Balance and Uniformity (an essay)

[Dausuul]

Yeah I mentioned that I thought they had addressed some of that in more recent splats. I apologize that I have not read them, and thusly could not include them when writing the post.

If you don't mind me asking, how are these classes different from the classes presented in the 4e PHB 1 and 2? (not meant as snark. I own the PHB 1 and 2, this is why I asked for comparison to the classes presented in those books).

Taking the fighter as an example, fighters no longer have attack powers. Instead, they use basic attacks modified by various stances, all of which are usable at will; minor action to change stance IIRC. X times per encounter, they can Power Attack for a boost to damage. The fighter daily power is a thing of the past.

 

[malkav666]

Actually, I wonder if the real issue is distinctiveness instead of uniformity. You can have distinctiveness despite uniformity. The wizard specialists of 2e and 3e are a good example. They were uniform down to hit points, weapon proficiencies, armor (or lack of it) and spells per day, but we had no problems distinguishing necromancers, conjurers, evokers, illusionists, transmuters, diviners, enchanters and abjurers from each other purely on the basis of the spells that they tended to cast.

I wonder if the standardization of effects might have something to do with it. Giving an enemy bleeding wound and setting him on fire ought to be very distinct, but maybe some of that distinctiveness is lost when the former reads as "2[W] + Strength modifier damage and ongoing 5 damage" and the latter reads as "2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage". Similarly, a blow to your enemy's shin and a freezing ray that creates enough frost to hamper his movements ought to be quite distinctive, but when one reads as "1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the enemy is slowed until the end of your next turn" and the other reads as "1d6 + Intelligence modifier cold damage, and the enemy is slowed until the end of your next turn", maybe they seem more alike than different.

Thats kind of what I was driving at. The lack of distinctiveness is by definition, uniformity. When you look at specialist casters in 2e they are very similar to one another but they were still very different from the other classes. A necromancer is played very differently from a fighter and they are mechanically distinct for example. A few other considerations include the fact that those casters had to give up large swaths of spells to be able to specialize, which tended to give them a flaw. I liked the 2e approach of oppositional schools more than liked the 3e approach (the opposed schools were predefined meaning that all enchanters gave up evocation for example).

The standardization of effects has a GREAT deal to do with my disliking 4e as a system. I know its kind of silly to dislike standardized effects, and in the same breath type about balance. But as a long time gamer I really appreciate what 4e seemed to be trying to do, even though I don't agree with how it went about trying to do it.

I guess what I am most interested in is what the community can come up with for dealing with trying to balance distinct effects. I know its a tall order, but its fun to think about.

Thanks for the great replies.

love,

malkav

 

[DonTadow]

Please forgive me ahead of time. I'm going to bring up a word I know a lot of us hate, especially those that didnt like the 4e mindset, but I thinmk there's a lot we can discover from this thing.

The great thing about designing agame now, is that we're 10 years into the MMO age. Which means there are litterally 100s of examples of how to balance characters in an mMO game.

Strip away names and abilities and all that and you have basic functions a person must do. A typical MMO balancing technique is to take the classes possible ,and figure out what you want the average damage over a course of a number of rounds or time to be. Then make that the setting. You do the same thing with healing. You catagroize all the delibritating abilities you can into catagories of debilitation.

Then , again without tinking class or anything of the such, you figure out logically ow many ways can this damage happen over a course of 5 rounds. To how many pings, and you equally distribute.

I think a lot ofpeople don't understand game design and think that a fighter will have the same ability as a spell with a different name. And that's not the case in any of these games.

It's kind of why I like the idea even more of having no rogue, just the big three classes and rolling up skill monkey with the fighter. The access to more skills could be used to balance a fighter with a magic user of any kind without develing into magic fighter.

So you balance out combat abilities and then non combat abilities.

 

[Roland55]

My dream is to have a system that is composed of wildly different asymmetric subsystems that are masterfully designed and tested so that statistically they all come out balanced on a mean, but you'd never be able to tell from eyeballing it.

I'd want some kind of combat modeling software that runs millions of iterations of party compositions versus monsters across all levels, churning through billions of combats and then with all of that big data going in and tweaking various elements until it averages out.

A kind of Monte Carlo analysis, eh?

 

[Tallifer]

This thread's original premise is flawed, because the Fourth Edition has already demonstrated how it could achieve a great variety within its mechanical balance. We do not the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit to avoid sameness and boredom.

1. The original powers-based classes might have looked the same to the casual reader, and they might have been wonderfully easy to pick up and play. However, actual play revealed totally different tactics, flavour and out-of-combat styles.

2. Moreover, the designers stretched that original system with classes with power points and no encounter powers (psionics); with full discipline powers that combined movement and attacks or effects (monks); with auras (runepriests); and shrouds (assassins).

3. Finally, the system was cleverly used to bend backwards and recreate the feel of AD&D characters without powers. Lo and behold, combining the two disparate systems worked within the same marvelous balance. The gnashing of teeth from many Fourthers should convince the enemies of Fourth how different and disturbing the Essentials classes are.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Theoretically, you could use negative feedback loops as a means for elegant balance across disparate systems, in a way that is not fixed but rather mostly self-adjusts for the actual game being played. The trick, of course, in tabletop games is to do that without making it too complicated and/or counter-intuitive.

For a crude illustration, say that we have a mechanic that tracks the amount of magic used by each character over an adventure (or period of time, if you prefer). Assume they are still using traditional Vancian slots, or something similar, for tracking of spells. Then in addition, you have a bonus or penalty to the level of the spell, based on how much has been cast by that character thus far. (You'd need the ability for higher level spells to be cast as if from a lower-level caster.) This adjusts as magic is cast.

So Blastum the wizard sets off with his friends. Since nothing has happened yet, he gets a +3 level to all his spells when figuring the effects. They meet some piddly orcs, and Blastum being that kind of guy, uses a fireball on them, practically ending the encounter. That's a third level slot. This goes on the counter. Maybe that was enough to drop him to +2 level on his remaining spells. Keep it up, he can go all the way down to -3. The more he does, the less effective he is. (You can rationalize this as fatigue or any number of such things.)

Ideally, you then give your standard wizard more slots than he should normally use. Now, he also has a bit more flexibility, in that he has spells prepared that he probably won't use if played efficiently. Because there is some optimum point at which he becomes increasingly ineffective. We don't know exactly where that is, but it doesn't matter. It's there. It being there is what harnesses the power gamer instinct into restraint.

Finally, there are tweaks for each group, which is what makes this really work. If Blastum is really feeling frustated and not accomplishing much, up the range and/or up the threshold. Now he can do more. OTOH, if everyone is ticked that Blastum is dominating every encounter (or Blastum's player is embarassed that he is), lower one or both. Now he has to be more strategic.

Now obviously this is a variation on the conceit that magic is relatively rare and powerful and should be conserved carefully for when it matters. Depending upon how much you valued that conceit, you might also tinker with the numbers in ways that had nothing to do with balance for other characters. (That is, the wizard might be thus tweaked into a dominating character or shoved back into a supporting sage, depending on your inclinations.) Even then, though, there are still concrete, flavorful limits.

 

[Aenghus]

Some of the 4e issue may be a style vs substance thing. Different 4e classes feel different to me because I can see the differences despite the similar presentation. The 4e presentation is better for me because it is clearer, more transparent. The special effects of different power sources, classes etc need to be provided by the DM and the players cooperating to describe the effects and emphasise the differences.

Now, it seems to me that many other people focus on the presentation, and just can't past it.

My analogy is that 3e is a plastic model kit, while 4e is lego. 3e can produce almost any concept, but has a rigidity to it. 4e can build many of the same concepts in different ways by assembling blocks, but some can see the shape of the entire model while others can't see past the coloured plastic blocks. (previous editions would be wooden models in this analogy).

It would be an interesting experiment to translate a number of 4e PCs to 3e presentation format and see if 3e players would more easily accept them.

But like I say, 4e character sheets/ presentation work better for me. The probably worked better for the 4e designers as well.

I disagree that players all want to be the most powerful at the table. Power disparity eventually is revealed through play, trying to hide the mechanics sounds ridiculous to me. I think most players want to feel they are making a reasonable contribution to the game.

 

[SKyOdin]

Uniformity is not at all necessary for game balance. You don't need to give up balance in order to avoid uniformity. All balance requires is that the game designers understand the relative power of different mechanics and abilities, and adjust accordingly (far easier said that done, I know).

As I mentioned in another thread, late-era third edition classes were a lot better balanced. These included bold new stuff like the original Warlock, with its unique invocation system of spells it could use at will, the expanded psionics classes, who spent power points from a daily pool, and the Tome of Battle classes, with their fancy refreshing maneuvers. Despite the fact that just about every class used a different core game mechanic, they were all roughly balanced against each other. By late 3E, the designers at WotC had pretty much nailed down game balance in the edition, other than a few really crazy game mechanics like true-naming that didn't work and ended up being horribly weak.

And, as other people have mentioned, 4E Essentials is much more mechanically varied than old 4E, but is also fairly well-balanced. As such, the history of D&D fairly well demonstrates that balance doesn't need to be uniform. I think worrying too much about balance getting in the way of variety is unfounded.

 

[malkav666]

This thread's original premise is flawed, because the Fourth Edition has already demonstrated how it could achieve a great variety within its mechanical balance. We do not the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit to avoid sameness and boredom.

1. The original powers-based classes might have looked the same to the casual reader, and they might have been wonderfully easy to pick up and play. However, actual play revealed totally different tactics, flavour and out-of-combat styles.

I am not sure we are on the same page. I would like to say that even though 4e is not my system of preference. I don't think it is a bad game and I certainly wasn't trying to trash it. The combat with a couple of minor adjustments is wonderful. My group about every 6 weeks plays a homebrew boardgame (using the ravenloft and wrath dungeon tiles) based entirely off of a toned down 4e and it is a hell of a good time. Your first point is pretty much in agreement with what I was saying and pretty much matches the paraphrased comment that I offered for 4e players arguing the merits of the system. I could respond back with the paraphrased 3e player response if I really wanted to. But I am not going to do that. I am not going to defend 3e in this thread. I know it has flaws as well.

But the real question then becomes how do you play a game that supports the framework of both editions and make the options somewhat relative to one another?

As to your 2nd and 3rd point. I have not played those classes so I can offer no commentary on them. I am not trying to remove their relevance from the conversation, I just wouldn't feel right trying to discuss something I have never read or played. But you are the third person to mention them so I will definitely take a look at them next time I am around one of my 4e friends.

love,

malkav

 

[malkav666]

Theoretically, you could use negative feedback loops as a means for elegant balance across disparate systems, in a way that is not fixed but rather mostly self-adjusts for the actual game being played. The trick, of course, in tabletop games is to do that without making it too complicated and/or counter-intuitive.

For a crude illustration, say that we have a mechanic that tracks the amount of magic used by each character over an adventure (or period of time, if you prefer). Assume they are still using traditional Vancian slots, or something similar, for tracking of spells. Then in addition, you have a bonus or penalty to the level of the spell, based on how much has been cast by that character thus far. (You'd need the ability for higher level spells to be cast as if from a lower-level caster.) This adjusts as magic is cast.

So Blastum the wizard sets off with his friends. Since nothing has happened yet, he gets a +3 level to all his spells when figuring the effects. They meet some piddly orcs, and Blastum being that kind of guy, uses a fireball on them, practically ending the encounter. That's a third level slot. This goes on the counter. Maybe that was enough to drop him to +2 level on his remaining spells. Keep it up, he can go all the way down to -3. The more he does, the less effective he is. (You can rationalize this as fatigue or any number of such things.)

Ideally, you then give your standard wizard more slots than he should normally use. Now, he also has a bit more flexibility, in that he has spells prepared that he probably won't use if played efficiently. Because there is some optimum point at which he becomes increasingly ineffective. We don't know exactly where that is, but it doesn't matter. It's there. It being there is what harnesses the power gamer instinct into restraint.

Finally, there are tweaks for each group, which is what makes this really work. If Blastum is really feeling frustated and not accomplishing much, up the range and/or up the threshold. Now he can do more. OTOH, if everyone is ticked that Blastum is dominating every encounter (or Blastum's player is embarassed that he is), lower one or both. Now he has to be more strategic.

Now obviously this is a variation on the conceit that magic is relatively rare and powerful and should be conserved carefully for when it matters. Depending upon how much you valued that conceit, you might also tinker with the numbers in ways that had nothing to do with balance for other characters. (That is, the wizard might be thus tweaked into a dominating character or shoved back into a supporting sage, depending on your inclinations.) Even then, though, there are still concrete, flavorful limits.

This is a pretty neat idea. But let me ask you this. Would this fatigue mechanism interact with other types of characters or just vancian wizards? Does the fighter suffer fatigue as well for fighting all day? What if you have a 4e style wizard in the group with at-will powers? how would this fatigue system interact with a toon designed using the AEDU framework?

These are not criticisms, but a genuine request for elaboration.Since you are the first person in the thread to offer a mechanic of any sort I am very interested in discussing it further.

love,

malkav