Achieving Balance

[Hussar]

I'm probably going to really regret starting this, but it's been bouncing around in my head of late. While I am going to offer my opinion, it should be taken as only that. While I do think some methods are better than others, they all have some value.

In RPG's, just like any game, there is a need for some degree of balance during the game. How much balance is certainly a valid point of discussion, but, I think most people will agree that some level of balance or parity between players is needed in the mechanics.

There are many ways of trying to achieve this. I'm going to list a few that have popped into my head and give some good and bad points of each. Please, feel free to add to the list or add points, either good or bad, for the ones I list. If you do list another method, try to point out both good and bad for it.

1. Balance over Time.

This is a very common form seen in older RPG's and in some newer ones as well. The idea is that while a given option might be weak or strong at the beginning, it will be the opposite by the end. Generally, when talking about character balance, it goes from weak to strong, but, item balance can go the other way - run out of charges, or power as an example.

The good part of this method is it encourages long term play. Because you have that big carrot hanging out at the end, players will continue to play to reach that goal. Ultimate power is not a bad thing to strive for after all.

The bad part is that it presumes a great deal about how the game is played. If the players don't play to the presumed length, they either end before the goal is reached, or they become overpowered as they continue play after reaching the goal. Thus it becomes a very heavy handed method.

2. Player Action Balance

Games like Spirit of the Century use this. Instead of the GM being responsible for keeping things in line, the players are. In SotC, you only gain Fate points if you have something bad happen to your character. Since Fate points are so important to the game, it is in the player's best interest to gain more of them.

Thus, you could create a Superman character but the other guy who plays a Jimmy Olsen will actually have more impact on the campaign as his weaknesses play into gaining more Fate points.

It's an interesting method and really intrigues me. The problem I see with it is it requires a great deal of flexibility from the GM. The GM has to be able to improv to a very great degree since it is the players who frequently can have a great deal of editorial control over the session. Really, this lends itself better to rules light(er) systems, as rules heavier systems require too much work for the GM to be able to do things on the fly easily.

Well, I've just been interupted by small monsters attacking my ankles, so, I'll come back to this later.

Whatcha think?

 

[green slime]

I think mechanical balance in a RP game is a mirage. We think we need it, but actually, we do not. The only thing we really need is engaged players whom all contribute to the story in a meaningful way. Whether their characters are a crippled, toothless emigrant with one eye and a bent dildo, or a gleaming paragon of armed combat and martial skill. The story, their goals, and the path they take to get there, and the fun experienced by the players are all what is really important, not some number or ability scribbled on a piece of A4 paper.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

3) The Complete Disregard for Balance.

You see this in some older RPGs as well- RIFTS springs immediately to mind. The original Stormbringer, while it gives each player the opportunity to be über (PC race was determined by % roll), after that you're on your own. And you could even wind up being subhuman. (The odds of being über or subhuman were slight- no more than 5% overall for either.)

Traveller was another game like this. Your PC was as powerful as your lifepath choices and die rolls let him become, but PC death during character generation was possible if you got too greedy. (I had that happen with my very first PC in this game.)

The main benefit is that, in a certain odd way, it most closely resembles the real world. And oddly enough, the lack of balance isn't the usual source of "unfun" with these games.

The main drawback is, of course, that if you aren't über, you might not have as much fun as those who are. (Whether this is true is largely a matter of your personality and what- exactly- your GM does over the course of the game.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think mechanical balance in a RP game is a mirage. We think we need it, but actually, we do not. The only thing we really need is engaged players whom all contribute to the story in a meaningful way. Whether their characters are a crippled, toothless emigrant with one eye and a bent dildo, or a gleaming paragon of armed combat and martial skill. The story, their goals, and the path they take to get there, and the fun experienced by the players are all what is really important, not some number or ability scribbled on a piece of A4 paper.

I think there are ways to achieve balance mechanically, if you have certain assumptions on how the game is played.

These assumptions will never be true for everyone, but they can be true for enough people.

In a game that focus a lot on legwork and social interaction, and people are assumed to use rules element to deal with this issues, then every player character needs abilities that allows him to contribute to them.
In a game that focuses a lot on combat, everybody needs competency in combat.
In a game that focuses a lot of exploring, stealth and trap-finding, everybody needs competency in that area.
In a game that focuses a lot of traveling through space and flying spacecrafts through asteroid fields followed by fighters and capital ships, everybody needs some competency in that area.

Of course, I say "in a game" but sometimes it is "in a campaign" and sometimes it is "in a adventure". That's why I prefer the idea of distinguishing common variants and give every player character the ability to have something to contribute something meaningful. D&D 3E and 4E certainly try this most of the time in regards to combat, but they still fall relatively flat outside that.

You remove some assumptions on how the game is played, though of course you create a new assumption - everyone has some valuable skill in every area.


Game Balance is all about enabling everyone to contribute meaningful. This means you do non-neglible damage in combat (or have other, non-neglibile effects, comparable to that of others), that you can participate in some way while investigating some mystery or any other longer-going activity.

---

Edit:
I also think you forgot something like:
4. "Balance in the Moment", which is basically what I am talking about, Hussar. Everyone can contribute in some way all the time. There are still differences in how you contribute or what, but you definitely can do so, and only your own skill in using the game resoruces determine how effective you are - not your choice in character in the first place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In a game that focus a lot on legwork and social interaction, and people are assumed to use rules element to deal with this issues, then every player character needs abilities that allows him to contribute to them.
In a game that focuses a lot on combat, everybody needs competency in combat.
In a game that focuses a lot of exploring, stealth and trap-finding, everybody needs competency in that area.
In a game that focuses a lot of traveling through space and flying spacecrafts through asteroid fields followed by fighters and capital ships, everybody needs some competency in that area.

I hate to be contrarian...but I'd have to disagree with every statement in that quote box.

Then again, I'm fond of playing "salmon" PCs.

 

[green slime]

The thing is, far too often, the discussion is around whether one class or ability or feat, or feature is "balanced" when compared to another. Ultimately, though, these discussions are placing the cart before the horse, and loosing sight of the fundamental purpose of the game: it isn't to create an überpowerful (but balanced) warrior/mage/street sweep, with a dead orc behind him, and a piece of pie, but to tell a collaborative story. Some people may still find the orc-pie story interesting. But the journey there, the trials and tribulations along the way when enjoyed amongst friends, are what really make the game worthwhile. The traps, pitfalls, and challenges they are the things which need to be balanced against the players' abilities, interests, and the interests and abilities of their characters.

Using fate points, balance over time, or anything else tied to game mechanics, is really only masking the true purpose: fun with friends. If it aint fun, no amount of balance will help. Therefore discussions about "balance" can really only be about finetuning, and there will be so many exceptions and individual responses, it really seems a whole lot easier to just focus on the individuals at the table: What's fun for you?

 

[steenan]

There are several different ways of achieving balance, but each one has its price. In general terms, to increase balance at least one of three things has to be done:
1. Simplifying mechanics and making it more abstract; reducing number of interacting mechanical traits. It is easy to balance a game where all tests are simple, unmodified stat rolls against DC. It is much harder when you add skills, advantages and flaws, equipment and several kinds of spells. In general, players have many options, but most of them are not represented mechanically and have to be adjudicated by the GM based on the in-game logic.
2. Moving the mechanics to metagame level instead of simulation level. Then, you don't care about characters' power, only about balanced narrative input from players.
3. Limiting player options to those that are represented in the mechanical framework and have been tested in all combinations. It creates a game that is fast and easy to play as long as one stays within creators' assumptions on how it is played - but becomes messy and frustrating when trying to do anything more.

The problem is that most game creators are not willing to follow any of these ways. The first one does not allow selling any "crunchy" supplements, because the mechanics takes a few pages in the main book and there is nothing more to say about it. The second one fits a few games, but for the rest it is counterintuitive, as it prevents immersion (on the other hand, complicated mechanical systems also break immersion...) and forces storytelling. The third one, when used, reduces a tabletop game to what computer games do and they do it better.

 

[Jack7]

To Hell With Balance.

However I'm not against the idea per se.
Only when it interferes with more important considerations.

Otherwise, depending on how it is used, I think it can be an interesting tool.
Long as it remains a tool as far as I'm concerned, and not an objective.

 

[hazel monday]

Balance, or rather the common conception of balance on internet forums, is a fad.


Soon people will find some other aspect of RPGs to fetishize.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Spotlight Balance
This is about who has the biggest effect on a given session. Ideally, everyone should be able to "contribute": to have their moment of shining glory in the session. Everyone should also play witness to other characters' moments of glory. At certain times, combos can bring the whole party into the spotlight at once.

PvE Balance
Related to the above, this is about the party as a whole against the things they face (monsters or troopers or knowledge or whatever). It dictates the "difficulty level" of the game. Games on easy-mode are more heroic as your character has more lasting power, and the games tend to be about the characters; games on hard-mode are grittier as your characters drop like flies, but the game isn't about the characters as much as it is about the world or metaplot (think: Paranoia, Call of Cthulu, etc.).