Game Balance

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

As a DM, I don't worry about "balance" in too many aspects of the game, as I can make adjustments as needed.

PC's will NEVER be blanced ( with each other ), mostly due to the varying skills and style of the player that is running him, but also partly due to combat/non combat melee/non-melee issues being discussed above.

I need to pay special attention to balance mostly when introducing new crunch:

Spells. A third level spell should look, feel and smell like other third level spells. And scale similarly as a spellcaster gains levels.

Similar concerns with new PrC's

I'd have to say that monster ratings (CR's), and their resultant bastards sons, EL's raise the most "balance" issues I have as a DM.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Right, so I imagine that the outcome of CoC would be very different when adapated to D20, although I have not played it and would be interested in some response to this idea. Chaosium CoC is a good example of a game whose idea of "game balance" is not what most players think of when creating a character in something like D&D.

CoC d20 is plenty lethal. Played in the normal character level ranges (levels 4-8), CoC d20 emulates Chaosium CoC faithfully. Below 4th, CoC d20 is more lethal (and more like commoners vs. Al Qaida than Chaosium CoC was). Higher than that, and you've got Indiana Jones & the Temple of Cthulhu. Which is still fun.

So the net result is nope, Masks of Nyarlathotep d20 had my mostly D&D players scared to death every inch of the way. In fact, so scared that they begged for a return to D&D and the Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That wouldn't have happened to be a playtest of CoC Masks of Nyarlathotep would it? The one where a cultist mook wielding a 2x4 with a nail in it killed the 4th level private eye with a single blow? (In the encounter we missed but had to replay for the playtest). If so, darn straight we were scared all the way through.

(Of couse, I got that same feeling in a certain APL 8 D&D module too). . . .

CoC d20 is plenty lethal. Played in the normal character level ranges (levels 4-8), CoC d20 emulates Chaosium CoC faithfully. Below 4th, CoC d20 is more lethal (and more like commoners vs. Al Qaida than Chaosium CoC was). Higher than that, and you've got Indiana Jones & the Temple of Cthulhu. Which is still fun.

So the net result is nope, Masks of Nyarlathotep d20 had my mostly D&D players scared to death every inch of the way. In fact, so scared that they begged for a return to D&D and the Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Kahuna,

I agree that in a standard D and D game, it is very important to balance the characters in combat. Most standard D and D games are simple adventures that include combat and traps within the framework of a storyline.

I still would rather play with players who could play the role of sycophant or unlikely hero. They are sometimes interesting characters. For example, if a person wants to run an evil campaign, there is usually going to be one character that is more powerful than the others or one who will end up this way. This is the nature of evil.

I remember a campaign where we were playing Banites trying to take over a kingdom. There was one player who was the leader and the others were to take up suitable roles. Some made characters in the spirit of playing the roles and some just acted like it was regular old D and D.

I definitely feel that game balance should be secondary if you are running a campaign with evil characters or campaigns that revolve around a central character who has some strange power or background. I don't believe that game balance should be a primary concern when running campaigns of this nature. Game balance should be determined by the DM according to his or her desire for the campaign, and not just by the rules.

 

[Ketjak]

Systems that encourage role-playing

So, um, how does a system encourage roleplaying? I don't think it's very easy to encourage real story- or character-driven games instead of combat-driven games, from a rules standpoint. You can't make rules to force people to roleplay.

Well, sort of.

Rules that encourage role-playing tend to have

- highly lethal combat
- big rewards for successes in the social arena
- settings that punish indiscriminate killing

The AEG system for L5R, albeit a variation of the White Wolf Storyteller systems, was wonderful in that regard. Generally, if you got hit by a katana you were probably near death if you weren't dead. It made one either very fast to the exclusion of all else or very social so you could win the verbal duels.

Does that "force" roleplay? Not really; you can still rely on mechanics to carry the day. The point of the topic is different, of course - L5R doesn't focus on combat by default like D20 does.

- Ketjak

For what it's worth, I think if one made a Fort save with a DC equal to the damage inflicted each time one took damage, D20 would be much, much more lethal. Yes, that disproportionately increases the value of Constitution.

 

[Terraism]

The D&D system, however, encourages solving problems through combat and always has.

Thing is, though that's the crux of the matter... it's not the end-all, be-all. Yes, it encourages combat; that's what we have rules for. On the other hand, we also have rules for out of combat encounters; gathering information, diplomacy, um... innuendo. (OK, maybe you've got a point - a minor one, at least, but... ) Yes, I'd agree that "game balance," as it relates to D&D, refers to combat strength... yes, say, a sorcerer and a fighter may be just as effective in combat (balanced) and the sorcerer be a much better character outside of combat due to the high charisma; actually, schnutz, the more I write, the more I'm forced to cede you ground while I try to find something to shoot at your position with. Drat. I guess my point is, that, while I'll admit that game balance has more to do with combat effectiveness, it seems wrong to pigeonhole D&D as being nothing more than a hack'n'slash game because of that.

 

[bloodymage]

Balance, schmalance!

I'm a proud grognard. I'm the DM. Game balance is whatever I say it is.

 

[LostSoul]

So, um, how does a system encourage roleplaying?

It can promote adventures in areas where role-playing is likely to take place - cities, towns, etc. It should provide rules for all sorts of situations that role-playing usually encounters - things like bartering, seducing, persuading, etc.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Game balance is really broader than the options allowed for oin the poll.

It covers character creation, means that no class of skill is substantially more powerful or useful that other. This continues on through character progression to higher level or greater degree of skill.

Balance extends to monsters and problems as well. As with characters, the challenge faced should be balanced for the characters facing them.

As an aside, not caring about the spirit of the game system is rather an odd attitude in my view. The concepts, spirit. of the designers in creating the game should be evident to the participants, and if those concepts are disregraded in play, then something is being missed by the one disregarding them--like the meat of the work. Aside from the mechanics, what else is there?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Re: Re

I definitely feel that game balance should be secondary if you are running a campaign with evil characters or campaigns that revolve around a central character who has some strange power or background. I don't believe that game balance should be a primary concern when running campaigns of this nature. Game balance should be determined by the DM according to his or her desire for the campaign, and not just by the rules.

Whoa. You had me right up until the last line. Game balance should be determined and agreed on by THE ENTIRE GROUP according to THEIR desires for the campaign and what will allow everyone to have a good time. Do you pay your players? Do they game with you out of obligation or desperation? If not (and it would be pretty embarrassing if either was true) no player is obligated to play the sychophant unless it is a roleplaying desire.

Personally I don't play evil campaigns (they just don't apeal) but I could see a setup like you described working for a short closed ended jaunt. For long term campaigning you would need a very, um, specific blend of player personalities...

This looks like it will ineveitably veer into character driven vs story driven campaigns and herding, so I'll just officially state that my preference as both a player and GM is for interactive storytelling with characters affecting their own outcomes beyond "save or die".

Kahuna Burger