Achieving Balance

[Storminator]

6. Balancing Combat with Non-combat

Ok, here's one that's likely going to annoy people. The idea is, if you are good at combat, you are bad out of it and vice versa. Slide the bar up on one side and the slider on the other side moves down.

Anyway, it's late, I'm sleepy, so, off to bed I go.

The balance here is spotlight time. If your PC is the lead actor in some scenes, he should be a supporting actor (or scenery, or absent ) in other scenes. I think it's just that combat/noncombat is a frequent scene demarcation in D&D, and that's why it gets used.

PS

 

[billd91]

So, the more I screw up my life, the bigger a winner I am? I think the obvious term for such a character is "dysfunctional". I'll take a pass on that, preferring the "Karma" system in Marvel Super Heroes any day of the week!

I thought the Karma system back in MSH was awful in the details of how it was gained and lost. I'd go with the Fate point system, something Mutants and Masterminds does as well, any day if given the choice. You get compensatory bonuses for when you dependents get involved, for when you get defeated, or have bad things happen to you. I think it fits the genre conventions far better than MSH's Karma system because it helps the heroes fight back when the villains get them down.

 

[Remathilis]

Interesting that the minute "balance" gets brought up, we immediately consider "player" balance. That is, how does one player's character compare to another.

There are other types of balance, those that reside on the other side of the DM screen.

1.) Encounter Balance. The assumption that any given encounter can, at the very least, be run to a positive or neutral outcome. This is not the same as saying "all encounters should be winnable" or "DMs should only use level-appropriate challenges" but the fundemental rule of DMing "No deathtraps." A player should have (in any given encounter) an options that doesn't resolve in failure; even if its simply running away.

To use a D&D example: no trapping a 1st level PC in a forcecage with a hungry balor.

2.) Enemy Balance. Related to the first (and equally important to PCs). This is the simple avoidance of "glass cannon" syndrome: a creature who can kill anything (by manipulation of the game rules) but can't take a punch. These are fine in limited numbers or occasional encounters, but when every combat is a life-or-death struggle that is determined simply by who goes first, the game becomes nothing more than Russian Roulette with d20s.

While D&D has its share (classically, a wizard can be viewed as one with the right spell-list) point-buy systems are horrendous offenders here.

 

[Leatherhead]

Oh I want to take a stab at this.

Dependent Balance

The Player Characters are forced into several different roles, with each character excelling at a different one. Typically these roles are defined by what mechanic they specialize in. A few common archetypes are Healer (one who undoes enemy damage), Tank (one who absorbs the most of enemy damage), Damage-Dealer (one who deals the most damage to the enemy), Buffer (one who gives their allies bonuses) and Debuffer (one who imposes limitations on the enemy). These are not the only possible roles, and the roles are mutable to an extent, with one or more of them sometimes folded into the others.

What distinguishes this form of balance is that the characters cannot (or at least, are not expected to) function adequately outside of a group that contains several different roles. This type of balance is similar to "revolving spotlight," except that all characters are expected to function at the same time.

The upside is that it gives more breathing room for balance. One of the roles can be slightly more powerful than the others, but it will be glossed over due to the fact that they cannot get anything done without help from everyone else. The hardest balance comes from comparing multiple characters with the same role, which is easier and faster than balancing the character against every other possible character.

There are a few related downsides. It leads to extreme specialist characters, who literally cannot function outside of a group. And if one member of the group is removed for whatever reason (be it absence of the player or mechanical reasons) the group will suffer greatly.

This kind of balancing act tends to fall apart with the introduction of "Hybrid" characters, who combine two or more of the games defined roles into one character. Such hybrids typically end up unable to perform any role adequately, or able to perform their roles well enough that non-hybrid characters are not considered. Additionally, (in cases where hybrids are preferred) if one role is noticeably more powerful than the others, any hybrid character who does not use that role will fall behind in balance.

 

[Ariosto]

I see some dependent balance in 4E. I have not thought about in depth, but offhand it seems to me that a solo Rogue would have a hard time. That might not apply equally to all classes, but in general I see a design very much focused on team dynamics.

In old D&D, fighting types and magic-users definitely complement each other. At low levels, the former are better equipped for independent action, though. It is quite feasible to do without one class or another, but a good mix makes a good mix of undertakings easier.

 

[roguerouge]

1. Balance over Time.

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.


Whatcha think?

The really bad thing about balance over time in narrative campaigns is that certain players get to dominate at the time of the campaign's narrative climax, while the other players are trapped in characters who can't achieve their goals at the worst possible narrative time. This can be resolved through DM pity, but as you can no doubt tell, I prefer a different solution than a DM handout as both a DM and a player.

 

[Hussar]

That strikes me as a bad example in part because it contradicts the source material (to the extent of my perhaps antiquated familiarity with it). How is that role-playing? Is "I'm more powerful than Superman" really part of the boy-reporter role?

So, the more I screw up my life, the bigger a winner I am? I think the obvious term for such a character is "dysfunctional". I'll take a pass on that, preferring the "Karma" system in Marvel Super Heroes any day of the week!

That's not quite what I meant.

First off, I said have a bigger impact on the campaign, which has very little to do with actual character power. Fate points can be used, for example, to change the scene or to have plot elements show up or go away. The character doesn't have more power, but the player does.

Also, I did not say screw up. I said you make choices which challenge you, rather than succeeding outright.

Ah hell, I'm not explaining this very well. The SotC SRD is online if you want to know better.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Call me crazy, but I never got the bigkerfuffle over combat balance.

My last character was a kobold rogue/trapsmith. I wasn't very good at combat. But I was an awesome scout, ambusher, sneaky-dude, and king of making and/or disarming traps.

Combat balance matters when you have a whole lot of combat.

The less combat you have, the more other forms of balance start to matter.

Shadowrun for example has the Face and the Decker (Or hacker now). These aren't combat roles, yet the game manages them perfectly fine.

 

[Hussar]

Remathilis - I think the reason we focus on player balance is because that's the one that generally comes up more often. Encounters come and go. Unless the GM is continuously screwing up encounters, they tend to even out over time as the GM becomes more experienced with the system. Hopefully.

But, you are right, this is an area of mechanical balance that we should look at as well.

Anyway, back to presenting more types of balance:

7 (maybe) Flavor Balance

This method of balance is similar to setting balance but tends to be more generic. There is an attempt to balance a given mechanic with a presumed in game reality. A good example is the Paladin in D&D. You get lots of powers, but, you also get this honking big role play challenge of a code. Break your code, and lose your powers.

I find this method to be hit and miss. Done right, it works quite well. You get very strong archetypes that can be controlled by the mechanics. The problem comes though in the generic part of things. Again, look at the paladin. Is there a more problematic class in any version of D&D that it appears in? The whole paladin debate has been going on for years and years and years and will never be solved.

8. Carrot and Stick

Here's a balance method that I like. The designers designate certain behavior that is "right" for the system and reward you for doing that. They also designate certain behavior that is not right for the system and smack you with a stick for doing that. Examples of this can include experience bonuses for performing certain actions based on class in 2e D&D.

Like I said, I like this one a lot. Take our Batman example from the Genre Balance post upthread. In Genre balance, the game assumes that you don't pitch the Joker off a roof because that's against genre convention. In Carrot and Stick, you actually add in mechanics that reward players for not pitching the Joker off the roof.

Maybe (and this is off the top of my head) you have a Hero/Villain track. At the high end, you're a big time Hero and people will go out of their way to help you, other heroes will be nice to you, you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Stuffing the Joker back in Arkham earns you Hero points. OTOH, pitching him off slides you down the scale into Villain territory and you take social penalties, possibly to the point where other heroes begin actively hunting you.

Now, that's what I came up with off the top of my head and I'm sure there are others who could do better. But, I think you get the general idea.

 

[Hussar]

Call me crazy, but I never got the bigkerfuffle over combat balance.

My last character was a kobold rogue/trapsmith. I wasn't very good at combat. But I was an awesome scout, ambusher, sneaky-dude, and king of making and/or disarming traps.

Combat balance matters when you have a whole lot of combat.

The less combat you have, the more other forms of balance start to matter.

Shadowrun for example has the Face and the Decker (Or hacker now). These aren't combat roles, yet the game manages them perfectly fine.

In earlier versions of Shadowrun, I think you have a textbook case of very poor mechanical balance. When the Decker was doing his thing, everyone else at the table got to sit and watch. Depending on how long the Decking took, you could be waiting quite a while before you got to do anything.

Gaming is not a spectator sport and any mechanic to forces players to be spectators is poor design IMO.