Mythus Mage started made a comment that I commented on.  He commented that it deserved a thread.  Since we can't fork here, I'm starting a new thread.

Here are the original posts:
Quote:
                                                 Originally Posted by Nicephorus
                 There are levels of balance. If one character is as powerful as any two others, then that can create issues; others feel lame because their decisions are less important. If one class/template/build is markedly better than others, then everyone wants to play it, reducing variety. If its markedly worse, no one wants to play it, also reducing variety. If success/failure is determined by one particular mechanic or character aspect, then the others become mostly a waste of time.

The issue is, once some people start aiming for balance, they don't when to stop. they wind up micro-engineering everything to be 100% level. I've seen people who desing their own stuff who continuously scrap everything because its not perfect; every week would be new chargen and 30 minutes of play.
                                 
 

Quote from: Mythus Mage(These forums could use the thread forking feature available over at Circvs Maximvs)

Your point deserves more than a quick, cursory response. The question of how to allow participation by all in an unbalanced game requires a comprehensive answer. Guess we'll have to start a new thread.

I suspect that Mythus mage and I might be close in opinion.  In my original post I said can cause problems, not will cause problems.  It depends on the style of game and style of players and the sort of imbalance.

First of all, I think it's a trap to try to care too much about balance, perfectly balance for one setup/situation is off balance for others; you can never balance everything.  But designers should care about design elements that cause gross imbalances.  For example, the megadamage rules in Rifts mean that if your character can't deal and absorb megadamage, they suck.  The first time they meet something that can deal megadamage, they are either going to die or spend their time hiding.  If a character didn't realize this and got sucked in by the flavor text of a cool sounding but useless class, they are likely to be frustrated.  The AD&D thief gets pretty useless and mid to high levels because most DMs don't allow backstabs very often and the mage can do all the sneaky movement stuff better with a few fairly low level spells.

Secondly, it depends on if the game revolves heavily around one domain or whether multiple domains come into play.  Many games are dominated by combat, if a character can't deal and take damage, they're either going to die or spend all their time in the back wishing they could do something.  But if a game deals with more than one sort of thing, it's fine for a given character to suck at combat as they'll get to shine in other things.  This can be a very good setup as players have moments of being the underdog and of being the superstar so they get a wider range of roleplaying.

Thirdly some games depend on a superior character.  What kind of timelord can't out perform a normal human?  It's still quite possible to roleplay without being the best at something, you can be the pithy servant, the crazed henchman, the beautiful but useless actor, etc.  But it can be tricky to pull off this sort of game.  Some players like semi-competitive play and aren't going to like taking a back seat most of the time.  This setup also isn't likely to work for a dungeon crawl or straight combat game as it will boil down to the superior character doing everything.  For a mystery or plot heavy game, power level is less important.

In short, I think balance is very important to the exent that everyone needs to feel like they can do their thing without getting overshadowed - this is important both at the game design level (avoiding wildly off mechanics) and the adventure writing level (giving each character their screen time).  Detailed calculations of power level aren't likely to help though.

Quote from: NicephorusIt's still quite possible to roleplay without being the best at something, you can be the pithy servant, the crazed henchman, the beautiful but useless actor, etc.  But it can be tricky to pull off this sort of game.

In Thirty by John Wick, each PC in the same company of knights is "The Best" in one of the five attributes (Strength, Prowess, Knowledge, Fortitude, Honor), and that character alone may have Rank 5 in it...

I must confess I haven't been able to think of anything to say on the subject, otherwise I'd have started something before this. Thank you for taking the initiative.

On narrow focus games, I agree. When you can think of only one thing to do in an RPG it will limit what you can do. By concentrating on war, romance, storytelling you'll find yourself forgetting about everything else that could go on in a session to the detriment of the experience.

Even then the situation is so open-ended and so dynamic that any attempt at balance is a lost cause. If the other characters are better than your's in one area, find another in which he can shine. If the opposition so outclasses you a straight up confrontation is suicide, find another way to beat him. A system works best when it encourages a variety of approaches to a dilemma. In my experience balance stifles creativity and discourages anything but the 'proper" approach.

(Wait until you hear my rant about the current tourney scenario paradigm. )

And here's a bit of advice for you "party balance is king" types, never force a player to participate beyond a level he is comfortable with.

I don't mind a narrow focus on games, its all good as long as you get player buy-in for the game.  If you're playing some indie game where all the PCs are bounty hunters in the old west and everyone thinks that sounds fun, then it doesn't bother me that the rules don't cover much beyond bounty hunting in the old west.

Game balance shouldn't be about exact abilities, it should be about Camera Time and each character getting to do 'their thing'.  Whatever that is.  It doesn't matter if Dave can kill anything he spits at and Steve can't if Steve can hack through any computer system, so long as the game gives time to both killing things and hacking computer systems.  I take character focus as a way the player communicates with the GM.  Dave is clearly saying "I think it would be cool to kill lots of guys" and Steve is saying "I would have fun hacking into computers in game".  So a game where you have to kill some guys then hack into their computer would be the kind of thing these guys would enjoy.

Quote from: mythusmageEven then the situation is so open-ended and so dynamic that any attempt at balance is a lost cause. If the other characters are better than your's in one area, find another in which he can shine.

The problem is when the mechanics are so out of whack that one character/class outshines the others in all domains or a class is consistently outshined by someone else in every domain.  For example, the AD&D thief is inferior at thieving to a magic user, cannot fight as well as a even a cleric, and doesn't have very many skills that they stand out in.

Quote from: MaddmanGame balance shouldn't be about exact abilities, it should be about Camera Time and each character getting to do 'their thing'.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.  That's why I think balance is as much an issue with adventure writing and GMing as game design.  During the campaign setup, the gm needs to either look at what people have and point the game that way or let people know what sorts of characters would work well.  If someone creates a master chef character, the gm needs to let the player know if they don't think there will be many opportunities to shine in the dungeon crawl.

Anecdote:  In an AD&D campaign, I tried playing a druid for the first time.  Before I did this, the DM assured me that we'd be in forests quite a bit.  Well, he was; mistaken, it was mostly dungeon crawls and a time in a featureless desert.  In 6 months, I had 2 opportunities to use entangle.  I always felt underpowered in that game.  But it turned out ok as I made the character a bit goofy.  He started really liking animals and doing strange stuff - he became the most memorable part of the campaign.