Quote from: Rincewind1;680557Just as Joke Telling may save your life when confronted by angry Mexican bandits, but on a general purpose, Riding or Animal Taming is more useful for a Western - style campaign .

Obviously you haven't been keeping up on /r/gore

Quote from: mcbobbo;680498But I still remember the guy who rolled up a RIFTS Vagabond because he thought it would be cool.  It wasn't.  We tried hard to make it cool, and to make his character matter, but we really couldn't.

This is an edge case bit a very important one.  If a character is unable to participate in the interesting pieces of the game (i.e. the overwhelming majority of them) that can make the game less fun.  

On the other hand, sometimes the weak character can find a useful niche.  The 13th generation neonate (in a vampire game) might be able to go where the other (all at 8th generation) vampires would be instantly noticed.  Or the squire can find out cool stuff and find hooks hanging around with the scullery staff where Sir Glorious the Unbeatable would look wildly out of place.  Or the humble peasant might be a motivating force in the quest, for which the Barbarian Lord and Archmage are participating.  

But when the character loses their ability to contribute/participate then I think it isn't being a killjoy to notice this.   On the other hand, a razor like focus on being "optimal" is not a part of the games I enjoy the most.

Quote from: Rincewind1;680557Just as Joke Telling may save your life when confronted by angry Mexican bandits, but on a general purpose, Riding or Animal Taming is more useful for a Western - style campaign .

It makes more sense to assign a cost based on difficulty I think, which also avoids problems up the road with trying to balance out things like the use of swords versus hammers.

Now while admittedly somewhat arbitrary being based largely on my own perception of which skills are more difficult, like say quantum mechanics (difficulty 5) is more difficult than carpentry (difficulty 3) which is more difficult than swimming (difficulty 1), it does tie into skill advancement and training nicely.

If a system doesn't recognise skills as seperate entities or doesn't recognise skill levels or difficulty then of course a designer will have to go groping for something less intuitive which ends up with things like saves versus poison being used to figure out if you broke your leg when you fell off the horse.

Quote from: Votan;680649This is an edge case bit a very important one.  If a character is unable to participate in the interesting pieces of the game (i.e. the overwhelming majority of them) that can make the game less fun.  

On the other hand, sometimes the weak character can find a useful niche.  The 13th generation neonate (in a vampire game) might be able to go where the other (all at 8th generation) vampires would be instantly noticed.  Or the squire can find out cool stuff and find hooks hanging around with the scullery staff where Sir Glorious the Unbeatable would look wildly out of place.  Or the humble peasant might be a motivating force in the quest, for which the Barbarian Lord and Archmage are participating.  

But when the character loses their ability to contribute/participate then I think it isn't being a killjoy to notice this.   On the other hand, a razor like focus on being "optimal" is not a part of the games I enjoy the most.

Some people like to play the sidekick and some hate it. I think this falls under player preference.

Are you comfortable playing Jimmy Olsen while your buddy plays Superman?

If so, all is good.

I think the only time a game is TRULY unbalanced is if there is a disconnect between the fluff of what a "class" is supposed to do, and what they are actually capable of mechanically.

If you make a game where Fighters suck at Fighting. Something is probably wrong.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;680717I think the only time a game is TRULY unbalanced is if there is a disconnect between the fluff of what a "class" is supposed to do, and what they are actually capable of mechanically.

If you make a game where Fighters suck at Fighting. Something is probably wrong.

I agree, but I have heard people defend that indirectly.

As in, an assumption that the rules are the Gospel, and threfore must be Good.

Clearly if one dislikes fighters not being able to fight, there is something wrong with the player, not The Rules.

Quote from: Bill;680716Some people like to play the sidekick and some hate it. I think this falls under player preference.

Are you comfortable playing Jimmy Olsen while your buddy plays Superman?

If so, all is good.

Well, as long as I get to have fun playing Jimmy, and get to do meaningfully helpful stuff every now and then beside being comedy relief, and the dude playing Superman is a cool dude who respects my choice of character, then sure.

...oh and I'd play Jimmy the way he was during Kirby's run, probably. /:cool:

Playing a way weak dude can be great fun as long as there's still stuff to do.
Meanwhile playing a really strong but specialized dude can be dull especially if some other dude in the party can either a) do the same stuff just as well AND other stuff or b) the other dude is better at it leaving your dude as "2nd best dude at doing X". However as long as atmosphere at the table is as it should be, this isn't really a problem. If my Str 18/24, Int 6, Wis 7, Cha 5 Fighter is slightly less awesome than another player's Str 18/76, Int 16, Wis 8, Cha 13 Fighter/Mage so what as long as we're buddies and having a fun time? That's the important part.

I've found that lots of "balance" issues sometimes come down to stuff beside actual game rules, like player behaviour and atmosphere at the table. If some player(s) is/are jerkass(es) then it doesn't matter if you're playing AD&D like my example above, OD&D, BD&D, 3e, 4e, GURPS, Rolemaster, HERO, Exalted, or some game in wich character balance doesn't matter in the least like friggin Call of Cthulhu, it'll suck.


If I'm playing Jimmy Olsen and some random jerk is playing Superman then yes that will lead to me having a sucky time of it (well until Jimmy finds some cryptonite, tricks Supes into putting it in his pocket and strands him on Apocalips. :cool: If there's one thing Silver Age comics has teached me, it's that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!!! ). If I'm playing Jimmy Olsen and a good buddy of mine is playing Superman, that's most likely all cool and fun for everyone.

Quote from: The Ent;680723Well, as long as I get to have fun playing Jimmy, and get to do meaningfully helpful stuff every now and then beside being comedy relief, and the dude playing Superman is a cool dude who respects my choice of character, then sure.

...oh and I'd play Jimmy the way he was during Kirby's run, probably. /:cool:

Playing a way weak dude can be great fun as long as there's still stuff to do.
Meanwhile playing a really strong but specialized dude can be dull especially if some other dude in the party can either a) do the same stuff just as well AND other stuff or b) the other dude is better at it leaving your dude as "2nd best dude at doing X". However as long as atmosphere at the table is as it should be, this isn't really a problem. If my Str 18/24, Int 6, Wis 7, Cha 5 Fighter is slightly less awesome than another player's Str 18/76, Int 16, Wis 8, Cha 13 Fighter/Mage so what as long as we're buddies and having a fun time? That's the important part.

I've found that lots of "balance" issues sometimes come down to stuff beside actual game rules, like player behaviour and atmosphere at the table. If some player(s) is/are jerkass(es) then it doesn't matter if you're playing AD&D like my example above, OD&D, BD&D, 3e, 4e, GURPS, Rolemaster, HERO, Exalted, or some game in wich character balance doesn't matter in the least like friggin Call of Cthulhu, it'll suck.


If I'm playing Jimmy Olsen and some random jerk is playing Superman then yes that will lead to me having a sucky time of it (well until Jimmy finds some cryptonite, tricks Supes into putting it in his pocket and strands him on Apocalips. :cool: If there's one thing Silver Age comics has teached me, it's that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!!! ). If I'm playing Jimmy Olsen and a good buddy of mine is playing Superman, that's most likely all cool and fun for everyone.

Jimmy and Superman is fine unless the player of Jimmy envisions himself a warrior, and the two go to Battle Darkseid.

Balance issues for me are usually when two characters are expecting to be competent at the same thing, and one is superman, the other Jimmy.

Quote from: Bill;680725Jimmy and Superman is fine unless the player of Jimmy envisions himself a warrior, and the two go to Battle Darkseid.

Balance issues for me are usually when two characters are expecting to be competent at the same thing, and one is superman, the other Jimmy.

I can absolutely see that, and agree.

Quote from: The Ent;680734I can absolutely see that, and agree.

Suddenly I am picturing Jimmy Olsen trying to distract Darksied with his SUPERMAN SIGNALLING WATCH!!!  *beep* *beep* *beep*

Or Jimmy regains the 'stretching powers' he briefly had. Like Darkseid cares

Quote from: mcbobbo;680498Even though I realize it doesn't exist this way, I have long wished for balance that was actually "insurance against regret".  Some systems are closer than others, particularly those with point-buy skills/abilities and frequent level-ups.

But I still remember the guy who rolled up a RIFTS Vagabond because he thought it would be cool.  It wasn't.  We tried hard to make it cool, and to make his character matter, but we really couldn't.

Flexibility is awesome and hard to do.  And critical in longer term games.  I actually try to engineer this, 'become what you play' process in my games.

From an earlier thread...

" I created my system with the partial ideal of negating or allowing archetypes. One of the Current characters in my Miston Group started in 1996 as the group cook. He was from Hemp and GreenLaw's Rope makers and the Turniper's Farming Commune of Miston (a playable faction, though when created I never thought it would be used and never did I think a PC would use it as a major Guild/School). Very little of starting EXP was allocated into combat skills, over 60% was placed in Artisan/Mundane skills and I allowed for some to be put into Basic Nature and Basic Outdoor.
Drono Biddlebee started as the Hobyt cook, but was also porter and helper, pretty much given to the group so that the Commune could be claiming to be helping them. He split porting, cooking, and light combat duties, and when he came back to town (alive, to the surprise of most players), he had dumped his pitchfork for a real trident, had gotten a suit of studded leather, then chainmail, and had some money. The Player had him spend some of it on learning 'Basic Bow' from Harald's Bowrey (a different playable faction that one of the other PCs was from), and it went on from there.
From there, Drono became something of a man-at arms to the party (and started helping running the other henchmen) and a leader of a farmers movement in the local government.  He learned more advanced fighting skills from Jon Parshald, the old sergeant of the Order of Stenron in town, so be more useful as a man-at-arms, then later He started learning from the Church of the Autumn Harvest (Amristian).
He learned 'Basic Priest' and 'basic social' from the church, and at the same time he increased his power base with the Turnipers, keeping up with more advanced cooking skills (chef, mass cooking) as well as more agricultural skills.
The years of playing keep going and through attrition, Drono became one of the 4 remaining 'older' characters, so though he kept his position as 'head of the underlings', his martial skill base increased a lot, though he spent more time specializing in Bow (eventually garnering some ensorcelled items) and working his way into learning Spirit spell points, restorative spell points, and House of Life spell points through the Church of the Autumn Harvest. As of this time, he has just finished learning all three of these (this was a 3 year+ out of game time project) as well as being level 3 in Basic Priest and getting the subskill of basic Social, Public Speaking, to further his political career."

So no regret is part of this, but the ability to grow and change course without losing relevance is a huge equalizer.

Quote from: The Traveller;680311Of 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.

Yes; that's what I call "where the game is." Note that when I refer to "the game," I mean an instance of the process of play (as opposed to an identity with this or that published product).

QuoteThis 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.

Absence of formal, written 'mechanics' can also be a result of their seeming superfluous. As an obvious example, a lot of talking goes on in RPGs without 'mechanics' for talking.

Also, the volume of rules used corresponds less to the frequency of a situation than to the players' interest in exploring it with such a detailed formalism whenever it does arise. Some rules sets are rather famous (or infamous) for providing elaborate rules for almost anything that gets a rule at all!

QuoteAgain, 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.

Yes; it is generally easier to ignore a designed balance than to create one. Perhaps more so today than formerly, a well designed balance is a big part of the value many RPGers seek in a product, part of what makes it worth spending money to let other people "do any more of your imagining for you" (as Gygax and Arneson put it).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680341Also, when we talk about balance, we're not just talking about character classes being balanced in the pillars of the game.

One thing I hear often from 4e fans is ...

That 4E "encounter balance" certainly is one form of balance, but it is not necessarily part of every form that some gamers want. Different strokes for different blokes.

Classes and levels -- or any other way of limiting the domain of variables -- can make it much easier to balance character options. The smaller the set, the more comprehensively it can be tested not only in theoretical analysis but also in actual play.

Quote from: Phillip;680812Yes; it is generally easier to ignore a designed balance than to create one. Perhaps more so today than formerly, a well designed balance is a big part of the value many RPGers seek in a product, part of what makes it worth spending money to let other people "do any more of your imagining for you" (as Gygax and Arneson put it).

+1.

A lot of rpg players today prefer to purchase an experience of someone elses imagining than create their own.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680822A lot of rpg players today prefer to purchase an experience of someone elses imagining than create their own.

You mean like a thief class that can actually steal things, sneak around, pick locks and so on? If I had a choice between paying money for a game where a modicum of thought had been put into what should by right have been a starring, central class for dungeon crawling, and one that hadn't, I know where my money is going.