Quote from: mcbobbo;680330I 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.

Nope - this is bad GMing. This is you telling the players not to take the game seriously and lowering the challenge level of the game until everybody gets a pony.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;680473Nope - this is bad GMing. This is you telling the players not to take the game seriously and lowering the challenge level of the game until everybody gets a pony.

I'll be actually damned and agree with what gleichman once said, and what A&E gets right - perhaps assign different values to skills, based on their usefulness in campaign.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680449First, I did not say it was arguments only made in this thread.  Ironic that you'd use a strawman term when that's exactly what you've just done.

Heh, whoops! In fairness though ascribing a whole set of unspoken views to people just because they like a particular game probably isn't the best way to have a discussion. For either of us maybe.

Quote from: Piestrio;679816IME being concerned about "balance" is indicative of a player I want nothing to do with. Universally they have sucked the fun from games I've run and been nit-picking buzzkills.

+1 on that.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;680473Nope - this is bad GMing. This is you telling the players not to take the game seriously and lowering the challenge level of the game until everybody gets a pony.

Maybe the way you'd do it, but I am not a one-true-way zealot.  I hage a box with a wide range of tools in it, and try to use them all.

Quote from: mcbobbo;680480Maybe the way you'd do it, but I am not a one-true-way zealot.  I hage a box with a wide range of tools in it, and try to use them all.

OK...
I would add that, you can't create 'game balance' between taking a pretend skill and an actual skill with a challenge that wouldn't have been there if they hadn't taken the skill. They're as well off as they would be if they'd taken something useful instead and you hadn't put it in.

As others have stated it depends on what you/players want balanced.  Too much balance in mechanics and you spend too much time sifting through books to sort out every last little thing a player wants to do which kills the pace of the game.

I have also found that too much balance in character creation can be boring, I guess.  Although not enough balance results in folks wanting to play X, but either being told or realizing that X is particularly weak and useless in nearly all aspects of the game compared to Y.  

Of course it is all fairly subjective, and would largely depend on what kind of game you are running story based, rp heavy, or action-based (or one of any  combination).  

I have done a lot of action-based "after-work on friday" campaigns just to blow off steam.  Balance was really not a concern - at all.  No one cared that one character was a robot, and could morph into a jet and that another character would often 'surf' the robot in jet form and attack other planes or whatever by jumping on to them.  Completely ridiculous and unbalanced? Sure, but it was fun.

In recent games and campaigns I have found that "balance" in rules is a double edged sword.  On one hand a general balance allows for better scaling of content.  If the players are level 3, then bad guys at level 3 should be a decent fight/situation.  So, I put my guys up against some level 5's for a 'tough' encounter and they got hammered at the start of the encounter because of balance.

However, as they were all about to die they began teaming up and working together and low and behold two level 3's against one level 5 was slaughter - and the group overcame the "balance" with team work very easily, which was a tad disappointing as the GM and wanting a tough encounter, but was also rewarding for everyone in that the encounter challenged their standard practices of uncoordinated attacks/battle tactics.

It also helps to know your players - if they are roleplayers, power gamers, min/maxers.  And know your GM... control freaks, rule freaks, are they prepared for sessions or not?  All of that while completely independent of any game has an inherent balance/imbalance to the situation.  

I GM for one roleplayer, one power gamer, and one min/maxer.  So I know that the roleplayer will stick to his characters story to the death.  The power gamer will ALWAYS chase after the biggest weapon, and the min/maxer's character will be super awesome unless he is faced with randomthing01.

So for me as a GM, balance is more about giving the group a really big weapon that has to be assembled while they are fighting randomthing01, and the weapon uses souls of children to power it.  So the power gamer that has no skills will want to build it, while the min/maxer is getting his butt kicked and the roleplayer will cry over the dead children. That's balance to me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;680475I'll be actually damned and agree with what gleichman once said, and what A&E gets right - perhaps assign different values to skills, based on their usefulness in campaign.

Could work...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;680490Could work...

I like it how this basically gives players incentive to take all those useless, joke skills such as Joke Telling or Making an Impressive entrance - they cost so little you can take them for that little fluff for your character, without feeling that you're loosing out on important stuff.

Quote from: twh55883;680489I have also found that too much balance in character creation can be boring, I guess.

It definitely de-emphasizes the character-build minigame.  Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal preference.

Quote from: twh55883;680489However, as they were all about to die they began teaming up and working together and low and behold two level 3's against one level 5 was slaughter - and the group overcame the "balance" with team work very easily, which was a tad disappointing as the GM and wanting a tough encounter, but was also rewarding for everyone in that the encounter challenged their standard practices of uncoordinated attacks/battle tactics.

Sounds like it was a tough encounter, and the players were able to get past it with teamwork.  I don't see why that would be disappointing - sure, it's a good data point for the GM in the future, but it's best for GMs to not get too attached to a particular outcome of a fight.

Even 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.

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.

There's a good point in here.  The less permanent a decision is, the more imbalanced it can (and perhaps should) be.  It's okay for the choice of a particular fighting move to suck in one instance (especially if it's great in others), because you can learn why it's a bad choice and make a better one next time.

A character-creation time choice that you'll be stuck with for the duration of the campaign is a bit harder.

Even assumptions in the campaign can make a difference for "balance".  Wizards increasing in power in AD&D was perfectly fine, because:

1) That was a reward for actually surviving that long
2) That was probably one of many characters you had, so next week you might well be playing the fighter

It started becoming problematic as the main emphasis of the game starting shifting to "these are the characters you'll be playing for the whole game, and we aren't going to let you die" (which started with DragonLance).

I should have qualified the statement - It was disappointing only from the perspective of how trivial the "tough" encounter turned out to be.  The encounter itself was fun all around with situational & environmental aspects, combined with a time oriented skill task, all while fighting off some tough opponents.  The disappointment I spoke of was not relative to the outcome, as I had intended the battle to encourage the group to work together more than usual.  I was disappointed in my planning and idea of what would be a "balanced" but tough encounter.  As it ultimately turned out only mildly different than most random skirmishes.

But as you said, it gave me notes for future encounters...   All in all it was a great encounter for the group as it broaden their horizons for tactics, and for me as the GM in terms of designing flexible npcs which I can adapt to the encounters based upon my intended balance point.

Which is more or less my entire point, balance is largely subjective - relative to game, group, gm.

A balanced game (mechanically) aids a balanced group (roleplaying), allowing a gm to provide a balanced story/campaign.  Any one aspect falling too far out of balance with the rest can throw it all off.

Quote from: Rincewind1;680475I'll be actually damned and agree with what gleichman once said, and what A&E gets right - perhaps assign different values to skills, based on their usefulness in campaign.

I'm not entirely sure what gleichman said on that but it seems a bit metagamey to me, not to mention having a touch of the crystal ball about it.

I actively encourage and expect my players to go full on MacGyver with the skills they've selected, without stretching it beyond credulity - I'd disallow using, say, research to pick up other skills on the fly in the wilderness. The much maligned basket weaving for example, I've posted on this before but a brief list of the things you can do when you can weave hard yet flexible vegetation into almost any shape or form follows:

• Make shields
• Make body armour
• Build excellent supports for tunnel or trench walls
• Build field fortifications
• Build quite respectable fortresses, bridges, and ladders given enough time
• Make baskets (!) always handy when you run out of bags
• Construct fish traps to feed yourself
• Make hard netting and camouflage
• With tarred hide or birch bark make canoes
• Make snow shoes
• Sell all of the above

And I'm sure a lot more could be dreamed up given the right circumstances.

Quote from: The Traveller;680550I'm not entirely sure what gleichman said on that but it seems a bit metagamey to me, not to mention having a touch of the crystal ball about it.

I actively encourage and expect my players to go full on MacGyver with the skills they've selected, without stretching it beyond credulity - I'd disallow using, say, research to pick up other skills on the fly in the wilderness. The much maligned basket weaving for example, I've posted on this before but a brief list of the things you can do when you can weave hard yet flexible vegetation into almost any shape or form follows:

• Make shields
• Make body armour
• Build excellent supports for tunnel or trench walls
• Build field fortifications
• Build quite respectable fortresses, bridges, and ladders given enough time
• Make baskets (!) always handy when you run out of bags
• Construct fish traps to feed yourself
• Make hard netting and camouflage
• With tarred hide or birch bark make canoes
• Make snow shoes
• Sell all of the above

And I'm sure a lot more could be dreamed up given the right circumstances.

Just 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 .