Have You Ever Considered...

[mythusmage]

MM,

In what way is, to pick an example that leaps to mind because I mentioned it in another thread, Wushu not 100% mechanically balanced? If you're not familiar with Wushu, here's a link to the (free, downloadable) rules.

Except for player skill (which along with random chance will always determine the winner when the field is truly mechanically balanced), what imbalance can theoretically exist in a 'by-the-book' game of Wushu? Alternately, is there any sense in which Wushu does not qualify as a true RPG by your definition?

Obviously, it's something of an oddball game, but it seems to fall squarely in the realm of "RPG" (right down to a fairly traditional object: kill things, and possibly take their stuff) and to be mechanically balanced, like chess or checkers.

But what compromises and restrictions does it require to achieve this mechanical balance? What do you loose to have a balanced RPG?

 

[delericho]

Reguarding the square mile: Not even wrong. How interesting it is has nothing to do with it, it misses the point. As does another poster's solution to traversing that mile. It serves as a mental experiment to demonstrate how large a square mile is in comparison to an individual.

No, I think I got that. The point I was trying to get at, though, was that since virtually every step is the same as some other step, to balance the whole for every situation, you really only have to balance a tiny number of the cases, and the rest will follow.

The counter-argument to that, of course, is "imagine a square mile with some unknown number of mines hidden in it." There, since you don't know where the mines are, you really have to do the exhaustive search through the possibility space.

(Though the minefield analogy falls down because no-one actually dies from an imbalanced RPG. So perhaps it's enough for us to say "this field is probably clear", and then put up big warning signs as and when the problems are found.

This is very analagous to the development of an operating system for a computer. It is literally impossible to find all, or even most of, the bugs, and it's certainly impossible to predict all possible developments in hardware and driver design. Does this mean we can't produce a working OS? Does it mean we can't produce a 'good' OS? Surely the answer must be 'No'?)

Going on to Delericho's point regarding situations; here we have a great divide. Delericho says a designer can ignore certain situations, focusing on those that can, in some fashion be balanced. Sorry my friend, the mere fact such encounters can occur unless the designer rigs things so they can't renders the design ipso facto unbalanced.

Sorry, but I think you might have missed my point. My contention was that the designer could neglect cases if:

1) Inherent imbalances are essentially irrelevant. The dragons vs. commoners example is a case of this: it's irrelevant whether commoner A is slightly more powerful than commoner B if they're both dead before they get to act.

2) The case is so obscure that while it could happen in theory, in practice it never will. I will readily concede that a system that doesn't account for these cases isn't truly balanced... but I will argue that it doesn't actually matter provided all the cases that really will occur have been dealt with.

3) The variation in the situation is sufficiently small. There's no need to consider both "party vs orcs" and "party vs hobgoblins" - the effective difference is small enough that it can be neglected. Again, doing so leaves the system open to some 'wild card' imbalances... but they're probably sufficiently small to be ignored.

I should note that 'perfect balance' is a myth - even in Chess one side goes first. But within broad parameters...?

The game of checkers can be balanced because the field of play is so extremely restricted...

It's an example of Chaos Theory in action...

More coming, but now I have other comments to reply to.

All of this I agree with.

 

[Psion]

but hey ... d20 Ringworld anyone?

Heh... one 1e game I played way back when was set on a Ringworld.


Anyway, re:Balance. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." [/Inigo]

Balance is bad?

If balance is bad, then having a single character choice that is preferable to all other character choices is good. Having the chances of survival against challenges from one encounter to the next be totally arbitrary is good.

Come again?

I think when some people harangue about balance, they choose an awfully specific and demanding criteria for what "balance" is, and miss out on the big picture. Sure, it's not possible to ensure that chances for PC contribution to each encounter be the same... but that's not a meaningful criteria for what is "balanced".

 

[Aus_Snow]

If balance is bad, then having a single character choice that is preferable to all other character choices is good. Having the chances of survival against challenges from one encounter to the next be totally arbitrary is good.

Quite.

It is lazy (and/or simply unintelligent) game design, in those cases where balance has not been sufficiently considered.

Some RPGs have done OK for themselves despite this failing, but never because of it.

 

[Slife]

There's how many PrC's in print from WOTC? Which one is the most obvious choice for power?

Planar shepherd.

 

[Aaron L]

I really don't understand at all what the size of a world has anything to do with balance? Is it because some thinsg are more powerful than others, and in a larger world has more room for variation?

Well, it's really simple to model this in a balnced game: some things/people are higher level than others.

When a game is based on artificial constructs such as classes and levels, I really can't even begin to imagine why making those artificial constructs balanced with each other so that any class is balanced with every other at a given level could be considered bad.

If classes aren't balanced with each other at a given level, then what is the point of having levels, exactly? Level is a measure of character power, so as to know what would be appropriate challenges for a party, and if all classes have different amounts of power at different levels, then it's kind of useless as a measure of character power (it's primary purpose) isn't it? If a 5th level Wizard is twice as powerful as a 5th level Fighter, what is the point of using levels at all? Making sure that a 5th level Wizard is as powerful as a 5th level Fighter is as powerful as a 5th level Cleric let's you know that a party of 5th level characters will all be capable of handling the same threats, no matter what classes the party is comprised of.


This is a game. People play it to have fun. If there is no balance, and some choices are outright better than others, and those who take the better options get a character that is more fun to play, that that isn't fair to everyone else. Or, if some choices are outright better than others, and everyone takes the best options, then everyone's characters are the same.


I really can't imagine how balance in RPGs could be a bad thing. I'm really baffled about what you're trying to say.

 

[mythusmage]

Up Date

My apologies to everyone. had a crisis. Details to be found in another thread (as soon as I get it started). Have to go see my shrink in about an hour, and it takes a tad for the trolly to get out to his office. So you get to wait a bit longer. This thread shall rise again!

Up Date: The Post

 

[Harlekin]

Crime hurts people.

Unbalanced game situations destroy fun.

 

[mythusmage]

Unbalanced game situations destroy fun.

And what unstated assumptions are you basing this on?