And what is game balance?

Two characers built on the same points for the same purpose, but different methods to achieve that purpose have the same chance against each other?

All characters have meaningful choices to make that will have the same influence on the game, provided a neutral GM?

All characters are equally useful at various times?


I ask this because I've found that my system doesn't meet the first, and may or may not meet the second two. I'm determined to finish this, but I lack some nessasary knowledge.

Also, how do you learn stuff like this? I got this far in learning RPG design by making lots of bad RPGs and figuring out where they are bad.

Basically, how do you achieve 'Game balance' and what is it?

Thanks for any and all help.

I've never concerned myself with RAW game balance as RPG rules really can't be balanced in any meaningful way unless they are little more than board wargame rules for a specific setting and scenario. Only campaigns (a GM's setting, style, and implementation of a set of RPG rules) can realistically be balanced. Game rules that are "balanced" in campaigns the designer runs may be wildly unbalancing in a different campaign setting or with a different group of players who use the rules in a way the designer and the groups he played with never imagined.

It's a GMing thing rather than a rules thing, to a large extent. I mean, if the rules let one PC start off as the equivalent of a demi-god, while a second ends up as a particularly ignorant example of a shit shoveller, then unless it's a game played purely for laughs it's unbalanced. But few if any games fall into that extreme.

In most campaigns, the brains of the individual player are more important than their character's on paper capabilities. A smart player whose character has skills of (say) 10-12 on a 3-18 scale can, with good roleplaying and some smart ideas, gather and command an army and defeat another - while the less imaginative player whose character's skills are 15-16 will just be along for the ride.

And this is as it should be, since we have a social creative hobby, both sociability and creativity ought to be rewarded in play.

IMO "game balance" is overated . I mean as long as players are having fun who really cares if they are all not contributing equally or under the spotlight for the same amount of time. Meaningful choices varies from one character to the next. And as for useful...a player could be very entertaining and provide support to the group even if said support is not reflected mechanically.

Regards,
David R

Hmm...That's three for three.

Thanks, that helps sort my thoughts. Given those opinions, I won't be going for strict mechanical balance, then. What you've said so far makes sense.

Quote from: David R;253877as long as players are having fun who really cares if they are all not contributing equally or under the spotlight for the same amount of time.

That's why I say it's a GMing thing. Each player ought to be able to contribute to the degree they're comfortable with; but the GM must balance the group as a whole.

The example I always bring up was in one campaign, I had one very quiet player - a lovely guy, very warm, but quiet. Once he arrived early, and sat down next to me and we chatted a bit. Then a second player arrived and sat opposite me and this one was much more talkative and basically dominated the conversation. I thought about it for a few days afterwards - if you sit around a game table, the most active players tend to sit opposite the GM, they need the space. The less active, more reactive or passive players, they tend to sit beside the GM, almost for comfort.

Whenever you speak, you look at and address the individual you're addressing. But if you're talking to a group, you tend to look the most at the person directly in front of you, and not so much at the person beside you. And when the GM finishes speaking they usually expect a response - and responses are more likely to come from someone who had eye contact with you as you finished.

So in sitting opposite the GM, the active player gets more attention; in sitting beside them, the reactive or passive player gets forgotten. It amplifies what's already happening.

I said to the quieter guy, "you don't speak up a lot, but when you do always have useful and interesting things to say - I'd like to hear more from you, and [I explained the above reasoning] so perhaps we could rearrange the table a bit, and you sit opposite me during the session, we'll put the noisy players beside me, maybe that'll balance things out a bit."

He agreed and it worked. As 25% of the group he didn't go to 25% of the game time, but he did rise from perhaps 1% to 5 or 10%. He was happy with a smaller than fair share, he didn't want it to be completely even since he was naturally a quiet guy. But he was happier being drawn a bit more into the events and discussions of the game session.

I think that's an important part of the GM's role, to make sure everyone has a turn, and gets to contribute as much as they're comfortable with. And to do this sometimes you have to quiet down the noisy players a bit and encourage the quieter ones to speak up.

I don't even attempt to balance a game. I prefer to create self-balancing systems whenever feasible. When it isn't feasible, I let it go to the group level. If groups are concerned with balance, they'll come up with social mechanisms to do so. If the group is not concerned with balance, I would never stand in their way. Any attempt to prevent abuse by game mechanics will limit use as well. I prefer to let people do what they want. They bought the game after all, so they should be the judges of what is proper in their game group. Their knowledge of their game group trumps my knowledge of mechanics every time.

-clash

Balance is a myth, what you really need is fair story share and meaningful contributions to accomplishments.

The best balanced Wargame I ever saw was painfully dull because it had a strong tendancy to wind up with on figure out of a couple hundred standing in the middle of the table.

Thanks for the opinions and experience.

I'm happily back to designing multitudes of ways for the PCs to hack enemies apart. So, I leave you with snippets.

Flaming Dragon Ascends: Tick +0, Cone +0 (27), To-Hit, Sword +10 (52), Damage, Flaming, Sword +4 (21). Cost 90 cp. - Attack everything in a cone-shaped area. Only works with a sword.

Dirty Rat Poker: Standard Movement -4, Stealth +3 (17). Tick +0, To-Hit, Daggers/Knives +7 (21), Damage, Daggers/Knives +0. Cost 38 cp. - Sneaky, Sneaky, Stabby, Stabby.

Crescendo: Once per Day. Chain x3 (52): Tick +0, -6, -9, To-Hit +0, +6, +9, To-Hit vs. Hard Armor +2, +8, +11 (6), Damage +0, +6, +9, Damage vs. Hard Armor +2, +8, +11 (6). Cost 64 cp. - First you hit them, then you hit them again with a bonus, then you hit them again with a bigger bonus. And each hit happens faster. May be underpowered.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;253886That's why I say it's a GMing thing. Each player ought to be able to contribute to the degree they're comfortable with; but the GM must balance the group as a whole.
I think that's an important part of the GM's role, to make sure everyone has a turn, and gets to contribute as much as they're comfortable with. And to do this sometimes you have to quiet down the noisy players a bit and encourage the quieter ones to speak up.

Very true (you nicely explanied the GM's part of the process) but I also think that the other players also have a role to play in this process . I mean it is a group activity after all.

Four of my players are new - each joining the group at different times - and although they are not the introverted types, it gets difficult when you are in a new group, unsure of exactly what is happening , trying to figure out how to role play (and worried that you're making an ass of yourself in front of total strangers) and there's a whole lot of activity going on.

Before a new player joins us, I remind the group to tone it down a little and at least for the first few sessions pay more attention to the new guy (girl)...you know try to engage the player and make the experience less overwhelming. Sooner than later the new player establshes a rhythm of her own and everything sort of evens out.

The GM's has an important role to play in this but I sometimes think that the way how established players behave is overlooked. This not only applies to new players but the way how their individual actions affect others generally, be it disruptive behaviour, spotlight hogging etc. A group of people sitting around for a couple of hours (maybe more) should realize that how they behave determines the way how the group functions and has fun.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmice;253905I don't even attempt to balance a game. I prefer to create self-balancing systems whenever feasible. When it isn't feasible, I let it go to the group level. If groups are concerned with balance, they'll come up with social mechanisms to do so. If the group is not concerned with balance, I would never stand in their way. Any attempt to prevent abuse by game mechanics will limit use as well. I prefer to let people do what they want. They bought the game after all, so they should be the judges of what is proper in their game group. Their knowledge of their game group trumps my knowledge of mechanics every time.

-clash

In one definition, I do this as well. However, in the sense of purely mechanical balance (a .22 cal pistol kills a rhino while a .50 elephant rifle does nothing) is a function of:
1. Verisimilitude: Does it fit the setting? Does the rule work universally? This is the introspection I go over in reviewing whether I want a rule to go in the core or as part of the supplement. Most of the time, very little is (in fact I could not think of one right now) tied only to the setting. This is my preference as I prefer having a universal system that can be moved between genre and setting with ease.

2. Play test: I get the crap beat out of me by some of my play testers. They are merciless and it helps.

Between those two it makes for a good "balanced" game. For me, game balance is not about "every PC should be able to face any monster and have a shot at killing it". PCs die by the boatload because of this preconception. I call it the "DND Mindset". For me, game balance is a combination of things:
1. Internal consistency: Not universal rules but do all the systems and subsystems work together? Yes, then we are getting somewhere.
2. Stronger to weaker hierarchy: Does a 2-handed sword do more damage than a dagger? Is the guy with an 18 STR stronger than the guy with a 3 STR? Dovetailed with one this makes for a system that people can grasp intuitively and view as balanced.

However, I fully admit that this could all be my own bizarro view of Game balance.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;253962In one definition, I do this as well. However, in the sense of purely mechanical balance (a .22 cal pistol kills a rhino while a .50 elephant rifle does nothing) is a function of:
1. Verisimilitude: Does it fit the setting? Does the rule work universally? This is the introspection I go over in reviewing whether I want a rule to go in the core or as part of the supplement. Most of the time, very little is (in fact I could not think of one right now) tied only to the setting. This is my preference as I prefer having a universal system that can be moved between genre and setting with ease.

I usually go to some lengths to customize my system to the setting. That's why I've never released a core system book. When I do, it'll be as a toolkit to fit the system to as setting rather than a static ruleset.

Quote2. Play test: I get the crap beat out of me by some of my play testers. They are merciless and it helps.

100%! There is no substitute for rigorous testing.

QuoteBetween those two it makes for a good "balanced" game. For me, game balance is not about "every PC should be able to face any monster and have a shot at killing it". PCs die by the boatload because of this preconception. I call it the "DND Mindset". For me, game balance is a combination of things:
1. Internal consistency: Not universal rules but do all the systems and subsystems work together? Yes, then we are getting somewhere.
2. Stronger to weaker hierarchy: Does a 2-handed sword do more damage than a dagger? Is the guy with an 18 STR stronger than the guy with a 3 STR? Dovetailed with one this makes for a system that people can grasp intuitively and view as balanced.

However, I fully admit that this could all be my own bizarro view of Game balance.

Bill

Probably! I don't know as this is game balance at all, Bill, but it is good advice.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;253966I usually go to some lengths to customize my system to the setting. That's why I've never released a core system book. When I do, it'll be as a toolkit to fit the system to as setting rather than a static ruleset.

See, this is always a touchy point for me. Do you really make rules that cannot be used in other settings or as universal rules?

The argument that I usually see for this is the Laser Rifle skill in a Victorian setting. To me, this is not linking the rules to the setting but making what I call internal extensions. That is to say, you have a skill system and you are supplying the skills to the setting.

Quote from: flyingmice;253966100%! There is no substitute for rigorous testing.



Probably! I don't know as this is game balance at all, Bill, but it is good advice.

-clash

I will agree. I was struggling to come up with what I think Game Balance is as I do not really think about it much. Any traditional definition strikes me as artificial.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;254050See, this is always a touchy point for me. Do you really make rules that cannot be used in other settings or as universal rules?

The argument that I usually see for this is the Laser Rifle skill in a Victorian setting. To me, this is not linking the rules to the setting but making what I call internal extensions. That is to say, you have a skill system and you are supplying the skills to the setting.

Bill

I never do anything that cannot be used in other settings or as universal rules, but there are rules I wouldn't use in other settings. Example - Magic exists in Book of Jalan and in Blood Games. There is one universal mechanic for magic in BoJ which all types of spellcasters use, and many very different mechanics for magic in BG, each one ideosyncratic to one type of spellcaster, and nothing in BG works like it does in BoJ. Why? Because it fit the settings better to do it that way. I could have made them the same, but the feel of different mechanics for different magics is right for BG and wrong for BoJ.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;254061I never do anything that cannot be used in other settings or as universal rules, but there are rules I wouldn't use in other settings. Example - Magic exists in Book of Jalan and in Blood Games. There is one universal mechanic for magic in BoJ which all types of spellcasters use, and many very different mechanics for magic in BG, each one ideosyncratic to one type of spellcaster, and nothing in BG works like it does in BoJ. Why? Because it fit the settings better to do it that way. I could have made them the same, but the feel of different mechanics for different magics is right for BG and wrong for BoJ.

-clash

But are they different mechanics? And that still would not mean that those mechanics could not be reused. This is what I mean by the difference between setting and system. System is "You throw X dice, add them" while setting would be "The spell only works with the blood of the target". Perhaps a meaningless distinction but you know I am not a system guy.

Bill