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?

There should be a balance, by which I mean that there should be sufficient reason for a player to play. Beyond that, there are many kinds of balance, depending on "where the game is" in a given case.

Quote from: soviet;679747You don't want players put in the dilemma of '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.

Only if both
(A) elves are supposed to be incapable of valuing staying alive over "looking cool" (so carrying a crossbow would be out of character)
and
(B) players consider it "punishment" to do of their own will what's more commonly called "good roleplaying," namely playing the chosen role in keeping with its character.

Quote from: elfandghost;679771In my experience any attempts at balance are futile. That is because a player's own natural 'outgoingness' (charisma if you like) and even intelligence will mean that they get more game time and are more capable than others.

Here we go again, another claim that it's futile to attempt any improvement short of a 'perfection' that is not necessarily desired* in the first place. There's no difference between random crap and thoughtful design at all, eh?

* Some of us actually enjoy games in which we are able to use our intelligence, but that does not mean there is no balance. Fairness -- another word for balance -- does not necessarily mean such equality that we might as well get it over with by tossing a coin instead of actually playing!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680093Can you provide an example of a single roleplaying game that is balanced as written? I want to know what the holy grail is that everyone should be playing.

It doesn't neccessarily need to be perfectly balanced, just not allow one set of abilities to outshine the rest, particularly in combat. The_Rooster is right on this one.

I deal with it by having a few combat skills that can be increased (dodge and weapon use really out of dozens or scores of skills), at which point you're if not equivalent to a tank then you're at least able to get out of a scrap with one. The rest of the options are non combat related. And even tanks can quickly find themselves mobbed and will almost always need to rely on the rest of the group.

Magic is particularly responsible for major imbalances, as has been mentioned upthread - when a low level magic user can cast sleep, charm monster, or even fireball (thousands of cubic feet of blazing death), the main role remaining for everyone else is temporary bodyguard. This is why I prefer a system where even weak monsters like orcs can still present a real danger to mighty knights, as in the case of the dude who cut off Sauron's hand with a broken sword getting shot down by them. That way even the powerful are very rarely islands unto themselves, it helps bind and cohere the group.

This is all seperate from roleplaying considerations of course.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680093Can you provide an example of a single roleplaying game that is balanced as written? I want to know what the holy grail is that everyone should be playing.

I haven't published it yet.

Right now, there is none. Not sure why that means we shouldn't strive for it or let imbalance remain simply because it's an elusive goal.

Players free to choose will tend to identify optimal 'solutions.' If these are present (which assumes some standardization of the 'problems'), then it can easily make for a less interesting game.

Standardization of the 'problems' has gone further in the WotC editions of D&D, for example, than in early RPGs.

Not that they started this trend, mind you: It was certainly necessary to make some assumptions in order to have the "fixed economy" of Champions or GURPS! The former are more explicit (comicbook superheroes), while GURPS or Hero System is more implicit in its 'generic' premises and may take some careful analysis to adapt to a campaign with a different hierarchy of values or a particular set of available goods.

Games will never be balanced because people have different opinions and preferences of what balance means to them.  4e fans say that 4e is incredibly well balanced, but then again, apparently they think 4e is just as lethal as AD&D at low levels.


So if you've already got a big disparity between what people think is equivalent, how can you ever expect everyone to agree what balance is?  Never.  Not for something as complex as a detailed role playing game.  There are simply too many variables at work.

I don't think any significant tabletop RPG is truly balanced.

However, game balance is necessary to some extent, otherwise you get Rifts or 3rd Edition D&D.

Generally game designers should strive for making the most common options for players relevant and not useless/highly situational.

In regards to Dungeons & Dragons, I view game balance between the classes as the primary thing to strive for.

My 2¢.

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?

I just thought I'd add that 'through the GM' is actually my least favourite form of game balance. I have seen systems* where the negative disadvantages were so badly balanced compared to the positive advantages, that I thought the playstyle suggested was clearly that GM was supposed to try to design scenes in the game to specifically target the characters' weaknesses. As GM I'll work in character backgrounds to some extent but I prefer to do so more logically rather than what I'd call GM metagaming. As in, if a PCs background involves certain NPCs or factions I'll work those in, but I don't want to add in scenes where Swimming is a required skill just because the character took the 'Soluble In Water' disadvantage to buy Super Strength, or similar.


*I'm thinking particularly of Golden Open Gaming, an early D20 superhero game

Quote from: The_Rooster;680207I haven't published it yet.

Right now, there is none. Not sure why that means we shouldn't strive for it or let imbalance remain simply because it's an elusive goal.

There are none because it doesn't exist as long as the game is intended to be played by people.

There should be balance in every campaign. It is largely up to the people playing to provide it. You can't print something that will be any kind of satisfactory replacement for social interaction and cooperation.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680300There are none because it doesn't exist as long as the game is intended to be played by people.

There should be balance in every campaign. It is largely up to the people playing to provide it. You can't print something that will be any kind of satisfactory replacement for social interaction and cooperation.

If one class gets superninja powers and can shoot laser beams from its eyes, and the other specialises in rabbit farming and sequin pattern matching, these are obviously not mechanically balanced. This means the concept of balance does exist - players may choose to ignore the imbalance but it still exists. Following on from which is that imbalanced mechanics can be made more even so, which helps players who then don't have to put in the effort.

Of course that brings us round to what we're talking about when we speak of balance. What people usually mean is balance in combat. If your game or setting doesn't feature much combat that particular kind of balance is of little importance since it doesn't take up as much screen time - other forms of balance may then become a factor. So balance can be said to be important to whatever type of activity the game pivots on.

This is a two way street as well, since a heavy mechanical focus on say research, with lots of rules for research, will usually lead the players to engage in lots of research. Games with no insanity mechanics rarely if ever feature insanity.

It's a question which is deeply interleaved at every level of a game's design from premise and setting to character generation. Basically the best idea is to identify the kind of activity the game hinges on and make sure options exist to allow players to hold their own in these areas even if they want to have other mechanical options, or make it such that even a heavily minmaxed character will still need to rely on the group the rest of the time. Personally I prefer a mixture of both.

Again, a group can sidestep the whole question purely by choosing to - a magic user might only take non destructive/offensive spells and might only use their spells in extremis, and in doing so refuse to use 95% of the spells in the book, but good game design should set things up so groups don't have to go down that road in order to enjoy roles outside the iconic ones.

Quote from: The Traveller;680311If one class gets superninja powers and can shoot laser beams from its eyes, and the other specialises in rabbit farming and sequin pattern matching, these are obviously not mechanically balanced. This means the concept of balance does exist - players may choose to ignore the imbalance but it still exists. Following on from which is that imbalanced mechanics can be made more even so, which helps players who then don't have to put in the effort.

Of course that brings us round to what we're talking about when we speak of balance. What people usually mean is balance in combat. If your game or setting doesn't feature much combat that particular kind of balance is of little importance since it doesn't take up as much screen time - other forms of balance may then become a factor. So balance can be said to be important to whatever type of activity the game pivots on.

This is a two way street as well, since a heavy mechanical focus on say research, with lots of rules for research, will usually lead the players to engage in lots of research. Games with no insanity mechanics rarely if ever feature insanity.

It's a question which is deeply interleaved at every level of a game's design from premise and setting to character generation. Basically the best idea is to identify the kind of activity the game hinges on and make sure options exist to allow players to hold their own in these areas even if they want to have other mechanical options, or make it such that even a heavily minmaxed character will still need to rely on the group the rest of the time. Personally I prefer a mixture of both.

Again, a group can sidestep the whole question purely by choosing to - a magic user might only take non destructive/offensive spells and might only use their spells in extremis, and in doing so refuse to use 95% of the spells in the book, but good game design should set things up so groups don't have to go down that road in order to enjoy roles outside the iconic ones.

Thus, balance is largely provided by the people playing.

A ruleset cannot predict the people who will be playing and what is important to them in terms of balance to enjoy the game. There are probably groups still playing 3E, just as there are players of older editions, who continue to play happily and just scratch their heads at the idea that the games they enjoy are horribly broken.

Mechanical balance in the strictest sense, is only required as a mitigation response to the asshole player. All the folks playing those horribly broken games already know the fix, which is don't play with assholes.

If you do something in a social cooperative game to piss on someone elses fun simply because you can, then you are an asshole. If you manage to find a game that prevents you from doing this via mechanical limitations but you would still do it if you could, then you are still an asshole.  Thus, rigid tight constrictive rulesets are not a cure for assholes.

Quote from: Soylent Green;680071I am fond of the old WEG Star Wars. If you look at the templates, in particular the starting equipment and background notes it's clear that the different templates are not created equal neither in practical or dramatic terms.

Choose the bounty hunter and you get tons of useful gear, guns and a health amount of credit. Choose the ewok and you start with a spear and "a collection of shiny objects". I tned to find this blantant disregard for fairness in favour of flavour is important.

The key point is you don't have to play the ewok (or the kid or the loyal retainer) if you don't want to. No one forces you to choose one of those templates so there is no reason to complain that they are underpowered.

The option is there because the Star Wars game is more concerned with genre emulation than MMO style balance issues and because some players enjoy experiencing heroic stories from the point of view of character of less than heroic stature and constant challenge of finding ways to be useful in unorthodox ways.

Mechanically, you're dead wrong.  All those types are built from 18 attribute dice and 7 skill dice.  There are no weapon or armor proficiencies in that system, either.

Yes there's a disparity in gear, but that's not typically an issue in Star Wars because there are no treasure tables.

I think a good GM will add value to character choices during play.  So if you made a character that was heavily invested in sequin matching, I would be inclined to try and make that matter during scenario design.

That said, if you sought out options that I didn't want to design around, I would tell you straight up during character creation. "Yes you can make that solo ninja character you want, but I'd rather you didn't split up the party all the time.  Can you think of a concept that's more of a team player, please?"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680327Thus, balance is largely provided by the people playing.

It can be but it shouldn't have to be. Or rather imbalances should be minimised where possible.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680327Mechanical balance in the strictest sense, is only required as a mitigation response to the asshole player. All the folks playing those horribly broken games already know the fix, which is don't play with assholes.

Charop and minmaxing isn't the hallmark of an asshole, just an optimiser. They might also be epic roleplayers. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to get the most out of the rules as written.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680327Thus, rigid tight constrictive rulesets are not a cure for assholes.

Who said anything about rigid rulesets? A game can be reasonably balanced while still remaining pretty freeform, just keep a weather eye out for laser ninja loopholes.