How balanced should a game be?

[Cronocke]

Why shouldn't he? There are many in game reasons you can use like weaker armor and having trouble to penetrate heavier armor with his fighting style.

None of which apply to most class-and-level systems, certainly not D&D, and none of which were listed as things the player wanted.

'sides, even if your rules apply for some bizarre reason, you should still be able to use your skills effectively - use your cloak in your off-hand to swipe at their eyes so they can't see, trip them, try to slip your blade between plates of the armor, etc.

And what when there is no chance to talk the enemy down or it doesn't make sense?

Welcome to GMing 101! In today's class, we'll be talking about encounter design.

If the GM only comes up with encounters where it is impossible for your character to contribute, talk to them about it or find a new GM.

Or do you keep track and will railroad the players into an situation that can only be overcome by talking?

Similarly, if the GM comes up with encounters where it is only possible for one character to contribute, talk to them about it or find a new GM.

Will you as DM make sure that this never happens and deny the player to explore this part of his character? [emphasis added]

You may have fun being the party's wheelbarrow, but that's probably not something most people enjoy.

Where did I say something like that? That rather fits your way of thinking where combat ability has to be bought with non combat usefulness in order to be "balanced" on paper.

Actually, I don't like trading combat for non-combat effectiveness at all. You're the one saying you should be able to sell your combat ability! You just... haven't offered what you should be selling it for. So... good on you for disliking your idea, I guess?

If you'd read my posts, you'd know that I think all characters should be able to contribute in all the distinct parts or sections of a game. This means that the mage researching otherworldly creatures gets help from the swordsman reciting folklore and fairy tales he heard in his youth, and the footpad gets to talk about the rumors he heard down at the tavern, and the woodsman gets to mention the strange tracks and mutilated animals he found in the woods a while ago. Similarly, in a physical fight, the mage gets to cast spells, the swordsman gets to show off his skills, the footpad gets to knock people up the back of the head with a sap, and the woodsman gets to talk to the brainwashed enemy and try to convince him something's wrong with himself.

Or something.

 

[Zadmar]

This is not balance unless you also limit the RPG to an arena style game with only combats.

Fortunately that's not true, game balance isn't that simplistic, or that black and white. It's not necessary (nor even possible) to attain perfect balance for every possible situation, only to make sure that reasonable character concepts are viable in play. It certainly doesn't mean that all characters are "the same".

But your biggest problem is that you think a character needs to be powerful in combat to be viable. Viable for what? Earning XP and loot? Is that what you think role playing is about?

You're focusing on combat, but that's only one aspect of game design. Roleplaying games are primarily about having fun, and while I've mainly talked about weapons, the same holds true for all aspects of gameplay; if players have to compromise their character concept in order to have a character that's viable, for many players that will reduce their enjoyment - because they can no longer play the character they envisioned.

And "viable" means "capable of working successfully; feasible". Not everyone enjoys being relegated to a supporting role for the entire campaign, or playing flunky to a GMPC or equivalent spotlight hogger. It's important that everyone has fun, that everyone enjoys playing their character, and that all characters have the opportunity to shine. For me, that is what roleplaying games are about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In D&D damage doesn't kill you - burst damage kills you. Since there is an expectation that the size of the burst you are likely to see is based on party level, in every version of D&D it's been the Wizard with the least margin of error in terms of surviving a burst. It just takes one mistake or one bad roll, and you are dead. In 1e, with likely no hit point bonuses from CON and at most +2 per level if you were lucky enough to have one, I honestly never believed anyone ever leveled up a M-U unless the DM was using real kid gloves all the time. I don't see how it was possible.

Quite simply (which isn't to say easily). By getting a massive wall of meat and hiding behind it. The meat in question being hirelings. Or war dogs. And then getting lucky enough to get loot. If you aren't going in with at least a dozen people in your raid you are in trouble - and few people on the first level of the dungeon have burst attacks. Hirelings and charisma are a key part of oD&D and cascade into 1e. You talk about the wizard being hit by a fear trap alongside the fighter - to me this begs the question as to why the wizard was so far forward and there wasn't at least a rank of meat between them and the trap. The best analogy I can use for the wizard in oD&D/1e is a mortar in house to house fighting; one of them can be really useful at the right moment but you either want it deployed dug in in a battery on a scenic overlook, or a single one of them to a platoon. And I don't think I've ever played a 1e or OSRIC first level character of any class that didn't bring at least two war dogs or hirelings on their first adventure to hold the melee line (and then insisted in the hireling's case that they got their share of the loot whether or not they died - or were invalided out on 1hp half way through the adventure).

From memory the brown box has more rules for hirelings than combat, as does Holmes.

Now how anyone leveled up an MU in 2e is beyond me.

At low level this is at best partially true. Again, with a typical cure light wounds you are only negating one monster attack.

One monster hit. Big difference when the fighter can only take two (three if they are lucky) but might have an AC of 3 at first level, and a lot of first level enemies have a THAC0 of 20.

Honestly, the impression I'm getting from you is that your version of 3.5 (?) includes the 3.5 PHB, the 3.0 MM (I seriously doubt you use e.g. the nerfed 3.5 Golems - spot the difference?) - and the 1E DMG. Gygax said quite openly "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" and then proceeded to fill both PHB and DMG with a lot of rules and advice to restrain magic, and Zeb Cook proceeded to tear out most of the advice, with the rules being removed by Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams. Everything I'm reading from you says you still use the advice that hasn't actually been part of D&D since 1989 (and D&D is the worse for it). All of which means the methods you use to restrain spellcasters are (a) good and (b) not actually part of either 3.0 or 3.5.

Its actually very easy to understand.
With this mindset being weaker in combat than a other player character is just an other defining trait of the character your play just like the race or gender is. And how this character deals with this trait during his adventure is part of playing this role. By ensuring balance (something impossibly to do anyway unless you reduce the whole RPG experience to just a small subset of what is possible, like combat) you remove one of the defining traits of this character.

OK. This is a weird strawman. The point wasn't that he wanted to be weaker for the sake of being weaker. It was that he wanted to be unusual - which is not the same thing at all. He wanted to be validly strong but in a different way. Insisting that this means he must be weaker is punishing the player for wanting to do something unusual. Insisting it means he wants to be weaker is claiming things that haven't been established and are unlikely to be true and is therefore effectively punishing the player for wanting to do something unusual.

But your biggest problem is that you think a character needs to be powerful in combat to be viable. Viable for what? Earning XP and loot? Is that what you think role playing is about?

And this is once again you reading in things that have not been said and using it to punish the player. The player wants to do something unusual and interesting. This of itself neither means they want to be weaker or want to be stronger in combat.

If what someone wants is to be weaker in combat I've never in my life seen a game that doesn't enable this.

 

[Celebrim]

Every character should have something to contribute at every "section" of the RPG. If the RPG is as simple as having "combat" and "non-combat", then all characters should be good at both. If it's divided further into "physicality", "socializing", "education", "mysticism", and "subterfuge" then it's harder, but everyone should still have something to do at any given time. Sitting at a table for an hour, watching other people do things while you wait for the narrative to move back in your direction, tends to not be very fun for most people.

And when they complain, that is the point where I say something like:

"You treated intelligence, wisdom, and charisma as dump stats so you could maximize your ability to deal damage in combat and your character is a big, dense, unlikeable lunk. If you didn't actually want to play a big dumb lunk, but wanted to play a versatile character that could shine in more situations than just smashing things, why did you make your character the way you did? I didn't force you to treat every aspect of your character except smashing things as unimportant. You did that. If it turns out that at times, smashing things isn't a really viable approach, and you make the rational choice to let someone else deal with the problem, well that's not really my fault."

Or

"You chose to play a sorcerer with six social disadvantages - shy, inept, misanthrope, second class citizen, unattractive, and unsophisticated all so you could start play as this prodigal spell user that could blow things up good. Did you really think you could take six disadvantages and not have them come into play? No, your charisma doesn't in fact make up the difference. You've got a net -12 penalty on social checks for anything that isn't a fire elemental. You walk into the room and by the rules a third of the persons in the room want to see harm come to you. The only reason you aren't murdered outright is that not only do most people think you belong to Sir Gowin, an association that does not they think bring him credit, but legally you do belong to Sir Gowin. So if all this is uncomfortable to you and means your character is treated less well than Sir Gowin's horse and is similarly excluded from polite society, do not forget I warned you of all of this before you started play. If you didn't really want to explore being a shy, inept, unattractive, unsophisticated misanthrope that most people thought of as a monster, why did you take the flaws you did? I certainly didn't make you do that."

Or

"If you really wanted to be the party spokesman, leader, and planner, why did you choose to play a Wookie when only one other character in the party even knows how to speak Wookie and its the engineer with no social skills? Next time you should maybe not spend all your points on creating a melee brute if you in fact want to be involved in solving more problems than smashing things. Try making the most of it by learning 'wookie' and getting the rest of the table to laugh, because outside of smashing things the only way your character can really contribute is comic relief."

You may have fun being the party's wheelbarrow, but that's probably not something most people enjoy.

Then may I respectfully suggest you don't make a character that is useful only as a wheelbarrow.

Typically I see these problems more often in point buy systems than class based systems, though they can happen with power gamers in any system. One of the advantages of classes over point buy is that they force a player to not choose completely optimized characters. With a well designed class system, it should be hard to create a character that is only useful in a single situation.

 

[Derren]

OK. This is a weird strawman. The point wasn't that he wanted to be weaker for the sake of being weaker. It was that he wanted to be unusual - which is not the same thing at all. He wanted to be validly strong but in a different way. Insisting that this means he must be weaker is punishing the player for wanting to do something unusual. Insisting it means he wants to be weaker is claiming things that haven't been established and are unlikely to be true and is therefore effectively punishing the player for wanting to do something unusual.

You are the one doing strawmans here. The point was to make an acrobatic bladedancer. Thats all. And under the proposed system a acrobatic bladedancer is weaker than a sword & shield fighter. Thats just part of its role and someone who still plays an acrobatic bladedancer accepts that just like someone who is just in for optimized build and phat loot likely will play the sword & shield fighter instead.

By enforcing balance all those nuances get removed and all roles become more the same as the system you impose narrow down the roles you can be even more. And for what? Balance? Balance can never be achieved unless you railroad hard and remove nearly any form of influence the players have about the challenges they face in game as only then you can control that one option does not become better than the other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You are the one doing strawmans here. The point was to make an acrobatic bladedancer. Thats all. And under this system an acrobatic bladedancer is weaker than a sword & shield fighter

Why? There is nothing saying that this must be so. Merely that it is. And because you think that you should not tinker with the rules to accomodate the players because The Rules Are Sacrosanct (and if they aren't your entire argument falls apart) you are punishing the player.

Thats just part of its role and someone who still plays an acrobatic bladedancer accepts that just like someone who is just in for optimized build and phat loot likely will play the sword & shield fighter instead.

And nope. It is not part of the role. It is a consequence of the system being set up the way it is rather than the role.

By enforcing balance all those nuances get removed and all roles become more the same

Balanced does not mean identical

as the system you impose narrow down the roles you can be even more.

Making a viable acrobatic bladedancer is narrowing down the roles. Riiiiight. Let's widen up the roles you can have by replacing all the wizard's spells with prestidigitation!

And for what? Balance? Balance can never be achieved unless you railroad hard

Perfect balance is like a frictionless environment. Impossible under normal circumstances and it would be a terrible thing to achieve - but that doesn't stop engineers getting as close to it as they can most of the time because everything works so much better when you do.

and remove nearly any form of influence the players have about the challenges they face in game as only then you can control that one option does not become better than the other.

And this is nonsense. Balance increases the influence the players have because it means there isn't One Best Way (normally Fetch The Wizard).

 

[Derren]

Why? There is nothing saying that this must be so.

Except the example DM did.

And nope. It is not part of the role. It is a consequence of the system being set up the way it is rather than the role.

And as the system defines the in game reality it is part of the role.

Balanced does not mean identical

Not totally identical (except with perfect balance), but when you strictly enforce balance the roles you are allowed to play are more identical than with less strict adherence to balance.
Do you really think you could play something like RIFT where you could have a beggar, a dragon and a mech pilot, complete with mech, in the same party if you enforced balance the way D&D does?

Making a viable acrobatic bladedancer is narrowing down the roles. Riiiiight. Let's widen up the roles you can have by replacing all the wizard's spells with prestidigitation!

Again, you confuse viability with combat power. That shows your priority for gaming, but other people have different ones. When someone wants to play a con artist charlatan mage who can only cast prestidigitation, why deny him just because he doesn't meet your idea of minimal hack ability?

And this is nonsense. Balance increases the influence the players have because it means there isn't One Best Way (normally Fetch The Wizard).

No, balance removes the influence players have as it limits heavily the options players have (yes, non optimized options are also options) and because the DM, if he is serious about balance, has to constantly railroad the the players into situations which promote the use of so far "weaker" abilities and tactics to balance them out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except the example DM did.

Is/Ought fallacy.

And as the system defines the in game reality it is part of the role.

Only if you are playing Order of the Stick. Under normal circumstances the system reflects the in game reality rather than defining it.

No, mot with strictly enforced balance the roles you are allowed to play are more identical than with less strict adherence to balance.
Do you really think you could play something like RIFT where you could have a beggar, a dragon and a mech pilot, complete with mech, in the same party if you enforced balance the way D&D does?

Even Kevin Siembda doesn't play Rifts as written. So no. I don't think you could play Rifts that way - and more to the point I don't consider Rifts to be an actually playable game when you start throwing in all the splatbooks.

Again, you confuse viability with combat power. That shows your priority for gaming, but other people have different ones.

No. You're the one confusing balance with pure combat power. The only game I know of that has the level of balance you mean when you talk about balance is the one page Lasers and Feelings. Even 3:16 - Carnage Beyond the Stars doesn't. 4e certainly doesn't.

You don't understand what designers are trying for when they try for balance.

 

[Derren]

Even Kevin Siembda doesn't play Rifts as written. So no. I don't think you could play Rifts that way - and more to the point I don't consider Rifts to be an actually playable game when you start throwing in all the splatbooks.

Ah, the "this example goes against the point I make so it doesn't count" defense. Well played.
I guess this ends this discussion as once the arguments get that low there is nothing else to be said.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah, the "this example goes against the point I make so it doesn't count" defense. Well played.
I guess this ends this discussion as once the arguments get that low there is nothing else to be said.

When you start using what are actually fictitious examples, yes it does.

1: Rifts is terribly designed.
2: No one plays it as written. Even Kevin Siembda.

It's not that it goes against my argument. It's that it's a non-argument.

Edit: More to the point it's the exception that proves the rule. Even the game designer who is notorious for saying you must play as written knows that that is actually a terrible way to play at all levels so doesn't do it.