Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[billd91]

Balance is not an inherent property of randomness. Randomness produces an arbitrary result. Fairness requires that players get about the same thing. Justice requires that they get what they deserve. Randomness misses both marks. This isn't a game show. We aren't randomly selecting winners and contestants. We are playing a game together.

Depends on what you mean by balance. If you're working with a game like D&D where there are some classes who depend on a single attribute while others depend of multiple attributes for the bulk of their power, then I would submit that point buy is no supporter of balance at all and is no more fair than rolling attributes. The monk player and the wizard player certainly don't get the same thing from a 20 or 25 point buying limit.

But ultimately, this is a game and not life. The only important justice or fairness is that the players will be treated in the same manner as the GM. They'll receive the same level of respect. Their ideas will be listened to and assessed with the same open-mindedness. Everything else is small potatoes.

 

[Celebrim]

Depends on what you mean by balance.

It keeps coming back to that, doesn't it?

If you're working with a game like D&D where there are some classes who depend on a single attribute while others depend of multiple attributes for the bulk of their power, then I would submit that point buy is no supporter of balance at all and is no more fair than rolling attributes.

Certainly it can be the case that point buy isn't balanced either, and indeed frequently often isn't. The core 3e classes are very poorly balanced in their RAW form and that won't really change regardless of how we get our ability scores. Also, the hardest thing about point buy is scoring the possibilities correctly. For example, how much should you be willing to pay for an 18? That's one of the several reasons I soured on complex point buy systems like GURPS.

However, I think mathematically even then point buy tends to work out better than rolling in so far as it comes to balance. After all, rolling encompasses all the possibilities available to point buy and then some that point buy excludes.

The monk player and the wizard player certainly don't get the same thing from a 20 or 25 point buying limit.

The more constrained the access to points, the more a SAD class would be advantaged against a MAD one. Attribute dependency and class balance is something that should have been considered in the design and fixing it goes beyond this discussion. It certainly won't be fixed by rolling. That would be like expecting randomly rolling for your known spells to balance the spells themselves. It might weaken spell-casters and depending on the rest of your context that might be better than nothing, but it wouldn't make a broken spell less broken or less game changing when it appeared.

 

[Li Shenron]

Having an intricate combat system does not make a game "not an RPG" it makes it "an RPG with an intricate combat system".

Excellent article, thanks for sharing!

I like also the problem solving/resource management/tactical aspects of D&D, so I don't think I would often play a game consisting of only roleplaying, but at the same time I wouldn't play an intricate system of only tactical rules and no roleplay, I'd rather stop at boardgames.

The author is spot-on however in saying that a lot of gamers play D&D as nothing more than a boardgame on steroids with Monty Python jokes.

 

[howandwhy99]

The major mistake of the article is that role playing has nothing whatsoever to do with storytelling. Neither does game playing.

Games are codes. Game play is the act of code deciphering by players. Usually in competition, but sometimes cooperatively ...to beat the game so to speak.

The game elements article writer speaks of, guns, swords, and so on in the game are for players to use in games. They are designed to be gamed and gamed with.

Chess is a game. Having read a couple of "games" Mr. Wick has created I don't think the same thing can be said of what he's doing. He wants group collaborative storytelling. That can't happen in games.

Balance in games is largely about putting players on equal footing so they can compete with one another.

D&D and other RPGs aren't balanced this way. Some players are 1st level, some are 10th level. Some are vastly wealthy and knowledgeable. Others are just starting out. Rather balance is used to modulate game difficulty for each individual player.

And different difficulties and imbalances between players is okay, because the game is designed as a cooperative game. Each player isn't balanced with the other players at the table too, right?

All of that is to say the game benefits those who play cooperatively. This is never a rule on how to play. Never does the game say "You MUST cooperate to play this game". The design by default puts players in a position where cooperation is the best strategy in general over the course of the game. Just like any cooperative board game or card game competition and individual play are also a part of expected play.

There is a great deal of uniformity of thought in "RPG theory" today and silence in opposition to it. Most of it has to do with widespread ignorance mainly, but no small part is the zealous group who believe narrative theory isn't just a nice contraposition to game theory, but that game theory doesn't exist. For them it's simply 1970's narrative theory with a different name.

 

[prosfilaes]

Games are codes. Game play is the act of code deciphering by players.

Having sat through classes in cryptology and played many games, I have no idea what you mean by that. You could say they're both generalized computing problems, which I might contend in the case of games, but they aren't simply isomorphic.

He wants group collaborative storytelling. That can't happen in games.

I think this is a silly argument; the disagreement between you is not about whether group collaborative storytelling can occur in a game, but about what the definition of a game is.

And different difficulties and imbalances between players is okay, because the game is designed as a cooperative game.

That seems to beg the question. All the people arguing in this thread that it was not okay understood that RPGs and D&D are cooperative games.

This is never a rule on how to play. Never does the game say "You MUST cooperate to play this game".

That's an incredible claim. Never do cooperative games say you must cooperate to play this game? Never ever?

D&D 5E Adventure League Player's Guide says: "No Undermining of Other Characters During Adventures. Adventurers are brought together by common cause, and during an adventure, they’re expected to work together to overcome challenges. Though certain factions might find others distasteful, individuals will put that aside and become a team when put in dangerous situations. In short, play nice with each other when things get deadly."

TORG Basic Set Rulebook (1990) says "Not all characters need to love each other, and you may even want some dramatic tension between them, but there has to be enough chemistry to bond the group together through all of the travails and troubles ahead--after all, adventuring isn't as much fun if you have to do it alone."

Sentinels of the Multiverse says "Sentinels of the Multiverse is a cooperative game in which each player plays as a hero with powers and abilities in the form of cards. ... Ultimately, either the heroes will successfully work together to defeat the villains and foil their plans, or the villains will triumph, and the heroes will be forced to regroup to fight another day."

D&D 4 PHB says "D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun."

The line between rules and suggestions may be a little fuzzy, but at least the Adventurer's League is entirely clear that this is a rule.

Just like any cooperative board game or card game competition and individual play are also a part of expected play.

There are semi-cooperative board games where competition is expected, but Sentinels of the Multiverse, Pandemic, Hanabi and Forbidden Island certainly don't expect competition, and being competitive would be a good way to lose those games. The biggest complaint about Pandemic is the lack of individual play, that it often turns out that one player functionally runs the other characters.

There is a great deal of uniformity of thought in "RPG theory" today and silence in opposition to it. Most of it has to do with widespread ignorance mainly,

That's a good way to get me to tune out, when you suggest that everyone who disagrees with you in a subject is ignorant walking in blind conformity.

 

[Hussar]

What's the point of playing an RPG if it isn't cooperative storytelling? You cannot, ever, win at an RPG, because there are no win conditions. You could arguable lose - in that you cannot continue this particular storyline because all the characters are dead, for example, but, you cannot really win.

That being said, I suppose you could win in a narrative sense, in that you complete the story - you rescue the princess, save the kingdom. That's the point of the game. It's not like we keep score in an RPG.

 

[Janx]

What's the point of playing an RPG if it isn't cooperative storytelling? You cannot, ever, win at an RPG, because there are no win conditions. You could arguable lose - in that you cannot continue this particular storyline because all the characters are dead, for example, but, you cannot really win.

That being said, I suppose you could win in a narrative sense, in that you complete the story - you rescue the princess, save the kingdom. That's the point of the game. It's not like we keep score in an RPG.

Because some of us think we can or are winning?

Everytime I go out and don't die is a Win.

Or to quote Captain Sheridan, "Every time I say No"

I like Storytelling in my RPG, but i don't assert that is purely the point of an RPG or that it is the primary goal of every player. Some people just like to kill stuff. Some people just like to beat the GM's BBEG.

they Win, everytime they have fun doing the things they enjoy in the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What's the point of playing an RPG if it isn't cooperative storytelling? You cannot, ever, win at an RPG, because there are no win conditions. You could arguable lose - in that you cannot continue this particular storyline because all the characters are dead, for example, but, you cannot really win.

That being said, I suppose you could win in a narrative sense, in that you complete the story - you rescue the princess, save the kingdom. That's the point of the game. It's not like we keep score in an RPG.

I think somewhere between "an RPG has to be about collective storytelling" and "an RPG can never have storytelling" there is a mean you find at most gaming tables. Some people are indeed there purely for the story, to build a narrative. Some people are there purely to inhabit a character and explore. Some people are there to fight things and get treasure. Some people play adversarially against other players (I know groups where "winning" is basically being the top dog in the party and all the players find that competition enjoyable). I have no issue with talking about story in an RPG, but I am frustrated by arguments like Wick's that take that as a basis for absurd claims like "D&D isn't an RPG". Or arguments that use that to create some kind of onetrueway about design (i.e. RPGs are about storytelling, good storytelling in books and novels includes X, so RPGs must also include X). Yes many RPGs will have aspects of Riddick to them. But not all RPGs need to abide by the genre conventions or storytelling needs of Riddick. There is room for a lot of different approaches in the hobby.

 

[Hussar]

Because some of us think we can or are winning?

Everytime I go out and don't die is a Win.

Or to quote Captain Sheridan, "Every time I say No"

I like Storytelling in my RPG, but i don't assert that is purely the point of an RPG or that it is the primary goal of every player. Some people just like to kill stuff. Some people just like to beat the GM's BBEG.

they Win, everytime they have fun doing the things they enjoy in the game.

It's pretty difficult to play an RPG without a story though. It might be a pretty basic story - go to the Caves of Chaos and kill everything you find, but, I've found that even the most hack and slash games will still feature people developing some sort of narrative. Considering how popular things like Paizo's Adventure Path modules are, I'd say that story ranks pretty highly at most tables.

Look at the most popular modules. Most of them come with a fair degree of story and it's very much expected that you will add more as you play. It's been a very long time since RPG's presumed that you were always playing in pawn stance, only treating game elements as pure game elements and not adding in any sort of narrative was you go. Heck, even the D&D 5e Basic Set presumes that your character will have a background and other features that facilitate creating story.

I guess I see a distinction between succeeding and winning. When you go out and don't die and come home again, you succeeded at your goal, whatever that was, but, since you're going to do it again and again, it's not a win, really. If you won, there'd be no point in going out again.

I think any definition of RPG which doesn't include the idea of creating some sort of narrative through play misses the mark pretty well. By the same token, I certainly do think you can play an RPG without roleplaying, the same way you can play a board game with roleplaying.

 

[Janx]

It's pretty difficult to play an RPG without a story though. It might be a pretty basic story - go to the Caves of Chaos and kill everything you find, but, I've found that even the most hack and slash games will still feature people developing some sort of narrative. Considering how popular things like Paizo's Adventure Path modules are, I'd say that story ranks pretty highly at most tables.

Look at the most popular modules. Most of them come with a fair degree of story and it's very much expected that you will add more as you play. It's been a very long time since RPG's presumed that you were always playing in pawn stance, only treating game elements as pure game elements and not adding in any sort of narrative was you go. Heck, even the D&D 5e Basic Set presumes that your character will have a background and other features that facilitate creating story.

story provides framework for the adventure, the challenge and the conditions of victory in the context of people undertaking something. Not the same as Soccer or Chess.

that doesn't mean Story is the more important thing to every player. Why do you think there's the Sandbox crowd?

I guess I see a distinction between succeeding and winning. When you go out and don't die and come home again, you succeeded at your goal, whatever that was, but, since you're going to do it again and again, it's not a win, really. If you won, there'd be no point in going out again.

I think any definition of RPG which doesn't include the idea of creating some sort of narrative through play misses the mark pretty well. By the same token, I certainly do think you can play an RPG without roleplaying, the same way you can play a board game with roleplaying.

Why do the Patriots keep playing football. They've won a game. heck, they've won a few Superbowls.

Because the Game doesn't end. You only succeed at a present goal (win THIS contest) and then there is the next.

Otherwise, you would only play Chess once in your life, or once per opponent by the logic you espoused.