trying to frame mechanics (and genre emulation & setting, I suppose) such that each character has a niche, and each niche is important and comes up a fair proportion of the time.

Handling this is not just a GM issue

But it is an important GM issue. In spotlight balance, the DM has to keep the spotlight moving by pulling in each character's specialty, so no one's ever out of the spotlight too long.

BTW, another issue with spotlight balance (aside from the fact that it's not balance at, all, but a way of managing imbalance - an instance of a "balance-of-imbalances") is that it assumes that players can only have fun in the spotlight, so, best case, each player has fun only a fraction of the time (and less fun the larger the group).

So it's not only not really a form of balance, it's a form of not-really-balance that aims pretty low in the fun-delivery department.

it's also a rules issue (eg if you don't want "the face" to hog all the spotlight in social encounters, what do the rules allow the GM to do get the other PCs involved?

Simple: have fewer social encounters.

I do think the GM is under an obligation to frame situations that (over the course of a session, or perhaps a handful of sessions) speak to all the PCs and bring them into the action in some fashion. The first step a player takes in impacting the fiction is to build/play a PC who provides clear hooks to the GM for this sort of stuff.

It is. The less the DM needs to do so just to compensate for system artifacts, though, the better.

For instance, consider a simple D&D game with just the Big 4 classes. You /need/ a Cleric in the party for healing, so not only is a player obliged to put his character preferences second to providing that function, the DM is obliged to fit a representative of a deity into his setting and plot.

 

[3ArmSally]

An unbalanced game can be tons of fun if run well. Any GM worth his/her salt can keep everyone useful if they want to be. One instance where game balance becomes vital is when you want to run a one shot module and there won't be a second session for the underpowered/improperly built characters to come into their own. Another is for teaching new players who are uncomfortable with RPGs but will be quick to learn the numbers; they get to see a smooth game that works for everyone and has minimal GM fudging. The final, and possibly controversial, is for being inclusive; I know from experience that without game balance there are some people who will derail/ruin/bully/etc. if they can break their character. You want to run for them because of friendship/convenience/family obligation but without balance it can be a lot off work preventing them from becoming hindrance to the enjoyment of the whole group.

 

[pemerton]

An unbalanced game can be tons of fun if run well. Any GM worth his/her salt can keep everyone useful if they want to be.

But, as per [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s post uptherad, query whether that is really "running well". If someone wants a game that is less GM-driven, then the fact that the GM can drive the game so as to compensate for rules problems isn't really a solution to those problems.

 

[3ArmSally]

That wasn't referring to rules problems per se. A good GM should design a campaign to showcase each player's style and character in fair portions. Game balance isn't an issue if everyone shows up to have fun. Plenty of us have enjoyed Rifts, Paranoia or older Star Wars systems. Good campaign design doesn't mean fiddling with the rules it just means putting value on what the players want to do instead of their strengths within the rules. If a group wants a less GM driven game they can play Burning Wheel or something similar. I hope this clears up any confusion from my last post.

 

[Ratskinner]

First, I think that "balance" is a very unclear term WRT D&D and most other RPGs, because its unclear in what dimension the various players or characters should be "balanced." This is why you see the classic hedge/diversion about "combat" balance vs. "spotlight" balance. Since traditional rpg mechanics tend to focus on defining the combat/physical capability of characters in quasi-simulationist terms, it makes it very difficult to "balance" character abilities like "Kill things with Axe" and "Sell Air Conditioners to Eskimos".

This was made very clear to me when I played a little indie game called Capes, (which I cannot recommend enough). The mechanics of that game operate solely in the story dimension to determine which player gets to resolve the goals and events of the scene (which are also generated by the players). The experience made it starkly clear to me that the two dimensions are nearly orthogonal. Because of that orthogonality, I don't think there is a way to develop a system that can balance the quasi-sim and story dimensions against each other.

<storytime>
The characters in Capes are obviously, blatantly, mechanically balanced in this regard. Same spread of numbers on every sheet. The numbers don't tell you anything about physics, and only reflect story. If one guy as "Strong as ten men" at 5 and another character has "Strong enough to rend planets" at 2....the 5 will end up having more impact on the story. (This actually ends up perfectly sensible within the supers/comicbook storylines of Capes.)

Numerically, the game is relatively straightforward, perfectly-balanced-but-luck-influenced dice-rolling game with its own strategies and tactics that operate solely the player level. Which is its own weird experience...tactical tension that can be divorced from the actual positioning of the characters, very odd. But because the mechanics are tied to the features on the character sheets (and other rules tying things back to the narrative) a story ends up being generated very quickly.

The mechanics of Capes guarantee that everyone (at least initially) has equal "spotlight time" in a way that AFAICT is impossible with quasi-sim systems.
</storytime>

Which is not to say that you can't balance a game for one purpose or another, but in traditional rpgs, I don't think its as important to ensure strict balance as it is to avoid rampant imbalance/brokenness. They will and should be a little sloppy in this regard.