How balanced should a game be?

[Cronocke]

The obvious choices need to be held as the standard. If I make a fighter and put the statistically "best" stat on Strength, and choose the obvious weapon of Longsword (because it's obviously a decent weapon), then I should expect (aka Obvious) results from fighting a basic monster (ex. Goblin).

that's a whole lot of assumptions, but it is a framework on which to compare other things.

Okay, so we're clearly on the D&D bandwidth for this. I'd rather we weren't, but so be it.

By your preference then, if a "better" weapon exists, it should not be hugely better than the Obvious Fighter (ex Level 1, 15 str, 1d8 damage). If we got 5d8 damage out of using a Cloven BattleWidget, then that weapon has created an imbalance by most people's reckoning. especially if they both cost the same, have the same availability, etc.

By my preference, "better" would be entirely situational. By my preference, there'd be something like in Legend RPG, where all weapons do 1d6 + damage modifier (+ tier), are either melee or ranged, and then get three special properties picked from a list, all of which are intended to be roughly balanced.

Or you could look at Legends of the Wulin, where the weapons list consists of very broad categories like "sword" and "spear" and "flexible (chain/rope)", and the only ways to get a weapon with bigger numbers are to spend XP to buy a combination weapon (which anyone can do), or jump through roleplaying hoops to get a legendary weapon that gets better the more you use it in the way it was intended.

Or you could look at FATE, where a "weapon" is an aspect or a stunt that provides a situational bonus, and if it's not listed then your weapon is mostly fluff. (There are still ways to make it have an effect - a temporary aspect called "Disarmed!" for example.)

Now an inefficient selection possibility still exists, as in I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. If a player chooses to wield a sword made of stuffed animals that does zero damage, what are the rules supposed to do?

Make it magically (or mechanically) enhanced to not deal zero damage.
Make it do non-lethal damage.
Make it stack up "humiliation" points in place of HP damage until the target is too ashamed to fight on.
Make the player roll taunt or persuade in place of attack rolls.

 

[Janx]

..snip...
Make it magically (or mechanically) enhanced to not deal zero damage.
Make it do non-lethal damage.
Make it stack up "humiliation" points in place of HP damage until the target is too ashamed to fight on.
Make the player roll taunt or persuade in place of attack rolls.

My example was meant to illustrate the player doing something stupid.

As a GM, I refuse to work hard to reward or compensate a player for doing truly stupid things.

If a player shoves a sword up his arse and tries to damage his enemies with the hilt, I am not going to dignify that by making it do anything by get him dead.

 

[Cronocke]

My example was meant to illustrate the player doing something stupid.

As a GM, I refuse to work hard to reward or compensate a player for doing truly stupid things.

If a player shoves a sword up his arse and tries to damage his enemies with the hilt, I am not going to dignify that by making it do anything by get him dead.

If they're doing something stupid for the sake of something stupid, why are they in your game? On the other hand, if they're doing something unconventional for the sake of trying out new things, that should be accounted for.

Legends of the Wulin has rules for substituting clever wordplay, be it in the form of insults, persuasive argument, or mockery, in place of making attacks with a weapon or your bare hands. In the example of using a comical fluffy sword, I would treat that sword along the same lines - clearly not intended to be a physical weapon, instead meant to demoralize and dissuade.

If they're just doing it to mess with me, then they're free to leave. But if they're doing it as a quirk of the character, why should I punish them?

 

[Umbran]

All of which sounds like it's derived from D&D, and none of which sounds like it's a good thing.

Um, no. The world does not revolve around D&D. The proof that the Halting Problem is a problem was first presented by Alan Turing, in 1936, two years before E. Gary Gygax was even born.

And the level of complexity required to be impossible to prove something bug-free is surprisingly low.

The core rulebook of whatever your game is should intentionally be designed such that no strategy seems inherently superior to any other - they're just useful in different situations.

And meanwhile, in the real world, even with a computer, you can't be *sure* there's no bugs (meaning, in our case, that no edge cases exist that can be exploited).

If you want to use a goblin catchopper or whatever, fine, but your character using that should be as effective as the other character using the bazooka. If that means you're using magic (or your dagger is enchanted) and he isn't, so be it. But intentionally designing choices to be bad makes no sense to me.

Well, as an example...

Butter knives exist. Is anyone going to be of the opinion that they will be as good as a standard longsword or shortsword in a fight? No, of course, not. But the butter knives exist anyway. So, technically, they are a choice. This does not imply that a man with a butter knife in hand should be as dangerous as a man with an uzi in hand. So, either we must have any and every object in the game be a deadly lethal weapon*, or we must admit that, in fact, some choices are better than others.

There are games which buck this - in some FATE variants, the type of weapon you are using is irrelevant. Weapons don't do damage - character skill does damage. What weapon you use is only relevant for narrative quality. In these games, technically, a man with a Q-tip cotton swab can do as much damage as a man with equal skill with a longsword88. That's the way the game works - but it isn't entirely sensible. The game expects and requires players and GM to enforce sensibility when the game does not. And the designers are up-front about that. This makes the game useless for certain playstyles.


* See this dollop of hummus? As good as a battle axe, I tell you!
** With a flick of my finger... that dollop of hummus... um... goes up your nose and, um... gives you a deadly sinus infection in 3.2 seconds! Yeah, that's it!

 

[Cronocke]

Um, no. The world does not revolve around D&D. The proof that the Halting Problem is a problem was first presented by Alan Turing, in 1936, two years before E. Gary Gygax was even born.

And the level of complexity required to be impossible to prove something bug-free is surprisingly low.



And meanwhile, in the real world, even with a computer, you can't be *sure* there's no bugs (meaning, in our case, that no edge cases exist that can be exploited).

Yes, but at the same time, you can take steps to reduce the odds of there being such things, and reduce the degree to which they outperform other options. The real world has more shades than black and white, too.

Well, as an example...

Butter knives exist. Is anyone going to be of the opinion that they will be as good as a standard longsword or shortsword in a fight? No, of course, not. But the butter knives exist anyway. So, technically, they are a choice. This does not imply that a man with a butter knife in hand should be as dangerous as a man with an uzi in hand. So, either we must have any and every object in the game be a deadly lethal weapon*, or we must admit that, in fact, some choices are better than others.

There are games which buck this - in some FATE variants, the type of weapon you are using is irrelevant. Weapons don't do damage - character skill does damage. What weapon you use is only relevant for narrative quality. In these games, technically, a man with a Q-tip cotton swab can do as much damage as a man with equal skill with a longsword. That's the way the game works - but it isn't entirely sensible. The game expects and requires players and GM to enforce sensibility when the game does not. And the designers are up-front about that. This makes the game useless for certain playstyles.


* See this dollop of hummus? As good as a battle axe, I tell you!
** With a flick of my finger... that dollop of hummus... um... goes up your nose and, um... gives you a deadly sinus infection in 3.2 seconds! Yeah, that's it!

I'd count a dollop of hummus as "unarmed", frankly.

And why does this argument keep going here? The only people arguing that the game should include rules for butter knives, hummus, teddie bears, rubber chickens, etc.... are the people arguing against me, it seems, and saying that bad weapons should be made part of the game.

No player worth having in your game would show up asking to be able to dual wield spoons made of shaving cream. So the argument that "well you could say that you're using spoons made of shaving cream and it'd do as much damage as a battleaxe" is irrelevant. Yes, you can. You're likely to be kicked out for being disruptive, though, so don't.

Bounds of reason, people.

 

[Celebrim]

I think we are suffering from a bit of overuse of the term "optimal". We wind up speaking as if there are only two states: Optimal, and sub-optimal.

True.

In real play, I think there are really more like three states: Ineffective, Effective, and Optimal. Obvious choices shouldn't lead to ineffective characters. It is okay if obvious choices lead to merely effective characters.

I like 'effective' better than 'optimal' as well.

=If I'm playing a fighter, and I choose a decent Str and Con, pick up a longsword, shield, and chain mail (pretty obvious choices), I should expect to be effective. I should not expect to be Best of the Best of the Best, but the character should be able to contribute in a respectable way, and not be too outshone by the ones who are actually optimal.

In general, 3.X did a good job of this sort of thing. A starting human fighter with physical stats contributes well. The problem was that many straight forward choices like that led to traps where past a certain level - about 6th in the case of your straight sword and board fighter - you were not contributing compared to a character played by someone that knew about the traps and the combos.

 

[Umbran]

I'd count a dollop of hummus as "unarmed", frankly.

In the games I'm talking about,t hat doesn't matter. Fists, Weapons, and Guns are different skills, but they all have the same damage potential

And why does this argument keep going here? The only people arguing that the game should include rules for butter knives, hummus, teddie bears, rubber chickens, etc.... are the people arguing against me, it seems, and saying that bad weapons should be made part of the game.

I am saying that less-than-grand weapons *exist*, and sometimes that's an issue. What happens when you don't *have* a sword, but a knife is handy? Have it play out the same, or have a difference?

No player worth having in your game....

Such snobbery! Thank you, but I'll pass on your schooling on who is, or is not, worth having in my games.

You seem to have a very particular view of what a game should be, and you don't seem to have a lot of room for any ideas or styles but your own. Pretty inflexible. Not what I'm looking for, certainly.

Thus proving we have different tastes. If there are different tastes among gamers, we need varying designs to suit. Thus, your one way doesn't fit everyone. QED.

 

[Cronocke]

In the games I'm talking about,t hat doesn't matter. Fists, Weapons, and Guns are different skills, but they all have the same damage potential

I was joking.

I am saying that less-than-grand weapons *exist*, and sometimes that's an issue. What happens when you don't *have* a sword, but a knife is handy? Have it play out the same, or have a difference?

I'd say that would depend on the system. Ideally there would be differences, but they wouldn't be major differences - they'd be more about style than effectiveness.

Such snobbery! Thank you, but I'll pass on your schooling on who is, or is not, worth having in my games.

So, your example of something ridiculous that my (hypothetical) rules cannot (in your view) cope with that is undesirable... suddenly is desirable?

I don't understand what point you're trying to argue here anymore. Do you think you should be allowed to use a rubber chicken as a preferred weapon in a non-comical game, without ever being asked to be less silly?

You seem to have a very particular view of what a game should be, and you don't seem to have a lot of room for any ideas or styles but your own. Pretty inflexible. Not what I'm looking for, certainly.

I'm more than willing to play other games in other styles! I relish the opportunity. I'm the one who suggested that multiple games be available so that players are able to play at different power levels - I would further extend this to different settings, hypothetically. It depends on what that setting calls for.

I'm not the one saying we need to have specific rules for every possible weapon laid out in the book, including outlandish or "ineffective" or "suboptimal" ones in case the players feel the need to have precise stats for everything. I'm far more in favor of flexible rules, with reasonable boundaries set, such that players can fluff themselves as using and being capable of whatever they like, so long as it doesn't disrupt the other players or create wild imbalances in overall "effectiveness".

Thus proving we have different tastes. If there are different tastes among gamers, we need varying designs to suit. Thus, your one way doesn't fit everyone. QED.

I can agree with you on this, though! Neither of our ways seem to please the other. QED.

 

[Jhaelen]

Butter knives exist. Is anyone going to be of the opinion that they will be as good as a standard longsword or shortsword in a fight? No, of course, not. But the butter knives exist anyway. So, technically, they are a choice.

Umm, not really. Butter knives aren't designed to be (effective) weapons. You'd only ever use it as a weapon if you don't have a choice. Besides, butter knives are easily covered by a catch-all category of 'improvised weapons'.

If an option is clearly UP (under-powered, sub-optimal), then very few people will choose it. And if you have a block of text in your book that very few people use, you've probably wasted valuable art-space on your page.

Exactly. A publisher filling books with pages of items that are a less good option in every conceivable situation deserves a flogging.

I'd like to note that in OD&D all weapons did the same d6 damage, so weapon choice was completely controlled by your personal taste; it was basically nothing but a fashion-statement. If you prefer that kind of games, more power to you!

Personally, I've always been fond of the Pendragon RPG's list of available weapons. Each of them had a clearly defined purpose, a certain situation in which it would be the best choice. After seeing it, you definitely understand why knights were accompanied by squires! (apart from requiring aid to don their suits of armor...).

Runequest also did a good job about it. While it has weapons (and armor) that are clearly a worse choice than others, there's always a logical reason for it, e.g. cost, weight, cultural availability.

 

[Umbran]

So, your example of something ridiculous that my (hypothetical) rules cannot (in your view) cope with that is undesirable... suddenly is desirable?

The example was extreme to be more demonstrative, to avoid the inevitable, "Well, *really* shortswords *are* as dangerous as longswords," branch of discussion.

The point is very simple. In the real world, weapons are not all of the same effectiveness, and the differences are not always minor, and some folks like that reflected in their games. This implies that there will exist strategies that aren't as effective.

F'rex, something not absurd: Swords are categorically more damaging than knives. But, if you have knives in your game, someone may like the idea of a knife fighter. This does not put an onus on the game to make knife-fighter as effective in combat as sword-fighter.

You would have us wipe out such differences. I'm arguing that while having some games built that way is fine, there isn't call for it broadly, in *every* game.

I'm not the one saying we need to have specific rules for every possible weapon laid out in the book...

No, you're the one saying what others should or should not have in their games. That's the thing I don't accept.

Upthread you were being prescriptive (and I quote), "The core rulebook of whatever your game is should intentionally be designed such that no strategy seems inherently superior to any other..."

If you prefer to play by flexible rules, by all means, do so! But stop telling us what *all* games, should be, please, because not everyone is you.

I can agree with you on this, though! Neither of our ways seem to please the other. QED.

Ah, but you see, you no very little about my "way". Please stopy trying to infer that just because I argue that somethign should be allowed to exist that it is "my way".

In practice, I am not of a single way - I am a broad-spectrum gamer. I find things to like in most games - D&D and Shadowrun (which generally allow players to shoot themselves in the foot) and FATE-based games (which are far more forgiving of less-than-optimal choices), are both frequently seen at my table.

I am making an argument for inclusion (games should be made in various forms for various tastes), while you are making arguments for exclusion (only your sort of game should exist).