I used to say that I didn't believe that balance existed, and I'm still skeptical.

However, when I think of balance now, I definitely don't mean that every character is equally good at the same things like combat, which is a terrible notion that leads to boring games.

Now I mean that every major option for action within the game should have roughly the appropriate cost (point or "opportunity") it needs to to be fair. If the game's about fighting, magic and stealing equally, then those three things should cost roughly the same.

But even here, I'm not that firm in my position- even though I use words like "should". I don't think that real life is balanced, and if you need or want it in a game, you should at least do your best to hide it.

Quote from: baragei;679783Some people are better at some things than others. Some people will be absolutely worthless in certain situations...Trying to scale a sheer surface using your "Air Guitar"-skill and a fatepoint simply isn't going to work.

These quotes express perfectly why I don't like Fate. Mind if I sig them?

Quote from: Monster Manuel;679932These quotes express perfectly why I don't like Fate. Mind if I sig them?

As a Fate player... yeah, "air-guitar" doesn't let you scale cliffs.  I don't care how many Fate Points you throw at me.

I didn't mean it as an attack on Fate, specifically. Feel free to substitute fatepoint with heropoint, luck, narrative control or whatever.
The point I was trying to get across was that unless a character possess an actual talent to deal with a situation, the situation is going to be dealt with poorly. No matter how well all the other characters deal with it.

And MM, if you feel I'm siggable, feel free:)

Quote from: baragei;679948I didn't mean it as an attack on Fate, specifically. Feel free to substitute fatepoint with heropoint, luck, narrative control or whatever.
The point I was trying to get across was that unless a character possess an actual talent to deal with a situation, the situation is going to be dealt with poorly. No matter how well all the other characters deal with it.

And MM, if you feel I'm siggable, feel free:)

Attack Fate all you like  I won't "defend" it, though I will point out inaccuracies.  I can think of lots of reasons that a lot of people *wouldn't* like Fate, and I'm not going to try to convince people that their tastes are "wrong".

And yeah - any game that lets you use air guitar to climb a cliff, or the like, I have serious issues with.

Quote from: robiswrong;679950Attack Fate all you like  I won't "defend" it, though I will point out inaccuracies.  I can think of lots of reasons that a lot of people *wouldn't* like Fate, and I'm not going to try to convince people that their tastes are "wrong".

And yeah - any game that lets you use air guitar to climb a cliff, or the like, I have serious issues with.

So maybe my bringing up Fate was a low blow, but it's a problem I have with any game with mechanics that rely on convincing the GM that an ability is applicable. While the air guitar example is extreme and unlikely, different GMs will allow different aspects to apply in the same situation. This makes it feel like it doesn't really matter what your abilities are, especially when they do the same thing by default, such as giving a set bonus to a roll. I know Fate has emphasized invoking for effect recently, and has a new rule wherein an aspect is always on, but it doesn't feel like enough to me.

It's all subjective, of course.

Quote from: soviet;679747'I want to play a characterful elf with a cool longbow, but by the rules crossbows are way more effective so I'm more likely to be alive at the end of the session'. A system that introduces this situation is in effect punishing good or verisimilitudinous(?) roleplaying. Or 'I want to play a fighter because fighters are cool but once we get to level ten I'm worried I will just be a henchman to the casters'. A system that does this is in effect punishing certain archetypal choices for no good reason.

Sometimes when people rail against game balance what they are really railing against is game balance done badly or in a way they don't like.

If it was a game that actually reflected both the bonuses and penalties of the Longbow, Shortbow, and different crossbows in certain situations there wouldn't be a clear best answer.  If a player wants to be a Legolas, but decides not to because a crossbow is better in every single way then.
1. He's not a good roleplayer, period.
2. The rules are fucked concerning Bow v. Crossbow.

You see, in most things, there aren't clear best winners.  If you make the game model that appropriately, there is no need for balance, there is accuracy within the suspension of disbelief.

Take Middle Earth, Third Age before the Ring War.  I allowed players to attempt to roll for a Noldor if they wanted to, Noldor kicked ass, but were unbelievably rare.  One guy did make an unbelievable roll to make a Noldor, and statwise he kicked ass.  He also died fairly quickly due to his own arrogance, and the woodsman from the Mirkwood became the hero of the day, and really, of that campaign.

You make shit accurate and play it accurately, balance handles itself.

Now obviously if you're talking about a competitive game or a game where people are going to be playing publicly or privately against each other, you can't count on a GM and players worth the price of their corpses so you have to cook balance in, which is why a ton of new games suck zombie ass.

Why does it suck, because it's really hard to design a system that has as its primary focus something other then roleplaying and then make it work with roleplaying, as 4e was the textbook example of.

I think it comes down to how much game you like in your pretend play. If one likes a strong game element, then it should be balanced. Very few people want to play chess with white having 1 king and the rest pawns versus a full standard black side. However, if one wants very little game and a lot of let's pretend, then mechanics should be very light, if there at all. If one is trying to play a game of simulation, then social pressures will become more an issue of what someone can do than mechanical game stats. Most people like a mixture of game mechanics, make believe, and simulation.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;679957So maybe my bringing up Fate was a low blow, but it's a problem I have with any game with mechanics that rely on convincing the GM that an ability is applicable.

In most cases, the ability that should be used is pretty clear, and you use that.  The freedom is in deciding *how* you overcome an obstacle.  It's no different than having a locked door that can either be picked or broken down.  You're not using your strength to pick locks, you're using it to knock down the door.

At that level, it's not much different than adjudicating "off-label" uses of spells, or even things like illusions.

At any rate, I'm happy to talk about Fate more, especially as I think you've conflated a few things incorrectly, but we should probably move it to Other Games as I think this board has officially declared Fate to be Not An RPG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679964You make shit accurate and play it accurately, balance handles itself.

Even better is if your game makes "bow vs. crossbow" a game-time decision rather than a build-time decision.  Now you get to make that decision a lot, and balance becomes even less important.

Quote from: ptingler;679976Most people like a mixture of game mechanics, make believe, and simulation.

Also, balance isn't binary, and isn't a choice between perfect balance and utter imbalance.

You can say you want a game that's more balanced than "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit" without requiring that everybody be within 1% of each other's potential.

It's also a question of how much importance you want to place on the char build/charop minigame.

Quote from: elfandghost;679739Should there be game balance at all? And if so, should it be mechanical (within the rules); through role-playing (cultural differences) and/or through the GM?

Depends on what you mean by "game balance". In The Many Types of Balance I lay out three distinct types of game balance in RPGs: Concept balance, naturalistic balance, and spotlight balance.

In general, the rules of a game should be striving to achieve balance. (Although the balancing act between different types of balance can be difficult.) But it's both impossible and undesirable to leave the GM out of the equation: The scenarios they run (and the way they run them) makes any GM a co-designer of the game in practice.

With that being said, "balance through roleplay" doesn't actually exist. What you're actually saying is either that there isn't any balance (and the players are simply going to avoid exploiting that fact) or that the GM is responsible for the balance.

Quote from: elfandghost;679739Following on from this thread .

Should there be game balance at all? And if so, should it be mechanical (within the rules); through role-playing (cultural differences) and/or through the GM?

To me its an indicator that a game is more concerned with system than versimilitude. In the game, unless all you do is go from 1 combat to the next, I think the entire concept is meaningless. I'd rather, as a GM, get to know my players and what game elements "pushes their buttons", then make sure I provide opportunities for each player to shine or indulge per session.

Every person and each game group that gathers together to play will have different ideas about what constitutes balance. It is therefore nigh impossible for it to be contained in any published product.

Roleplaying games are social activities and the enjoyment obtained from them will depend on the quality of social interaction with other members of the group.

No game with such a large social component required for providing entertainment can be inherently balanced. There will be some groups that will need to make adjustments to find the perfect balance, even using a system that all agree is the very best one for the group.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679988Roleplaying games are social activities and the enjoyment obtained from them will depend on the quality of social interaction with other members of the group.

I think this is actually a key point.  Balance is irrelevant if the players are all enjoying the game and having fun at the activity.  The real issues with balance crop up when an area of focus is what players define as being the main point of fun in the game, and that some people are locked out.  So if the point of your game is enjoyable combats, it can be annoying to be the 3rd level thief next to the 10th level Fighter and 15th level Mage.  But if the game is working so everybody has things to do that are fun and the table interaction is good then the issue will never come up.

And too tight of a focus on balance can easily make a game less fun.

I think the problem with TOO much focus on game balance is that balance relies on every table playing the same.

I think though, that some amount of time should be taken to make sure the game isn't completely off its rockers.

I'm more of a "I want everyone to be able to contribute in SOME way in most situations, no matter how small" combined with "I want characters to get to have their spotlight as well."

The thing is, part of this just relies on the GM. If one person is playing a pilot and one person is playing a beatdown fighter and one person is playing a socialite, and the game never has fights (dogfights or man to man), then the socialite is probably getting all the spotlight. The pilot and fighter can probably contribute some, but they aren't getting to have their time to shine.

Basically, balance is more based on the challenges presented than the system itself. BUT there can still be balance issues. If certain tricks of character building let one person take the spotlight in almost every type of situation and be better at it than almost everyone else, you might have a problem for instance.

Quote from: elfandghost;679746Further, doesn't mechanical (that is in game balance), suggest that the game is individual; that each player is against the other or at the least competitive rather than being in unison?

Nope, just the opposite in fact. In an imbalanced game, you end up with one or two players dominating the mechanical elements of play. AD&D is a prime example of it where past around 10th-level, clerics, druids and wizards can do everything that any other class can do, only better. Great fun fro the cleric, druid and wizard players, not so fun for everyone else.

In a balanced game you NEED other people because your character can't be min-maxed and fulfil every needed role.

The irony of people who support imbalance is that they're the very same people who will decry min/maxing and in the same breath say that the system is an important factor in roleplaying. They don't even understand their own opinions.

What's worse is that having a balanced system wouldn't effect them or their enjoyment of a game in the slightest and yet they'll shove the superiority of their imbalanced systems and playstyles down your throat as if they're the holy grail of gaming.

Oh, and btw, 4e is nowhere even remotely close to being balanced. When I can create a 1st-level character that could solo a 5th-level dungeon and yet someone else could create a 1st-level character that couldn't handle even a 1st-level dungeon in a party of five, then the system is so far from balanced it's hilarious.