RPG theory: in-game balancing

[aia_2]

(disclaimer: it will likely have already been discussed but i do not find this topic...)

As a game designer, i don't completely understand the need in many games to preserve balance in encounters: why a 1st level party should never meet a dragon? This would result lethal for most of the characters but in any case it could happen (and let me add, the GM should reward any player who is able to let his PC survive the encounter, even if this is a total defeat for the party!).
This of course works also in the other sense: why a veteran party of level 20 should not be attacked by a group of bandits of level 1?
The balancing concept has been stressed out so much that in the (nightmarish) XP system of 3E/3.5 this was a cornerstone in terms of rewards...
I really miss the importance of looking after a balance encounter or to properly scale a module.
One simple question: why?

 

[Jd Smith1]

One simple question: why?

Speaking for myself as a GM:
1) Limited table time. I don't see a return for the value of setting up unchallenging encounters.

2) Suspension of belief. Why would a bunch of basic bandits attack a group of heavily-armed and armored people? The object of a bandit is to leverage violence into profit.

 

[aia_2]

Speaking for myself as a GM:
1) Limited table time. I don't see a return for the value of setting up unchallenging encounters.

2) Suspension of belief. Why would a bunch of basic bandits attack a group of heavily-armed and armored people? The object of a bandit is to leverage violence into profit.

Well, going by points:
1. It depends what is your perspective and final goal: if this is maximise the efficiency in encounters (i.e. you want to have only fights with a "balanced" counterpart for the sake of earing XP), that is fine... But have even considered that even these "outlier events" could add flavor to you campaing/mastering?

2. A group of bandits is not aware to be a 1st level party of npcs... They decide to start this "activity" and they will do thier best (or, even worse, they cannot do otherwise because desperstely in need of). A group of pcs cannot necessarly all wear tons of weapons and heavy armors... This is not rationale at least: you do not travel bringing with you your cabinet as a whole... And in any case this is a typical distortion a FRPG...

...these are the replies to your point which btw have a bias: you replied thinking to an encounter between low level npcs and high leve pc... It could be even the other way round!

To my eyes my questions are still valid...

 

[Jd Smith1]

Well, going by points:
1. It depends what is your perspective and final goal: if this is maximise the efficiency in encounters (i.e. you want to have only fights with a "balanced" counterpart for the sake of earing XP), that is fine... But have even considered that even these "outlier events" could add flavor to you campaing/mastering?

It wouldn't. I don't use D&D, and I don't give xp for kills. My campaigns have plenty of flavor without resorting to tired old tropes like Ye Olde Implausible Bandit Attack.

2. A group of bandits is not aware to be a 1st level party of npcs... They decide to start this "activity" and they will do thier best (or, even worse, they cannot do otherwise because desperstely in need of). A group of pcs cannot necessarly all wear tons of weapons and heavy armors... This is not rationale at least: you do not travel bringing with you your cabinet as a whole... And in any case this is a typical distortion a FRPG...

Again, not D&D. But PCs wearing good armor, riding war horses, are not the sort of people you try to rob. There's no profit from dying.

...these are the replies to your point which btw have a bias: you replied thinking to an encounter between low level npcs and high leve pc... It could be even the other way round!

To my eyes my questions are still valid...

Common sense, not bias: High-level bandits wouldn't be messing around robbing travelers; they would be directing their skills into more profitable venues.

 

[Umbran]

(disclaimer: it will likely have already been discussed but i do not find this topic...)

As a game designer, i don't completely understand the need in many games to preserve balance in encounters: why a 1st level party should never meet a dragon? This would result lethal for most of the characters but in any case it could happen (and let me add, the GM should reward any player who is able to let his PC survive the encounter, even if this is a total defeat for the party!).
This of course works also in the other sense: why a veteran party of level 20 should not be attacked by a group of bandits of level 1?
The balancing concept has been stressed out so much that in the (nightmarish) XP system of 3E/3.5 this was a cornerstone in terms of rewards...
I really miss the importance of looking after a balance encounter or to properly scale a module.
One simple question: why?

Simple answer, from a game theory perspective - both those scenarios result in what most would consider unsatisfying game play.

I note you ask the question from the perspective of realism - it could happen. The answer comes from how each session of the game is supposed to be an entertainment. Unsatisfying play cannot be totally eliminated, but designers (and usually GMs, I think) work to minimize it.

 

[payn]

(disclaimer: it will likely have already been discussed but i do not find this topic...)

As a game designer, i don't completely understand the need in many games to preserve balance in encounters: why a 1st level party should never meet a dragon? This would result lethal for most of the characters but in any case it could happen (and let me add, the GM should reward any player who is able to let his PC survive the encounter, even if this is a total defeat for the party!).
This of course works also in the other sense: why a veteran party of level 20 should not be attacked by a group of bandits of level 1?
The balancing concept has been stressed out so much that in the (nightmarish) XP system of 3E/3.5 this was a cornerstone in terms of rewards...
I really miss the importance of looking after a balance encounter or to properly scale a module.
One simple question: why?

Have you heard of bounded accuracy?

 

[Cadence]

Thinking of other media, why don't super-hero comics spend a lot of time on Thor or Superman running into muggers or robbers? (Sure, it happens, but a lot of times its a few throw away panels to give the character time for some thought balloons or conversation with another hero. Is it worth having the party roll attacks when they'll clearly curb-stomp the other side? Or is it better to just give them the successes and move on after the brief bit of flavor is accomplished?)

Why don't they have they have Batman run into Doomsday or Daredevil run into Galactus? (One can't be the main character if for very long if one dies all the time. Which is fine if that's what the table wants -- but a lot of them don't seem to like instant death traps).

----

We're watching various Nero Wolfe detective videos. One of Wolfe's things is that he is known for never leaving the house on business. My son was wondering why he left the house in so many of the episodes. It feels like the answer is that the episodes don't focus on the boring run of the mill cases.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The balancing concept has been stressed out so much that in the (nightmarish) XP system of 3E/3.5 this was a cornerstone in terms of rewards...
I really miss the importance of looking after a balance encounter or to properly scale a module.
One simple question: why?

Note that, even in 3e, it doesn't say that you should not populate a game world with encounters outside of the party's reasonable-threat range, nor even that if the party insists on going into the dragon's lair at level one or spend the afternoon chasing kobolds for copper pieces at level 20 that you should prevent it. It simply outlines what challenges are expected of parties of a certain level, and sets up a framework for reward based on those assumptions.

XP in general are fundamentally a reward for playing the game as the designers expected you would. The (usually silent) assumption is that, by the time the players and GM are competent enough to leave the intended structure of the system -- such as playing a Lord of the Ring adventure despite using TSR-era D&D (where the GP of treasure as a a primary source of XP makes no sense) or a political intrigue game of 3e (where the XP for monsters slain is equally unhelpful) -- they are also competent enough to devise an alternate XP-granting mechanic to suit their purposes.

 

[Jer]

Thinking of other media, why don't super-hero comics spend a lot of time on Thor or Superman running into muggers or robbers? (Sure, it happens, but a lot of times its a few throw away panels to give the character time for some thought balloons or conversation with another hero. Is it worth having the party roll attacks when they'll clearly curb-stomp the other side? Or is it better to just give them the successes and move on after the brief bit of flavor is accomplished?)

Why don't they have they have Batman run into Doomsday or Daredevil run into Galactus? (One can't be the main character if for very long if one dies all the time. Which is fine if that's what the table wants -- but a lot of them don't seem to like instant death traps).

This gets at an inherent tension in role-playing games that are trying to model worlds based around the "rules" of a narrative with a traditional non-narrative gaming approach - a Champions game where Batman has to stop Doomsday is realistically going to end with Batman either running away or paste on the ground. Neither of which is satisfying from a game perspective and also doesn't match how it would play out in a narrative either. In a comics narrative the writer would (hopefully) come up with some clever story hook to allow Batman to beat Doomsday, but when you're gaming it out in a system where the combat game is supposed to be central to the gameplay that's not usually something that you can do - an author can work a Doomsday stopping narrative device into a story and not make it feel like a cheat, but when you're rolling dice at a table that kind of thing usually has an unsatisfactory feel to it. It feels like cheating if the GM has contrived to put a Doomsday stopping narrative device in front of you to be able to beat him with, and without a good DM it will likely feel like a railroad.

We're watching various Nero Wolfe detective videos. One of Wolfe's things is that he is known for never leaving the house on business. My son was wondering why he left the house in so many of the episodes. It feels like the answer is that the episodes don't focus on the boring run of the mill cases.

This is true in the books as well - Rex Stout makes a big deal out of how Wolfe doesn't leave the house for business, but then has him break this rule via one contrivance or another probably 3 out of every 5 stories (especially in the short stories - which is what a lot of the TV show episodes are based on - where he runs into cases by accident while doing other things, usually relating to his orchids come to think of it). I think it's less about the run of the mill cases being boring - when Wolfe isn't leaving the house it's Archie who is going out and doing stuff and Archie is the action character - and more about making Wolfe uncomfortable and grumpy and irritable, which is something that Stout seemed to enjoy doing in his stories (even in the ones where he doesn't leave the house Stout contrives to make Wolfe uncomfortable - usually via Archie irritating him if not through other means).

 

[Cadence]

This is true in the books as well - Rex Stout makes a big deal out of how Wolfe doesn't leave the house for business, but then has him break this rule via one contrivance or another probably 3 out of every 5 stories (especially in the short stories - which is what a lot of the TV show episodes are based on - where he runs into cases by accident while doing other things, usually relating to his orchids come to think of it). I think it's less about the run of the mill cases being boring - when Wolfe isn't leaving the house it's Archie who is going out and doing stuff and Archie is the action character - and more about making Wolfe uncomfortable and grumpy and irritable, which is something that Stout seemed to enjoy doing in his stories (even in the ones where he doesn't leave the house Stout contrives to make Wolfe uncomfortable - usually via Archie irritating him if not through other means).

Archie and Wolfe are definitely pretty clear pestering Wolfe into working is a big part of Archie's job.

By boring, I didn't mean that the Archie doing leg work stories were boring (I like them enough, I'm getting ready to start my third read-through of the ouvre after the videos. . ). I was thinking that trying to view it "realistically" that any times Wolfe did go out besides Rusterman's or an Orchid show would probably be noteworthy... and the noteworthy ones would be the one's Archie or Stout would share with us.

<Insert completely off topic multiversal-Wolfe hypothesis to explain non aging>