[Not a Troll] An Honest Question (really) About Game Balance

[mythusmage]

What do I mean by "game balance"?

That the party is equal to the encounters they face in an adventure.

That each member is as able to shine as any other.

That the party has a chance to win.

Now to answer some of your points (and thanks of keeping it on topic).

Mark Chance: For example, I don't think that D&D would work well if the players' characters weren't all more or less the same power level.

Could you explain? Why wouldn't D&D work well if the PCs were not the same power level?

Nameless: It also depends on the point of the game you're playing. If the object of the game is to vanquish foes (usually through combat), then it's important for each player to have his chance to shine. D&D tends to fall into this group. If the goal of the game is to overcome adversity through subterfuge, there are other balance issues (WW's Vampire is more like this. Being a combat-twink is easy. Being a successful vampire is not.)[/OUOTE]

Even in an RPG that emphasises combat, isn't it possible to overcome an opponent through other means? Does the climax of every adventure have to be a car cha... big fight?

Pogre: The better question is: Why wouldn't you want balanced rules? If it serves a purpose to have one character greater than the others (e.g. Ars Magica) then that is provided for by the rules. D&D attempts to create roughly balanced classes - in some games there are no such pretensions.

But, is it necessary for party members to be roughly equal for each to make a contribution?

Brun: I'll say that it all comes down to the concepts of a setting or game, but for an unbalanced game to trully work, you'll need good players. This is why, for a game like D&D, that is meant to be "universal" or the "default" RPG, strong balance between all elements is a good thing.

Why does D&D's status as the "default" RPG make it necessary to be balanced? Could D&D work if it weren't balanced?

Lord Zardoz: However, it is my experience that most players would like to be able to contribute meaninfully to the adventure. If you have one character who is easilly capable of completing the adventure without the help or input of the other players, then why are the other players even playing the game?

Good point. However, I must ask, does it have to be dictated by the rules? What about the GM? Or the players themselves? Have they no voice in who can and does contribute substantially to the party's success?

Ichabod: Roleplaying games are in part games. If the game is not balanced, part of the experience goes down the tubes.

Are RPGs the type of game that has to be balanced. Why?

Bret: What I do expect in a game is some sort of fairness. This can be in the form of every character getting an equal shot at the spotlight, or each having a certain area of expertise that is valuable in the game which is unique to that character, or even allowing anyone equal access to the various abilities like most classless systems allow.

What about those who don't want the spotlight? Those who are happy playing a supporting role, and only on occasion taking the forefront? For that matter, do RPGs have to be fair? Id est, give everybody an even break?

Olive: I think its important. i can see how it can be worked around, but it's a game, not a book, and it's important everyone is getting things out of it.

Why wouldn't it be possible for everybody to get something out of an unbalanced game?

After Olive the comments pretty much repeated what folks had said before. One constant in all was the fact that people did not really explain their position. That is, they did not present a good argument to support their statement.

In other words, lots of opinions, not much in the way of convincing argument.

Another recurring theme concerned the perceived need for all in the party to have an equal chance to shine, and that this had to be dictated by the rules. To which I ask, why? Isn't that more the province of the GM, in his role as the scene setter and director? And what of the players themselves? Aren't they capable of coming up with ways for even "marginal" characters to participate? Are mechanics intrinsically better than individual initiative?

Last, but certainly not least: Are RPGs like traditional games? How and why? Is it possible for RPGs to be a different type of game? Maybe a new type of game, one where the old wisdom concerning games doesn't (necessarily) apply.

Am I full of hooey, or a hard-core loon? Support your statement and show your work.

Gab on.

 

[hong]

What do I mean by "game balance"?

That the party is equal to the encounters they face in an adventure.

That each member is as able to shine as any other.

That the party has a chance to win.

Since you are defining "balance" in a manner that is orthogonal to the existence of a formalised ruleset, the remainder of your post is irrelevant.

 

[mythusmage]

(Just when I thought it was safe to reply)

Like bret said, I don't think it's necessary in all aspects of a game, although I think fairness among the player is necessary.

I'm another Ars Magica fan, and I like playing grogs and companions, as long as I know that at some point I'll get to play the mage.

I'll play a combat-weak bard, knowing that at some point there will be urban adventures where I can shine, or encouters the party wants to talk its way past.

Does fairness have to be dictated by the rules? Couldn't the GM and players handle it? Is it an in-game or a metagame concern?

 

[Sniktch]

I think the most important thing is that each player gets the chance to take the spotlight and enjoy the game. I've played a wide array of different RPG's over the past 20 years, and believe me, some of them were far from balanced mechanic-wise (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness springs to mind. Based on pure combat ability or power level, what would you rather play: a chicken, a cow, a wolverine, or a rhinoceras? And all determined by a random roll at the beginning of character generation. But we always seemed to have a great time, no matter how vast the gap between characters, who ranged from a truck driving polar bear to a psychic pigeon that looked exactly like... a pigeon.)

The rules don't necessarily make the game - the players and the DM do. Many times I'm of the "less is more" philosophy when it comes to rules, as I prefer it when the game moves along at a fairly rapid clip, and don't like to get bogged down looking up tables and seldom used rules that crop up. If the DM gives each player a chance to participate and showcase his character's talents and each player has something that he does better than anyone else in the party then the game should be fun to play.

It is important that the rules provide for challenges that the PC's will have a good chance to defeat. Although it is fun every once in awhile to play a 'doomed' party, where the only real question is the order in which they will perish, this is only good for occasional one-shots and would be extremely frustrating to play for any extended length of time.

 

[mythusmage]

Since you are defining "balance" in a manner that is orthogonal to the existence of a formalised ruleset, the remainder of your post is irrelevant.

Explain please. Why is the fact the typical RPG has a formalised ruleset relevant? Are RPGs traditional games, or something else entirely?

 

[hong]

Explain please. Why is the fact the typical RPG has a formalised ruleset relevant? Are RPGs traditional games, or something else entirely?

RPGs are like a box of chocolates.

 

[Maerdwyn]

If balance is not part of the rules - i.e. its just handled by the GM and players - how is it an aspect of the the game, as opposed to an aspect of the interpersonal relations of the group?

It's a sliding scale - certain games are more balanced than others. The less balance present, the more meta attempts at fairness are necessary to keep the group happy.

If the rules are not "balanced," then it is incumbant upon the group to display fairness towards each other in order for everyone to have fun. Now, what's fair may not involve in-game balancing. If someone *always* wants to sit back and let someone else have the spotlight, then having him play the grog all the time is "fair" even if it's "unbalanced."

In a non-RPG (Diplomacy), I may choose to play Italy because I have more experience with the game than some of my friends who then take the eaisier countries. The countries, and therefore the rules are not equally balanced, but the players work within them to provide a fair and enjoyable experience for everyone - else playing is not fun, and therefore, pointless.

 

[mythusmage]

It is important that the rules provide for challenges that the PC's will have a good chance to defeat. Although it is fun every once in awhile to play a 'doomed' party, where the only real question is the order in which they will perish, this is only good for occasional one-shots and would be extremely frustrating to play for any extended length of time.

Are the challenges the province of the rules, or the province of the players? Is it better for the game to set the difficulty of the encounters the group faces? Is it better for the group to decide on the encounters they wish to face, even when they know their prospective opponent out classes them?

 

[Crothian]

What do I mean by "game balance"?

That the party is equal to the encounters they face in an adventure.

That each member is as able to shine as any other.

That the party has a chance to win.

No, the party should not always be equal to the encounters. Some they sould go through with almost no challenge and others should be beyond their ability. I like a mixture of encounters, most range in the middle but the extremes do happen.

Each member being able to shine is more of a player DM thing, then game balance. An average player can usually make their Character shine every now and again, and a good DM can help feature everyone.

Everyone always has a chance to win, they may paint themselves into a corner and never have a chance after that, but I think they should have an initial chance.

But Game Balance is mainly between the DM and the PCs, it's up to them to really figure out what is needed and what isn't.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Does fairness have to be dictated by the rules? Couldn't the GM and players handle it? Is it an in-game or a metagame concern?

It's a lot easier if the balance/fairness is dictated by the rules. The DM shouldn't have to worry about balancing the PCs along with everything else that the DM has to do.

Geoff.