What do you do without balance?

[TheWyrd]

I have seen it suggested that many more 10-14 y.o. kids today are playing online, free-form narrative games employing actual social skills than are playing D&D. What might that mean for the market for RPGs as we know them?

That's not to say it didn't exist before. My wife tells the story of how she used to roleplay on the bus on the way to school 15-20 years ago. Completely free form no rules, just "What do you do next?" style.

Based on what I know from friends who do it, Freeform RPG is heavily on the rise, particularly in the fandom communities. I've seen Harry Potter and various Anime themed roleplaying discussions but I'm pretty sure there are others. There are no rules that involve dice.. but that's not to say there aren't rules. Apparently there are a ton of rules as regards proper etiquitte.

Now if we could just convince some of these people to buy a book ;-)

 

[Zanticor]

Don't you all hate those bard guys. The system in all editions seems totally hard-wired to give them the better over all other classes. Its just so unbalancing that when ever there is confrontation, a discussion or some off time, that bard starts singing and hugging the spotlights. My paladin can only yell charge and throw two dice. It is just not fair.

Zanticor

 

[Fanaelialae]

Don't you all hate those bard guys. The system in all editions seems totally hard-wired to give them the better over all other classes. Its just so unbalancing that when ever there is confrontation, a discussion or some off time, that bard starts singing and hugging the spotlights. My paladin can only yell charge and throw two dice. It is just not fair.

Zanticor

You may want to elaborate whatever point you were trying to make because I, for one, am not sure I see it.

Your paladin can sing. Since at least 2nd ed paladins have been social savants thanks to a significant focus on Charisma. If you choose for him not to sing, then that is your choice.

You cannot however, choose to cast arcane spells anymore than the fighter can, nor can the bard choose to use lay on hands. That, in itself, is a limited form of balance in a class-based system (though by far not the be all and end all since, for example, if arcane magic is superior in every way to your "charging and rolling dice" it would not be balanced at all). In other words, it is assumed in a class-based system that no one can do everything. However, if magic allows one to do everything or almost everything, many people would not consider that balanced (still assuming a class-based system).

Meaning no offense if I am mistaken, your statement rather seems like hyperbole.

 

[Voadam]

I've had very little time lately, SilverCat, because of work, so I admit up front I didn't have the opportunity to read the whole thread. So forgive me if I've reiterated other points already spoken. To me, though, it's to hell with balance. Especially in heroic fantasy.

But I really also have to admit I never got the idea of creating balanced characters, and to me that isn't what I think of as balanced. Then again balanced characters bore me silly, the very idea of it does. The concept that all character classes or professions must be balconied seems to me to skew the very idea of "Heroic Dispersal." That is, that within an heroic fantasy, game or literary work, etc, everyone does the same basic thing or are all basically equally effective in most given situations, only the techniques of, or applications of, effectiveness varying.

You never see that in either heroic fantasy literature or in myth. People's talents, capabilities, interests, and abilities are "dispersed" and for good reason, each then becomes a sort of archetype of a peculiar personality aspect of heroism. A combatant is a combatant because he is aggressive, trained for war and combat, and is fearless, in a given way, such as during occasions of open hostility. A Wizard is not a combatant, he magically reshapes reality and thereby displays and produces an entirely different method of "facing the world," as well as an entirely different facade of what it means to be heroic. Cunning, stealth, guile, open-heartedness and honesty, honor, courage, faith, all have their own particular expression and way of "measuring the man."

Inherent in that same measure are the various weaknesses and liabilities that accompany the strengths and advantages of that particular individual. And classes, or professions (what they truly are) are really just masks or "character aspects" of the nature of the individual. Attempts therefore to measure out balance to all individuals is to by very definition lessen the import of individualism which is the true message behind heroic fantasy in the first place. By making everyone even it's a little like making everyone communist, yeah, everybody has assured gruel or wormy corn-meal, but is that the meat of heroism?

But when natural, human aspects of individual variance are in play then everyone has a moment at which they can and should be heroic. It's just it won't be in the same circumstances. Some men thrive as leaders, others as powers behind the throne, some as clever manipulators, some as strategists, some as logicians and magicians. But the more everyone becomes alike the less likely they are to be themselves, and the less likely anyone is to be himself, the less likely he is to be heroic peculiar to the demands and potentials of his own nature. At best when everyone is balanced you have a plenum of the pre-calculated class-man, but a dearth of the extraordinary individual. I think therefore that a lot of the impetus to balance is a modern democratic one (by that I mean the political philosophy) of holding all individuals equal. But heroism is not about holding all individuals equal, it is about holding all individuals equally capable of different expressions of their individual nature, including acknowledging their decided weaknesses and inabilities as part of the very core of their heroic nature. To be heroic you have weaknesses to overcome in your own self, not just monsters to overcome in the wider world. You can't overcome your own weaknesses by setting out with the goal of "balancing yourself" against all others. Your goal as a hero is not to balance-out your assets and liabilities, it is to overcome your faults and expound upon your virtues.

For me the idea is that as a game for a group of people to adventure together the goal is different than in the most common hero story where there is one big protagonist and various supporting characters.

For a model of roughly balanced heroes check out Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The Two heroes adventure together and are both super competent in fights. One does not feel overshadowed by the other. Fafhrd is stronger and wields a big heavy weapon while the Mouser is quick with a rapier thin blade. Both dive fully into action and do well.

Another Example, Enkidu and Gilgamesh, so evenly matched they wrestle each other to a stand still and are both important in fighting the Bull of Heaven and Humbaba.

Take a version of modern heroic myth, superheroes. There are plenty of superhero groups, some are fairly balanced, others are hugely imbalanced. When you have Wonder Woman, Superman, Green Lantern together they are all powerful and can handle super tough foes. Throw in the Green Arrow whose power is being good with a bow and you have him dodging a lot and making wisecracks and other non combat stuff or contortions of story telling to make him keep up with the others as they challenge Apokalypse or Bizarro superman head to head.

I would argue that D&D with its predone module adventures is designed to be Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, you want PCs to be involved and relevant and generally up to the combat challenges presented, you don't want for them to be Aquaman in the legion of superheroes where he talks to fish while Black Vulcan flies and hurls lightning going through the same challenge that was not specifically designed around them.

Of course I want PCs to give it their all and try and strive to be heroic. I don't want one of them to end up being the hero though and everyone else the supporting cast or have the party split into the heroic supers and the clever, lucky mortal vigilante second string portions of the team.

I want the game structure to set up the balance so that the DM and players don't have to worry too much about such power dispairities and can focus on the adventure and their own characters.

Players and DMs can provide a satisfying experience where the overshadowing problems of mechanical imbalances are avoided through constant evaluations of game mechanics and the specific challenges the party faces and how they approach them but as both a player and a DM I'd prefer to spend my energy on other aspects of the game.

Therefore as a game design goal I want PC balance included so that I don't have to consider it as much when designing or roleplaying a PC or challenges to PCs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You may want to elaborate whatever point you were trying to make because I, for one, am not sure I see it.

Your paladin can sing. Since at least 2nd ed paladins have been social savants thanks to a significant focus on Charisma. If you choose for him not to sing, then that is your choice.

You cannot however, choose to cast arcane spells anymore than the fighter can, nor can the bard choose to use lay on hands. That, in itself, is a limited form of balance in a class-based system (though by far not the be all and end all since, for example, if arcane magic is superior in every way to your "charging and rolling dice" it would not be balanced at all). In other words, it is assumed in a class-based system that no one can do everything. However, if magic allows one to do everything or almost everything, many people would not consider that balanced (still assuming a class-based system).

Meaning no offense if I am mistaken, your statement rather seems like hyperbole.

I read that whole post as cheeky humor.


Sarcasm is lost on you Pinky.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I read that whole post as cheeky humor.


Sarcasm is lost on you Pinky.

Might be some truth to that (least so far as the internet is concerned).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And even for those of us who decry the game's mechanics, it is RARE for us to complain about the balance the game lacks. Combat rules? Conflicting rules in supplements? Stuff that plain "don't make a lick o' sense?"

Sure.

Balance, though? RIFTS proves you don't need it to have a fun game.

I disagree. The reason I stopped playing RIFTS was exactly because of the balance issues. I attempted to run a number of games and they all fell apart the same way:

"The enemy hits you with a long ranged missile. It explodes and catches...looks like the whole party. It does 70 MDC. That kills the Vagabond and the Street Rat who aren't wearing armor immediately. You are vaporized. The Coalition Soldier is wearing...50 MDC armor. I guess that vaporized you too. As for the Glitterboy and the Megajuicer. Well, you take 70 MDC damage from your 700."

Then everyone got frustrated at having to role up new characters. I got annoyed at having to come up with entirely new plots that involved the new characters.

Thus, I started having to carefully screen the characters that people played in my games in order to maintain the balance. Unfortunately, that takes a LOT of work. Especially with the power gamers I had in my group. I'd spend most of my week answering phone calls from a friend of mine who would call me up and say, "Can I be a Rahu-man with custom crafted Glitterboy armor with 4 arms?" 3 times a week. Only to say no each and every time. Then he'd come back with some other stupidly powerful character and I'd have to say no yet again.

I realized it was easier just to run 3.5e D&D, which wasn't completely balanced, but was WAY closer than RIFTS.

 

[sinecure]

We do a pretty good job of balancing out everyone in the group getting their say on what they do, both individually and as a whole.

We don't bother balancing PC to PC or PC to NPC. We find that shortchanges both players who had to earn their level the enjoyment of succeeding in the game.

 

[Jack7]

IMO, I think that the internet has had one massively huge effect on gaming - the ability to connect to other gamers outside of your circle. Pre-internet, other than maybe some Forum letters in Dragon or some other gaming magazine, it was extremely difficult for the vast majority of gamers to talk about anything related to gaming outside of their group of gamers.

SO, groups developed their own playstyles and preferences pretty much in a vacuum distinct from everyone else.

Now, you have sites like this one with tens of thousands of members, probably hundreds of thousands of hits and readers per day, certainly per week, all discussing "the game". That has an enormous impact. Rules are discussed, dissected, gone over, folded, spindled and mauled on a daily basis. That right there has a huge effect on someone's personal game. People read these threads, then apply whatever they take away to their own game.

But, then there are the higher level discussions outside of specifics - all the sensawunda threads, edition wars, discussions on higher altitude issues like campaign design or "what is a role playing game?" and things like that. All those things get batted back and forth as well.

I would say that the average gamer is likely a heck of a lot more informed about the game (whatever game he or she actually plays) than they ever were. If you want to run a game, it's not like you're stumbling around in the dark out of ignorance, you can find a wealth of information on how to run a game that suits your style in minutes.

And I think the Internet has become ubiquitous enough in recent years that the average 14 year old just getting into the hobby would have no real problems hopping on, reading forums like EN World or WOTC, or listening to a podcast or on and on and on.

That statement implies a lot. Not just about gaming per se but about how the real world constantly overlaps the game and vice versa due far superior modern forms of mass communication.

It also subtly transforms the way many look at the game in relation to the real world. When we first started playing it was typical to communicate by post (a letter, especially to other parts of the world - at one time I had some buddies at the University of Leningrad back during the Cold War and I had to communicate with them by mail which was intercepted by the FBI on our side, and the KGB on their side) or telephone.

Nowadays people have the internet and SAT phones and cell phones and because there are so many modes and methods of mass communication people expect two things simultaneously, a fair degree of personal privacy (unless you live in a tyranny or dictatorship) and for communications, like a convenience, to be mass-employable, instant, cheap, reliable, and immediately accessible.

I suspect that whether people stop and think about this much at all or not, it has radically changed the perceptions of what a fantasy game world actually is, can be, or should be. People start automatically, subconsciously or not, interjecting their "real world concepts" into their gaming situations and milieus, making assumptions that a fantasy game world would have an equivalent to their real world technologies and devices "in some manner or fashion."

But if you lived in a world where there were no personal computers (I remember the first magnetic tape reel computer I saw at Johnson and it was as big as a freaking house - the very first computer I ever saw was punch card and had to be reprogrammed every time you turned the freaking thing on - and the first PC I saw could barely do anything beyond simple calculations and typing) and most long distance communication was done by post, and so forth and so on, then people's conception of their fantasy world is also much, much different. (As is their conception of sci-fi worlds, or current military capabilities, or whatever the case may be.)

The real world overlaps the imagination of what is possible, and in-game, the imagination overlaps the real world.

This implies an awful lot beyond just the immediately apparent implications.

One important thing implied to me though is "lag-time" as Hussar implied. Concept sand expectations suffer from extremely small lag-times between the point of conceptualization and employment and re-interpretation.

That's good sometimes, but it is also sometimes bad.
But one thing it definitely does is that it changes how men think, and what they imagine, and how they imagine the things they think about. And how they draw conclusions not just based upon what they know and expect, but on what they can imagine and desire/demand to be.

I would argue that D&D with its predone module adventures is designed to be Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, you want PCs to be involved and relevant and generally up to the combat challenges presented, you don't want for them to be Aquaman in the legion of superheroes where he talks to fish while Black Vulcan flies and hurls lightning going through the same challenge that was not specifically designed around them.

Of course I want PCs to give it their all and try and strive to be heroic. I don't want one of them to end up being the hero though and everyone else the supporting cast or have the party split into the heroic supers and the clever, lucky mortal vigilante second string portions of the team.

I want the game structure to set up the balance so that the DM and players don't have to worry too much about such power dispairities and can focus on the adventure and their own characters.

Players and DMs can provide a satisfying experience where the overshadowing problems of mechanical imbalances are avoided through constant evaluations of game mechanics and the specific challenges the party faces and how they approach them but as both a player and a DM I'd prefer to spend my energy on other aspects of the game.

Therefore as a game design goal I want PC balance included so that I don't have to consider it as much when designing or roleplaying a PC or challenges to PCs.

Well, that really wasn't my point V. I wasn't saying only one character, class, or individual should be the extraordinary individual, but rather that all can be extraordinary in certain circumstances.

I personally don't think that "the fight" is the game though. Combat is an important aspect of heroic fantasy but it is far from all consuming, unless one is playing in a combat-only setting.

I do though think that is a DM problem and issue, not a game designer one. That is to say it is not the job of the game designer to create opportunities for all characters to thrive but it is the job of the game designers to provide designs where it is possible for all characters to have a chance to thrive.

The game designer provides the chance, the DM the actual opportunities, and then the players through their characters have to exploit those chances and opportunities.

I'm not dismissing your point, by any means, merely saying I have a different view of whose job is what exactly.

Take a version of modern heroic myth, superheroes. There are plenty of superhero groups, some are fairly balanced, others are hugely imbalanced. When you have Wonder Woman, Superman, Green Lantern together they are all powerful and can handle super tough foes. Throw in the Green Arrow whose power is being good with a bow and you have him dodging a lot and making wisecracks and other non combat stuff or contortions of story telling to make him keep up with the others as they challenge Apokalypse or Bizarro superman head to head.

You've got a point here if every fight is against a Cosmic bad-guy, and..., and this is a very big if, fights are won only by raw power.

I've seen a lot of fights that get concluded in the real world though not by firepower, but by potent application of capability. A smart, clever, cunning, original, innovative, and fearless man is often a far more dangerous man than the man with the most armor or the longest spear shaft.

Yeah, a man with an RPG is theoretically far more dangerous than a grunt with a rifle. But if the guy with the rifle knows his job, is patient and waits for his shot, then it just takes one well aimed round to the head and Mr. RPG is no longer bad man on the block.

If every fight were a "I'm gonna run up straight into your face and we're gonna have a slugfest fight" then physical power and raw combat capability might, or might not, always reign supreme. If every fight went only to the apparently strongest side then the strongest side would win every fight. But it just don't really work that way. The mind is a far more potent weapon in most fights than is mere muscle. Or men would kill by tooth and claw, instead of by blade, bullet, missile, and guile.

Personally give me guile any day on the potency chart.
You kill one man at a time with muscles.

But with guile and cunning you're really dangerous.

But I will also say this about your point. I think it is the job of the DM in designing adventures or scenarios to give his "Green Arrow players" opportunities to do far more than just wisecrack and dodge. If I were Green Arrow I'd want an opportunity to exploit my real capabilities, both in a fight and outside of one.

 

[LostSoul]

How much balance would you be willing to forgo before you'd no longer be satisfied with the game?

When it starts to seriously impact the meaningful decisions that I can make - that is, the choices I have have an obvious or optimal solution - then the game is too unbalanced.