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

[ichabod]

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.

Neither of the first two is necessarily game balance. In an RPG, what encounters the party faces rarely have anything to do with the mechanical aspects of the game. Whether all characters can shine or not, even if supported by the game mechanics, can easily be subverted by the DM. Finally, you don't win RPGs.

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

All games have to be balanced. If they are not balanced, they are not interesting to play. Some games are balanced differently than other games, but all games need to be balanced.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmm..

..interesting question, especially as it can be tackled from so many angles.

For me personally, as DM, I don't really need to have game balance inscribed in depth into any game system. As others already said, it is a matter of me as DM and the interaction with the party to balance out encounters of the most different kinds between the characters. It's a bit of being flexible and having a creative mind, but hey...we're on ENWorld, who am I talking to?

On the other hand, some game systems rely pretty much on distributing experience following tables or formulas, and through this, characters gain abilities. The more exact that amount of experience can be quantified in rule terms, the better. A game system that carefully balances out the classes against each other will manage to make all classes rise at approximately the same speed, to keep all players happy.

 

[Darklone]

I am with the "Depends on the players and DM" fraction. Storytelling RPGs don't need balance... so the more you go by the rules, the more balance is needed... the more the players simply play by the rules, the less they need RPing... And the more they need balance if they want to be equal. If they do want that.

 

[Psion]

Question: Is game balance really necessary in an RPG?

That is a very multifaceted question.

My take: Balance of some sort is necessary, but taken too far, the point is lost and it becomes teatotalling.

There are a number of practical concerns when it comes to the actual importance of balance in the game, but of the ones I am about to list, I think the first two are the most important:

1) Player rivalry:

The fact is that players generally don't like playing second fiddle, so the general trend in games like D&D is to give players approximately the same ability to influence the outcome of the game. The player's sensitivity to this varies from group to group and player to player, and often varies by situation. If one player wields a lot more power in the game than another, it may be perceived as being "unfair." This is a worthwhile consideration, as if the players get into this mindset, the game won't be as fun for them.

Sometimes it is possible to run a game with disparate power. If the players are mature, often you can get away with disparate measures of power if each of the characters has their own specialty and don't have their niches invaded. However, this tactic only works so far, as there are only so many niches, and most characters in D&D have combat as part of their niche.

2) Challenge and Playability:

This is primarily a combat consideration, but can apply to other activities as well. If you have a party with 5th level characters alongside 10th level characters, it can be difficult to create an encounter that will challenge the 10th level characters and at the same time not kill the 5th level characters without doing a lot of behind-the-screen fudging. It is a lot easier to balance encounters so that players feel challenged but the mortality is limited if the levels of power of the PCs are similar.

3) Game definitions:

This is perhaps of lesser importance, but it is still one that many third party publishers stomp all over. Some people have the attitude that "it's okay to make my class/spell/feat uber-powerful if I only allow NPCs to use it, since the DM can control such characters and could throw anything he wants at the players anyways." That's fine in theory, but in practice if you do this you are undermining the utility of levels and other game definition as tools to manage the game. If the DM has it in his head that an 8th level PC is challengeable by the party but should be able to beat it, but he uses this uber prestige class that is about twice as effective as a normal class, the DM AND the players are in for a rude surprise.

4) Role Utility and Variety:

Finally, balance plays a role in the shape of the game. If race A is superior to race B (or class A than class B, or feats, or spells, etc.), then choice A will naturally be a preferable general choice for players. This is okay if that is what you want (see Ars Magica), but if you want to see a variety of different character choices, then it behooves you to make all choices somewhat similar in attractiveness to players. It is for this reason I sort of don't like spells like magic missile, fireball, invisibility, and haste: they are so good for their level that they are too common to the point of staleness.

 

[MTR]

mythusmage, I think you need to define your terms better. "Balanced" with respect to what? And by "game" do you mean a published rule set or an actual session of play?

I get the feeling you're looking for a "right" answer that nobody has given you yet. Stop playing Socratic professor and fess up.

 

[bret]

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.

I'll take an example from one of my favorite RPGs (GURPS) to answer this.

GURPS is not balanced. By this, I mean that how useful 8 points in a certain skill depends heavily on the setting and the skill chosen.

In a TL7 (modern era) game, 8 points in broadsword just isn't going to be as generally useful as 8 points in Guns: Pistol. If there is any combat, the person with the gun is generally going to be more useful and effective than the person with the broadsword.

In a TL2 (Roman Empire) world without anyplace to make ammo, the person who put points into broadsword is generally going to be more effective in combat.

If instead you put the points into something like Diplomacy, it is going to depend on how important combat ability vs. interaction is in a game.

If people have to be able to support themselves, it is quite possible that putting the points into something like Carpentry or Computer Programming is going to be more useful than any of the previously mentioned options.

You are spending the same 8 points to create a character. Since it is a classless system, anyone could take the skills (with GM approval). Some skills are just more useful than others. Provided everyone has the same opportunity to buy/learn those skills, this is still fair. It just isn't balanced.


Like in the real world, there are just some things that are more effective than other things.



To further the point, I've played in a game where my 200 pt GURPS Mage (who was focused on Divinations and Healing rather than combat) was not a problem. Since I had about the same level of protection as most of the other players, I was at equal risk in combat. When it came to combat, we has some 100 pt. melee characters that were more effective than my mage. That wasn't really a problem, because I was useful enough to the group in other ways that it was worth it for the group to bring me along.

My mage still got time in the spotlight. My mage wasn't able to overwhelm the combat abilities of a character made with many fewer points. It wasn't even a problem for the GM to balance combats and other challenges.

On the other hand, it did become a problem for the GM to judge combat difficulty in that game when on of the players got Plate Mail while all the other characters were trying to get by with light armor. All of the sudden, anything that could hurt that character would be a one-hit kill on many of the other characters. In the case of several characters, we didn't have enough strength to be able to wear that heavy of armor. In other cases, we just plain couldn't afford that type of armor.

The significant thing in my opinion is there was too large a disparity in what sort of challenges various members of the group could survive. Suddenly, one of the characters became nearly invulnerable compared to others in the same group to a certain type of challenge.


To carry this into a system like D&D, given one player a lone 10th level Sorcerer with no offensive combat spells is not going to be fair when you have the rest of the group at 1st - 2nd level. The character has a better combat ability (hit points, BAB, saving throws, equipment) and is able to survive just about anything that the other characters could. It isn't that the character doesn't have anything unique to them, it is just that the character would overshadow every other character in the group.

There is a fairly large problem in D&D when character levels get spread out too much. It becomes difficult to even protect a low level character well enough that they could survive the challenges that higher level characters are meeting. Look up any thread about Leadership feat, you don't take those 1st and 2nd level followers with you anyplace that is risky.


Does this better illustrate what I mean when I say a game has to be fair but doesn't have to be balanced?

Edit: Some Grammer and one of my comparisons had a cut and paste error, making it silly.

 

[Maerdwyn]

Bret , I think I must have been unclear - I don't think we disagree. I definitely see many games as unbalanced (including some of my favorites, such as Ars Magica), but those that are unbalanced depend on their players and GMs to make them fair to everyone.

I just believe that that "fairness" is completely separate from the game, but rather, an aspect of the players' and Gm's personalities and the group dynamic.

IMO, the less balanced a game's rules, the more direct attempts at fairness must be displayed by those involved with it in order to make playing the game fun for all.

 

[Berandor]

I believe the more rules-oriented the system is, the more important game balance is.

In D&D, alsmost every ability is measured in bonuses and penalties. It is a level-based sytem, making it very easy to measure power and abilities.

In order to have a fun game, each player should feel that he adds a significant portion to the story, and should get about an equal amount of spotlight (which what game balance truly should mean, not rules-oriented balance as I understand it).

If someone regularlly outshines all the rest, and the others know that they are worse no matter what (judging from the bonuses), then they tend to lose fun, because the other guy can do it anyway. Encounters in D&D are mostly based on the numbers, and a better character will remain so and be obviously superior most of the time.

However, in a more free-form way of playing, it is easier to judge a acharacter apart from his actual numbers. In a game that focuses on drama and storytelling, not on combat, balanced rules aren't as important,, because even the one-eyed badger can uncover the crime.

A good example is "Buffy: the RPG", where there are three different levels of characters, and these are no where near balanced with regard to each other. Still, I would think you can have a great fun game in this system, because the fighting is not the emphasis of the game, and even though one guy is obviously more powerful, it could still be the sidekick who saves the day, and the system is clearly oriented towards such a style of play.

After reviewing this, I see that I mumble incoherently (in germany it's midnight, but still). I will post this and see whether you misunderstand me (if so, I'll clarify), otherwise,

good night.

B

 

[mythusmage]

I think you need to go back and read Meardwyn's message and then consider that, and specifically, look at answering his question.

The rules are a common frame of reference to be used in wide and diverse ways. Since you're using the term 'balance' to refer to several exceedingly different topics, it's hard to answer your question in all but the most broad or extremely specific ways.

That being the nature of an open ended question. The answers you get tell you a lot about the people who give them, and thus can help shape how you set up your arguments for your thesis. (You knew I had an ulterior motive for this.)

Moreover, you need to be more specific about your question. When you ask "Is game balance really necessary in an RPG?", you don't specify the most important part, namely: "necessary for what?"

Do you mean:
•"necessary for everyone to enjoy the game"?
•"necessary for everyone to enjoy the game equally?"
•"necessary to be considered a good example of RPG design?"
•"necessary for the game to fulfill it's intended design purpose?"
•"necessary to facilitate a game with the least amount of effort?"

Yes

Without knowing the actual meaning of the question, any answer you get will be similarly confused. You may have meant the first question, but you got an answer on the assumption of the third.

In general, the rules do not have to be balanced in the sense that each character has a player of equal ability to perform actions within the game, and to be an 'event enabler'. A combination of a good DM and players can overcome the limitations of any RPG's lack of balance. Conversely, no matter how good the ruleset, it can be turned on it's ear by those who play it. Maerdwyn's point, I think, was that you can't point to things like 'challenging encounters' as a sign of balance; it's voodoo. RPGs are an odd hybrid of wargame, simulation and theatre. Trying to pinpoint the quality of a game session based on the underlying system used to present it is folly. Some groups will intentionally play a game without balance, often circumventing established checks and balances within the rules to do so. Leave alone the fact that precious few can agree on how balanced a particular game is. One merely need click to the Rules Forum to see how some things are argued constantly, such as the Harm, Haste, Archer and Ranger debates.

That said, the amount of work a group has to perform to compensate for rules that aren't balanced, IMHO, reflects on it's desirability. If I perceive an imbalance in a game, and my group and I work around it or compensate for it, then I consider that less desirable than a system that doesn't make me do that. But even that doesn't tell you anything, since some groups don't care about that, either.

Not to be maddening but, why do you have to compensate? What sort of compensations are you making?

(I'd expound further, but I'm having an anxiety attack right now, and that interferes with cognition. I shall explain myself soon enow.)

 

[mythusmage]

mythusmage, I think you need to define your terms better. "Balanced" with respect to what? And by "game" do you mean a published rule set or an actual session of play?

I get the feeling you're looking for a "right" answer that nobody has given you yet. Stop playing Socratic professor and fess up.

Sometimes it's possible for a question to be too specific. Consider the questions on an opinion poll sometimes. I'm not looking for the "right" answer, I ask to learn why people think game balance is or is not necessary. I have my preference, which will be revealed in due time.

Where the question of what I mean by "game" is concerned; the question can't apply to both?

I know it's frustrating, but if you can't get in through the front door, try climbing in a window.

Everybody, I've noticed that most everybody pro balanced RPGs has said something having to do with "fairness". Does an RPG have to be fair? What about the RPG being honest?

(BTW, with the exception of Hong (ENWorld's problem child) the responses have been good. Even when I find things to disagree with in them. I knew we could do it.)

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.